PDA

View Full Version : Movable view-position already exsist but not in full practise



F19_Ob
04-25-2007, 04:45 AM
Hello devTeam and m8's.

I already have written about views in earlier posts and mails, but I thought I'd just throw another small idea at you since the viewproblems has been discussed for years but a solution was never presented.
The technolgy to fix it is already present and in use in all planes that can shift a view a bit to the side like the bf109.
All that really is needed is the idea and explanation how to do it.

This sim has always had trouble with the less good views from cockpit and mainly the rearview wich in many planes get unnessesarily hampered.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">This can be solved by adding only two additional and similar Shift+F1 type of views ( that we already have.)</span>So Instead of moving a view forward or backward one can move them to the sides to simulate leaning, say about 10-15cm average. One key left and one for right.
In the present 109's one can move the headposition to one side with a key, to be able to see through the gusight.

Why this feature wasn't added in the early days, to solve the big view-flaws in the sim instead of adding the incredible ammount of objects and fantasy planes I don't know. However the knowhow was absolutely there.

It is ofcourse possible for The devTeam to place the headposition where they want, but in for example Microsofts FlightSimulator the player can do it her/himself ingame. This feature has existed a long time and it was also possible to tune headpositions in the config. in 10 year old "CombatFlightSimulator 1".

This little idea of enabling 2 key strokes would solve the majority of the old view-issues.
If moving a head to the side can be done in the bf109 it ofcourse can be done in any plane, and in any direction.


just a tip. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

F19_Ob
04-25-2007, 04:45 AM
Hello devTeam and m8's.

I already have written about views in earlier posts and mails, but I thought I'd just throw another small idea at you since the viewproblems has been discussed for years but a solution was never presented.
The technolgy to fix it is already present and in use in all planes that can shift a view a bit to the side like the bf109.
All that really is needed is the idea and explanation how to do it.

This sim has always had trouble with the less good views from cockpit and mainly the rearview wich in many planes get unnessesarily hampered.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">This can be solved by adding only two additional and similar Shift+F1 type of views ( that we already have.)</span>So Instead of moving a view forward or backward one can move them to the sides to simulate leaning, say about 10-15cm average. One key left and one for right.
In the present 109's one can move the headposition to one side with a key, to be able to see through the gusight.

Why this feature wasn't added in the early days, to solve the big view-flaws in the sim instead of adding the incredible ammount of objects and fantasy planes I don't know. However the knowhow was absolutely there.

It is ofcourse possible for The devTeam to place the headposition where they want, but in for example Microsofts FlightSimulator the player can do it her/himself ingame. This feature has existed a long time and it was also possible to tune headpositions in the config. in 10 year old "CombatFlightSimulator 1".

This little idea of enabling 2 key strokes would solve the majority of the old view-issues.
If moving a head to the side can be done in the bf109 it ofcourse can be done in any plane, and in any direction.


just a tip. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Diablo310th
04-25-2007, 06:58 AM
Intersting idea.

WWSensei
04-25-2007, 09:44 AM
Too bad it wasn't pitched before the dev team quit making significant changes to the code.

F19_Ob
04-25-2007, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Too bad it wasn't pitched before the dev team quit making significant changes to the code. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you think they have quit?
This sim must last 6 or so years more until BoB-Team Has been able to replicate the theatres and planes in this sim. There is no other to take over this market.
It will be a long wait before anyone will be ale to fly a Polikarpov I-153 or I-16 or Il-2. Also ki-43, ki-27 and so on.
Think about it. It would be economically bad tactics not maintaing this sim and community simultaneously with BoB.

Selling the sim over and over is no problem it seems.
Lately they surprisingly managed to sell it as fantasy 1946 and the community bought it.(me too and I didn't want it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ) It had nothing with ww2 to do but we bought it.
Everything about this sim is a cash-magnet.
Improve the hitflashes add some more planes and maps and call it "il-2 The next generation" and people will buy that too.

This sort of thing simply can't be done with BoB yet because half the community must first buy new upgrades or computers to be able to play, and that will take a few years, as it did with this sim.

Sounds logical anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pollack2006
04-25-2007, 01:58 PM
I'd prefer it if we could just move the whole gunsight to the center instead of having to mess about with head positions. I don't think anyone would really complain about such a small concession towards practicality over realism.

Urufu_Shinjiro
04-25-2007, 03:38 PM
The problem is that the cockpits that have a gunsight view slightly to the side have been programmed and modeled to do this. The problem remains that has always been there, to enable different views you would need to remodel every cockpit in the game to do this, which would take WAY more time than Oleg and crew have to spend on il2.

