Friday 2010-10-08 Dev. update and Discussion

[RedToo]

Goggles - AFAIK some fighter pilots wore goggles etc. in combat at any altitude (and gloves) because of fear of cockpit fire.

RedToo.

[winny]

Maybe the pilots just took the masks off for the 'camera'... so we can see them smiling!

(maybe not)

[matsher]

Originally Posted by The Cheese

I believe that the issue of no cockpit view was shown in an update maybe a year or two ago. If I remember correctly, we'll be able to have realistic-looking dials, we'll be able to move them around on the screen, resize them, choose which dials we want, and we'll be able to set their opaquity. So if this hasn't changed since then and I'm remembering correctly, then that's what you can expect.

Yeah, on release we will have the new WW view and cockpit view that is certain. The new WW view is a quantum leap ahead as far as looks and
customization goes... Although... It is still Wonderview... Albeit a fantastic version. The thinking was to have a third option to go with full cockpit and wonderview. The inbetween view...
Oleg very kindly responded to my post and explained that it is very possible to
create a semi transparent cockpit view, but it'd have to be created as a 2D rendering and wouldn't look good (To Olegs high standards) he reckons it would look like a sim from the late 80's or early 90's... And that's a fair comment...
He also said that they couldn't render a semi transparent cockpit with the fully 3D system in which they created the planes, cause we'd see everything else as well... engine, struts, fuel tanks, etc etc...
So that option is clearly a 'CANT DO' area... Which is also fair enough...

He sadly didn't comment on Xnomad's suggestion of keeping the cockpit fully on
and having the enemy/friendly iD markers and direction indicators visible in cockpit... This was the one I was really hoping he'd have a look at cause it addressed all concerns about Lower FPS and not being able to make the beautiful 3D cockpits semi transparent...

I personally don't need a view like the I'm suggesting... It is more for new
flyers to help with lead shooting and combat maneuver training...
eg. You're descending fast on a fighter... your first shots miss... the fighter sees you and banks hard left, you perform a high yoyo to reduce your speed and get a little height - This is where this view comes in - when you exit your high yoyo you'd want to train to exit the maneuver so you're again in the perfect firing position... (so not pulling out too soon and also not loosing too much altitude.)
It will help to get timing, control input and correct positioning of maneuvers without being forced to use external views...
There are literally dozens pf examples where an inbetween view could help...
Carrier landings, straffing, cross-wind landings, formation flying as well as the aforementioned combat maneuvering etc.


All these are easy to do with WW view and external cameras, but the aim is to get pilots to appreciate being in cockpit and having the immersive feeling if flying in a beautifully rendered fighter, without having to sacrifice on dynamic gameplay (WW View) for the sake of realism.

For those of you who don't know what we're talking about I'll include the mock-up from pg 3. This feature could be disabled outside of a predefined view distance (maybe 500m or 1km) so as not to disrupt... It could be a "strictly within kill distance" feature... or something like that.

And guys, please don't slate me for making this suggestion now... I know it won't be made for release or anytime soon, I am just putting it out there and
hoping for some insightful, relevant input from my fellow airheads.

Originally Posted by JQB

Oleg, if I may add a couple of suggestions:

2 have information available to pilots similar to info a real pilot would have, eg. esential stats for the plane such as take off speed, stall speed, approach speed, best glide speed etc. Maybe have a cheat card for lower level of difficulty. IL2 lacked this a little...

This above point is also a very important thing to have for new pilot training,
its a real bastard to land any plane never mind a 40's fighter / bomber... And without these essential figures it makes learning to fly these planes exponentially more difficult. Just knowing the stall speed (under different loads) of each plane would help... New pilots always have a tendency to come in for landing too high and too hot... And knowing your best glide speed to get the best Horiz m/s for the least Vert m/s loss is great when your engine has been shot out.

I am sure Oleg and team would include these figures on release, fingers crossed.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by RedToo

Goggles - AFAIK some fighter pilots wore goggles etc. in combat at any altitude (and gloves) because of fear of cockpit fire.

RedToo.

