PDA

View Full Version : Olegs news



DD_crash
11-17-2008, 08:34 AM
More stuff (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040&page=2) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DD_crash
11-17-2008, 08:34 AM
More stuff (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040&page=2) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sharpe26
11-17-2008, 08:51 AM
I wonder if you can man those Bofors?

Uncle_Stranger
11-17-2008, 08:53 AM
It's been said before that you can do it.

trumper
11-17-2008, 08:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifI think the goofy rabbit and grimacing flower are over modelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

DuxCorvan
11-17-2008, 09:02 AM
Yeah, what are those angry thingies? Can we stomp them in the sim? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TX-Gunslinger
11-17-2008, 09:18 AM
Awesome!

S~

Gunny

McHilt
11-17-2008, 09:52 AM
Looks awesome but I wonder... can we make our own skins for the bofors? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
We've seen lots of groundstuff lately maybe Oleg could show us some different things too, but I guess many thing are not to be disclosed before release.
Anyway Oleg: good job!

gorkyporky
11-17-2008, 10:13 AM
I dont know about you, but i dont really care about the ground stuff. I mean, its a flight sim, im not gonna buy it to look at trucks and artilery, except when i strafe them. I think oleg should spend more time perfecting the flight models, and maybe add a plane or two, instead of putting in all these fancy ground units with so much detail that its gonna kill your compter.
Just my two cents.

JG52Uther
11-17-2008, 10:35 AM
Not as excited as I used to be.What gorkyporky say's pretty much sums it all up for me.A lovely model of a truck,but no flyable Do17 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

TheFamilyMan
11-17-2008, 10:51 AM
Looks really nice, but eye candy for ground stuff? What's the value in that when you are flying at 250kph for a strafe...going to see all that detail? Seems like making movies has become as important as the sim flight experience. Here's some optimism. (http://www.gogamer.com/Storm-of-War--Battle-of-Britain-PC-Coming-Soon_stcVVproductId5640272VVcatId444781VVviewprod. htm)

Edit: Interesting, they literally just pushed the release date from 1/09 to 10/09.

Uufflakke
11-17-2008, 10:51 AM
Nice sandbags.

ElAurens
11-17-2008, 10:57 AM
I see the naysayers have made their appearance early in the thread.

I'd say just wait for the goods.

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

BigC208
11-17-2008, 11:02 AM
Very nice. The more detailes the more emmersion. Nothing beats flying low and shooting up nicely detailed targets. Also coming home after a mission to a busy airfield. More flyables will show up later. I only hope that there will be more animated soldiers on the ground. When the game get's to be as detailed as this it becomes a bit spooky without people and animals.

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-17-2008, 11:13 AM
Are you guys seriously complaining about improved ground pounding?! The ground game was the most missing part of Il2, ground pounding is fun but nigh on pointless in Il2. This makes it look like we may be able to actually accomplish things in a campaign or coops. Imagine a flight of ground pounders going in and clearing out as much AAA and radar as possible before the bombers and their escorts come in to hit the real target. This would be an exercise is suspension of disbelief in Il2, sounds like in SoW this will be critical and effective.

slipBall
11-17-2008, 11:21 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:
Are you guys seriously complaining about improved ground pounding?! The ground game was the most missing part of Il2, ground pounding is fun but nigh on pointless in Il2. This makes it look like we may be able to actually accomplish things in a campaign or coops. Imagine a flight of ground pounders going in and clearing out as much AAA and radar as possible before the bombers and their escorts come in to hit the real target. This would be an exercise is suspension of disbelief in Il2, sounds like in SoW this will be critical and effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Totally agree...can't wait!

LEBillfish
11-17-2008, 11:22 AM
2 weeks.....

triad773
11-17-2008, 11:23 AM
As I examined those images, I was startled to discover a subliminal message in one.

See here as my adjustments have made the message more evident http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://triad773.com/2008/Tech/vvv-03_05-flowee.jpg

Can't wait http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG52Uther
11-17-2008, 11:25 AM
I ground pound from 7000 meters +,so rivets on a truck are not that important to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Each to their own I suppose.

Divine-Wind
11-17-2008, 11:35 AM
I for one am excited about the new objects. Scenery is adds tremendously to the immersion - Ground crews, vehicles, buildings, aircraft, etc.

If you don't believe me just play one of the default dynamic campaigns and look around at your airfield. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

JSG72
11-17-2008, 12:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigC208:
Very nice. The more detailes the more emmersion. Nothing beats flying low and shooting up nicely detailed targets. Also coming home after a mission to a busy airfield. More flyables will show up later. I only hope that there will be more animated soldiers on the ground. When the game get's to be as detailed as this it becomes a bit spooky without people and animals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

Friendly_flyer
11-17-2008, 01:23 PM
Triad773, that's obviously a triffid, planted there by the Abwehr.

HuninMunin
11-17-2008, 01:35 PM
I wonder when people will start to realise that the guy who works on the ground object meshes has nothing to do with aircraft meshes or flight modelling.