Jaws2002
04-25-2007, 04:03 PM
Exactly.
Back in the begining the modelers used to "save polygons" to make the models look good and stay into that 2500 or so polygons. This was before 6DOF.
The most logical way to save polygons is not to model and texture areas that are not visible from the two cockpit positions. Nobody suposed to see those areas.
If you implement 6DOF, when you move your head in the pit you would see all those areas that were not modeled.
To implement that you would have to "Fix" most of the pits in the game.
One more thing. For full 6DOF you need some limits inside the pit where you can move the head or you would end up like some of my Shockwave planes for FSX. I can move my head right through the armored seat to check my six. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

for this game it would be a huge work load to upgrade to 6DOF.

Lurch1962
04-25-2007, 04:29 PM
Jaws,
F19_Ob suggested a lateral move of only 10-15cm (in accordance with my own similar suggestion some months ago), which isn't enough to have one's virtual head pushing through the canopy's perspex , as can happen in BoBII.

I suspect that not too many pits would need re-modeling to accommodate a relatively constrained head movement, and the result would greatly make up for the current "torso-in-concrete" situation we have to endure.

Heck, I'd not be bothered in the least if a few invisible polygons showed up here and there. Why, if you carefully observe some A/C cowlings from the pilot's position, you'll find thata s it is now there are some invisible polys just forward of the windscreen.

And not to mention the current problem with 109 wing textures near the wing root when in the widest FOV (as seen from the pilot's position).

--Lurch--

LEXX_Luthor
04-25-2007, 06:35 PM
I think pilot headshake during hard manuevers shows all planes can have a "small" amount of pilot head movement.

csThor
04-25-2007, 11:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:

Why do you think they have quit?
This sim must last 6 or so years more until BoB-Team Has been able to replicate the theatres and planes in this sim. There is no other to take over this market.
It will be a long wait before anyone will be ale to fly a Polikarpov I-153 or I-16 or Il-2. Also ki-43, ki-27 and so on.
Think about it. It would be economically bad tactics not maintaing this sim and community simultaneously with BoB.

Selling the sim over and over is no problem it seems.
Lately they surprisingly managed to sell it as fantasy 1946 and the community bought it.(me too and I didn't want it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ) It had nothing with ww2 to do but we bought it.
Everything about this sim is a cash-magnet.
Improve the hitflashes add some more planes and maps and call it "il-2 The next generation" and people will buy that too.

This sort of thing simply can't be done with BoB yet because half the community must first buy new upgrades or computers to be able to play, and that will take a few years, as it did with this sim.

Sounds logical anyway http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They have. And that happened long ago. That the package we got with "1946" has to last another few years is your logic, not the logic of the market, Ubisoft and Maddox Games. For them the Il-2 engine is dead in the water - unless a professional developer would show interest of taking it on, which I doubt for various reasons - and their focus is on the SoW engine getting ready for commercial release. They must make money and new toys are always a better alternative than rehashing old toys.

The bottom line is: Maddox Games has grand plans for the SoW series but limited ressources (manpower and money). They will have problems fulfilling a lot of wishes we gamers have for the new engine and they certainly won't be able to spare some of their time/devs to fiddle with a commercially dead project. Or why do you think the Slovakia and Bessarabia maps have taken that long? (Answer: They needed a new version of the mapping tool with new objects and MG did this one in their "spare time" - which means sometime between "I'm done with my daily work and about to go home" and "I'm locking the door behind me and call it a day".)

cobaltz0rz
04-25-2007, 11:59 PM
how to you move the camera with the bf-109?

AKA_TAGERT
04-26-2007, 12:29 PM
Welcome to 2003

F19_Ob
04-27-2007, 02:24 AM
Hello again. Been away but back.

I think some of you missunderstood what I suggest.
It's no major change. It's just copying, for example the 109's shift+F1 view and adjusting the view-coordinates a bit. 15cm left on one and the same to the left on the other, and then bind keys to them. Simple stuff.
This small distance the head move will not cause much or any errors because of the 2D nature of the cockpits.
In order to show errors in the cockpit one likely must see the texture very angled or be very close to, or in it.
I can't see how my suggestion could cause this.

I'm no expert on textures but I have seen many examples where this kind of error occur.
One can test this in many ways but I kind of did this recently when enabling cheats in an old game for my son (JediKnight), wich let him fly through walls and stuff. The texture errors occured as I described, at critical angles to the texture and when one is in a texture.

As u may remember the code was cracked in an earlier version of the game and someone posted videos of how 6DOF could function. It was some time ago but there were videos on YouTube on several older planes where they moved the headposition more than what I suggest and there were no problems what I could see.

