Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[Bobb4]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

2 weeks so im told.

Lol, sigh!
It is impossible to release a product that is in it's pre-alpha stage of development in two weeks??? Who did you get your information from
The rotter was toying with your emotions.
Oh it was me... Well it goes to show even the greatest minds can be wrong
My own theory goes something like this...
It has been delayed because of Open GL 3. DirectX 10 and you can add any other reason here __________________.
The moral of this little ditty is as they say in the SA Army "Hurry up and wait!"
It will arrive on Monday, and this is based on statistical research that most new games are delivered instore on Mondays. Now pick a week, month or year to add to this conclusion and you have a 99% chance of being wrong.

lol

[nearmiss]

I hope this is the correct thread.

A couple suggestions for OLEG for the SOW:

1) In the FMB I would like to see the Player flight NOT be assigned to waypoints. The player flight should be able to do things ON-THE-FLY and not be constrained to flying over specific waypoints precisely in order to advance to the next waypoint. The player should receive orders like an actual briefing and fly according to the briefing to target areas. This could be done with event areas where the player is given a heading, and can receive additional heading information from ADF, or other comms.

2) The AI would fly by waypoints as usual, but it would be nice to have the ability to have alternate waypoints for AI resulting from triggers.

3) It would be a great tool to have Translucent Canopy/cockpit frame rails to offset the fact we have no peripheral vision ability. I'm not talking about NO frame rails. I talking about the regular frame rails are visible, but the player can see through the rails. The floor side panels, instruments, back headrest all would be opague. THe player could not see through those things he could not normally see through, just canopy frame rails.

I say translucent, because even with 6 DOF when you move your head side to side it is not possible to get the same visual effect as a real person gets because of stereoscopic peripheral vision. I would certainly prefer this arrangement over the HUD, which is totally "StarWars".

This would not take way from the fliight experience, because flying the late model P-51, P-47 and several other planes with fulll clear canopies is available now and isn't a CHEAT.

IMO, the big frame rails that are constantly in your way visually don't add to immersion. If you just look at the screen with the big frame rails in front of you it is common to have less than 30% visual. One of my friends that plays other war games said, "That is so stupid looking at the screen and not being able to see what your doing". I agree with him.

So, maybe a switch to Translucent canopy frame rails, a switch to canopy frame rails... this shouldn't be any problem at the programming level to provide. I can make translucent frame rails in photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc. for MSFT CFS2 cockpits and it's hardly any work at all.

Thanks for all the work you've done.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

I hope this is the correct thread.

A couple suggestions for OLEG for the SOW:

1) In the FMB I would like to see the Player flight NOT be assigned to waypoints. The player flight should be able to do things ON-THE-FLY and not be constrained to flying over specific waypoints precisely in order to advance to the next waypoint. The player should receive orders like an actual briefing and fly according to the briefing to target areas. This could be done with event areas where the player is given a heading, and can receive additional heading information from ADF, or other comms.

2) The AI would fly by waypoints as usual, but it would be nice to have the ability to have alternate waypoints for AI resulting from triggers.

3) It would be a great tool to have Translucent Canopy/cockpit frame rails to offset the fact we have no peripheral vision ability. I'm not talking about NO frame rails. I talking about the regular frame rails are visible, but the player can see through the rails. The floor side panels, instruments, back headrest all would be opague. THe player could not see through those things he could not normally see through, just canopy frame rails.

I say translucent, because even with 6 DOF when you move your head side to side it is not possible to get the same visual effect as a real person gets because of stereoscopic peripheral vision. I would certainly prefer this arrangement over the HUD, which is totally "StarWars".

This would not take way from the fliight experience, because flying the late model P-51, P-47 and several other planes with fulll clear canopies is available now and isn't a CHEAT.

IMO, the big frame rails that are constantly in your way visually don't add to immersion. If you just look at the screen with the big frame rails in front of you it is common to have less than 30% visual. One of my friends that plays other war games said, "That is so stupid looking at the screen and not being able to see what your doing". I agree with him.

