PDA

View Full Version : I'm really frustrated by don't read any news from B.O.B...



grecobd
07-14-2006, 06:05 AM
It's hard to understand why so little news and screen shots about this game.

zaelu
07-14-2006, 07:10 AM
Cause even for a good game "the hype" is bad.


Also check simHq for the second interview with Oleg about BoB. (if you didn't check it already)

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 08:28 AM
Get a chill pill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Choctaw111
07-14-2006, 09:18 AM
Here is the link to the thread about the interview...
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/9861044164

knightflyte
07-14-2006, 09:27 AM
It's like the month before XMAS for a 6 year old. He excitedly waits for the man in the red suit.....but it seems to take forever.

papotex
07-14-2006, 01:49 PM
spoiled kid http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Troll2k
07-14-2006, 04:20 PM
Despite what Ubi stated about BoB being released in Nov.2006 do not expect to see it until March 2007.

Jaws2002
07-14-2006, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by Troll2k:
Despite what Ubi stated about BoB being released in Nov.2006 do not expect to see it until March 2007.

Demo in march and the retail version April-May. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


I think any time frame is posible. Even November this year. Let's not forget, the work on BOB did not start last nigh. It was in developement for quite some time. There were people at Maddox games working on it for long time. Even before the Paciffic fighters.

sunshine_836
07-14-2006, 06:41 PM
Long time reader, first time to post. I am also fustrated about very little news. But at the same time it excites me that Oleg is so scared to show his cards. I'm not sure who or where, but there has got to be some serious competition in the works. Oleg and team has done a great job in the past and I am sure they will with BoB, but serious competition in this genre will only help us all. Who knows, we might even get an American plane worth flying.

heywooood
07-15-2006, 09:50 AM
nice first post http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif 100%

mazexx
07-15-2006, 10:05 AM
At the same time, he says he does it to hide from the competition what he's got. If he had a royal straight flush - why not slam the cards on the table and let the gape in awe?

/Mazex

slappedsilly
07-15-2006, 11:27 AM
The only thing he has to fear is fear itself. I have read that Oleg says it will look real. I dont get it then, whats he hiding?

Targ
07-15-2006, 02:03 PM
What?
That 2 part interview at SimHq is not good enough for you?
The one with all of the pictures and movies?

simhq.com (http://simhq.com)

slipBall
07-15-2006, 02:21 PM
no news is good news http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

slappedsilly
07-15-2006, 04:26 PM
IMHO Targ, for a game thats been in production as long as BoB, the info so far is pathetic. At this stage, it should be either a wonderful gem, or a big dissapointment. If it looks like real, show it in its new engine. For crying out loud, its a game not secret war invasion plan. I'll buy it no matter what, but my FPS friends won't even give it a sniff at this point. Strut your stuff, Oleg, your the Kong of flight sims. Beat your chest a little and quit hiding.

Flying_Nutcase
07-15-2006, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by mazexx:
At the same time, he says he does it to hide from the competition what he's got. If he had a royal straight flush - why not slam the cards on the table and let the gape in awe?

/Mazex

I feel sorry for other WW2 flight sim developers who still think they have a chance to compete against Oleg. When the curtain's unveiled and the cards are put down, those competitors will be slam-dunked down the toilet hole. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

FritzGryphon
07-15-2006, 08:45 PM
I think it's just because the IL-2 series products aren't all released yet.

If BoB were more advertised, some may be impressed to the extent that they don't get SOM or 46.

I am one of those, actually. I won't bother with the download addons because I know BoB will make them obsolete, feature wise.

heywooood
07-16-2006, 09:44 AM
it will be atleast 5 years after BoB is released before anyone can run it at max res and full switch, so in my oppinion, the addons are the most important aspect of any combat flight sim today.

BoB cant make Fb/PF obsolete until most customers can play it adequately on their rigs - online and offline Fb/PF will last at least a couple of years past BoB release date.

Almost everyone meantime can run Fb/PF at or near full pop now.

FritzGryphon
07-16-2006, 01:08 PM
I think even on lowest graphic settings, the new weather, FM and DM features should make it a cut above IL-2.

