PDA

View Full Version : Luthier talks about new BoB screenshot



stanford-ukded
09-12-2006, 01:17 PM
A summary of everything he said on SimHQ is here:

http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=11530


Scroll down to Veta's post.

ploughman
09-12-2006, 01:33 PM
Sounds 'dip my processor in metallic hydrogen' cool.



Hoff/Norris? Words fail me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
09-12-2006, 01:39 PM
The lights will go dim all over town when I turn on a rig capable of running that mutha... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

stanford-ukded
09-12-2006, 01:39 PM
Drunk.

slo_1_2_3
09-12-2006, 10:14 PM
I think I could use the money a BoB worthy computer would cost could porlly be used to buy a real spit and then I would'nt have that whole lag problem

sudoku1941
09-12-2006, 10:46 PM
You're kidding me, right?

We'll have "dynamic weathering" so you can watch paint chipping happen as you fly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but then, there's no news at all about any improvement to the flight modeling...

which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners....

Hopefully some of this admittedly stunning pit detail will work its way past the pit and outward to the dots you may or may not see against the terrain as you try to make having altitude the advantage it should be...

WTG, team.... way to use those resources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif [sarcasm]

LEBillfish
09-12-2006, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
You're kidding me, right?

You're kidding me, right?......Slamming something that is so far off you have no idea....Ga'head, you're dying to say it.....what's your alternative? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

FritzGryphon
09-12-2006, 11:46 PM
Calm down you feature whiners. Oleg isn't forgetting what's important.

As fancy as it sounds, "dynamic weathering" is probably just a fancy term for putting the weathering on a seperate layer. The texture artists already do this, so it isn't any different.

Just like damage is layered on top of the skin, weathering could be too. The opacity of the layer could be changed during a campaign to increase or decrease the apparent wear and grime.

That is, if this supposed feature isn't just a mistranslation of "dynamic weather".

JG54_Lukas
09-12-2006, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
You're kidding me, right?

You're kidding me, right?......Slamming something that is so far off you have no idea....Ga'head, you're dying to say it.....what's your alternative? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did you really expect anything else from Stigler?

Treetop64
09-12-2006, 11:59 PM
I like stanford's post:

"I sure hope I don't die before BoB is released."

Jeez, I hope I don't die before SoM and '46 is released!

Feathered_IV
09-13-2006, 12:23 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Friendly_flyer
09-13-2006, 01:17 AM
As a skinner I quite enjoy weathering. I hope not just the paint job but the weather layers will be skinable.

Capt.LoneRanger
09-13-2006, 01:34 AM
Rumours say weathering effects will be on different layers and they'll be hard-coded.

Also panel-lines and hatches will be on a different layer (that's for sure)

So, of course this will make the whole thing more real (no more skinners that build 2cm gaps between the platings), but on the other hand, what will prevent you from weathering the skin beforehand? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Grue_
09-13-2006, 02:00 AM
Hey, there are no spiders or cobwebs in that hangar! I hope these will be dynamically modelled with advanced AI.

Seriously though, I'm going to hold off buying a new CPU and GPU for another year after reading that thread.

Where do you get one of those metallic hydrogen coolers then? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
09-13-2006, 03:52 AM
Ah yes that would be cool.My eyecandy requirements are fairly low so I can run BoB on details that screenie presents with no objections.So maybe my comp will be able to run QMB 1v1 at least.Would be cool until I get an upgrade.

joeap
09-13-2006, 03:58 AM
I think I'll end up getting BoB when it comes out, but not install it for a long while til I get my cray built.

leitmotiv
09-13-2006, 04:09 AM
HA!!!!!!!!!

F19_Orheim
09-13-2006, 04:20 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
You're kidding me, right?

We'll have "dynamic weathering" so you can watch paint chipping happen as you fly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but then, there's no news at all about any improvement to the flight modeling...

which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners....

Hopefully some of this admittedly stunning pit detail will work its way past the pit and outward to the dots you may or may not see against the terrain as you try to make having altitude the advantage it should be...

WTG, team.... way to use those resources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif [sarcasm] http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
OMG, did someone take your lollipop? or did Santa forget about you 30 years in a row?

OldMan____
09-13-2006, 04:41 AM
I think you are reaaly misunderstanding stuff.

This dynamic weather stuff as described can be one with ZERO overhead. They are just level skin damage textueres. They can be inreal time combined with the damage etxture in arender to texture step and kept in memory until another damage or wear off happens. Zero overhead. As long its well made.

If they have a performance hit for such a SIMPLE feature, they should be called incompentents. But I am pretty sure they are not.

My sole concern is that it seems all game is in Java now, that will make huge ammounts of memory needed (its impossible to implement garbage collection such as teh one used in current JVMs without increasing the memory footprint a lot (usually by 2 or 3 times)

msalama
09-13-2006, 04:46 AM
which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners....

Hey Stig, you're one of the saddest trolls I've _ever_ had the misfortune of bumping into.

Honestly.

Because hey, who the h*ll - excepting you, of course - would be stoopid enough to purposefully shoot themselves in the foot by commenting on something NO-ONE has _any_ clue of yet??? Talk about prejudices there boyo http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

But nice going anyway, because I'm sure the popularity of TW will positively SOAR after all this impartial commenting of yours... way to go Stigler http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

PS. And don't you go and start this tired "fanboi" BS of yours either, now - plenty of things wrong w/ IL-2 and I've never been one to deny that myself. So be a good doggy and go bark some other tree now, huh?

stanford-ukded
09-13-2006, 04:55 AM
If he was Trolling, you have just given him the satisfaction of responding.

msalama
09-13-2006, 06:00 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 06:05 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
You're kidding me, right?

We'll have "dynamic weathering" so you can watch paint chipping happen as you fly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but then, there's no news at all about any improvement to the flight modeling...

which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners....

Hopefully some of this admittedly stunning pit detail will work its way past the pit and outward to the dots you may or may not see against the terrain as you try to make having altitude the advantage it should be...

WTG, team.... way to use those resources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif [sarcasm]

In principle, I entirely agree with you. The time spent messing about with a purely novelty eye-candy feature could possibly be better spent in areas 'more important to a flight simulation' especially IF the same, tired old faults exist in BoB as they do with the current engine.

However, I gave this weathering some thought when I first read about it and I came to the same conclusion as OldMan in that it probably won't take up much in-game time/resource for the reasons he gave.

MEGILE
09-13-2006, 06:17 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:

In principle, I entirely agree with you. The time spent messing about with a purely novelty eye-candy feature could possibly be better spent in areas 'more important to a flight simulation' especially IF the same, tired old faults exist in BoB as they do with the current engine.



I disagree... Oleg can choose (or not) to fix old IL2 problems really irrespective of time spent on these types of graphical fixes.

And WRT to core issues such as Energy retention... maybe Oleg doesn't see them as requiring a fix.. let alone not having sufficient time to fix them due to graphical enhancments.

Really Stiglr.. if Oleg was going to change BoB to how you want it.. he would just do it, even if he does have his 3d artists making the game look better.

Capt.LoneRanger
09-13-2006, 06:29 AM
Nice little worlds some people live in.

The better this game will look, the more people will give it a try and the more people will get to know this games by screenies, etc. Not even to mention the possibilities Oleg is aiming at - to use BoB to show scenes in documentaries and movies. Now, if this goal is reached, there'll be a lot more money available for the team and to further develope other addons.

To believe he leaves the flight-dynamics behind with this Sim is a bit short-sighted. Especially as we are talking about a bit of information we got here, not how this bit compares to the rest of the sim. I don't know how much sim it will be and I wonder how anybody can know that eye-candy is more important than pyhsics for this sim, who is not in the dev-team? You have a magic crystall ball we should know of?

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:

In principle, I entirely agree with you. The time spent messing about with a purely novelty eye-candy feature could possibly be better spent in areas 'more important to a flight simulation' especially IF the same, tired old faults exist in BoB as they do with the current engine.



I disagree... Oleg can choose (or not) to fix old IL2 problems really irrespective of time spent on these types of graphical fixes.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right - he can choose but I can also choose to show my dissatisfaction with that philosophy.

Let me ask you this, though - let's say, just for arguments sake, that BoB doesn't have any improvement to the flight models, e-retention, dive acceleration etc but it does have this weathering effect...would you consider it development time well spent?

Chuck_Older
09-13-2006, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
You're kidding me, right?

We'll have "dynamic weathering" so you can watch paint chipping happen as you fly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but then, there's no news at all about any improvement to the flight modeling...

which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners....

Hopefully some of this admittedly stunning pit detail will work its way past the pit and outward to the dots you may or may not see against the terrain as you try to make having altitude the advantage it should be...

WTG, team.... way to use those resources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif [sarcasm]

You're doing yourself a dis-service by making these assumptions and then getting upset about them. There is no proof whatsoever that resources are being mis-managed or mis-used, it's 100% your negative viewpoint here. You have taken news of an innovative use of skin layers, and turned that into an indication that FM suffers because of a graphical improvement.

This is guesswork at best. There is no law written that says "graphical improvments take away from flight modelling". You can have both and I'll even go so far as to say you should DEMAND both improved graphics and improved modelling. But in any case, all that is shown here is your negativity and doom-and-gloom take on what should be good news. Please start looking at these things objectively, you're one of the more intelligent members here. Taking news of graphics and making that into a comment on how flight modelling must suffer is not a standpoint I would consider defendable

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
You're kidding me, right?