So a minor adjustment with few or no penalties.
There is no new stuff added to the sim, just clever use of what already exist.

The idea is simple, one just had to think of it it. Thats all.

Yellow_Sub
04-27-2007, 02:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cobaltz0rz:
how to you move the camera with the bf-109? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shift + F1

csThor
04-27-2007, 02:55 AM
I think you're seriously underestimating the workload for "such small a change". None of us can can state with absolute certainty that none of the cockpits in the game would need rework. We don't have the models, we cannot check.

The bottom line is - once again - Maddox Games is about to wrap up the Il-2 engine with the last maps, objects and (maybe) planes but then its over, vorbei, out, finito ...

WWSensei
04-27-2007, 06:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Ob:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Too bad it wasn't pitched before the dev team quit making significant changes to the code. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you think they have quit? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm basing it on Oleg's many, many statements that no one is working on IL2 anymore and his whole team is working on BoB.

As for being economically bad tactics to maintain the old software I'm afraid you don't understand the economics of software development--it is in the best financial interest of 1C to no longer support significant changes to the old code. Code maintainance can be as much as 80% of the total costs of a project.

1946, with the exception of a few third party maps added recently was completed nearly two years. It's just now hitting the market.

As for "cash-magnet", it makes money in the initial stages but the flight sim market is not a cash cow. It's a niche market and combat sims are but a very small part of that. Compared to the number of people routinely flying Microsoft FS9/FSX IL2 would not even be a blip. That's a cash market where people pay upwards of $50 for a single aircraft.

The only viable way to make additional money is for Oleg to sell the engine for other games--which he has done--even then long time friends of Oleg found the old engine unable to be the core of KoTS.

A third party company would be foolish to pick up maintainence of IL2 at this point.

As someone who does professional software development for a living (and have done so in the gaming world as well as the business world) I can tell you are vastly underestimating the costs of "such a small change". When you are dealing with old code any change that was conceived as part of the original design runs the risk of introducing unforseen errors. To avoid such errors you have to be rigorous in the code reviews and the testing cycle has to be very thorough. The amount time spent to just type the code is the smallest part of making changes but it is often the only part people consider. It's far more complex than that unless you are just producing throw away code.

Ever wonder why Microsoft makes their flight sims so open? It's so they can rely on the "community" to do fixes and testing without them needing organic resources.

For most software projects code older than 3 years is more expensive to maintain than it is to re-write the functionality from scratch.

Urufu_Shinjiro
04-27-2007, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It's no major change. It's just copying, for example the 109's shift+F1 view and adjusting the view-coordinates a bit. 15cm left on one and the same to the left on the other, and then bind keys to them. Simple stuff.
This small distance the head move will not cause much or any errors because of the 2D nature of the cockpits. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is incorrect, when you hit shift=F1 the view doesn't move to the left, the "gunsight view" cockpit model is then displayed. It is a seperate model, to implement this for all planes there would have to be a whole new model made for each one!

Pollack2006
04-27-2007, 11:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:This is incorrect, when you hit shift=F1 the view doesn't move to the left, the "gunsight view" cockpit model is then displayed. It is a seperate model, to implement this for all planes there would have to be a whole new model made for each one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, i'm not buying this. Shift-F1 works in EVERY plane to varying degrees....are you saying that every plane has two separate cockpit models?

Chivas
04-27-2007, 12:05 PM
The reason SOW BOB is two years behind schedual is they haven't the time and manpower to sustain two seperate sims.
They have to eventually let IL-2 go if they ever expect to get BOB out the door. Then you will have your 6DOF, more detail cockpits, more detailed everything. The SOW series will also end up much larger than the IL-2 series. I know its hard to let things go, but thats a fact of life.

F19_Ob
04-27-2007, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
[QUOTE]
As for being economically bad tactics to maintain the old software I'm afraid you don't understand the economics of software development--it is in the best financial interest of 1C to no longer support significant changes to the old code. Code maintainance can be as much as 80% of the total costs of a project.


...........As for "cash-magnet", it makes money in the initial stages but the flight sim market is not a cash cow. It's a niche market and combat sims are but a very small part of that..............

.........For most software projects code older than 3 years is more expensive to maintain than it is to re-write the functionality from scratch. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right I don't really understand this type of economical thinking at all. Not even sure I want to, perhaps refusing. A mix of everything I guess. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
However cleverly tuned questioning is the only way to get answers, thus I continue, while throwing in goodies at the same time.
I have absoulutely not any detailed insights in these companies economy nor priorities.

However everything can be reconsidered and if there are enough good ideas cashhunger yet may arise.