But I agree, FB/PF will have appeal for a long time. Still a very good series covering a lot of ground.

slipBall
07-16-2006, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by Flying_Nutcase:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mazexx:
At the same time, he says he does it to hide from the competition what he's got. If he had a royal straight flush - why not slam the cards on the table and let the gape in awe?

/Mazex

I feel sorry for other WW2 flight sim developers who still think they have a chance to compete against Oleg. When the curtain's unveiled and the cards are put down, those competitors will be slam-dunked down the toilet hole. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/wchand.gif

Chivas
07-16-2006, 03:18 PM
According to an E3 report by Simhq there are 3 or 4 new combat flight simulators in the works. I don't like it but can understand why Oleg is keeping his cards close to his chest.

slappedsilly
07-16-2006, 03:39 PM
Did the E3 report say what or who regarding the other flight sims be developed?

Chivas
07-17-2006, 11:42 AM
No..simhq didn't mention any names.

Jaws2002
07-18-2006, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
According to an E3 report by Simhq there are 3 or 4 new combat flight simulators in the works. I don't like it but can understand why Oleg is keeping his cards close to his chest.

... i feel sorry for them. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
07-18-2006, 03:23 PM
Errr what? SimHQ has that lovely interview with Oleg...and I don't expect to see this thing till 2007. Ignore the November 2006 release date that the Ubi marketing team came up with ages ago...throw that right out.

slappedsilly
07-21-2006, 04:22 PM
October 6, 2003 €" Ubisoft, one of the world's largest video game publishers, revealed plans today to expand its line of flight Sims through a partnership with 1C: Maddox Games. The publishing deal includes the announcement of The Battle of Britain, a brand new World War II flight simulation game.

What year is it any way? Oh yeah, 2006. After 3 years of developement and all we get is crappy updates in the Il2 engine? No terrain shots, not even still pictures in the new engine!? After all this secrecy it better "look like real" or someone's gonna look pretty silly. And if it "looks like real" then show it! Who's gonna do better than real??!!!

sudoku1941
07-23-2006, 10:49 PM
I'd love to see something, anything that shows they've gotten closer to earth physics.

The energy bleed is, and has been OFF for the entire life of the IL-2 series.

Ditto with acceleration.

Ditto with the canned stall behavior.

Any news on this?

And, if we must be satisfied with graphics news only...

How about a solution to the piss-poor visibility from altitude?

All of these things reduce the realism of fighting in the IL-2 series, making it nearly incapable of reflecting history, in tactics, in results, in anything.

This is the thing I'd like to see come out of SoW, instead of every nut and bolt rendered in the cockpits.

Jaws2002
07-23-2006, 11:20 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:
I'd love to see something, anything that shows they've gotten closer to earth physics.

The energy bleed is, and has been OFF for the entire life of the IL-2 series.

Ditto with acceleration.

Ditto with the canned stall behavior.

Any news on this?

And, if we must be satisfied with graphics news only...

How about a solution to the piss-poor visibility from altitude?

All of these things reduce the realism of fighting in the IL-2 series, making it nearly incapable of reflecting history, in tactics, in results, in anything.

This is the thing I'd like to see come out of SoW, instead of every nut and bolt rendered in the cockpits.

I think we'll have all this, plus all the bolts and nuts and bolts in the pit. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


About the visibility from above. Sorry. You can see and track planes from above really easy. I had no problem watching all the dogfight below me from 6000m today and bounced few planes dropping vertical 3000m on them.

The visibility at certain distances is a problem in all games.
Remember the "no icons" servers in TT?
You could only follow planes, when inside 2-3 km range, with zoom. Didn't matter if he was against the ground or sky.
Only when you were in gun range you could see them without zooming in. Tracking planes against the ground? Forget it.
Sorry but in this respect (and a lot of other areas) PF is clearly better.

sudoku1941
07-24-2006, 09:06 AM
Oh, certainly Targetware has this problem, as do all sims, but normally icons are ON, as most but a few diehards realize that icons are necessary for the proper simulation of pilot visual acuity.

But, also, in TW, dots are black DOTS, not light grey "pencil ticks", so they don't blend in with the terrain. It's much easier to track distant objects below, yet the NOE ones still have a better chance to hide (along with any icons, which can render "below" the terrain if you're really low, a nice effect.

