Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

philip.ed · #1 10-25-2010, 12:46 PM

Oleg, will we see hedgerows like this in SoW? (which are currently missing from the shots posted)

Petham area:

Hadlow; one of my more local areas

Hadlow tower; I wonder if this is included in SoW?

A nice shot here of farmland. A good colour indicator, despite what you say about lenses, this is exactly the colours I see with my own eyes in the summer-time. The farmland layout is probably too modern though.

A LOT more here: http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/Portfolio.htm I understand that these shots are fairly recent, but they provide a great view of the landscape IMHO. Take it or leave it Oleg

furbs · #2 10-25-2010, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Oleg, will we see hedgerows like this in SoW? (which are currently missing from the shots posted)

Petham area:

Hadlow; one of my more local areas

Hadlow tower; I wonder if this is included in SoW?

A nice shot here of farmland. A good colour indicator, despite what you say about lenses, this is exactly the colours I see with my own eyes in the summer-time. The farmland layout is probably too modern though.

A LOT more here: http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/Portfolio.htm I understand that these shots are fairly recent, but they provide a great view of the landscape IMHO. Take it or leave it Oleg

nice pics...these shots look pretty close to them i think, a early build of SOW on the IL2 engine.
Oleg tells us SOW will be close to this.

By furbs9999 at 2010-10-25

Blackdog_kt · #3 10-25-2010, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Agree 100%

Flying a King Air from Toledo to Chicago is the most boring thing I've ever done on a computer. FSX lasted about 3 months on my hard drive. I realize that everyone has their own idea of "fun", but honestly, there is nothing "fun" about a flight procedure simulator.

Nothing.

That's your personal opinion however, isn't it now? Because it certainly is not mine, or of the multitude of people around the globe who want it even more complicated than i do and spend 70 dollars on a 747 addd-on.

I don't have FSX, i fly it on a friend's PC quite often though and what most people talk about here are widespread misconceptions. Actually, the way it works is the way Splitter described it. When you need to be scanning the sky outside, you can be scanning the sky outside. The rest is just an accurate simulation of a real pilot's workload, because in a real aircraft you have things to do even when nothing's happening. How is that a bad thing for a combat sim, having stuff to do during the uneventful cruise to the combat area, when it won't even detract from your ability to wage combat when you need to? You see, it's simply about personal preference. Some people like wonder woman view, some like unlimited ammo and some like cockpit view and limited ammo. It's the same thing with this as well and there is a market for it, especially now that MS closed down their FS franchise.

The procedures are the tip of the iceberg. Up until the 30s there were no checklists in the real world either. Why did they invent them? Because planes got complicated and people were crashing left and right when they forgot to turn on switches, that's why. SoW might lack the checklists but since it will have the systems modelled, you are going to need them anyway sooner or later and then you'll have to come up with them on your own. Which is a good thing to be honest, because then people will realize that it's not a big deal at all for 40s designs that lack computerized instruments and complex electronics and they all share the same type of engine operation. Then they'll realize that it gives them stuff to fiddle with during the uneventful parts of the sortie and stuff to exploit in combat and it will all settle down.

The single FSX aircraft i've flown most is a payware Catalina add-on and it's quite a handful initially. However, it don't fly it with a book on my lap. I know the operating limits and fly according to them, because the knowledge is not in memorizing row upon row of numerical data (most of the times instruments are color coded anyway to show the permissible and non-permissible ranges), the real knowledge is knowing how each parameter affects the other. Then i can fiddle with keeping the neeldes in the green and by the time i've done this while settling into cruise after the climb out, i've shaved 5 minutes off the boring trip to the target area by doing something that matters in my aircraft's ability to perform well. This is what's been missing from prop sims, taking care of the ride so to speak. Clickable pits and procedural checklists are a by-product of this complexity, not the main goal. If you want to fly the complex way that's closer to reality you'll need to make a few notes,mental or real, and a way to interface with the switches, that's all.
If not, then by all means go to your options panel and set these options to "off", but let the other people fly the sim the way they think it's fun for them.

I've said it before and i'll say it again, my feeling is that some people in the IL2 community don't want to lose their full switch "bragging rights" so they try to dumb down the difficulty level collectively for everyone, in order to be able to say they still fly at what the sim calls 100% difficulty.