Do these companies have complete understanding of their market? Their customers? potential spinoffs they can do now or in the future?
I don't know.
I just keep pouring ideas for practise and future , now or tomorrow. One just never know when stuff start to happen.

I'm thinking that there is no other current WW2 sim that has the potential, maps and planes this sim has to reproduce battles on so many theatres as this sim does, and BoB will not either for many years.

I am aware that changing stuff may cause errors, but thats just one of the risks in this type of job.
Still Oleg starts working on a new risky projects. He clearly thinks he will manage to make a living of it.

Maintenance costs and must be weighed against the benefits. Ofcourse. Same with new sim.
But are these changes I speak of of such magnitude it would bring down the whole project if there would be an error? There is a whole community of willing betatesters to help.
How important is the maintenance of the loyal community? How much are these gained customers
worth?
They bought the first strange project "il-2 Sturmovik" wich was centered around an (for westerners) unheard of Russian plane wich operated in places westerners hardly can pronounce.
A very unlikely achievement to catch the whole ww2 simworld on that stuff.
Well he did just that.

One very interesting thing has happened in ww2 sim history. Take for example this latest il-2 1946 version of wich the majority of planes were Fantasy orientated.
What is the likelyhood any ortodox ww2simmer would touch anything like that? Small to medium I'd say personally (absolutely no offense ment). Yet we all bought it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Imagine what would happen if someone puts together an add-on with a few planes, for example, French, Dutch, English, Russian, Italian, German, Polish and Japanese planes, together with a map and some objects like, for example, trees to make the landscape alive.
The il-2 communities would go crazy with joy and buy it.
This is likely.

The 1946 Team knew we would buy it. So either they are economic geniouses, or madmen for taking such obvious risks.
I think they knew though. They knew they could sell this 'too old' sim again.


SimPeople need cool planes, preferably that flew in their favorite theatres or homecountries.
Although we do have many planes in the sim there still are very big gaps in the flyable planesset regarding the completeness of theatres. Some theatres have only a handfull planes wich makes for hampered plansets at times, especially online.

How many WW2 sims have this ammount of flyables that we have? Not many or none, and still many flyable types can be added.
Since it will take so many years until we see anything like it I think it could be wise to maintain this one alongside BoBs infancy.

This sim is still the only real player on the ww2sim market and it can't make money?
Heck people buy all kinds of sims and games alongsides of this one just to try and discard, just for fun.

-------------------------------------------
Back to constructiveness and creativity;

Another idea that I have mentioned here and there, could make this sim new enough for another sale-run.

1. Improve the hitflashes a bit and add additional varying smoke-diameter-thickness and reposition some of it to pour out of the sides or below the engine. Same for wings.
Why not add more animations when bits and pieces fly off planes, in addition to the mini-debris we have now when a plane gets hit with mg's.
A few new effects of bullets bouncing off the fuselage perhaps?
The variation of stuff to is endless here.

2 .Release the good looking 3-D treees and make hedges and additional foliage.

3. Add a few planes from many countries so everyone may have a plane that flew for their country (street smartness)
This is what people really want. Their history stuff.

If there should be a lack of plane-material there's an endless need for variants on many planes , so the material is almost done.
As an example make the early bf110's flyable. to get a cockpit one can adjust the cockpit of the G variant.

The I-16 type 18 can easily be made to a type 10. The type 24 can be made to type 17. Both these types fought the Japanese to, so a multipurpose and gain here.
Make a I-152 from the I-153, or use it as a base for an I-15.


4. Add 1 or a couple of maps or cut up big maps in smaller pieces so they can be used for people with less comp power and online or mapmakers that will only use a third or a forth of a big map.
Smaller maps enable placing of more objects.


I can't help thinking that this stuff could be sold over and over, until BoB has caught up in 5-10 years and a portion of the players have updated their machines, and can run this old sim smoothly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif.

I also belive that the comunity could and would help in lots of research areas, wich perhaps has not been thought through in detail yet.

Well can't do better for now..
Regards m8's

F19_Ob
04-27-2007, 02:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
I know its hard to let things go, but thats a fact of life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't you give up on me now Chivas.
We do not just give up because of the dark clouds on the horizon.
One fight to the last ray of light, then to last breath and heartbeat. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Ok I clearly need to go to sleep now.
Thankyou for the attention and your efforts so far gentlemen.

Lurch1962
04-27-2007, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This is incorrect, when you hit shift=F1 the view doesn't move to the left, the "gunsight view" cockpit model is then displayed. It is a seperate model, to implement this for all planes there would have to be a whole new model made for each one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with Pollack2006 on this... the statement above is absolutely, undeniably, and categorically untrue. For at least the majority of crates, that is. I'm still wondering about the telescopic sight-equipped planes such as the Val, for example.