We'll have "dynamic weathering" so you can watch paint chipping happen as you fly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but then, there's no news at all about any improvement to the flight modeling...

which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners....

Hopefully some of this admittedly stunning pit detail will work its way past the pit and outward to the dots you may or may not see against the terrain as you try to make having altitude the advantage it should be...

WTG, team.... way to use those resources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif [sarcasm]

You're doing yourself a dis-service by making these assumptions and then getting upset about them. There is no proof whatsoever that resources are being mis-managed or mis-used, it's 100% your negative viewpoint here. You have taken news of an innovative use of skin layers, and turned that into an indication that FM suffers because of a graphical improvement.

This is guesswork at best. There is no law written that says "graphical improvments take away from flight modelling". You can have both and I'll even go so far as to say you should DEMAND both improved graphics and improved modelling. But in any case, all that is shown here is your negativity and doom-and-gloom take on what should be good news. Please start looking at these things objectively, you're one of the more intelligent members here. Taking news of graphics and making that into a comment on how flight modelling must suffer is not a standpoint I would consider defendable </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He's not saying that the flight modelling will suffer. He's speculating because there has been no word about the flight modelling except some vague words about it 'feeling the same' as what we have now.

And, IMO, he's right to speculate because if history is anything to go by (and those of us who have been around this game since day 1 will know precisely what that has involved), we've seen major issues in the PF game engine overlooked while n, largely unnecessary additions, have been implemented.

sudoku1941
09-13-2006, 10:06 AM
Thanks for staying levelheaded, F6Ace, and bringing up some other salient points.

I realize that it would be difficult to "show" improvments in the flight model... but how hard would even a blanket statement like, "We're making a number of changes to the flight model to make it even more realistic, with [x], [y] and [z] being just some of the improvments..." be? Just a bone to demonstrate that some, any effort is being put into shoring up what are the real weak points of the sim system.

Just with that, I'd be inclined to take a wait-and-see attitude and give them the benefit of the doubt.

But... we get NOTHIN'. NADA. ZIP.... that even hints that the FM will improve one iota. This is my point, for those of you for whom it's not glaringly obvious. There's little that needs improvement in the graphics now. And of course the biggest item that does need improvement in the graphics, spotting distant dots against terrain...well, that hasn't been mentioned one time either.

Chuck_Older
09-13-2006, 10:08 AM
I cannot agree, F6 ace.

For one thing "PF" doesn't use a different engine from FB. So I cannot agree with your argument that the PF game engine was found to be lacking while other things were implemented

Also, the standpoint that good news in one area means bad news in another for nothign but the simple fact that you're worried about it is irrational

This is exactly the same as me reading this news, and assuming that vehicles will get the same weathering effects. It is not a speculation, it is wild guesswork, with nothing to back it up

I could not disagree with your arguments more

Somethign that's completely overlooked is the fact that this sim (FB/PF) has been a test-bed for BoB for some time. Some of the things you experience in the current version are small tastes of the FM of BoB

But what's really missed is when I point that out is that it is not the full FM of BoB. You have a small glimpse. So many arguments concerning "Well if this is the FM in BoB, then it stinks" crop up that it's insanity. You're seeing some of BoB all the time- and it's no secret

This is like me giving someone a single piece of jigsaw puzzle, and then being told they don't care for the finished product. If you look for something to call wrong hard enough and long enough, you're going to find it. Negative attitudes are the order of the day in this community and I don't care for them. Can't you ever just say "Gee, that's cool!"?

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 10:20 AM
How is no news in one area irrational? i.e. I find it just as valid for myself and sudoku to speculate about what hasn't been done (in the absence of information) as it is for someone else to suggest that it will have been done...when they don't know for sure, either. Perhaps you need to explain a little better but I don't see why your view is somehow more rational in that respect.

You'd be welcome to speculate about the weathering on the ground models but, let's face it, it's insignificant when compared to improving the flight models in what is supposed to be the next revision of a 'cutting edge flight simulation engine' (which is what I think most people expect to be getting). So, please don't try to demean the very real issue of whether important FM faults are going to be fixed or not to the level of being as trivial as textures on ground objects.

You obviously think there is nothing wrong with PF or that anything that has ever been wrong has been fixed in good time. Or, maybe you just don't care whether it's fixed or not and are looking forward to nice graphics. Or maybe even something else. I'm not you so I can't say for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

For some of us, there are a number of quite small but age-old and terribly annoying problems that have just never been sorted out. Look around the forums for evidence of that - you'll find people discussing them very often.

That is our opinion and it is not at all irrelevant to us.

Also, as you appear to have edited, how do you know that what we've got now is just a small part of BoB? Have you played BoB and/or are privvy to the development? Has Oleg told you? (If so, we've been told a lot of things in the past so pardon me if I took it with a Cheshire plain sized pinch of salt). I don't actually expect there to have been no improvements - it just wouldn't be logical but I do hope the FM/DM etc improvements are on a grander scale than a few nice looking cockpits and a weathering effect.

Chuck_Older
09-13-2006, 10:28 AM
It's irrational because you're equating news in one area and no news in another as an indication of something bad

This is double-talk in my opinion. This is the same thing politicians use to prove their standpoints-

they say: Our Children can't read well, so we must raise taxes

Well, the kids very well may not read well, but how does that prove a tax raise is needed? It doesn't. Both may even be true, but one doesn't prove the other. This is called 'assuming the conclusion' and I don't buy it, I'm sorry. It's leading me to a conclusion. You're doing the same thing- good graphics? Well thanks a lot, now the FM is porked. Wha?!?!?

You could very well be right but the logic behind it, that says, 'well here's news about good graphics, so that means we'll get screwed on FM' is completely looney tunes. In fact, Bugs Bunny would say "So long screwy, see you in St. Looey!" [yeah I know how to spell St. Louis] http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I cannot agree with your arguments though. I understand your concerns and I won't say you're wrong to be concerned about FM, but targetting the graphics this way proves nothing except that you have no news on anything else. One side of the argument- "here's good graphics" does not prove the other "Well FM is going to suffer". That's why it's irrational

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
It's irrational because you're equating news in one area and no news in another as an indication of something bad

This is double-talk in my opinion. This is the same thing politicians use to prove their standpoints-

they say: Our Children can't read well, so we must raise taxes

Well, the kids very well may not read well, but how does that proves a tax raise is needed? This is called 'assuming the conclusion' and I don't buy it, I'm sorry. It's leading me to a conclusion. You're doing the same thing- good graphics? Well thanks a lot, now the FM is porked. Wha?!?!?

You could very well be right but the logic behind it, that says, 'well here's news about good graphics, so that means we'll get screwed on FM' is completely looney tunes. In fact, Bugs Bunny would say "So long screwy, se you in St. Looey!" [yeah I know how to spell St. Louis] http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I cannot agree with your arguments though. I understand your concerns and I won't say you're wrong to be concerned about FM, but targetting the graphics this way proves nothing except that you have no news on anything else

Well, I wasn't absolutely equating no news with other things not being done at all. "We" (hope sudoku doesn't mind me saying this on his behalf) were speculating, using our experience of past happenings with this game, that other things hadn't been done (NOT couldn't have been done)...in the absence of any other information. I still fail to see how that is that irrational. You could accuse us of being negative or cynical or, possibly, realistic...but not irrational.

I think you think that I only see this issue in black and white and that if they introduce weathering effects THEN they cannot be improving the flight models etc. I'm not. I'm mainly questioning whether a weathering effect is as important as getting flight models with most of the main issues discussed on these forums every day sorted out or the graphic problems such as invisible planes and LOD issues corrected or inability to specify some of the game settings fixed.

sudoku1941
09-13-2006, 10:41 AM
Speaking of doubletalk... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Did I say or even infer that the flight models would "suffer"?

No.


I'm merely pointing out that SoW appears to be following the established history of the IL-2 series; that of putting eye candy first at the expense of improvements to the flight model. Or, put another way, putting the emphasis in the wrong place.

I do realize that it is possible for them to put the same effort into both... in fact, that would answer my question, to hear that the same effort they're putting into developing "dynamic paint chips" would also be put into improving the gaping holes in the flight models.

Chuck_Older
09-13-2006, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Speaking of doubletalk... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Did I say or even infer that the flight models would "suffer"?

No.




No? Hold on then.

You did post this, right?

QUOTE:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">You're kidding me, right?

We'll have "dynamic weathering" so you can watch paint chipping happen as you fly...

but then, there's no news at all about any improvement to the flight modeling...

which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners....

Hopefully some of this admittedly stunning pit detail will work its way past the pit and outward to the dots you may or may not see against the terrain as you try to make having altitude the advantage it should be...

WTG, team.... way to use those resources. [sarcasm] </span>

Did you, or did you not post that? Are there two members here with your username or something? You sure did infer that FM is suffering- you say:

"which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners".

I'm not much in the mood for a fight, but you can read what you posted just as plainly as I can, so let's drop the games, ok? You sure did infer that the FM is suffering and what's more we both know that you did more than make a casual inference. I'm not stupid either, you know? You have every right to worry about the FM and every right to ask if FM is improving but you're jumping to conclusions, and you cannot expect me to hop on the bandwagon or even agree with your standpoint just because you fear that no news is bad news

anarchy52
09-13-2006, 11:06 AM
Maybe they could simulate freshly painted aircraft, so we can watch the paint dry in real time...