In TW, if no icons are present, it's the "medium maneuver range" that presents the problem; normally, at the range that a dot becomes a planeshape, the shape won't be visible, due to terrain blending or the angle not rendering the "thin" shape.

This also happens in IL-2: however, the visual problems are compounded greatly by the light grey dots, which often can't even be SEEN from altitude. (I believe this problem is a lot more acute with ATI chipset video cards, as opposed to nVidias; still, as popular and ubiquitous as they are, the sim should make sure ATI cards make the sim playable).

All this just basically points out the folly of no-icon. They're a necessary evil for proper simulation. The guys who say it's not realistic to expect text above objects seem to be OK with objects that should be plainly visible and trackable not being trackable with no-icon settings. Hmmm... seems like a simple choice between two "unrealities". I'll take a better simulation of visual acuity, and its attendant effects on combat any day: and that means a properly designed icon setup.

Xiolablu3
07-24-2006, 12:16 PM
Opinons, opinions, yawn yawn

WHen will you friggin learn, there is no 'correct' opinon about icons and so many other things, its all fricking OPINIONS!

Geezus http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

People who are so insistant that 'their' opinion/way is the right way, really do need to take a step back and look at the big picture...

Jaws2002
07-24-2006, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by sudoku1941:



This also happens in IL-2: however, the visual problems are compounded greatly by the light grey dots, which often can't even be SEEN from altitude. (I believe this problem is a lot more acute with ATI chipset video cards, as opposed to nVidias; still, as popular and ubiquitous as they are, the sim should make sure ATI cards make the sim playable).

All this just basically points out the folly of no-icon. They're a necessary evil for proper simulation. The guys who say it's not realistic to expect text above objects seem to be OK with objects that should be plainly visible and trackable not being trackable with no-icon settings. Hmmm... seems like a simple choice between two "unrealities". I'll take a better simulation of visual acuity, and its attendant effects on combat any day: and that means a properly designed icon setup.



I took this today in Winds of War. You can see the dots easy from far above, even against the shining water. Some quality was lost in the conversion to Jpeg.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/visibility.jpg

Jaws2002
07-24-2006, 01:18 PM
few more. i got this with speed bar so you can see the altitude i took them from.
While in motion you can see them even better.

in wide view:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/goodvis.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/vis.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/vis2.jpg

this in normal view:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/normalview.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/<FA>Jaws/dots.jpg

sudoku1941
07-24-2006, 01:38 PM
#1, in some of those arrow shots, I didn't see anything without "leaning in and squinting" quite a bit. FAR from obvious. Also complicating this is the fact that those dots are all ground hugging, where it ought to be somewhat harder to see. Try a 3-4 km perch with planes at >1km alt, against terrain.

#2, also try this same experiment over:

Finland map
France map
the darker PF water

I think you'll change your tune about visibility. Because those specks will definitely NOT appear.

#3, zooming in does help some, but this particular viewpoint is very disorienting, and can't be used for general scanning and situational awareness. Also keep in mind the tendency for distant dots to DISAPPEAR at closer settings, while they remain hard to see, but discernable at the zoomed out 90 degree view. Bass-ackwards.

I will refrain from including any screenshots of "that other sim", seeing as Xiolablu might burst a blood vessel in his brain at the very thought of comparison. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You, however, Jaws do know what I'm talking about on that count; it's much easier to see "elsewhere". http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz
07-24-2006, 04:12 PM
Summer 2002 this forum was thread- and post-bombed about speed bleed. There was too much.
Planes can't be like that. They are really easier to turn. Especially the FW's. And the
one sound-byte text about cross channel fights, the FW's stayed just over and over and over.
There were the total boycott calls and I don't like to think of the emails to Moscow over
too much speed bleed.

Really the bleed was about right unless you pulled any plane into stall which is right.
BnZ with FW's was in terms of energy very workable. I had to stick with icons and still
do but that's something else and will not change.

