oleg, you better hurry, RoF is releasing a ww-2 sim next

[virre89]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

I truly wish more people would follow his example. Seems in these times it's mostly the other way around...

@Oleg:
After all the infantry-based games that want to be vehicle- and flight-simulations (like ArmA or BF2) and fail utterly, it's a great idea to have a flightsim giving players the chance to use ground-vehicles.

Another revolutionary idea, though it was truly overdue!

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

[Chivas]

[QUOTE=virre89;80676Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.[/QUOTE]


What's scary are people who are offended that other people express their appreciation for a decent product. The product is not perfect but its the best we have in WW2 air combat. When a person says "you are a God Oleg" doesn't mean he thinks he's is a god. lol

Originally Posted by virre89

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

+1

[Bobb4]

Originally Posted by virre89

.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

Nodes, my dear chap nodes... You spawn at combat nodes where the action is while the rest is handled by the AI...

But again speaking from an SEOW background the ability to plan ground movements and combats is already in IL2.
Adding infantry and other cool stuff will advance the game for sure...
Straffing an airfield with troops scattering in every direction???? If you only fligh up high in a boom and zoom plane you will miss half the fun. But for us who like to get down and dirty in the mud, well the more objects the better.

As for the complete warfare package, air land and sea. Arma 2 has shown it is possible. While SOW is unlikely to have it the fact that Oleg has thought that far ahead is the reason why Il2 has stood the test of time.
My guess is if it is not Oleg himself that does it it will be a third party doing it with the SOW engine.

The fact that he has not totally ruled out online authentication is in my opinion a great step forward as well.

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by virre89

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

I didn't say they failed as a game, but they utterly failed as battlefield-simulations, though they're even named after that high goal! Even ArmA2 is merely an extended Ego-Shooter, that implemented aircraft and vehicles because they somewhat belong to warfare, but they are still far from being ment seriously. And while all the games noted succeeded as games, they utterly failed in simulating even the most basic physics, as this ArmA2-Video shows pretty nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-n4F_n4UU

And this is not a mere bug, it's ArmAs physics. Hell, the game doesn't even fit the aircraft with flares and chaff, but tons of Anti-Air tanks and launchers! And don't tell me, that they couldn't modell this level of detail!


And to the speed-differences: I think you have a basic misconception of modern warfare and game-design as well. While there is a frontline in war, it does not mean that there are thousands of units fighting in a single long line along that hundreds of kilometer long front. Most of the action is taking place at a limited area at a time, with spearheads and massed units attacking and defending for a strategic point. Infact, it's that exact slow motion you mentioned for games, that dictates this.

So back into the game, while the aircraft may spawn at an airbase some 10km behind the fenceline, your tank-platoon might just spawn at the depot 1km behind the action.
That not only makes it more suitable for playing, but also more realstic compared to planes in the games you named, that rearm by flying at 100ft and Mach1 over an airfield to rearm and repair and reappear fully armed 20 seconds after the last bombrun.

[virre89]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

I didn't say they failed as a game, but they utterly failed as battlefield-simulations, though they're even named after that high goal! Even ArmA2 is merely an extended Ego-Shooter, that implemented aircraft and vehicles because they somewhat belong to warfare, but they are still far from being ment seriously. And while all the games noted succeeded as games, they utterly failed in simulating even the most basic physics, as this ArmA2-Video shows pretty nicely:

And this is not a mere bug, it's ArmAs physics. Hell, the game doesn't even fit the aircraft with flares and chaff, but tons of Anti-Air tanks and launchers! And don't tell me, that they couldn't modell this level of detail!


And to the speed-differences: I think you have a basic misconception of modern warfare and game-design as well. While there is a frontline in war, it does not mean that there are thousands of units fighting in a single long line along that hundreds of kilometer long front. Most of the action is taking place at a limited area at a time, with spearheads and massed units attacking and defending for a strategic point. Infact, it's that exact slow motion you mentioned for games, that dictates this.