I'm just plain stunned.

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 11:25 AM
^ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Back on message...Chuck - I dunno about suduko but I'm certainly not asking you to agree with *me*

As I said, I am voicing a very real concern that, IMO, cobblers like weathering are unimportant in the overall scheme of things. Besides, it's something that can be accomplished "manually" with variations of a decent plane skin. i.e. Weathering etc is a nice to have. It's certainly not a must have, like what good flight modelling is, especially for what is *supposedly* an accurate, historical combat flight simulator.

Chuck_Older
09-13-2006, 11:58 AM
Absolutely, F6 ace

IF graphics are more important than FM right now, I would ask a very big "How come????" but I'd also bear in mind that this isn't the end of development

I think it's important to keep having discussions like this, to keep awareness of the fact that we will not settle for a pretty sim with bad FM very high. If we make Oleg and CO. incapable of forgetting that we pay attention to ALL aspects of the sim, then we're only helping ourselves out

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 12:03 PM
Yes, it is right to keep mentioning these things however cynical and negative they (I) appear to be because I wouldn't like to see them just 'overlooked' at the end of the day.

Some people think that critcising the game is somehow bad but that is just being negative http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If I truthfully didn't give a monkeys about it, I wouldn't bother wasting my time making the point about it so often (irrespective of the fact that I like a good moan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

Anyway, I doubt that graphics will ULTIMATELY be more important than the FM but it's possible that they may be more important than they need to be IMO.

Enough said!

TheGozr
09-13-2006, 12:13 PM
Why Lutier talks about new BoB screenshot in an other forum that il2 related ?

sudoku1941
09-13-2006, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
I doubt that graphics will ULTIMATELY be more important than the FM but it's possible that they may be more important than they need to be IMO.


I feel that that's been the history of the series to date, and that's why I keep mentioning it. I see all evidence pointing to "eye candy at the expense of realism" modus operandi here as well.

Chuck_Older
09-13-2006, 12:22 PM
100% valid opinion and one with more than a little merit. Whatever yardstick anyone uses, we all know things could be more realistic

SkyChimp
09-13-2006, 12:28 PM
The Bf-109's paint was more durable than the Spitfire's due to the gludealmonomate additive. I hope Oleg modelled that, or there will be hell to pay.

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 12:30 PM
Is it true that they used to use Mer polish for buffing up 109s and 190s?

It's the dog's knackers for getting scratches out of car paintwork...I'm not sure how good it is on .50 cal holes, though.

Capt.England
09-13-2006, 01:10 PM
Blow the paint work and dirt, will this game be ported to the PS3?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Aaron_GT
09-13-2006, 01:50 PM
Graphics programmers are probably easier to find than ones with aeronautical experience. Also a rouble spent on graphics to give that 'wow' factor might sell more units than a rouble spent on FM or AI. Oleg's an aeronautical nut, but he still has a family to feed, and the games industry is a cruel mistress (I know some people who have worked in it) so he needs to shift product.

What I would hope for is a graphics engine more decoupled from the physics so it can be updated for a new 'wow' factor in the future to sell more units and thus free more of those roubles for the FM side of things.

LEXX_Luthor
09-13-2006, 02:08 PM
Skin Simulator?

CaptLoneRanger::
The better this game will look, the more people will give it a try and the more people will get to know this games by screenies, etc.
They may buy for the Screenies, watch paint dry, and soon stop playing the sim and never bother to buy future addons. That's what happened to Offline play customers of FB/PF -- failure to maintain customer interest. This is truly sad, as long term interested customers attract more customers in an endless, and profitable, positive feedback.

And not because of flight models (sorry Stiglr) or lack of PreFlight Procdure (sorry MS2004 simmers), but because of lack of Air War simulation for Offline play and Online War. Paint chips dynamically dry, or weather, or whatever, and aircraft contrails still vanish at the same 8 kilometer distance as in FB/PF...sorry but that's my fear here. A good minimum of 50 to 100 kilometers for contrail render distance is one of many essentials for a market success of a Battle of Britain Air War simulation.


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif SkyChimp::
The Bf-109's paint was more durable than the Spitfire's due to the gludealmonomate additive. I hope Oleg modelled that, or there will be hell to pay.
hehe Exactly! The effect of aircraft finish on flight performance. Wait until Oleg moves to 1944 West Europe and see a tiny number of webboard posters asking to be able to dynamically Polish their USAAF aluminumnum skins for better in-game flight performance....while the 95% of customers again abandon the sim. I hope its not like that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

karost
09-13-2006, 02:30 PM
eye-candy is a new feature , that is sure.

we have a dynamic wind in BOB that is cool,
so we still recover from spin at 500meter in BOB ?

dot visibility and eye-candy feature which one
is most want ?

when BOB release I hope we can turn off icon in
WC Server and enjoy this eye-candy feature http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

S!

LEXX_Luthor
09-13-2006, 02:39 PM
karost::

when BOB release I hope we can turn off icon in
WC Server and enjoy this eye-candy feature Big
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
You can't see the eye-candy because Text Icons cover it all up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Can cfs Developers *think* to make configurable target Icons that are simply customer configurable Dots? Dots are a form of icon, and Text Icons function as truly oversize dots that look embarassingly fake in a "realistic" simulator as text pasted on the sky.

carguy_
09-13-2006, 02:54 PM
Has just anyone thought about Oleg foreseeing that b!tching thing done bout you ppl here on da boards?

I mean there will be *****in whatever he does.If eyecandy is perfect,ppl will moan about P38 being too slow,if the FM is perfect ppl will moan bout flowers not being modelled on the grass.

So which is better market-wise?I say eyecandy because there are still ten times more eyecandy suckers playing games than full blown hardcore simmers.So if we have super eyecandy and not so good FM(like now) ppl will get over it and continue playing.If we have super FM with not so good eyecandy(bit better than now),the eyecandy suckers will leave sooner or later.
I`m a bit shocked that many folks here admit they prefer better graphics for more immersion over super FM.But that`s just the way it is.

Stiglr,I agree with you but listen man.NOBODY is going to follow your guidelines since you are in the minority.People have crappy dots now but they let it be since their plane looks sooooo purdy in externals.

Sometimes it is just better to either go with the flow or simply let it flow.

F6_Ace
09-13-2006, 03:10 PM
I moan in the vain hope that he will see what is posted and will consider it. Fair enough if he comes back and says, 'Look F6 tosspot - we simply don't have enough grunt to improve the flight models in the new engine because we've simply hit a processing brick wall where we will need a dedicated physics processor to advance so we've done our utmost to correct the roll and dive rates etc and we've utilised the spare capacity for adding eye candy that will allow us to sell some titles so we can work on a version of engine that uses proper physics in the future'

"Sometimes it is just better to either go with the flow or simply let it flow."

Yes, but if salmon thought like that, they'd be extinct.

carguy_
09-13-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Yes, but if salmon thought like that, they'd be extinct.

Heheh didn`t say I disagree,did I? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Eitherwise,it is strange that some planes are nearly perfectly modelled whereas some lack seriously.

sudoku1941
09-13-2006, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Has just anyone thought about Oleg foreseeing that b!tching thing done bout you ppl here on da boards?

I mean there will be *****in whatever he does.If eyecandy is perfect,ppl will moan about P38 being too slow,if the FM is perfect ppl will moan bout flowers not being modelled on the grass.

So which is better market-wise?I say eyecandy because there are still ten times more eyecandy suckers playing games than full blown hardcore simmers.So if we have super eyecandy and not so good FM(like now) ppl will get over it and continue playing.If we have super FM with not so good eyecandy(bit better than now),the eyecandy suckers will leave sooner or later.
I`m a bit shocked that many folks here admit they prefer better graphics for more immersion over super FM.But that`s just the way it is.

Stiglr,I agree with you but listen man.NOBODY is going to follow your guidelines since you are in the minority.People have crappy dots now but they let it be since their plane looks sooooo purdy in externals.

Sometimes it is just better to either go with the flow or simply let it flow.

Even if my opinion is in the minority, it's still valid. I will certainly never 'go with the flow' and cede the field to "the most popular" idea just because it's more popular.

That's called groupthink. Not for me. I prefer to think we can have a better product, and get a better combination/ratio of flight model and eye candy.

Chuck_Older
09-13-2006, 04:55 PM
Again, I'd like to try and banish the notion that there's a trade-off between graphics and flight modelling. Why can't you have high quality graphics and also have high quality FM? these are not mutually exclusive to me. It's not as if when the graphics 'slider' goes up, the FM 'slider' goes down

It's pretty hard to show a screenie of improved FM. And even if they could do that with a simple screenshot, the pretty graphics would be there. Let's please get away from good graphics=poor FM. That's a fallacious equation

The effects of paint wearing on the aircraft is...dare I say it? A step towards the immersion we've been panting for for literally years. I can't see this as anything other than a positive. When people want to see updates, what they mean is screenshots. How does a screenshot show FM? It's a pretty cockpit and I like it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Now let's see an E-3!

Airmail109
09-13-2006, 05:10 PM
. Why can't you have high quality graphics and also have high quality FM?


I get the feeling thats like me asking why cant i find a hot girl, who is also sane?

