Birds of Prey GC 2008 trailer

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by Anton Yudintsev

Damage Model.

Guys, damage model in our game is much more closer to reality, than that in IL-2 game.
In IL-2 game it was harder to destroy enemy plane, than in real life - to compensate the lack of inexpereiensity, that you is not scaried (because you can't die in reality while playing), absence of black-outs and sweat running to your eyes.
What we've done - we implemented statstically accurate damage model.

Of course, if you see where to shoot (in Arcade mode there is a cross showing the spot where you should shoot to compensate that bullet is flying with finite speed) and have unlimited ammo - game becomes much more easier to play. Than play in simulator mode!

In any case. Don't assume that original IL-2 was representing REAL damage model (even stastically accurate). It was representing FEEL of real damage model. In IL-2 player has similiar combat stastics to average pilot in WW2 - but that was done by making damage model LESS real, than reality, to compensate that each virtiual pilot is a real ACE, and even robot - a lot of hours in the air, a lot of expereience, no fear of death, no red-outs and blackouts etc.
Real life has MORE 'arcade' damage model (according to available statistics of WW2 and historical consultants), than IL-2. But it was harder to 'play' in real-life.

And in a movie there is infinite ammo - which is of course much more arcade, allowing to shoot tons of bullets (from cannons!), which is very effective in 300m distance - because of dispersion. But you can fly with finite ammo as well.

BTW, Henkel has a lot of bombs and 800 litres of gas, and almost no armor - they WERE exploding often.

The trailer reminds me of the old Jane's WW2 fighters where the hit box was huge and you could easily pile up the crashing enemy. Star Wars!

It wasn't as easy as the trailer, or everyone flying a fighter would have been an ACE in a day.

Principal issues with IL2 isn't the damage modeling as much as the AI programming.

Anyone seen a landing in BoP yet? It seems to be air to air exclusively.

[JoeA]

Originally Posted by Old_Canuck

Anyone seen a landing in BoP yet? It seems to be air to air exclusively.

Good question, oh and hi there haven't seen you in awhile.

[Nike-it]

Originally Posted by Old_Canuck

Anyone seen a landing in BoP yet? It seems to be air to air exclusively.

In some missions you will start from the airfield, the same situation is with landing.

[Snuff_Pidgeon]

Koool.

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

The trailer reminds me of the old Jane's WW2 fighters where the hit box was huge and you could easily pile up the crashing enemy.

There is no 'hit box' in the game.
There are several parts of plane, which are _modelled_ and bullet is tracing them, simulating loss of velocity and damaging to each part. Not in case of explosive bullets.

When you hit right engine, it will burn.
If you hit bombs - they are exploding.
Henkels are not armoured, and Hurricanes in trailer are with cannons.
So they are exploding.

[nearmiss]

Originally Posted by Anton Yudintsev

There is no 'hit box' in the game.
There are several parts of plane, which are _modelled_ and bullet is tracing them, simulating loss of velocity and damaging to each part. Not in case of explosive bullets.

When you hit right engine, it will burn.
If you hit bombs - they are exploding.
Henkels are not armoured, and Hurricanes in trailer are with cannons.
So they are exploding.

Hurricanes with cannons... that'll do it. LOL

I've been doing the bOB II WOV shooting the .303s. You do get a response from the program that you got hits, but mostly no results. The devs have a strong penchant for historical accuracy so the firepower is pretty nil on the British side. I don't disagree, since providing a more historically accurate BOB is the user and dev intent. Still gets frustrating emptying your guns with no kills and having to head for base. IMO, this would be a loser for sure in a console game.

I think you've done right thing with console game. Console players like a lot of high quality graphics, fast action, explosions and lots of victories.

I hope you do well with BOP. It certainly won't hurt to have renewed interest in WW2 Combat flight simulation. Personally, I've got a $4,000+ PC, a $1,000+ in Controllers and have absolutely no thoughts of going to console games. I'm an adult, so sitting in front of TV with bowl of chips and a Monster drink and pushing buttons at light speed is not how I see myself.

[Chivas]

The thing I find with BOB WOV is its harder to setup your joystick to make the Hurricane as solid a gun platform as it really was. That said the DM in BOB WOV has some of the same problems as the IL-2 damage model. You can do significant damage to an enemy and still have a hard time catching him to finish him off. Although I know Buddye has been tweaking the DM to slow down the damaged aircraft in WOV.

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

Hurricanes with cannons... that'll do it. LOL

Nothing to laugh at.
There were Hurricanes with cannons during BoB.

I think you've done right thing with console game. Console players like a lot of high quality graphics, fast action, explosions and lots of victories.

I think, you completely missing the point.
In BoB there WERE hundreds of planes in the air. Try reading historical books or whatever.
Noone promises you a lot of victories, if you'll play in 'simulation' mode.
Damage Model in our game makes plane easir to strike down, that's true.
But that affects ALL planes - and your plane as well. Fair play.
It is easier to get killed, if you are not afraid of combat. Like it really was in WW2.

I hope you do well with BOP. It certainly won't hurt to have renewed interest in WW2 Combat flight simulation. Personally, I've got a $4,000+ PC, a $1,000+ in Controllers and have absolutely no thoughts of going to console games. I'm an adult, so sitting in front of TV with bowl of chips and a Monster drink and pushing buttons at light speed is not how I see myself.

PS3 allows to use peripheral.
You know, consoles are cheaper than same PC.
That's because of:
* Sony PAYS for it. You are paying for PC, at least 30% margin (or more). Sony PAYS from it's own pocket for each unit. To make it cheaper for you.
* There MILLIONS of same hardware. Much more than any videocard for PC. Mass production makes things cheaper, you know.
* Consoles are DESIGNED for games, in hardware.
* There is no Windows running on it, taking 30% of CPU and memory.
* There is only one hardware, so you can optimize the game for it much better.

So I think, your 4000$ PC is actually XX% worse, than 499$ PS3. I know it is painful .

[VMF-214_HaVoK]

Some of you fail to remember it will have scalable difficulty just like IL2. Many of you probably fly IL2 in arcade mode online right now. Probably flying in wonderwoman view, same planes on both sides, no stalls or spins, easy gunnery, ect. But yet snub your noses at a console version you know nothing about. Bottom line is...I very high percentage of this very community fly IL2 as a arcade game rather then a simulator. I am however not one of them, but I still have a open mind and I know consoles such as the 360 have more power to do the job then most of this communities PCs. Certainly more power then those PCs that ran the first IL2. The console audience is broad and there is probably even more interest for a good simulator then that found in the PC audience where most favor MMORPGs. Codemasters realized this and thats why they are bringing the same version of Operation Flashpoint 2 to the 360.

S!