Friday 2010-10-29 Dev. update and Discussion

[Necrobaron]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

5th - Simply some details of important places in London (such several objects will be impossible to destroy that to have no problems with the laws in some contries).

Fantastic update!

Can you or someone else explain what I quoted above? There are laws that prevent some buildings from being depicted as damaged or destroyed?

On another tangent, I am continually amazed at people who still whine about graphics. While graphics can be an important immersive aspect, what goes on "behind the scenes*" in a sim is infinitesimally more important. True sims run much deeper that what the graphics, in a screenshot or otherwise, might show and people need to remember that. Even if SoW looked exactly the same as the IL-2 sim we fell in love with nearly 10 years ago (which it certainly does not, contrary to what some petulant buffoons might suggest or imply), I'd be willing to bet that it is what we can't see that will be far more complicated and detailed, by several orders of magnitude, than what IL-2 could achieve. Because of this, SoW will demonstrate that it is a sim of this decade and not of the last.

*Flight modelling, atmospheric/weather conditions, damage modelling, environmental effects, etc.
________
BREAKUP ADVICE DICUSSION

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Necrobaron

I am continually amazed at people who still whine about graphics. While graphics can be an important immersive aspect, what goes on "behind the scenes*" in a sim is infinitesimally more important.

In an update that consists of (mostly) 100 percent graphic material it would be surprising if were not discussed. Whining is another matter. I can do without that.

[klem]

Oleg, thanks very much.

A couple of questions.

Will there be adjustable turbulence at various altitudes? What we get in IL-2 seems to be quite coarse/rough. I'd like to see more use of turbulence but I think the mission builders leave it out because it is too coarse/crude especially for upper layers.

On the Tracer question, there were 'flame' type tracers which IceFire showed so well in his post. There were also the spiral (vortex?) smoke types but the third type the RAF used did not 'trace' the trajectory but gave a visible 'splash' on impact to confirm correct aim. It was called "DeWilde" ammunition and was very popular with the pilots. Will we have that?

Will the undercarriage modelling be better in SoW. Even when I pull of a 'greaser' in an IL-2 Spitfire there is a good chance it will still bounce around like a drunken turkey. The Oleo compression doesn't seem to be modelled too well (sorry). I asked a friend about this who travelled a lot in a 2 seat Spitfire (and took control etc) and he said that it might bounce in the direction of flight but it wouldn't usually 'wobble' very badly laterally. It isn't only the Spit though.

Wikipedia says you say November 2010.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_o...tle_of_Britain
2 Weeks even?
I won't hold you to that but..... this year? :-0


Thanks

[Blakduk]

Originally Posted by Necrobaron

On another tangent, I am continually amazed at people who still whine about graphics. While graphics can be an important immersive aspect, what goes on "behind the scenes*" in a sim is infinitesimally more important. .

Necro- i assume you meant to say 'infinitely'.
Infinitesimal basically means something is so small as to almost be unmeasurable.
I agree with your post but couldn't resist being an irritating net-nerd and correcting your grammar

[Necrobaron]

Originally Posted by Blakduk

Necro- i assume you meant to say 'infinitely'.
Infinitesimal basically means something is so small as to almost be unmeasurable.
I agree with your post but couldn't resist being an irritating net-nerd and correcting your grammar

Haha, no worries mate!

That's what I get for typing them big words in a hurry...
________
Lovely Wendie