Viper2005_
09-13-2006, 05:33 PM
Interesting that you didn't ask for a sane girl who is also hot. Eye candy wins again!

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-13-2006, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
You're kidding me, right?

We'll have "dynamic weathering" so you can watch paint chipping happen as you fly... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but then, there's no news at all about any improvement to the flight modeling...

which essentially means you can "watch paint chip" while you watch any number of other bullsh*t results in the actual fighting. Like energy bleed, insta-gunners....

Hopefully some of this admittedly stunning pit detail will work its way past the pit and outward to the dots you may or may not see against the terrain as you try to make having altitude the advantage it should be...

WTG, team.... way to use those resources. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif [sarcasm]

Your whining about a flight model that you have not even tried or seen in action yet? Classic... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
09-13-2006, 05:50 PM
Hmm and I wonder why Oleg dont post here anymore? Im willing to bet it has nothing to do with him being busy. Everyone thinks he is so busy because he is a game programer. Please I and a lot of people here probably put in more hours a week then he. 10-12 hour days, wife and 4 kids, ball coach, gym time, and I still manage to have time to post here as Im sure Oleg does too.

No its not that. Its the simple fact that there is too many selfish whining ***holes, who thinks Oleg owes them something. Come on you whine about stuff that dont even exist yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Tater-SW-
09-13-2006, 05:52 PM
I don't see dynamic weathering as terribly immersive---realistic OUTCOMES are immersive. If they address it anything liek the way, say, ships sink, we'll be expected to watch the skins weather before our eyes. In reality, it'd be the kind of thing you'd not notice gradually happening. I notice when my car is dirty, but I don't watch each mote land on it. I'm not knocking it, but once created, that kind of eye candy (like sinking ships) tends to be tweaked towards the instant gratification arcade end of things.

Some eye candy would improve gameplay greatly. BIG, realistic, volumetric clouds that act like weather. With turbulence, too. That would help. Realistic view ranges---literally approaching 200 MILES for large smoke clouds (and the huge, billowing smoke clouds to go with it). That would be good. Dynamic weathering is way way down the list just compared to those 2.

Wake turbulence, etc.

<EDIT> part of the problem might also be one of language. When I hear "dynamic weathering" I assume they mean dynamic weathering, not a few precoded weathering layers. Bullets in Il-2 are dynamic. Perhaps dynamic was a poor choice of words for a far less dynamic system (will still look cool, but less overhead/work).

tater

ElAurens
09-13-2006, 06:35 PM
I love it. One frickin screenshot gets posted and some of you are ready to tear each other's throats out.

Amazing.

With the exception of Oleg, SaQSoN, Luthier, and maybe one or two others, no one on these boards has any clue what SOW: BOB will be like except that it will look stunning and have a very complex DM.

And Stiglr/sudoku/whateveryournameisthisweek, if you spent half as much time working on TW as you do biatching here, that title would be out of Beta by now. (Fat chance of that ever happening...).

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-13-2006, 06:37 PM
Tater:: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
I don't see dynamic weathering as terribly immersive---realistic OUTCOMES are immersive. If they address it anything liek the way, say, ships sink, we'll be expected to watch the skins weather before our eyes. In reality, it'd be the kind of thing you'd not notice gradually happening. I notice when my car is dirty, but I don't watch each mote land on it. I'm not knocking it, but once created, that kind of eye candy (like sinking ships) tends to be tweaked towards the instant gratification arcade end of things.

Some eye candy would improve gameplay greatly. BIG, realistic, volumetric clouds that act like weather. With turbulence, too. That would help. Realistic view ranges---literally approaching 200 MILES for large smoke clouds (and the huge, billowing smoke clouds to go with it). That would be good. Dynamic weathering is way way down the list just compared to those 2.

Wake turbulence, etc.

<EDIT> part of the problem might also be one of language. When I hear "dynamic weathering" I assume they mean dynamic weathering, not a few precoded weathering layers. Bullets in Il-2 are dynamic. Perhaps dynamic was a poor choice of words for a far less dynamic system (will still look cool, but less overhead/work).

tater

mmm, maybe they meant your skin ages a bit with each flight. Not in real time, but a little bit of skin ageing "between missions" as your campaign progresses, like how you age -- you don't see your skin ageing in the mirror in real time when you shave your face or LeGGs, well not normally, but you notice after a little while -- as every day of your life is a mission to survive. No matter, this won't be among the Air War simulation features needed to keep customers interested enough to keep playing the sim long enough to purchase later addons.

adlabs6
09-13-2006, 08:43 PM
I was having some similar thoughts on 'dynamic weathering'... things like, on a flight you might not watch paint chip off during battle, but rather such things as paint chips and engine exhaust would build up over longer times.

More importantly I was wondering how this system will change the way a skin artist thinks and works. Can you paint an aircraft from a few photos and weather the skin to match? Or will the 'dynamic weathering' pile on top of your own wear details? Then, what qualities will these 'dynamic' items have? I am reminded of the built-in national markings in IL2 and how they don't seem to blend into a skin well (though this might not be a problem with newer shaders in BoB).

That is why I asked Luthier in the thread for more details, since otherwise there are almost NONE. When a few words get mentioned and nothing more, they may give an incomplete or wrong picture about what's going on.

Aside from all this, Luthier notes that all these effects are OFF in the screenshot. At least a screen is out, maybe soon others will come that show off some of these new features.

VW-IceFire
09-13-2006, 09:21 PM
Right on adlabs...I think that we simply don't know enough to be able to see how this is going to work.

I know Oleg mentioned long ago when BoB was first announced that aircraft battle damage in single player careers would be carried through...so repairs would be somehow evident. Maybe this is how they intend to do it. For instance chipped and worn paint can reduce top speed by a fairly significant amount (I was surprised anyways).

sudoku1941
09-13-2006, 09:54 PM
Y'know, just the fact that you guys are talking so much about such a total picayune is distressing.

Who really cares if your front left leading edge of the wing drops paint over 5 sorties???? One can just as easily imagine you got a paint job in the intervening time, and then where's that leave you?

I'd rather see that attention to detail in the down-n-dirty maneuvering and battle.

Put that effort into "humanizing the gunners" such that they place damage in realistic patterns on attacking aircraft, and not either dead in the engine or through the pilot's forehead. And make it so that they're hanging on for dear life when their host aircraft is maneuvering hard, not making precision shooting exhibitions.

You want great eye candy? How about plane dots you can see, when you do a determined search, against terrain from realistic distances, no matter what your video card is (within reason)??? How about better simulated depth perception, like what the human eye has that enables you to spot a moving metal aircraft out of a backdrop of foliage? Sun glint off of planes? How about making an altitude perch the advantage it was in the real event; not requiring planes to drop down in the weeds with the other bottomfeeding morons before he can even see that there are 5 or 6 of them down there?

THAT'S worthwhile eye candy. Not high resolution relief tubes, simulated wrench wear on individual nuts and bolts and silly cr@p like that.

sudoku1941
09-13-2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Come on you whine about stuff that doesn't even exist yet. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Yeah, like a realistic flight model. Imagine that, in a combat flight sim... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

LEXX_Luthor
09-13-2006, 10:17 PM
mmm, the more I think, it does sound like a neat idea after all -- if you think about not just skin weathering, but general mechanical wear over operations, say if you fly many missions in a short time -- the Great Fighter Sweeps that wore down aircraft for example -- some of your aircraft starts to wear out and you either stand down and skip some missions or possibly suffer on operations. This would be particularly crucial in something like Pacific where, say for example, the Japanese suffered grewsome operational wear. Overall, this *is* something that might be wormed and twisted into contributing to a much larger Air War simulation....provided the AI also suffers mechanical wear, although on a more simplified level if needed, as the Offline player, or Online players among AI that fills out the ranks, can't be the ONLY pilot/pilots in the war with mechanically mortal aircraft. We shall see as more detail emerges about this.

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
Y'know, just the fact that you guys are talking so much about such a total picayune is distressing.

Who really cares if your front left leading edge of the wing drops paint over 5 sorties???? One can just as easily imagine you got a paint job in the intervening time, and then where's that leave you?

I'd rather see that attention to detail in the down-n-dirty maneuvering and battle.

Put that effort into "humanizing the gunners" such that they place damage in realistic patterns on attacking aircraft, and not either dead in the engine or through the pilot's forehead. And make it so that they're hanging on for dear life when their host aircraft is maneuvering hard, not making precision shooting exhibitions.

You want great eye candy? How about plane dots you can see, when you do a determined search, against terrain from realistic distances, no matter what your video card is (within reason)??? How about better simulated depth perception, like what the human eye has that enables you to spot a moving metal aircraft out of a backdrop of foliage? Sun glint off of planes? How about making an altitude perch the advantage it was in the real event; not requiring planes to drop down in the weeds with the other bottomfeeding morons before he can even see that there are 5 or 6 of them down there?

THAT'S worthwhile eye candy. Not high resolution relief tubes, simulated wrench wear on individual nuts and bolts and silly cr@p like that.

Can you tell me, please, why attention to paint weathering precludes attention to ANYthing else?