But the "majority" of those who posted and emailed whined and got and from FB on we have
had less bleed and more lift, which is what lift to drag is about. And it has been much
worse than now but the moaners will not admit. If you work prop pitch and rad flaps then
you will get much better dive speeds than if you don't and some planes will leave others
over realistic time and distances although the top planes tend to group pretty close but
if you do the math it's easy enough to see that large seperations in seconds in nose to
nose drag races is beyond the speeds these planes ran at. If the top level speeds are
only 30kph apart then how are the dives going to differ and how long to get those
differences? If you can't answer then don't complain, go learn 5th grade math first.

British test of FW and P-47 both current models had them at 10,000ft and 400kph (240mph)
side by side dive to 3,000ft at 65 degree angle. P-47 did not catch up till the bottom
of the dive "at much greater speed". The P-47 had a decidedly better pullout. What is
"much greater speed"? In another test run by the same folks but that one was acceleration
the much greater turned out to be about 20 mph. When viewing one plane passing another
in the air with no other reference than the planes, 20 mph in that age meant a lot. And
the non-specific term in the latter report was backed by specific speeds and times. The
greater was not large in terms of meters per second seperation.
Those planes flew 8,000 ft before the P-47 even caught up. I read the posted story parts
and it "looks like" the P-47 should be well out of range in less than a mile. Doing the
math, for that to happen the P-47 would need a modern jet engine and no prop to slow it
down. Show me a sim that works like that and I will show you an unreal POS.

Get off the 100% CSP pitch everywhere kick and the planes dive well. Go argue limit speeds
after that because that is where the seperation occurs. Work the pitch right and you can
hit the limits and exceed them quickly enough. The only problem I see is that it's too
easy to control the planes right up to breakup, players should have problems risking the
planes into those speeds and IRL not many would push a chase to the limit as those who
would run to the limit. It was the mismatches in dive speeds that got the notice.

IMHO it has been lift, not drag that has been more the 'problem' and that was worse by far
in FB 1.0 and PF 3.0. It's been cut back since. I'd like to see proof of any large error
and no, interpretations from unquantified stories that leave more details and conditions
out than they include do not count. Any flight sim that goes by those interpretations is
one I will pass up on, thank you.

NonWonderDog
07-24-2006, 04:36 PM
Don't forget, Max, how ridiculously hard it was to get out of ground effect with a full bomb load in the original IL2. I remember having to skim the ground for a mile and a half before being able to climb, don't you? It's just dishonest to say that lift/drag ratios were correct before and whined into arcade land for FB. For the most part the tweaks to the flight models have been improvements.

Sudoku, I think you need either glasses or a bigger monitor. I can see those dots absolutely fine with my glasses on, on a 17 inch monitor. Visibility has been greatly improved with the 4.0x dots, too; they're now 2-tone (gray and black) instead of just black, and I think they're twice as big. They now show up pretty well on both bright and dark surfaces, I think.

SeaFireLIV
07-25-2006, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by slappedsilly:
IMHO Targ, for a game thats been in production as long as BoB, the info so far is pathetic. At this stage, it should be either a wonderful gem, or a big dissapointment. If it looks like real, show it in its new engine. For crying out loud, its a game not secret war invasion plan. I'll buy it no matter what, but my FPS friends won't even give it a sniff at this point. Strut your stuff, Oleg, your the Kong of flight sims. Beat your chest a little and quit hiding.


Oleg has the right attitude. How many times have I seen people scream for news, get impatient, rush the devs, so that the devs give false info, or info they`re not sure about (just to please), then release the game possibly too early so that the chorus of GIMME-GIMME turns into `this sim is a disgrace and it would be better if Oleg had said nothing!.

Then all you GIMME GIMME people would go very quiet while Oleg takes all the ****. Look at what happened to Neil Kinnock when he took the option of `Let`s look so positive we can`t lose!` So he`s running around going `arriiggghttt!` every 2 seconds with leaping, happy people: Loses election.

Tony blair decided to be much more muted : Wins election.

Oleg has it right. Keep it generally quiet, keep working hard. NEVER ASSUME YOU`VE WON. or NEVER THINK YOUR PRODUCT`S A SUCCESS UNTIL YOU KNOW IT IS.