No question about it. It was down to personal choice.
Geoffrey Wellum had his ground-screw make him up a blast-shield (to act as goggles) out of celluloid which looked like a modern-day visor for a bone-dome helmet. The idea was clear; it would provide a clear view and serve to protect the pilot.
Alas, this was not so. The celluloid was used for the lenses of the mark III and IIIa goggles. It scratched easily, was prone to distortion and, in the word's of Wellum, 'burned brilliantly' when he was shot down in flames in the battle. He always wore goggles after this event, but made sure they weren't made from celluloid. Luckily he never had cause to use them, as he kept them on top oh his helmet as most pilots did.
I am writing this from memory, but I am sure that what I have written is correct. It's very interesting to me, so I'm sorry if my interests are lost on anyone
By all means, a pilot might choose to wear his goggles down on his helmet, but I can't see the merits as although the goggles modelled currently in SoW don't have celluloid lenses, I have a pair of these goggles in my collection (they are mark Iv's by the way) and they are the most cumbersome goggles ever designed. They're heavy and extremely awkward. I have just tested my pair to make sure I am writing this from experience, and wearing it over my b-type helmet it is a) difficult to get into place and b) provides very poor visibility. It really does make one feel quite hemmed-in. If my plane was hit, I would (of course) wear the goggles, but in a combat situation and in a pre-combat situation, I'd much rather rely on my own eyesight.

Going back to this pilot, maybe he is smiling for the camera! () and if so then kudos to Oleg for showing the excellent pilot-animations, but I can't see why he has no R/T accessibility at the very least.

Thanks, again, Oleg for an excellent update. I can see we are very close now. Don't let my view here get in the way of release.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Alas, this was not so. The celluloid was used for the lenses of the mark III and IIIa goggles.

?

Why did they use celluloid instead of glass?
What were motorcyclists lenses made of?

[MD_Titus]

tire is when you get fatigued, tyre is what goes on wheels.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by MD_Titus

tire is when you get fatigued, tyre is what goes on wheels.

The language may have been invented over there, but we perfected it over here....ain't I right?

I know a lot of goggles were disposable. Weight would also maybe have been a factor. Glass would have shattered if struck by a fragment. Maybe some services/pilots went for lighter weight? On the other hand, cellulose is very flammable and I would hate to have it so close to my face.

Another one of those cool little trivia mysteries from that time.

EDIT: I missed Phillip's post prior to this post, good info there. He answered the quesstions I asked here beffore I asked them lol.

Splitter

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Splitter

The language may have been invented over there, but we perfected it over here....ain't I right?

Actually no dear chap. The main reason that our spelling is different is because in Britain the english language continued to evolve throughout the 18th, 19th and even 20th centuries, a living language, from cultural influences of mainland europe, in particular the French.
When the english language arrived in North America through the 17th century it was before these influences and shielded from them, in effect separated. So we see words like centre and center, colonise and colonize etc. Unfortunately globalisation and American made computer companies are teaching much of the World the Americanised spellings.

Of course this has little bearing on grammar and I have no doubt made many mistakes of my own here, however "ain't I right?" is surely in breach of many rules of english.

Languages in use change and evolve, dead languages, like latin, are a constant.

[Chivas]

Questions for Oleg...

How big will you be able to model new maps?
Will the other theaters be a series of small maps? or
Will you be able to model the whole Mediterranean Theater with one large map?
Will you be able to model a map from England too Germany for a Bomber Campaign?
Or will all this have to wait until computers are powerful enough to handle large highly detailed maps. Although by the time you are able to make these theaters, computers may be strong enough.

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Actually no dear chap. The main reason that our spelling is different is because in Britain the english language continued to evolve throughout the 18th, 19th and even 20th centuries, a living language, from cultural influences of mainland europe, in particular the French.
When the english language arrived in North America through the 17th century it was before these influences and shielded from them, in effect separated. So we see words like centre and center, colonise and colonize etc. Unfortunately globalisation and American made computer companies are teaching much of the World the Americanised spellings.

Of course this has little bearing on grammar and I have no doubt made many mistakes of my own here, however "ain't I right?" is surely in breach of many rules of english.

Languages in use change and evolve, dead languages, like latin, are a constant.

Two countries separated by a common language . "Ain't I right?" also breaks several laws of physics, that's why I used it . At least we're not the Scots....we go see a band every year called Albannach and I can't understand a word they say! (The music is awesome though)

I hope they get the accents right in SoW. I hear VERY American accents when flying for the RAF and I doubt many Yanks were flying for them in the South Pacific (could be wrong but I would be surprised). And the Geraman ground control always sounds angry.

BTW, if you don't like the way we have messed up the language thus far, wait until our kids come into their own...they're worse than the Scots .

Splitter