So, maybe a switch to Translucent canopy frame rails, a switch to canopy frame rails... this shouldn't be any problem at the programming level to provide. I can make translucent frame rails in photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc. for MSFT CFS2 cockpits and it's hardly any work at all.

Thanks for all the work you've done.

1+2) Waypoints are neccessary. Another spech that they should be defined in briffing... and as well as dynamically changed waypoint due to command using radar data for exaple. Triggers will be.

3. No.... transparency of frae details will make visible other things... construction fuselase, engine, etc... Simply we model it by another way than others in arcade games or the games that say that they are simulators of ground battle but the models there ar far from what we say now is most realistic for the current period.
Also on the sceen you see by two eyes. So the comparison with steroscopic view in life and like you mean by one eye isn't right. We simply will have more complex movement of the neck-head-body of the pilot than in Il-2.

[dflion]

1+2) Waypoints are neccessary. Another spech that they should be defined in briffing... and as well as dynamically changed waypoint due to command using radar data for exaple. Triggers will be.

Oleg, could you give us a little more detail here, if possible?. example - will a radar vector give you the ability to change a waypoint in-flight?

DFLion

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by dflion

1+2) Waypoints are neccessary. Another spech that they should be defined in briffing... and as well as dynamically changed waypoint due to command using radar data for exaple. Triggers will be.

Oleg, could you give us a little more detail here, if possible?. example - will a radar vector give you the ability to change a waypoint in-flight?

DFLion

We model all structure of HQ that receive information from the Radar and give then commands to ground AA-artillery, to planes, etc. and if you recieve this information in Air then you should redirect your flight according given info. We try to model it with the precise of that time... so it will be not so precise like in modern time. You even may miss the target by altitude or so... like it was in reality, reading recalls of British pilots.

German radars will work by other way. They used it for another purpose.

[brando]

Originally Posted by dflion

1+2) Waypoints are neccessary. Another spech that they should be defined in briffing... and as well as dynamically changed waypoint due to command using radar data for exaple. Triggers will be.

Oleg, could you give us a little more detail here, if possible?. example - will a radar vector give you the ability to change a waypoint in-flight?

DFLion

If I understand Oleg's reply correctly, then we should be pleased to see that the team is attempting to model the imprecision of radar at the time of the Battle of Britain. Hopefully they will find a way of moving what could be called a 'floating' waypoint on our flight maps - though I hope that the maps will be somewhat different from the knee-pad version used in Forgotten Battles. This particular battlefield was much more local than the vast Russian steppe or the emptiness of the Pacific. Vectoring by radio was the rule of the day, based on the calculations (and inspired guesses) of the plotters at Fighter Command HQ.

[wjc103]

Oleg, thank you for your answers. Much appreciated.

[rpgielow]

Originally Posted by Bobb4

Lol, sigh!
It is impossible to release a product that is in it's pre-alpha stage of development in two weeks??? Who did you get your information from
The rotter was toying with your emotions.
Oh it was me... Well it goes to show even the greatest minds can be wrong
My own theory goes something like this...
It has been delayed because of Open GL 3. DirectX 10 and you can add any other reason here __________________.
The moral of this little ditty is as they say in the SA Army "Hurry up and wait!"
It will arrive on Monday, and this is based on statistical research that most new games are delivered instore on Mondays. Now pick a week, month or year to add to this conclusion and you have a 99% chance of being wrong.

I have heard that SOW was cancelled.

Yes a lot of online gaming stores are advertising it has canceled. My friend here in the uk buys for a chain of gaming stores and he too believes this now to be vaporware simply because the guys he deals with at UBI have either never heard of SOW or those that have say it has been cancelled. He isn't a fan of flight sims and i have told him about this website and UBI's involvement but he keeps repeating what hes been told.