What you are telling me is that on one hand, this weathering effect is proof of a lack of something else in another area, and on the other, that the things you say are important are the actual important things, while nobody else has valid input (and by the way, seeing the effects of wear and tear on your aircraft certainly is an element of immersiveness. If you don't think so, then sorry, you're not paying close attention to much)

I'm a little tired of saying this in this thread, but again- your eyecandy bogeyman does not mean attention to anything else is neglected. You are jumping to conclusions and that's all the support you have for your comments like this:

"How about better simulated depth perception, like what the human eye has that enables you to spot a moving metal aircraft out of a backdrop of foliage? Sun glint off of planes? How about making an altitude perch the advantage it was in the real event; not requiring planes to drop down in the weeds with the other bottomfeeding morons before he can even see that there are 5 or 6 of them down there?"

the fact that dynamic weathering of aircraft will be present DOES NOT mean that these concerns of yours are being neglected. Do you understand?

Please give me the merest shred of proof that effects such as dynamic weathering of aircraft are taking away from even ONE aspect of the sim you are concerned about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
09-14-2006, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Can you tell me, please, why attention to paint weathering precludes attention to ANYthing else?

What you are telling me is that on one hand, this weathering effect is proof of a lack of something else in another area, and on the other, that the things you say are important are the actual important things, while nobody else has valid input (and by the way, seeing the effects of wear and tear on your aircraft certainly is an element of immersiveness. If you don't think so, then sorry, you're not paying close attention to much)

I'm a little tired of saying this in this thread, but again- your eyecandy bogeyman does not mean attention to anything else is neglected. You are jumping to conclusions and that's all the support you have for your comments like this:

"How about better simulated depth perception, like what the human eye has that enables you to spot a moving metal aircraft out of a backdrop of foliage? Sun glint off of planes? How about making an altitude perch the advantage it was in the real event; not requiring planes to drop down in the weeds with the other bottomfeeding morons before he can even see that there are 5 or 6 of them down there?"

the fact that dynamic weathering of aircraft will be present DOES NOT mean that these concerns of yours are being neglected. Do you understand?

Please give me the merest shred of proof that effects such as dynamic weathering of aircraft are taking away from even ONE aspect of the sim you are concerned about http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

ploughman
09-14-2006, 06:20 AM
In the absence of news about forthcoming releases, this forum appears to be eating itself.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

stathem
09-14-2006, 06:31 AM
Well, just so long as I don't have to eat Sudoku, I suspect the taste would be somewhat bitter.

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 06:37 AM
He's right to be concerned although he goes way too far with it. I just don't think predictions equal fact. if they did, I'd buy a ouija board and win the lottery!

Choctaw111
09-14-2006, 08:48 AM
No matter what Oleg does with BoB there will always be those that will complain. Had it been expressed that there had been extensive work done to the FM and screeshots were posted that did not look any better than Pacific Fighters you know that there would be some serious whining going on about that like "I think it's great that the FM has been improved but WHY don't the graphics look any better?".
For what it's worth I think Oleg and team are doing a GREAT job with it for what we do know so far. It is WAY TO SOON to start whining about something that is not even completed yet. We do not have enough hard facts to even complain about yet so please give it a rest. Wait for a while until we have something concrete to go with and then start with this whole debacle. Just my two cents.

Feathered_IV
09-14-2006, 08:56 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by TgD Thunderbolt56:
Can you tell me, please, why attention to paint weathering precludes attention to ANYthing else?



That's easy. History. Up til now, Oleg's track record suggests unequivically that the graphics will be stellar and the flight model full of holes. It's been shown and proven release after release, patch after patch. And the fact that the ONLY news coming out of the camp thus far is "graphics screenies" and descriptions of dynamic paint, and NO word on improvements to the flight model (besides the not-very-reassuring "The feel of flight will not change"), then YOU tell ME: what do YOU think is being planned for the flight model???

Since Oleg is such a genius, he must know that he's already the undisputed leader in graphics. And he must also know that his flight models are the weak point of the whole sim system.

So, being such a smart guy, where d'you think the lion's share of his effort should go in a new development?

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 10:35 AM
I posted that, T-bolt quoted me, leave him out of it


You are telling me that the past events in il-2, FB and PF prove the future events in BoB

I am saying, once again, that your concerns are well founded but they do not prove that attention to graphical detail in a screenshot shown as an example of new developments is an indication that your concerns are borne out

The lack of info on FM proves a lack of info, not a deficiency in FM. You are 100% correct to voice concerns but your fears prove <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">zilch</span> except that you have cause for concern. But cause is ALL it is. You are telling me that this screenshot indicates that nothing learned from any source in all the time Il-2, FB and PF has been out will be acted upon.

You place great powers of divination on this screenshot. What black magic do you use to derive these megrims and vapors? You are guessing and supposing and predicting! None of these guesses or suppositions or predictions means squat other than this is your opinion

You are free to have your opinion. I want you to have it! But don't tell me about X Y and Z as if you know what's being screwed up in BoB simply because you're disappointed in the last sim and you 'can tell' the same thing is going to happen

You're also pulling the "Oleg's a genius" rabbit out of the "fanboi hat", which pardon me for saying, is the last weak shot from a bastion of indefensiblity


BTW, I know you're not Stiglr. He directs his replies squarely at his recipients, not through a third partyy, and he always could see reason even if he disagreed. You ain't him

Pollack2006
09-14-2006, 10:37 AM
The new game may not even be in a flyable state yet so any announcments about the flight model would be purely speculative. If Oleg starts rattling off theoretical facts, figures and features before the game is in a fit state to judge their efficacy or inclusion then there'd be a lot more gnashing of teeth on release.

So, at the moment we're stuck with screenshots and no amount of salve will dispel someone's worries about whether E-retention (or whatever the latest cause celebre is) is modelled correctly.

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 10:43 AM
that your concerns are well founded but they do not prove...

Fine. I'm glad you at least understand that much. Because I didn't post this as a FACT, I posted it as a concern, and possibly a prediction. You admit that it's a viable concern.

Mission accomplished.


The lack of info on FM proves a lack of info, not a deficiency in FM.

The deficiency in FM is the status quo, m'man. See other posts on these forums for all kinds of proof on that. And, as we're discussing the likelihood that this will or won't improve, well, the lack of info from the developers, to my mind at least, presages the distinct possibility that there won't BE any.

Also, despite your quick nod to "I want you to have your opinion", why is it you get so worked up when I express it? Your entire argument (a fallacious one, at that) is that somehow I'm presenting opinion as fact. I'm presenting opinion as opinion. You can't even come up with a good counter to it, so you try to misrepresent it as something it's not. You need to work more on your reasoning and debating skills, and less on your "avatar identity sleuthing". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As for you, Pollack, can you perhaps admit that ONE SINGLE TIDBIT on flight model improvements might be a good thing, a good sign?

As for proper E retention and other holes in the FM, I'd be VERY glad to see them get fixed. Wouldn't you?

carguy_
09-14-2006, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
That's easy. History. Up til now, Oleg's track record suggests unequivically that the graphics will be stellar and the flight model full of holes. It's been shown and proven release after release, patch after patch. And the fact that the ONLY news coming out of the camp thus far is "graphics screenies" and descriptions of dynamic paint, and NO word on improvements to the flight model (besides the not-very-reassuring "The feel of flight will not change"), then YOU tell ME: what do YOU think is being planned for the flight model???


No word about FM can mean anything really...even that Oleg is keeping that secret from competition.About BoB going the same way as IL2 it is not very likely.Go back to as what IL2 started,which way changes went.IL2 code has many restrictions still present.Few of them were eliminated in FB/PF development.So some limitations will not change,because the engine is still more or less what it was back in 2001.

BoB uses a different engine all the way.This means that its limitations are still for us to notice.For sure most IL2 engine limitations have or will be overcome until BoB goes gold.Thus any possible "root flaws" that determine the whole path the sim goes are still not known.Hence we cannot say BoB will share any of the bad sides IL2 has.


On the other hand,if we are to be sure it doesn`t correspond with IL2 old "root flaws",we should make suggestions and type out as much hard flaws and limitations in IL2 engine as possible.Just to avoid the bad feeling when being outzoomed by a plane that irl had worse zooming capabilities.

That is most we can do IMO.

So posting concerns and errors - yes.Bashing a sim that is in pre alpha stage - no.

ElAurens
09-14-2006, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:

You want great eye candy? How about plane dots you can see, when you do a determined search, against terrain from realistic distances, no matter what your video card is (within reason)??? How about better simulated depth perception, like what the human eye has that enables you to spot a moving metal aircraft out of a backdrop of foliage? Sun glint off of planes? How about making an altitude perch the advantage it was in the real event; not requiring planes to drop down in the weeds with the other bottomfeeding morons before he can even see that there are 5 or 6 of them down there?



Sounds like a request for better eye candy to me.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 10:51 AM
Isnt that shot a Hurricane and not a SPitfire?

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:

You want great eye candy? How about plane dots you can see, when you do a determined search, against terrain from realistic distances, no matter what your video card is (within reason)??? How about better simulated depth perception, like what the human eye has that enables you to spot a moving metal aircraft out of a backdrop of foliage? Sun glint off of planes? How about making an altitude perch the advantage it was in the real event; not requiring planes to drop down in the weeds with the other bottomfeeding morons before he can even see that there are 5 or 6 of them down there?



Sounds like a request for better eye candy to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is. Nothing is wrong with eye candy per se. It's the best application of the effort that's the issue. Peeling paint is completely unimportant. Being able to see the enemy is as important as having the guns to shoot him with. Now perhaps you begin to see the Dev Team's completly misdirected priorities.

crazyivan1970
09-14-2006, 11:02 AM
Stig, no worries mate, i gotcha!! Targetware forever dude! Yea!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">that your concerns are well founded but they do not prove...