DuxCorvan
11-17-2008, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigC208:
Very nice. The more detailes the more emmersion. Nothing beats flying low and shooting up nicely detailed targets. Also coming home after a mission to a busy airfield. More flyables will show up later. I only hope that there will be more animated soldiers on the ground. When the game get's to be as detailed as this it becomes a bit spooky without people and animals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah, I've even chosen the computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner) I'm gonna buy to run it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

M_Gunz
11-17-2008, 02:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Are you guys seriously complaining about improved ground pounding?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

D@mned if you do, d@amned if you don't.

squareusr
11-17-2008, 02:13 PM
i just hope they remember to burn some serious CPU/GPU cycles on cockpit shading (wildly moving shadows as you maneuver, + maybe some shiny things), because that's what we spend most of the time looking at.

also, unlike clouds and ground stuff, cockpit is quite predictable in terms of cycles used, because you always see exactly one.

Divine-Wind
11-17-2008, 02:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BigC208:
Very nice. The more detailes the more emmersion. Nothing beats flying low and shooting up nicely detailed targets. Also coming home after a mission to a busy airfield. More flyables will show up later. I only hope that there will be more animated soldiers on the ground. When the game get's to be as detailed as this it becomes a bit spooky without people and animals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah, I've even chosen the computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner) I'm gonna buy to run it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Needs moar RAM

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-17-2008, 02:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Oh yeah, I've even chosen the computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner) I'm gonna buy to run it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But can it run crysis?



Lol, that joke never gets old.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Monty_Thrud
11-17-2008, 02:42 PM
Sorry to disappoint y'all, but the thread used to stitch the sandbags is the incorrect type and there's one too many rivets in the Bofors support leg...oh well, it looked like it could of been a good Sim...but thats just WRONG!

F19_Orheim
11-17-2008, 02:43 PM
combined with infantry.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Uufflakke
11-17-2008, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
combined with infantry.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as they don't look like Playmobil... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

JSG72
11-17-2008, 02:59 PM
Yep! We really need those "Wee Men"

Anyroads. Like many I suppose we are Putting off/Saving up. For our next 'puter upgrade.

By the time SOW. comes out Yer Iphone'll be able to run it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Divine-Wind
11-17-2008, 03:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSG72:
Yep! We really need those "Wee Men"

Anyroads. Like many I suppose we are Putting off/Saving up. For our next 'puter upgrade.

By the time SOW. comes out Yer Iphone'll be able to run it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And at 3G Speeds!

WTE_Galway
11-17-2008, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gorkyporky:
I dont know about you, but i dont really care about the ground stuff. I mean, its a flight sim, im not gonna buy it to look at trucks and artilery, except when i strafe them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oi .. I have spent many pleasurable hours careening into parked trucks and artillery in an effort to take off in a thunderstorm with drop tanks and full bomb load http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


Not to matter ... my money is still on the improved fishies.

MB_Avro_UK
11-17-2008, 05:10 PM
Hi all,

Why are some of you complaining about extra quality on ground objects?

This is progress. I salute those who created such detail. If you don't want to see it then you will have the option to lower your settings.

And the aircraft will have similar if not better detail.

This is Sim progress. Big time.

Move with the times.


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

McHilt
11-17-2008, 05:11 PM
The flight-sim-only era has past away dudes, accept it as it is... MMRPG has taken over since a couple of years and my guess is Oleg's gonna do his part really fine.
Look, I'm not sure as to what this will be but I think it's gonna be hot as hell and I sincerely hope it WILL be hot like hell... playable AAA, playable groundstuff. Even a personal .45 ACP would suit my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
As an aircraft freak I do really like the playable groundstuff, why not. Don't get stuck in obsolete ideas, open y'r mind and explore this new world these guys are creating.
I guess all the hotshots out here complaining are scared to get downed by some serious hotshot AAA players, haha... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Happy flying, happy driving, happy walking, whatever... have fun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Divine-Wind
11-17-2008, 05:14 PM
Eh, personally, I think if you make a flight sim, make it a flight sim. Yes, I love details, but if Oleg expands this to include ground pounding from the ground, well... I dunno, I'd have to see how it would play. If I want to get that experience, I'll play Battlefield 2, thank you very much.

WTE_Galway
11-17-2008, 05:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by McHilt:
Even a personal .45 ACP would suit my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, sliding open the canopy pulling out a handgun and shooting the badguy WWI style would be an interesting that is for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stiletto-
11-17-2008, 05:17 PM
For those complaining about ground object detail.. I'm sure there were similar things to complain about when the original IL-2 came out... 7 YEARS AGO. And it's not like IL-2 has never been scalable for slower systems. If you cut this stuff out now how are you going to add it back in? It's not like we are going to get a new version every 2 years. Sorry but just because you are too poor to afford a decent rig doesn't mean the game should be scaled back for you, take your broken worthless bat and go home.

