Friday Update, February 24, 2012

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by mazex

Good idea for everyone to try doing a simple flight sim themselves. Being a programmer I tried that once and it was interesting how tough it was... It had driveable tanks and jeeps too by the way And a flat world Making the tanks behave somehow realistic was piece of cake compared to the darn planes... It's so much harder doing a game from scratch than anyone can think.

/mazex

Although very dated, the programming book Flights of Fantasy gives a bit of an idea about creating a flight sim in the C++ environment.

I bought the book in my programming days, unfortunately it predates DirectX so would not have much application in a modern programming context. - unless your into WinG programming????? It might be worth the .52c for the second hand version though there would be better texts around for $68.00!!!!!!!!!


http://www.amazon.com/Flights-Fantas.../dp/1878739182

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

Although very dated, the programming book Flights of Fantasy gives a bit of an idea about creating a flight sim in the C++ environment.

Great Minds..

I got that book too.. Back in the 90s.. Not only is it pre DirectX it is pre Windows.. A real old fashion DOS game.. As for give you a feel as to what goes into making a modern flight sim.. Remember the whole project fit on one floppy drive.. The basic strucuture is there.. So not sure if it would give a good feel for those who do any programing today.. But most of what goes into today is eye candy.. But for those who don't do any programing.. That one floppy would probally blow thier minds.. Now take that times 100 for a modern flight sim

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Walrus1

I think, that in the 39 pages of back and forth about the ground vehicle feature of the game that is in progress, that some of the complainers have lost sight of the most important aspect of this update:

That a patch that completely remakes the graphics engine of the game is very nearly finished! And that benchmarks are demonstrating significant performance improvements.

Which underscores the conclusion that, apparently, they are both able to improve the performance of the game AND work on this new facet to gameplay. Which IMO, will make the whole game experience more interesting in that vehicles or AAA that you take out may in fact be a human opponent.

I'm genuinely puzzled as well. I mean, the things we all wanted to see getting fixed are mentioned in the update as being very close to completion, yet we have an explosion of disapproval over what is simply a small tech demo of a feature that's still months away


I'll make this red text so that it stands out, i don't want anybody missing their fair warning or anything.

Originally Posted by carguy_

This is not "blow off some steam" thread. It is dev update thread, giving information about the patch progress and new game functions.

This. Anyone who wants to blow off some steam can go to the pilot's lounge section and start their own thread, that's why we have it in the first place.

This thing repeats itself on every update thread.
Nobody talks about the actual update or asks questions about it:
-How are you implementing the new FMs? Can you describe a case where the new FM would really make a difference in handling?

-How is the tank damage model? Is armor thickness and slope taken into account? What about different ammunition types and their armor penetration capability?

-Can you give us an example of the performance of the new graphics engine? For example, on such and such hardware, we get that amount of FPS flying over this part of the map.

All these are valid questions for an update thread that almost NOBODY ever asks.

Instead, we get the same process each and every time where:

1) Someone will suppose something is done a certain way without having any actual knowledge of it. Instead of asking about it, he will take it for granted.

2) Using that assumption as a stepping stone, he will then proceed to make an argument unrelated to the update content.

3) A user with an opposing viewpoint will be along to counter the previous poster.

....

12) Personal attacks, name-calling, trolling and making the thread unreadable for anyone who wishes to gain some meaningful information about the topic.

I'm starting from the last page and going backwards to clean up the thread. On strike two it's infraction time for purposefully derailing the thread even after ample warning given.
Whoever it might concern, you've been fairly and adequately warned and cut your share of slack, don't cry if the same situation repeats itself and the banhammer starts swinging.

Thread is locked until clean-up is complete.

[Blackdog_kt]

Thread reopened. Please stay on topic, which is

The content of the update:
Ground units (questions about interface, controls, damage model, etc)
New graphics engine (questions about performance mainly)
New flight models and physics calculations (questions about handling differences, how it affects gameplay, asking for examples etc)

It's pretty simple, this is a "let me ask you how it works" thread about the things we've been shown in the opening post.

Things that don't fall within the topic:
What we like/don't like/love/hate, unless it directly concerns the update content it's irrelevant to this thread.
What happened during development and whose fault it is.
How we believe a flight sim should be made and marketed.
Convincing other people about the error of their ways and opinions.

Do things on the first list and enjoy yourselves.

Do things on the red list and collect infraction points and possibly a ban for derailing the thread.

I'm supposed to maintain this mess in readable condition so people can ask questions and find the information they seek. If a vocal minority won't work with me towards that direction and keeps disrespecting the right of their fellow forum users to access information, i'll work with the forum tools provided to fix the situation for the majority.

To discuss other matters go to existing related threads, or if none exist start a new one in the appropriate section.