Fine. I'm glad you at least understand that much. Because I didn't post this as a FACT, I posted it as a concern, and possibly a prediction. You admit that it's a viable concern.

Mission accomplished.


The lack of info on FM proves a lack of info, not a deficiency in FM.

The deficiency in FM is the status quo, m'man. See other posts on these forums for all kinds of proof on that. And, as we're discussing the likelihood that this will or won't improve, well, the lack of info from the developers, to my mind at least, presages the distinct possibility that there won't BE any.

Also, despite your quick nod to "I want you to have your opinion", why is it you get so worked up when I express it? Your entire argument (a fallacious one, at that) is that somehow I'm presenting opinion as fact. I'm presenting opinion as opinion. You can't even come up with a good counter to it, so you try to misrepresent it as something it's not. You need to work more on your reasoning and debating skills, and less on your "avatar identity sleuthing". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

As for you, Pollack, can you perhaps admit that ONE SINGLE TIDBIT on flight model improvements might be a good thing, a good sign?

As for proper E retention and other holes in the FM, I'd be VERY glad to see them get fixed. Wouldn't you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been defending your points throughout this thread- read it and see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif . Far from a quick nod to allowing your opinion, I've been backing up your right to it all through this thread even as I've disagreed with you


You know exactly what I'm on about. You keep saying that evidence from the past proves X Y and Z. Well it doesn't. It proves a trend, it proves a cause for concern- which I have been saying right along with you- and it proves what happened in the past. It proves nothing about the future except your fears.

I'm also trying to dispell the illusion you cling to that says that pretty graphics means lack of attention in other areas. I've been saying the whole time that we should demand both. Somehow, I get the idea that you have been skipping all my posts except the ones you feel you can reply to.

This sums up your standpoint:

"It's the best application of the effort that's the issue. Peeling paint is completely unimportant. Being able to see the enemy is as important as having the guns to shoot him with. Now perhaps you begin to see the Dev Team's completly misdirected priorities"

You behave as if you know that this is their #1 priority. This is the thing they showed you, not the most important thing they do

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 11:20 AM
Some guy gives his opinon to Game Dev.

Game Dev doesnt buy into his banter.

Guy gets offended and takes the opportunity to **** of Game Dev as often as he can. Also trying to convert people to largely inferior open source flight game, but which contain his settings/flight models.


Its getting a little tired.

faustnik
09-14-2006, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Some guy gives his opinon to Game Dev.

Game Dev doesnt buy into his banter.

Guy gets offended and takes the opportunity to **** of Game Dev as often as he can.

Its getting a little tired.

It's the same old story. My favorite is always:

My favorite plane is easy to get kills in, Oleg made a great sim.

and

My favorite plane is hard to get kills in, Oleg made a bad game.

Xiolablu3
09-14-2006, 11:29 AM
Lol I just came back to edit that post, as I htought it was a bit nasty.

I cant now, as you quoted it! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Nevermind http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I understand that not all flight models can be right, but Oleg must be pretty damn sure before he changes things.

Pollack2006
09-14-2006, 11:33 AM
As for you, Pollack, can you perhaps admit that ONE SINGLE TIDBIT on flight model improvements might be a good thing, a good sign?

Sure it would. The more info the better. But this doesn't necessarily mean "the less info...we should be worried". Also, the inclusion of that Yakolev(?) sportster tells me they are at least very confident of the new engine's abilities....it's a ballsy move.

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 11:53 AM
Well as far as new FM info goes, we all know, and have known for a long time, that elements of the BoB FM have been implemented in FB/PF.

The doom and gloomers like to point to the incorrect FM and say this is proof the BoB FM is 'wrong'. What they don't like to hear is that new FM elements do not equal the new FM

What you see in this FM are some parts of the new FM that this sim can support, not the new FM. Oleg told us long ago that this sim is now a testbed for BoB, have we forgotten that?

Specifically, news about the new FM is scarce. However, we know that thermal layers are reported to be featured- this can also be assumed to mean things like the boundary layer over a blacktop runway? I don't know but it seems logical

Other new weather features are reported to be modelled. This can also affect FM

We know the "feeling" of flight will not change "too" much. This is a pretty cut and dried statement that some people have turned into "The FM hasn't changed in BoB", which is an alarmist spin on what was really reported

We know that Oleg posted this:

"O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect.."

This has been discussed and dissected, my interepretation is that they know the FM is not perfect, corrections made to it will not ruin the feeling of flight (this is NOT FM!), and that they are avoiding the pitfalls and shortcomings of FB's engine (which we know has been pushed past what can be expected of it) by making a new one- essentially, they are learning from the mistakes in FB/PF

We don't know much, but we can find clues, all the same

F6_Ace
09-14-2006, 12:07 PM
that Oleg is keeping that secret from competition

There is no competition to keep it from(!)

F6_Ace
09-14-2006, 12:22 PM
"O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect.."

This has been discussed and dissected, my interepretation is that they know the FM is not perfect, corrections made to it will not ruin the feeling of flight (this is NOT FM!), and that they are avoiding the pitfalls and shortcomings of FB's engine (which we know has been pushed past what can be expected of it) by making a new one- essentially, they are learning from the mistakes in FB/PF

So, you are saying the same thing that sudoku and I effectively are? i.e. Oleg thinks that the game is as close to reality already (which it isn't judging by the amount of evidence regarding dive, roll, climb etc) but that you hope that the problem areas are addressed.

At least, that's certainly what I was saying....but in the context of hoping that more attention was paid to those small but rather important flight model details rather than, frankly, unimportant weathering effects. Yes, yes, attention to detail like that is nice to have...but, like I said earlier, they are not must haves. And the concern is that the must haves will be neglected (not ARE neglected, but COULD BE neglected) at the expense of the nice to haves.

This isn't directed entirely at you, Chuck - it's just to make a point as clearly no one is listening to sudoku for 'reasons of polarity' brought upon by 'posting history'

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
You keep saying that evidence from the past proves X Y and Z.

No, I don't say "prove". I say "leads one to extrapolate and predict".

Your lack of comprehension, and your "reading things into" what people post is your blindspot here.

Also, F6_Ace brings up a totally valid point: that of people openly attacking (or trying to attack) what I post based on the avatar rather than the content of the post. Pretty silly tactic, really. Don't like the message, so shoot the messenger.

But, you can't discredit the message, can you? Well, tough. You'll just have to suck it up and live with the fact that I just might have a point. Perhaps you can redirect that anger towards Oleg, and join me in requesting a better flight model, and by extention a better product.

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect.."

This has been discussed and dissected, my interepretation is that they know the FM is not perfect, corrections made to it will not ruin the feeling of flight (this is NOT FM!), and that they are avoiding the pitfalls and shortcomings of FB's engine (which we know has been pushed past what can be expected of it) by making a new one- essentially, they are learning from the mistakes in FB/PF

So, you are saying the same thing that sudoku and I effectively are? i.e. Oleg thinks that the game is as close to reality already (which it isn't judging by the amount of evidence regarding dive, roll, climb etc) but that you hope that the problem areas are addressed.

At least, that's certainly what I was saying....but in the context of hoping that more attention was paid to those small but rather important flight model details rather than, frankly, unimportant weathering effects. Yes, yes, attention to detail like that is nice to have...but, like I said earlier, they are not must haves. And the concern is that the must haves will be neglected (not ARE neglected, but COULD BE neglected) at the expense of the nice to haves.

This isn't directed entirely at you, Chuck - it's just to make a point as clearly no one is listening to sudoku for 'reasons of polarity' brought upon by 'posting history' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I€m not sure what you€re asking me. I€ve never taken the standpoint that this sim is correct in modeling- no sim is. Is this one close? I take the word of people who say €œyes€, and who have the experience to back it up, such as real pilots. Some say it€s not close to real, too. But since other real pilots say it is, I take what each says and sift it for the hallmarks of what I feel is right in regards to what they say, and what I know. Too many in the €œno€ crowd also give out sour grapes, for me to side with them on much

We all know too well that this sim cuts some corners, just like any other, but to us, perhaps, the sim€s rough edges are more irritating because of the length of time they have gone without attention- realistic aspects of flight from real aircraft are missing in some cases. I can name plenty of discrepancies

The evidence I see is that with each update, some things evolve. Some are better and a few are worse in my opinion, but they evolve. I don€t see this as a willy-nilly passion for change to suit a political or ideological preference (€œOleg hates blue!€), I see this as the latest line of reasoning from the dev team, on how to interpret FM data

I see, very clearly, that the exact same set of raw numbers and equations used in this sim, will behave differently in another. I also see clearly that BoB is using a new engine. What can I deduce other than that given this evolutionary trend, that the new engine is designed with the intention of avoiding the problems of the old one?