--Lurch--

fuzzychickens
04-27-2007, 09:49 PM
Let IL2 die PLEASE.

csThor
04-28-2007, 12:14 AM
Sweet Sookie's maiden aunt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ob - I had pegged you for one of the most logical members of this community, but this very thread ruins my perception of you. Just because you don't like the prospects neither Maddox Games nor Ubisoft wil change their business politics. Sticking your head into the sand like an ostrich won't help, either. Face the music - there will not be any major developments and beyond two or three maps (Slovakia, Bessarabia, could-be-Africa), the respective ground objects and the new default skins - oh and maybe one or two aircraft which have been ready for a long time - the Il-2 engine is finished. Maddox Games is working on the SoW engine and this is where their attention has to be. Get over it.

F19_Ob
04-28-2007, 03:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Sweet Sookie's maiden aunt! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ob - I had pegged you for one of the most logical members of this community, but this very thread ruins my perception of you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I very much thank you for once trusting and pegging me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif However my logical being is complex http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif and mixed up with unearthly humor and irony and one just never know when I start pulling stunts.
I seemingly have this feature incommon with Oleg himself and perhaps the minds of the 1946 Team. One just never know what stunt they'll try next.

Example:
Did the new FS X Team develope those new trees by themselves? changing their way just like that after so many years of drought....or did someone aid with inspiration and with material on how landscapes work and their importance and how the trees and undergrowth could be painted with false shadows?
And that time is was solely for the nature of low level Helo flying.
I don't really care if it was inspired by me or if they finally thought it up themselves. The trees are there now.
Wish this sims Teams would reconsider aswell because this has even more potential I think.

I've been playing around like this for more than 10 years, providing ideas and material in all kinds of issues but with virtually no feedback, so once in a while one may detect a minor synical/ironical flavor (and hope it can be overseen) .
A person I trust and who works with Games though convinced me that every sane idea will be reviewed by the simCreator but they'll likely won't have time with feedback, so thereforeI'll just keep on posting.

Just can't do it any other way at the moment. Don't loose faith so easily.....Perhaps even my provocative manners have some purpose. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Giving up a sim is no issue for me belive me.
However ideas on how one can do stuff is important and usable no matter what sim because many things are similar in many areas and therefore the ideas don't have an out-date on them.

cheers

WWSensei
04-29-2007, 04:41 PM
F19_Ob,

Here is the problem, you ask for innovation yet plead for making changes to the old code. It's not that your ideas are bad they are just 5 years too late to be an effective campaign for this engine. You want them to innovate? Then ask for things coming up in BoB--not an old engine that isn't even worth the effort for another company to use for WWI aircraft.

There is being innovative and "never knowing what the next stunt is" and there is just being delusional. Asking for old code to be modded for new features after the developer has said they are moving on to a better, more powerful engine isn't innovative--or very forward thinking--it's just being stubborn and very backward thinking. You should be thinking up of things they can do to the new code that's coming.

F19_Ob
04-30-2007, 03:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
F19_Ob,

.....You want them to innovate? Then ask for things coming up in BoB--not an old engine that isn't even worth the effort............ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for your input on the idea m8. I'll try to answer collectively for all on the rest.

I wrote down and posted the idea specifficly for BoB. Not all will be able to use track ir 6dof gadgets, especially not the customergroup with old machines and less than 1 gig memmory, wich will take longer to catch up (like with this sim).
I'm not sure this customergroup is thought of first hand, and experience showed a great deal wasn't dealt with in this old sim.
So trying in my small way point at problems before they arise (so there'll be less fear for touching the code)

Is my suggestion such a big change or intrusion in the code. Isn't it the fact just opening the code is the point?


Please trust me when I say I do understand the economical standpoints posted earlier and that about an old 'engine' and game.
Those things are logic, however only logic if there is a newer game competing already, wich there ofcourse isn't, And BoB still far away.


"You should be thinking up of things they can do to the new code that's coming."
I try but I'm getting slower in the thinking-department.
But that's my aim and why I continue posting and mailing my stuff.

Sorry m8's, don't really want to continue about the economy and it's logic. I'm not all this provocative usually but this seemingly is one of few ways of getting the thread bumped a few times.
How boring wouldn't the character ob be though if he was mellow all the time.
Try aiming for being 'nice an annoying' at the same time and see how u do.
I haven't mastered the balance yet. An affectionate slap on the head I can take, but I don't need people wanting to kill me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
It's a struggle belive me.