So back into the game, while the aircraft may spawn at an airbase some 10km behind the fenceline, your tank-platoon might just spawn at the depot 1km behind the action.
That not only makes it more suitable for playing, but also more realstic compared to planes in the games you named, that rearm by flying at 100ft and Mach1 over an airfield to rearm and repair and reappear fully armed 20 seconds after the last bombrun.

Take a look at what i wrote again plox.
Like i said Arma 2 is way over the arcade limit and more towards simulation in all of its areas especially when it comes to handling the infantry combat, however it's still far from an in depth simulator in specific areas but the game is defiantly not an Arcade shooter and it proves itself worthy very well.

The physics, FM and Aero dynamics you'll see in SoW for airplanes etc just won't be possible in an overall sim today. If Arma 2 would've had physics for infantry and a very advanced fm , aerodynamic systems etc for everything even tanks and boats and a rendered map as large as RoF for example and with the graphics of Arma 2 the system requirements and optimization issues would be insane, not to mention the bug list.

You can't honestly believe that Oleg will have you're dream game of a Sub simulator better looking, handling than Silent Heroes at the same time handle Infantry combat better than Arma 2 and keep Tank combat on such a detailed level in graphics , bullet simulation such as Red Orchestra and STILL have all the elements that is planned for Storm of War in the air.

Do you know what it is you're asking for lol? No offense but you better get that supercomputer asap..and the development time, buglist of a game @ this scale would be of the chart unless you're at least 300+ working on it... would it be worth it in the end.. doubtful. It's better to focus on one area and make it as good as possible instead since the market for even attempting something like this is to small anyway.

Sure Olegs engine has support for creating vehicles etc on the ground does that mean it will handle better than say Red Orchestra hell no were did you get that from. I am expecting the best ever created ww2-FLIGHT sim from Oleg with SoW BoB nothing more nothing less and if he can pull of a miracle in some other area at the same time then so be it , i will be happy but i bet my arm it won't happen.

-Cheers

[Feuerfalke]

Well, virre89, I think you're missing the point:

If there is a solid physics programmed, it does not matter if it is a bullet fired by a soldier or a bullet fired from a flying plane. It also doesn't matter if there is a tank running over a field or a plane. And it also doesn't matter if there is a 30mm HE-shell exploding that was fired by a groundcannon or by an aircraft gun. The physics behind it are the same and in these examples probably not even too complicated.

Now, if that tank has its system modelled in such a detail as the plane has, is a completely different question and Oleg already answered this one and stated, that ground-units will have more simplified damage-models and controls for reasons of usability and damage-effects. Simplified, yes, but not in terms of controling a plane while flying backwards and not like in BF2 to fly tighter circles the faster you go.

But then, if you're such a fan of ArmA2, what did it model that is so important for ground-battle? AI to provide large battles? Well, AI is surely not the best part of ArmA2. So did they model the vegetation good? Yes, looks great - just that the AI can look through it and you can disable gras in the options. So did they at least implement complex hit-detection and wound-treatment, like in AmericasArmy3? Not really. Complex damage models of vehicles maybe? Rather not, to be honest. Weather effects? Yes, pretty nice looking - just doesn't effect AI.

So, if you know all this, how can you still keep saying that ArmA2 is the untouchable queen of infantry-combat simulations and no honest simulation will never ever be able to reach these features? What features? The pretty trees?
Never though I'd say that, but just look what the unspeakables accomplished in a matter of months without adequate editors and programming tools!


@RoF
Looked forward a long time for this, but with all the heat about the staggered release and the dates being pushed back ever more in combination with the other downsides rather cooled my interest down. Who knows, I might still get it, but so far it's not even clear if it will ever be released in Europe and no official word from the devs still.

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

@RoF
Looked forward a long time for this, but with all the heat about the staggered release and the dates being pushed back ever more in combination with the other downsides rather cooled my interest down. Who knows, I might still get it, but so far it's not even clear if it will ever be released in Europe and no official word from the devs still.