I think that gameplay, in regards to being able to actually use the assets of the aircraft historically, is paramount. I think that concern should be shown over how modeling is done, and to what end changes are made. But I do not think something like paint weathering is unimportant, and I€ll tell you why

One aspect of BoB will be the history of individual aircraft- if you take up Spit 3495 on a sortie and it gets aileron damage, the sim knows that the next time you fly. Why then should airframe history be unimportant? A battered old patched up kite may be prone to structural failure. This is a leap into immersiveness that no sim to my knowledge has even considered. Each plane is NOT as good as the next of the same type

With that type of attention to detail, why should a graphical representation of routine wear and tear not be exciting? What aircraft lover does not know that planes wear and paint chips and that oil stains and streaks and worn old paint was the order of the day, and that planes lead hard lives in WWII? Why shouldn€t any lover of the aesthetics of these planes not thrill to the idea of paint wear? If they can do it, fantastic! The devil lives in the details they say. What a feature! Undreamt of, at least for me, to have this level of detail. Why cannot a fun cool aspect like this have it€s place? I think taking steps towards immersion is important. If it wasn€t, I could argue that Aces over Europe€s graphics were just fine, gimme great FM and draw distance with those blocky cockpits and single-color aircraft and I€ll be happy as a pig in a privy. But I can€t. I demand high quality EVERYthing. I think everything€s important and should be done to the best of their ability. If the best of their ability means dynamic paint wear, then settling for the best is something I€m prepared to do!

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 01:11 PM
Also, Older, you are ignoring some fairly obvious facts and attendant assumptions...

One, since SoW has been touted as the 'next iteration' of IL-2, one could rightfully assume that major chunks of the code, for flight AND graphics are going to form the basis of it. Now, seeing as you quote Oleg's team as saying,


Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language.

OK, so don't you think that, if it's so different, how it might improve the overall flight model might be worth a few hundred words or so over the course of several months? Instead we hear almost NOTHING. And thermal layers; pfft; that's an environmental effect. How about things that affect how the planes handle their energy, not just some canned effects that cause them to be jostled around the sky? (predicition: the thermals will be a collection of canned "jostle factor" that will be as much an eye candy effect as the engine-ingition "wing dip" that was supposed to be torque in PF.)

Two, we have a rather long, 5+-year history of IL-2 and its family that show us that more attention is paid to graphic improvements (ones that IMO, are really not necessary or even valuable, given that the overall graphics are already excellent, and always have been) than to the FMs, which have frankly NEVER been superior. And, even the parts of the GRAPHICS that are most important to actual combat (e.g., dots and contrast with terrain) have been ignored, poorly treated or botched.

stathem
09-14-2006, 01:15 PM
Anyway, back on topic, I dreamt of 5 Mk I's taking off side-by-side....

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
You keep saying that evidence from the past proves X Y and Z.

No, I don't say "prove". I say "leads one to extrapolate and predict".

Your lack of comprehension, and your "reading things into" what people post is your blindspot here.

Also, F6_Ace brings up a totally valid point: that of people openly attacking (or trying to attack) what I post based on the avatar rather than the content of the post. Pretty silly tactic, really. Don't like the message, so shoot the messenger.

But, you can't discredit the message, can you? Well, tough. You'll just have to suck it up and live with the fact that I just might have a point. Perhaps you can redirect that anger towards Oleg, and join me in requesting a better flight model, and by extention a better product. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Don€t you dare try to sell me that bill of goods. This is quite enough. You do not mention predictions, you speak in definites. Shall I begin to quote you again? I suppose I must. Here€s one, to El:

€œNow perhaps you begin to see the dev team€s completely misguided priorities€

Here€s another:
€œWTG team €¦way to use those resources€

You€re telling someone that you know what their priorities are. Not that you guess or predict, that you know. Stop this nonsense, I€m not going to be a part of this fantasy with you, it€s insulting of you to expect me to swallow this hook. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

faustnik
09-14-2006, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:


Two, we have a rather long, 5+-year history of IL-2 and its family that show us that more attention is paid to graphic improvements than to the FMs, which have frankly NEVER been superior.

I have to disagree with you here Stig. There have been attempts to improve FMs. A lot of work went into modeling inertia and torque in the 4.0 series of patches.

tomtheyak
09-14-2006, 01:35 PM
Chuck i'm all the way behind you man.

Sudoku/Stigler why dont you shut the hell up.

Chuck and I and a HELLUVA lot of others round here know FB-AEP-PF well and love it as we do a good friend; we understand its foibles and deficiencies cos they exacerbate us as much as they do you.

I dont feel the need to burst into prolonged typings of the many faults I find in the game, but you know what? Like a good friend you live with what you dislike because the pro's of the relationship FAR outweigh the cons.

You remember CFS2 - perhaps u never had the misfortune to own it. Compared to what we have now its a dog but I enjoyed it at the time.

Why?

COS THEN - AS NOW - IT WAS THE CLOSEST I CAN GET TO DOING AIR COMBAT.

NOT EXACT.

NOT PERFECT.

BUT CLOSE.

YET.... steps are being taken to improve on it, yet you still barge in here naysaying and spreading malcontent (a habit of yours it seems - what exactly ARE you doing in these forums????).

With your past record of "constructive critism" (yeah, bout as constructive as my hairy red behind) you are the LAST person to lecture Chuck on objectivism. If you actually ever read any of chucks other contributions to this forum you'll find he (as many) have the ability to look upon the warts of this sim with a patient and forgiving eye and similarly have the nous to hold judgement on what is yet to pass.

Evidence is the key. You have none (as per bloody usual). Why dont you bog off and leave us well-mannered types to discuss the future possibilties of BoB in peace.

Sheesh.

tomtheyak
09-14-2006, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:


Two, we have a rather long, 5+-year history of IL-2 and its family that show us that more attention is paid to graphic improvements than to the FMs, which have frankly NEVER been superior.



Just saw this...

WHAT A STEAMING PILE OF PUTRID HORSE MANURE.

You must have the virtual pilot sensitivity/skills of a paraplegic dead rhino not to have even noticed the FM changes.

What a grade A moron.

stathem
09-14-2006, 01:45 PM
...and a Lerche with X-4s.

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 01:59 PM
@Tom the Yak...

well, it looks like the brainless pom-pom brigade has decided to weigh in.

http://www.ipsumdolor.net/screenies/cheerldr.JPG

No evidence? Pffft; you must be the "see no evidence" monkey in disguise, mate. Do some reading around this forum. There's plenty of evidence that the flight model is well off.

Your comparison with CFS3 is irrelevant. IL-2's FM is, in fact, better than many sims that had gone before it. But that doesn't mean that it is accurate itself, does it? And that doesn't mean the dev team can't put more effort into improving what are fairly evident holes, does it?

Your raving about your "hairy red behind" only suggests to me that your head is firmly shoved up it. Getting mad only proves to anyone following this discussion that you're losing the debate...and that you have nothing to add yourself. So, why don't you bow out now and let the adults handle this, hmmm?

Chuck H. can do a much better job of defending himself than addlebrained YOU.

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:

I have to disagree with you here Stig. There have been attempts to improve FMs. A lot of work went into modeling inertia and torque in the 4.0 series of patches.

And in all those patches, they still haven't come CLOSE to getting it right, have they? You've seen how drastic some of the whipsawing changes have been. Because they put all their dev effort into more eye candy. Exactly my point. Misuse of resources. Poor prioritization.

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sudoku1941:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
You keep saying that evidence from the past proves X Y and Z.

No, I don't say "prove". I say "leads one to extrapolate and predict".

Your lack of comprehension, and your "reading things into" what people post is your blindspot here.

Also, F6_Ace brings up a totally valid point: that of people openly attacking (or trying to attack) what I post based on the avatar rather than the content of the post. Pretty silly tactic, really. Don't like the message, so shoot the messenger.

But, you can't discredit the message, can you? Well, tough. You'll just have to suck it up and live with the fact that I just might have a point. Perhaps you can redirect that anger towards Oleg, and join me in requesting a better flight model, and by extention a better product. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Don€t you dare try to sell me that bill of goods. This is quite enough. You do not mention predictions, you speak in definites. Shall I begin to quote you again? I suppose I must. Here€s one, to El:

€œNow perhaps you begin to see the dev team€s completely misguided priorities€

Here€s another:
€œWTG team €¦way to use those resources€

You€re telling someone that you know what their priorities are. Not that you guess or predict, that you know. Stop this nonsense, I€m not going to be a part of this fantasy with you, it€s insulting of you to expect me to swallow this hook. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif Did you actually stamp your foot when you typed out that "don't you dare..."? ROFL. Your indignation is comic.

Once again, I'm extrapolating based on what we've come to expect. Over the five years of IL-2's existence we've seen tons of waxing (and megabytes of screenies) about the graphics, and much, much less about improving the accuracy of the flight modeling (or proving the accuracy of what was released to the public). And, while many of the attempts to improve eye candy have proven successful, the attempts to tighten up the flight model have been spotty at best. Again, witness the whipsawing capabilities of some planes. No sim EVER has seen the same plane types change capabilities so vastly from one patch to another.

Stop focusing on these "absolutes" like PROVE and FACT and stay on topic with what we all know to be expectations, wishes and predictions.

Nobody's claiming to be omnipotent here... and, the one who likely DOES know some of the answers, well... he's been rather silent now, hasn't he?

tomtheyak
09-14-2006, 02:21 PM
Well, Sudoku, IF reasoned arguement actaully worked with you I'd have tried it but time and experience shows otherwise.

Now I'm insulting you - not cos I have no intelligent riposte to your inane attacking of this sim at every opportunity but simply cos I'm hoping you'll F**K OFF and leave us alone.

Funny thing is we agree on most of the issues you raise - I think we all do. You just come across like some superior up-himself ponce.