Let's face it, people who fly full switch in IL2 but don't want to learn about intercoolers, carb icing, over-torque or how a real engine works, will not be able to fly full switch in SoW now that systems modelling has been confirmed by Oleg Maddox. A guy who's used to executing 10000ft dives with radiators open, climbing with rads closed and running WEP on low prop pitch will have lots of nasty surprises and broken engines in SoW. That rubs some people the wrong way i guess and instead of choosing a difficulty setting that corresponds well to their lack of willingness to learn new stuff, they want to limit the scope of the sim because they're ashamed to say they don't fly full switch anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Maybe, but I don't think it's fun to spawn, press I, jam throttle to 100%, and leap into the air, climb for 5 minutes, and then commence TnB for a bit, and then repeat 30 times. If I wanted that, I would be playing Hawx, or Ace Combat 6.

I get so bored of online mash-ups, that sometimes I find myself flying two-hour long sorties in a TB-3 just to keep it interesting.

Now, if the procedures actually meant something, which according to Oleg, are above and beyond anything out there at the moment, coupled with an awesome FM that conveys the "feel" of flight, then we have a real knock-out winner.

I feel that having a complex system is vital in a combat flight sim. Currently in IL-2, the automatic system in a FW-190 doesn't provide anything to a pilot over the La-7's rudimentary one, which can allow it to fly at 100-110 pitch and power all day even without touching the rads. Having to set the right pitch, radiator settings, manifold pressure, before even thinking about commencing a bounce would mean everything in combat, and make things so much more interesting.

In any case, no one's going to force you to lean, or open your intercoolers, or whatever. It's going to be optional, so why worry?

Ditto.

=BLW=Pablo · #4 10-25-2010, 01:39 PM

I know not yet released the hardware requirements for the game.

but I'm buying a new video card to play the ROF, and I wonder if I will at least be able to run the SOW BOB with this new GPU ...

I thought the GTX460, will this card will run the BOB so nice?

what GPU you use in this pics Oleg ?

kammo · #5 10-25-2010, 02:13 PM

Philip.ed and furbs.
You guys realise you sound like a stuck record? I have read a lot of post from you two (maybe hundreds from Philip) and reached the conclusion you are not cabable of a reasonable thinking and therefore I will suggest that you guys will give it a rest. I absolutely mean no harm or try to be disrepectful, honestly. Not trying to say I'm any better than you just a friendly suggestion to make this forum as pleasant as possible.

Nothing wrong about the asking/suggesting stuff but there is some kind of limit of the guestion asked and the way they are asked. This manner and limit is something that each induvidual have figure out themselves. I suggest you go back read your posts and try to think if there is something that you guys could do differen't.

These above are of course my subjective opinions and I could be wrong.

Cheers
Kammo

philip.ed · #6 10-25-2010, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kammo

Philip.ed and furbs.
You guys realise you sound like a stuck record? I have read a lot of post from you two (maybe hundreds from Philip) and reached the conclusion you are not cabable of a reasonable thinking and therefore I will suggest that you guys will give it a rest. I absolutely mean no harm or try to be disrepectful, honestly. Not trying to say I'm any better than you just a friendly suggestion to make this forum as pleasant as possible.

Nothing wrong about the asking/suggesting stuff but there is some kind of limit of the guestion asked and the way they are asked. This manner and limit is something that each induvidual have figure out themselves. I suggest you go back read your posts and try to think if there is something that you guys could do differen't.

These above are of course my subjective opinions and I could be wrong.

Cheers
Kammo

I have posted a lot of different questions and Oleg has answered a few of them. Here, I found this website, and considering that topic had moved to terrain, I thought it would be interesting to flag up. If you think I am like a stuck record, put me on block. I am just posting my opinion on what I see and currently what I see doesn't look like summer-time England. That's all.
I agree that I have posted similar things more than once, but it's only for Oleg to read and comment on. He doesn't have to comment, but seeing as though he is posting a lot recently, I thought this might interest him.

I'm not sure how I'm not capable of reasonable thinking. I sent Oleg dozens of research pages for SoW which he was grateful for and has used. If that didn't need reasonable thought, then thank-you for calling me a genius. If you have a problem with me, PM me. But please, don't turn this topic bitchy.
The information I have posted may interest others; it doesn't all revolve around you.

