Friday 2010-07-02 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[Alien]

Oleg, on formation topic, will it be possible to connect 2 or more flights for some time and disconnect them? Like RAF squadrons in big wings.

[Blackdog_kt]

Another excellent update and some interesting discussion going on.

The first thing that came to my mind about that smoke is "hmm, maybe it's WIP, it's look a bit too big", but then it seems perfectly fine in that rear quarter picture with the flames. I was thinking that this kind of smoke would be fine for slow moving or stationary objects (eg, ground targets, parked aircraft, etc), or even when close to the fire it originates from, but it seems a bit thick when extending further behind a moving aircraft.
Then i started thinking that it's all a matter of relative airspeeds, viscosity (ie thickness) of smoke depending on what kind of materials are being burnt and dispersion...and a few posts later, Oleg himself confirms they have taken this into account. It's simply amazing that half of the times that i'm thinking "it would be neat to have this feature in the sim", the developers confirm it as something they have already worked on! This is why i trust the final produt will be excellent, because these guys are right within our heads and know how we think and what we want to see

Another thing to consider is that seeing something in motion conveys a better experience. Some bits and pieces of what we see in these updates seems a bit weird sometimes, but i always keep in my mind that we're seeing static shots with no AA/AF, i'm sure seeing it all move and change in high resolution will be something completely different.
For example, the flak bursts in this update are just a time-frozen screenshot of irregular black smoke, but seeing it animated might include an initial flame/flash/shockwave effect from the burst and the abrupt but gradual forming of the black puffs of smoke around it, so that as the flash dies down the smoke is formed. We'll have to wait for a video update before we can really judge this aspect of the sim. Who knows, it might look even better in video.

As for the fuel leak streams they do seem a bit out of place (Oleg said they are WIP after all), but notice how they start narrow at the point of the leak and gradually grow wider as they move to the back of the airframe, even if it is still WIP. It's the small details like these that make it awesome in the long run and the more of them you have in any game, the longer it takes before it starts looking repetitive.

In any case, brilliant update. I can't wait to fly this and i'm also itching to show it off to a few friends who are into WWII history but have never tried flight sims.

[Abbeville-Boy]

knowing oleg i bet the smoke size depends on the size of the leak feeding it, whats burning, and the weight of the oil being burned and a few other factors

[airmalik]

Originally Posted by Abbeville-Boy

knowing oleg i bet the smoke size depends on the size of the leak feeding it, whats burning, and the weight of the oil being burned and a few other factors

Agreed. I haven't seen many cases where Oleg's overlooked details that us casual forum members can point out and which are not due to tech limitations.

The smoke at first glance seemed excessively dark/large to me but I was surprised to find how closely it matched some pics I shot at Oshkosh last year:







I'm pretty sure these are fuel 'bombs'.

[Les]

Originally Posted by airmalik

Hate to state the obvious, but it looks then like the SOW flames should be less hard-edged and more connected to the smoke, blending more smoothly into it. In reality it's the density of the smoke
in the foreground that gives the flames behind them the appearance of being hard-edged. As you say though, the technology might not allow that.

[airmalik]

Originally Posted by Les

Hate to state the obvious, but it looks then like the SOW flames should be less hard-edged and more connected to the smoke, blending more smoothly into it. In reality it's the density of the smoke
in the foreground that gives the flames behind them the appearance of being hard-edged. As you say though, the technology might not allow that.

True but Oleg's effects are a pretty good approximation in my opinion and I have a feeling that they'll look better in motion.

[Spinnetti]

Originally Posted by airmalik

Agreed. I haven't seen many cases where Oleg's overlooked details that us casual forum members can point out and which are not due to tech limitations.

The smoke at first glance seemed excessively dark/large to me but I was surprised to find how closely it matched some pics I shot at Oshkosh last year:

I was almost in your picture (just to the right on the stand)

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Smoke looks spot on.

[Jones11C]

Have any of you seen the smoke from an aircraft explosion? Perhaps more simply put, the smoke from any fire where oil and fuel are mixed? Added other petroleum materials? Here's some perspective: The aircraft I fly has engines that burn at over 800 C. That's contained combustion with metered fuel and controlled air provisions. An exposed heat source to the elements, mixed with it's own volatile components and fluids, will certainly produce extremely thick, dense, and nasty smoke -- with terribly hot fires associated.... Oleg, looking great. You guys seem to know a thing or two about aircraft in every respect. Constructive criticism is good only when it contains intelligent insight.

I can't wait for your product to come on line. Guaranteed purchase from me.

[airmalik]

Originally Posted by Spinnetti

I was almost in your picture (just to the right on the stand)

Cool! My first Oshkosh ever. I was there for two days and could only see a fraction of it. Hoping to go again soon.