[mcdaniels]

@BS:
What about the AI? Will there be an improvement?

[furbs]

Yes with out a doubt, they hired a new FM guy, he has had 5 months and all the help he could ever need, of course we will see a big improvement in AI.

[David198502]

i really hope so....
luthier mentioned a while back, i think pretty short after the first patch, that they are working on the ai.i think the time has come to see an improvement soon.

Originally Posted by furbs

Yes with out a doubt, they hired a new FM guy, he has had 5 months and all the help he could ever need, of course we will see a big improvement in AI.

You can edit the FM now for the aircraft , can't remember how but you unpack all the files then edit the FM ones for the specific plane. Change the numbers around ect.

[Ernst]

-How are you implementing the new FMs? Can you describe a case where the new FM would really make a difference in handling?

-How is the tank damage model? Is armor thickness and slope taken into account? What about different ammunition types and their armor penetration capability?

-Can you give us an example of the performance of the new graphics engine? For example, on such and such hardware, we get that amount of FPS flying over this part of the map.

Good questions. Once you had posted i would like to ask the same things. Are the developers reading the thread? Any info about?

[kendo65]

Regarding the debate on controllable tanks, AA, etc, I came across a pdf file I'd saved with an interview with Oleg from Feb 2009. It's an English translation of an interview originally posted on a Russian site - spread-wings.ru (?). English translation is by Luthier

http://spread-wings.ru/content/view/154/1/

Although obviously out of date there is some interesting talk about the goals they had in mind back then about SOW/COD future development. I can't post the pdf as it's 2.66MB (don't know if the pdf is still available online?), but here are some interesting excerpts (my highlights in bold)

Q: You’ve stated many times in previous interviews that BoB will be drastically different from the
Il-2 series. What do you mean by that?

Oleg: Not a very easy question to answer, but I’ll try to respond the best I can without divulging some secret information.

1. The engine and the system we’re developing is built from the ground up to allow future expansions. Each new product can be stand-alone, or it can plug in with the others starting with BoB, following the success of Pacific Fighters which proved that this model can be viable.

2. We’re developing a system that is more than just a flight sim, but can be a sub sim, PT boat sim, tank sim, helicopter sim, etc. By the way, we just might have a flyable autogyro in BoB.

3. We’re also writing a completely new, drastically improved online code with multiple modes and features. It can even support a server-based MMO with a monthly fee. This of course won’t happen with BoB itself, but is possible on its engine, possibly made by other teams that further develop into this direction.

4. Quality level for ground and air objects is ages beyond what was one with Il-2. I don’t think that such a huge leap will be possible after BoB; the only changes that can happen is increase in polycount or texture size, or more detailed interior details. Even Il-2 was often used as a reference by other developers, and BoB will even have uses for movies.

5. We’re working on an add-on and expansion module that will not affect the online playing field. After BoB is released we plan to publish a set of tools that will allow end-users to:
* Create new planes;
* Create new vehicles, tanks, ships, etc;
* Create new static objects, such as building, bridges, equipment, etc;
* Create new maps, with limits on total size. We’ll leave large maps for ourselves, for our own new sims.


Q: And now Oleg, please go into more details on your thoughts of the future of Storm of War
compared to Il-2, given the potential you’ve built into the engine from the start.

Oleg: Considering what I’ve said already, and given an initial commercial success of BoB, here’s what I see:

1. Some number of developers internationally that worked with MSFS, and probably a large part of them too, will convert to our side. This is especially to be expected considering the recent closing of Aces studio. So these add-on developers might just start making add-ons for Storm of War. I think this might even include jets, including modern ones. At the very least I would expect someone to do Vietnam, not to mention WWI. This
should happen too. Generally WWI aircraft are easier to model and program, since they don’t have such complex aerodynamics, no retractable landing gear, propeller pitch, and other advanced devices. There’s also no radio, which means there’s no need to develop and record radio chatter.

2. Korea, in conjunction with RRG. Its development is now in background mode. Their
team is now working with us finishing up planes for BoB, and also modeling ships.

3. Africa, Malta, USSR. These are most appealing choices for us. Even though we know for sure that the Pacific is the most interesting subject matter for the international market, besides Battle of Britain that is. Generally the Eastern Front is a bit easier for us to do since we have loads more data on it, and there’s less variety of vehicles and aircraft to model than all the other fronts.

4. Continuing combat around the English Channel, which will largely be made via expansions since we’ll already have the main map.

5. Cooperation with other teams to create other games (perhaps by selling the engine). For example, an MMO with controllable soldiers and submarines etc. Or even a space sim around planet surfaces with somewhat realistic physics.

6. Console variants with simplified features.