Showing off before it`s ready, before you actually know, no matter how confident you are is a sure fire way to disaster.

sudoku1941
07-25-2006, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slappedsilly:
IMHO Targ, for a game thats been in production as long as BoB, the info so far is pathetic. At this stage, it should be either a wonderful gem, or a big dissapointment. If it looks like real, show it in its new engine. For crying out loud, its a game not secret war invasion plan. I'll buy it no matter what, but my FPS friends won't even give it a sniff at this point. Strut your stuff, Oleg, your the Kong of flight sims. Beat your chest a little and quit hiding.


Oleg has the right attitude. How many times have I seen people scream for news, get impatient, rush the devs, so that the devs give false info, or info they`re not sure about (just to please), then release the game possibly too early so that the chorus of GIMME-GIMME turns into `this sim is a disgrace and it would be better if Oleg had said nothing!.

Then all you GIMME GIMME people would go very quiet while Oleg takes all the ****. Look at what happened to Neil Kinnock when he took the option of `Let`s look so positive we can`t lose!` So he`s running around going `arriiggghttt!` every 2 seconds with leaping, happy people: Loses election.

Tony blair decided to be much more muted : Wins election.

Oleg has it right. Keep it generally quiet, keep working hard. NEVER ASSUME YOU`VE WON. or NEVER THINK YOUR PRODUCT`S A SUCCESS UNTIL YOU KNOW IT IS.

I sort of agree with you on this, as a rule a sim producer does set himself up for stick if he reveals too much.

Me, I'd be satisfied with a few "hints" that something is being done to improve the flight models. There are distinct problems in certain areas with player models, with AI flight models and with physics in general.

Just knowing it was on their list of things to improve, instead of showing us additional articulated screws and machined cockpit gear parts is, to me, reinforcing the notion that having the "#6 set screw properly placed on the throttle quadrant base" is more important than being able to properly persecute a boom and zoom attack, or getting a Macchi 202 to fly correctly, or to be able to stall an La5FN, etc., etc., etc.

In other words, "Help a brother out just a little..." We don't need that much in the way of specifics. Just ANY indication that there'll be an improvement on the flight modeling.

Is that too much to ask?

Showing off before it`s ready, before you actually know, no matter how confident you are is a sure fire way to disaster. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sudoku1941
07-25-2006, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slappedsilly:
IMHO Targ, for a game thats been in production as long as BoB, the info so far is pathetic. At this stage, it should be either a wonderful gem, or a big dissapointment. If it looks like real, show it in its new engine. For crying out loud, its a game not secret war invasion plan. I'll buy it no matter what, but my FPS friends won't even give it a sniff at this point. Strut your stuff, Oleg, your the Kong of flight sims. Beat your chest a little and quit hiding.


Oleg has the right attitude. How many times have I seen people scream for news, get impatient, rush the devs, so that the devs give false info, or info they`re not sure about (just to please), then release the game possibly too early so that the chorus of GIMME-GIMME turns into `this sim is a disgrace and it would be better if Oleg had said nothing!.

Then all you GIMME GIMME people would go very quiet while Oleg takes all the ****. Look at what happened to Neil Kinnock when he took the option of `Let`s look so positive we can`t lose!` So he`s running around going `arriiggghttt!` every 2 seconds with leaping, happy people: Loses election.

Tony blair decided to be much more muted : Wins election.

Oleg has it right. Keep it generally quiet, keep working hard. NEVER ASSUME YOU`VE WON. or NEVER THINK YOUR PRODUCT`S A SUCCESS UNTIL YOU KNOW IT IS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I sort of agree with you on this, as a rule a sim producer does set himself up for stick if he reveals too much.

Me, I'd be satisfied with a few "hints" that something is being done to improve the flight models. There are distinct problems in certain areas with player models, with AI flight models and with physics in general.

Just knowing it was on their list of things to improve, instead of showing us additional articulated screws and machined cockpit gear parts is, to me, reinforcing the notion that having the "#6 set screw properly placed on the throttle quadrant base" is more important than being able to properly persecute a boom and zoom attack, or getting a Macchi 202 to fly correctly, or to be able to stall an La5FN, etc., etc., etc.

In other words, "Help a brother out just a little..." We don't need that much in the way of specifics. Just ANY indication that there'll be an improvement on the flight modeling.