+1

[virre89]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

Well, virre89, I think you're missing the point:

If there is a solid physics programmed, it does not matter if it is a bullet fired by a soldier or a bullet fired from a flying plane. It also doesn't matter if there is a tank running over a field or a plane. And it also doesn't matter if there is a 30mm HE-shell exploding that was fired by a groundcannon or by an aircraft gun. The physics behind it are the same and in these examples probably not even too complicated.

Now, if that tank has its system modelled in such a detail as the plane has, is a completely different question and Oleg already answered this one and stated, that ground-units will have more simplified damage-models and controls for reasons of usability and damage-effects. Simplified, yes, but not in terms of controling a plane while flying backwards and not like in BF2 to fly tighter circles the faster you go.

But then, if you're such a fan of ArmA2, what did it model that is so important for ground-battle? AI to provide large battles? Well, AI is surely not the best part of ArmA2. So did they model the vegetation good? Yes, looks great - just that the AI can look through it and you can disable gras in the options. So did they at least implement complex hit-detection and wound-treatment, like in AmericasArmy3? Not really. Complex damage models of vehicles maybe? Rather not, to be honest. Weather effects? Yes, pretty nice looking - just doesn't effect AI.

So, if you know all this, how can you still keep saying that ArmA2 is the untouchable queen of infantry-combat simulations and no honest simulation will never ever be able to reach these features? What features? The pretty trees?
Never though I'd say that, but just look what the unspeakable accomplished in a matter of months without adequate editors and programming tools!


@RoF
Looked forward a long time for this, but with all the heat about the staggered release and the dates being pushed back ever more in combination with the other downsides rather cooled my interest down. Who knows, I might still get it, but so far it's not even clear if it will ever be released in Europe and no official word from the devs still.

A physics system that works out the ballistics for all types of guns and ammunition would be ideal yes but would it be possible , probably not with todays standards.

Arma 2 was just an example used i didn't say it was the untouchable queen i just said that it's the most realistic infantry simulation out there along with Red Orchestra.. give me a better example if you have one i'd be glad to try it. But speaking of preaching maybe you should lay of the imagination that BoB would beat out all these games in one single package, it ain't gonna happen even if your a huge fan of Oleg and Il2.

Still you fail to understand why the game(arma2) excludes uber fm/simulation in all areas, the game instead focuses to try and capture a semi-simulation at all angles, for example if you'd put characters physics on the soldiers in Arma 2 you'd be up for an insane CPU loss right there especially with that render distance. (always a balance between gameplay, realism and optimization)

We're not talking about COD or AA3 were you have a contained map as little as my shoe, that's also why AA3 has the ability to model some stuff more heavily seeing as it's only focused on CC infantry combat.

Sure i has it's issues i mean so does IL2 or any other game out there and to be honest Arma / OFP have always been leaned towards online play / mods.

Last but not least you mention that you can turn of grass and stuff, you say this just to try and point out bad stuff or? I mean come on for the love of god it's a matter optimization not everyone runs a monster system and any configuration you can get your hands on is great.

Just like you can play on arcade or sim servers in IL2 or turn on/off all assistance, in Arma 2 you can play on servers with locked setting and only first person view etc etc or you can play it arcade yada yada i don't see were you want to go with this except more than picking on Arma , my intention was never to preach about Arma just so you know I just used it as an example.

Can we leave the "IL2 patriotism & everything else sucks mood" at home for one single discussion?
Anyway Feurfalke RoF shipped last night if you ain't updated , i just noticed.

[Baron]

Ca 10 $/€ per "pack" sounds cheap, untill one look at what one get to start of with for 40 od bucks.

How many "packs" u neeed till u get to orginal IL2 for ex? (30 od flyables aircrafts)


A s**t load of money (for a game only) if my math isnt completly out of wack from old age.