Also, I always try and post pictures as well. We can't help it if we feel a certain way. The terrain is an important feature and we may feel more strongly about it than you. However, others might feel more strongly than us. Obviously we can't please everyone, but then neither can Oleg.
It's interesting to see users, who have in the past moaned at me for saying I don't like the clouds, post and say that they won't buy the game because the clcikable-cockpit element isn't extensive enough for them. Clearly everyone has their own ideas of their ideal sim, and for a sim to reach that it would require unlimited processing power, an infinite amount of graphics cards, and a budget that could wipe Africa's debts. Of course there will be areas that some may feel need more work, but then SoW has the time to develop. The discussions, opinions, research and pictures are here for Oleg to use (if he wishes).

Thankyou.

Back to discussion.

kammo · #7 10-25-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I have posted a lot of different questions and Oleg has answered a few of them. Here, I found this website, and considering that topic had moved to terrain, I thought it would be interesting to flag up. If you think I am like a stuck record, put me on block. I am just posting my opinion on what I see and currently what I see doesn't look like summer-time England. That's all.

The reason why I wrote is the repeated questions. Sometimes repeated questions that are allready answered by Oleg. Hence the hars "reasonable thinking" comment. No reason for PM's. Like I said friendly suggestion.

brando · #8 10-25-2010, 04:00 PM

I for one am getting tired of these modern photos being held up as something to follow. Haven't you guys any understanding of modern, intensive farming as practiced since the 50s and its enormous effect on the agricultural landscape? Being shown areas where the old hedgerows have been torn out, ponds filled, fields enlarged, roads straightened, modern fertilisers used and arrow-straight hedges laid, is not at all conducive to the developers' understanding of how South-east England looked in the early Forties.

P.S. How many trees were lost in the great storm of 1987?

"The storm caused substantial damage over much of England, downing an estimated 15 million trees....." Wiki. I think that might have changed things a little, views-wise.

philip.ed · #9 10-25-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brando

I for one am getting tired of these modern photos being held up as something to follow. Haven't you guys any understanding of modern, intensive farming as practiced since the 50s and its enormous effect on the agricultural landscape? Being shown areas where the old hedgerows have been torn out, ponds filled, fields enlarged, roads straightened, modern fertilisers used and arrow-straight hedges laid, is not at all conducive to the developers' understanding of how South-east England looked in the early Forties.

I agree. THe pictures, as I said, are just representative of colour, trees and hedges. Take any picture from 1940, and clear rectangular-3D hedges can bee seen which are missing from SoW. The same with colour; grass will look practically the same on a hot stretch of days from this summer, or last summer, vs 1940. The only difference is that the 1940 summer went on for a lot longer than the summer we have just had.
Of course the field patterns are completely different, and new crops like rape have been introduced, but the photos are just there to show the colours and the trees and hedges (I know I'm repeating myself again)

I know how Oleg feels about photos like this, but if he has lived in England when there's been a long stretch of summer days that are very hot (very hot for England I might add) then he's know that the burnished, golden, browns and greens are the norm. This is missing from the SoW shots we've been shown.

PS-so if so many trees were lost, you're saying the game needs more? I doubt SoW will have every-tree modelled that was around in 1940. IMO, it's better to use modern field patterns and road networks (that are known to have existen in 1940) than to just make it up. However a fair amount of original aerial shots from the period exist, and Oleg has used what he can find.
Modern shots are in no way representational of the correct field patterns but they still show how the trees look like from certain heights and also how the colours varies....(debateable, I know)

furbs · #10 10-25-2010, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kammo

Philip.ed and furbs.
You guys realise you sound like a stuck record? I have read a lot of post from you two (maybe hundreds from Philip) and reached the conclusion you are not cabable of a reasonable thinking and therefore I will suggest that you guys will give it a rest. I absolutely mean no harm or try to be disrepectful, honestly. Not trying to say I'm any better than you just a friendly suggestion to make this forum as pleasant as possible.

Nothing wrong about the asking/suggesting stuff but there is some kind of limit of the guestion asked and the way they are asked. This manner and limit is something that each induvidual have figure out themselves. I suggest you go back read your posts and try to think if there is something that you guys could do differen't.

These above are of course my subjective opinions and I could be wrong.

Cheers
Kammo

Kammo, when ever i post anything im always polite and never rude,and i always try to be constructive, now if Oleg ignores my posts or tells me to give it a rest, then thats fine with me, but he doesnt, he anwsers my posts politely and is never rude, now which would suggest he has no problem disussing these things, after all its a discssion thread.
Thanks for the concern Kammo, but i would suggest you look at your own post and have a think why you need to speak for Oleg or the SOW team.