Is that too much to ask?

Showing off before it`s ready, before you actually know, no matter how confident you are is a sure fire way to disaster.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

slappedsilly
07-25-2006, 11:11 AM
Oleg has the right attitude. How many times have I seen people scream for news, get impatient, rush the devs, so that the devs give false info, or info they`re not sure about (just to please), then release the game possibly too early so that the chorus of GIMME-GIMME turns into `this sim is a disgrace and it would be better if Oleg had said nothing!.

Then all you GIMME GIMME people would go very quiet while Oleg takes all the ****. Look at what happened to Neil Kinnock when he took the option of `Let`s look so positive we can`t lose!` So he`s running around going `arriiggghttt!` every 2 seconds with leaping, happy people: Loses election.

Tony blair decided to be much more muted : Wins election.

Oleg has it right. Keep it generally quiet, keep working hard. NEVER ASSUME YOU`VE WON. or NEVER THINK YOUR PRODUCT`S A SUCCESS UNTIL YOU KNOW IT IS.

Showing off before it`s ready, before you actually know, no matter how confident you are is a sure fire way to disaster.

Oh, come on Seafire, no company sells more product by keeping their product a secret. I doubt seriously that if Oleg gave more and better updates, it'd hurt sales or the final product any. He might hear a little more whining from the whiners, but looks like he's probably used to that by now. I find myself now looking for the competition he's hiding from. I don't see how the silence helps any. And as for Tony Blair, he didn't have to say much. People knew where he stood on the issues, and thats why he won.

Philipscdrw
07-25-2006, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by slappedsilly:
Oh, come on Seafire, no company sells more product by keeping their product a secret. I doubt seriously that if Oleg gave more and better updates, it'd hurt sales or the final product any. He might hear a little more whining from the whiners, but looks like he's probably used to that by now. I find myself now looking for the competition he's hiding from. I don't see how the silence helps any.
Conversely, how will posting updates help? Nearly all of us on the forums will buy BoB anyway. The rest mostly won't see the updates. The competition (whoever they are) will certainly see the updates, which might cause serious harm. I think Oleg would be right to concentrate on making a great game, rather than trying to organise updates.

1C and Ubi are not in the business of giving free wallpaper to The Internet! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
And as for Tony Blair, he didn't have to say much. People knew where he stood on the issues, and thats why he won. He won because the entire country was (justifiably) sick of the previous government. Where he stood on issues didn't matter much, certainly not enough to stop him moving to more comfy spots after the election!

slappedsilly
07-25-2006, 08:26 PM
Eventually, I think the competition might just go out and buy a copy of BoB, and your right, Oleg will be doomed! I'm just dissapointed that we were told after E3 the updates would continue. But thinking back on it, they didn't say which E3.
If it takes Oleg 3 years to get this far, the competition must have alot better programmers to get caught up inside of 4 months just by seeing some updates.

Chivas
07-28-2006, 11:07 AM
I would imagine the physics, aircraft, and cockpits are pretty well done. I can't even imagine how much work is intailed to recreate graphically 1940 Southern England and France.

I have no idea how they will do it but it would be nice to have a computer program that would place the generic buildings. Once you had a map made with the terrain, roads, rivers, historical buildings, and anything used for navigation, the program could place generic buildings along roads in towns and villages. Then go back and hand tweak any anomolies.

I have no idea but it sure would be interesting to see how its being done.

|CoB|_Spectre
07-28-2006, 12:47 PM
I gather from this thread initiated two days ago

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/63110913/m/3131017664

that they're still in the object building phase. Obviously it can run concurrently with aircraft work, but there's no clue as to how this might impact Ubi's projected November release timeframe.

MB80
07-29-2006, 01:44 AM
At least.. they should be able to post 2 real ingame screenshots, or just a skinned plane in the new clouds, you all know how much buildings are done, I think what they do now is fine work.. to complete the map(s), to fill them.

heywooood
07-29-2006, 09:08 AM
yes - if they are indeed down to the finish work...the last - though many - small details...then maybe the BoB forum can be re-opened http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and we can begin to see the BoB in screenshot doses.