Run back to targetware, moan there. I have no more time for your belly-aching.

PS - I was actually interested in TW till you got hi-&-mighty about it v. FB - seems ur personality aint selling it much to most round these parts.

Have a nice life, forgive me if I see you burning omn the street I dont urinate on ya! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

marc_hawkins
09-14-2006, 02:26 PM
never mind him, posted in this SimHQ thread: http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....c;f=144;t=006127;p=3 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=006127;p=3)

is a link to this:

http://www.redrodgers.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=2933&cat=500&ppuser=193

sweet.

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Well, Sudoku, IF reasoned arguement actaully worked with you I'd have tried it but time and experience shows otherwise.

Now I'm insulting you - not cos I have no intelligent riposte to your inane attacking of this sim at every opportunity but simply cos I'm hoping you'll F**K OFF and leave us alone.

No, it's exactly because you don't have an "intelligent reposte", and because you have nothing of value to say, and because you can't defeat my logic, that you just get mad and start cursing and spitting and flailing about. And, what you may not see is, it is YOU who looks more the ***.


Funny thing is we agree on most of the issues you raise - I think we all do. You just come across like some superior up-himself ponce.

Hmm...I see more posts here defending the eye candy than those agreeing with me. And, if I am right, why not admit that and side with me?


Run back to targetware, moan there. I have no more time for your belly-aching.

PS - I was actually interested in TW till you got hi-&-mighty about it v. FB - seems ur personality aint selling it much to most round these parts.

No need to "run" anywhere. And besides, at TW, there's no need to argue so vociferously for improvement; it's pretty much a core value there.

As for your "I was interested in TW until..." bullsh*t, yeah right; you'll let HORRIBLE OLD ME limit your choices because you don't "like my style"?? Pfft; more like, "I can't handle a more realistic flight sim", or "I can't see past eye candy, and never gave TW a chance". At least be truthful, huh?

And, I have seen a number of IL-2 converts to TW, so I already know that what I post here does have a positive effect, possibly for both sims. And y'know what? There's bugger all you can do about it.

Now that you've been verbally spanked once again, you may now politely get to stepping yourself.

tomtheyak
09-14-2006, 02:57 PM
Pssst... Did you guys hear something...?

It sounded like a faint repetititve annoying little rasp....

No? Guess I've just got a spot of wind!

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:

posturing and back-pedalling



Keep repeating how you've just presented prediction. Maybe somebody will beleive it, but I advise you to start editting your previous posts so that you appear to have actually done as you claim

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 03:28 PM
C'mon, Chuck, get off this kick you're on.

It's about more than semantic differences between "fact and opinion", or "prediction vs. history" or any of that.

Do I have valid points about the flight model. You admitted such.

Do I have a legitimate concern that not enough attention is being put into fixing said flight model...based on the history of the IL-2 product? Yes, I do.

So, what's there to argue about? Or perhaps you're hoping that by deflecting the discussion into something irrelevant, the problem will go away? I dunno, but you're really wasting time with your thrust of logic up to this point.

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 03:46 PM
Now that you've strung this along this far, you expect me to discuss?

Ask somebody to explain to you why I will not do any such thing

carguy_
09-14-2006, 03:58 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
But, you can't discredit the message, can you? Well, tough. You'll just have to suck it up and live with the fact that I just might have a point. Perhaps you can redirect that anger towards Oleg, and join me in requesting a better flight model, and by extention a better product.

http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/mwahah.jpg

Chuck_Older
09-14-2006, 03:59 PM
You're not my father. That's impossible

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 04:14 PM
Expectantly awaiting the tortured,

"Nooooooooooo....!!!"

line.

stanford-ukded
09-14-2006, 04:17 PM
Anyyyyyyyyyyyyyyway, back to the point.

http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?t=11530

Has been updated again by Veta - BoB screenshots of weather, spits taking off (albeit all very poor). Scroll to bottom of page one for Veta's post.

F6_Ace
09-14-2006, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect.."

This has been discussed and dissected, my interepretation is that they know the FM is not perfect, corrections made to it will not ruin the feeling of flight (this is NOT FM!), and that they are avoiding the pitfalls and shortcomings of FB's engine (which we know has been pushed past what can be expected of it) by making a new one- essentially, they are learning from the mistakes in FB/PF

So, you are saying the same thing that sudoku and I effectively are? i.e. Oleg thinks that the game is as close to reality already (which it isn't judging by the amount of evidence regarding dive, roll, climb etc) but that you hope that the problem areas are addressed.

At least, that's certainly what I was saying....but in the context of hoping that more attention was paid to those small but rather important flight model details rather than, frankly, unimportant weathering effects. Yes, yes, attention to detail like that is nice to have...but, like I said earlier, they are not must haves. And the concern is that the must haves will be neglected (not ARE neglected, but COULD BE neglected) at the expense of the nice to haves.

This isn't directed entirely at you, Chuck - it's just to make a point as clearly no one is listening to sudoku for 'reasons of polarity' brought upon by 'posting history' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I€m not sure what you€re asking me. I€ve never taken the standpoint that this sim is correct in modeling- no sim is. Is this one close? I take the word of people who say €œyes€, and who have the experience to back it up, such as real pilots. Some say it€s not close to real, too. But since other real pilots say it is, I take what each says and sift it for the hallmarks of what I feel is right in regards to what they say, and what I know. Too many in the €œno€ crowd also give out sour grapes, for me to side with them on much

We all know too well that this sim cuts some corners, just like any other, but to us, perhaps, the sim€s rough edges are more irritating because of the length of time they have gone without attention- realistic aspects of flight from real aircraft are missing in some cases. I can name plenty of discrepancies

The evidence I see is that with each update, some things evolve. Some are better and a few are worse in my opinion, but they evolve. I don€t see this as a willy-nilly passion for change to suit a political or ideological preference (€œOleg hates blue!€), I see this as the latest line of reasoning from the dev team, on how to interpret FM data

I see, very clearly, that the exact same set of raw numbers and equations used in this sim, will behave differently in another. I also see clearly that BoB is using a new engine. What can I deduce other than that given this evolutionary trend, that the new engine is designed with the intention of avoiding the problems of the old one?

I think that gameplay, in regards to being able to actually use the assets of the aircraft historically, is paramount. I think that concern should be shown over how modeling is done, and to what end changes are made. But I do not think something like paint weathering is unimportant, and I€ll tell you why

One aspect of BoB will be the history of individual aircraft- if you take up Spit 3495 on a sortie and it gets aileron damage, the sim knows that the next time you fly. Why then should airframe history be unimportant? A battered old patched up kite may be prone to structural failure. This is a leap into immersiveness that no sim to my knowledge has even considered. Each plane is NOT as good as the next of the same type

With that type of attention to detail, why should a graphical representation of routine wear and tear not be exciting? What aircraft lover does not know that planes wear and paint chips and that oil stains and streaks and worn old paint was the order of the day, and that planes lead hard lives in WWII? Why shouldn€t any lover of the aesthetics of these planes not thrill to the idea of paint wear? If they can do it, fantastic! The devil lives in the details they say. What a feature! Undreamt of, at least for me, to have this level of detail. Why cannot a fun cool aspect like this have it€s place? I think taking steps towards immersion is important. If it wasn€t, I could argue that Aces over Europe€s graphics were just fine, gimme great FM and draw distance with those blocky cockpits and single-color aircraft and I€ll be happy as a pig in a privy. But I can€t. I demand high quality EVERYthing. I think everything€s important and should be done to the best of their ability. If the best of their ability means dynamic paint wear, then settling for the best is something I€m prepared to do! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take your point - I don't think we're too far apart on our view of the game as it stands and I think we both agree that attention to detail is nice but as long as it is applied in the relevant areas.

I'm not going to worry about going further off topic as it's pretty far gone as it is but your post raises another concern - if we do have dynamic weathering and damage models that carry over, these things are going to require more testing time in order to verify that they work and that they are reasonable. From past experience, the PF game engine is rock solid (it has crashed a handful of times on me since the days of the demo) but the checking of game 'entities' hasn't always been quite so good; for example some of the DM see-sawing. I could be optimistic and say that it'll all come out in the wash...and I'm pretty sure it will - the only (negative hat on) question is how many iterations it will take to get there. i.e. As a firmware engineer myself, I understand how complex and time consuming testing of even relatively simple products is so I trust BoB will be a success because the step-change increase in complexity is going to require a corresponding increase in testing and validation...and that takes more time and money (unless there is an army of qualified unpaid volunteers).

Regardless, we'll find out what, if anything, is wrong at some point and it won't make a iota of difference talking about it on these boards because they may as well not exist(!)

sudoku1941
09-14-2006, 05:03 PM
is going to require a corresponding increase in testing and validation...and that takes time and money (unless there is an army of "qualified" unpaid volunteers).


Well, Oleg's had that before...the initial version and at least one other major release after that used player beta testers.

Unfortunately, it was so controlled by the dev team that they would ignore valid problems simply because they were outside the very narrow scope of issues they "wanted to hear about".

In their defense, the time pressure and pressure from Ubi to make a release date probably forced them to use this strategy...

but it also meant that some valid concerns and many a good suggestion were just ignored when they could have been improved upon in the beta testing phase.


...and, this topic hasn't gone off target. We're still discussing news about new features and what to expect in BoB.