McHilt
11-17-2008, 05:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by McHilt:
Even a personal .45 ACP would suit my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, sliding open the canopy pulling out a handgun and shooting the badguy WWI style would be an interesting that is for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

MB_Avro_UK
11-17-2008, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by McHilt:
The flight-sim-only era has past away dudes, accept it as it is... MMRPG has taken over since a couple of years and my guess is Oleg's gonna do his part really fine.
Look, I'm not sure as to what this will be but I think it's gonna be hot as hell and I sincerely hope it WILL be hot like hell... playable AAA, playable groundstuff. Even a personal .45 ACP would suit my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
As an aircraft freak I do really like the playable groundstuff, why not. Don't get stuck in obsolete ideas, open y'r mind and explore this new world these guys are creating.
Happy flying, happy driving, happy walking, whatever... have fun! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You maybe right there. We could be in a year's time playing il2 ground/sea/air wars in competition to the likes of World of Warcraft.

We haven't read Oleg's mind...but it would be interesting to do so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Divine-Wind
11-17-2008, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by McHilt:
Even a personal .45 ACP would suit my opinion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed, sliding open the canopy pulling out a handgun and shooting the badguy WWI style would be an interesting that is for sure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That was an awesome movie

Until they started the whole revenge business

McHilt
11-17-2008, 05:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
Eh, personally, I think if you make a flight sim, make it a flight sim. Yes, I love details, but if Oleg expands this to include ground pounding from the ground, well... I dunno, I'd have to see how it would play. If I want to get that experience, I'll play Battlefield 2, thank you very much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

battlefield will be obsolete soon mister...
due to the small scale maps and the POOOOR flightmodel of the aircraft (aircraft???, flightmodel, do they have any???), No way mate, it's time for something bigger than we've seen so far and it will happen sooner than you might think...
I hope Oleg will do it well now for others will do it afterwards, be sure

LEXX_Luthor
11-17-2008, 05:46 PM
Endlessly increasing ground object polygons that will never be seen from the cockpit during gameplay will not stop customers from giving up on the sim, as happened with this one for its lack of immersive air warfare simulation. Granted, this may be the beginning of a combined arms sim where Oleg is hoping ground war gamers are the core customer base.


Urufo::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are you guys seriously complaining about improved ground pounding?! The ground game was the most missing part of Il2, ground pounding is fun but nigh on pointless in Il2. This makes it look like we may be able to actually accomplish things in a campaign or coops. Imagine a flight of ground pounders going in and clearing out as much AAA and radar as possible before the bombers and their escorts come in to hit the real target. This would be an exercise is suspension of disbelief in Il2, sounds like in SoW this will be critical and effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Increasing polygons have no effect on this immersion you describe.

Divine-Wind
11-17-2008, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Urufo::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Are you guys seriously complaining about improved ground pounding?! The ground game was the most missing part of Il2, ground pounding is fun but nigh on pointless in Il2. This makes it look like we may be able to actually accomplish things in a campaign or coops. Imagine a flight of ground pounders going in and clearing out as much AAA and radar as possible before the bombers and their escorts come in to hit the real target. This would be an exercise is suspension of disbelief in Il2, sounds like in SoW this will be critical and effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Increasing polygons have no effect on this immersion you describe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Dunno about you, but seeing a soldier that looks like an extremely pixelated Gumby just kills it for me.

LEXX_Luthor
11-17-2008, 05:50 PM
From the cockpit at combat speeds and distances, you see Gumby no matter how many polygons Gumby has.

McHilt
11-17-2008, 05:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Dunno about you, but seeing a soldier that looks like an extremely pixelated Gumby just kills it for me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, given the detailed trucks it could be that gumpy will be as detailed as well. Anyway, let's hope so. Who the **** is... Gumpy.... actually??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Joe the Gumpy, Obama would say.
weird name

Monterey13
11-17-2008, 06:02 PM
Oleg has already hinted that this may be a complete WWII sim...not a flight sim.

He also mentioned that SoW will have drivable submarines.

It looks like we will finally have a really good WWII air/land/sea sim, instead of a cheesy game like BF1942.

McHilt
11-17-2008, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monterey13:
Oleg has already hinted that this may be a complete WWII sim...not a flight sim.

He also mentioned that SoW will have drivable submarines.

It looks like we will finally have a really good WWII air/land/sea sim, instead of a cheesy game like BF1942. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+100 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
11-17-2008, 06:51 PM
Geez, thats some fantastic detail.

I dont care how long the sim takes, just make it another classic like IL2 series.

For Gods sake PLEASE dont rush it out unfinished just for some whiny impatient kids. (I am 99% sure Oleg would never do this anyway)

ElAurens
11-17-2008, 07:03 PM
+1

Divine-Wind
11-17-2008, 07:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monterey13:
Oleg has already hinted that this may be a complete WWII sim...not a flight sim.

He also mentioned that SoW will have drivable submarines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to say... The thought of submarines is interesting.

But again, until I see how it plays, I'm sticking with SH3. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

knightflyte
11-17-2008, 07:26 PM
Looking at the details Oleg and crew have in store for these AAA I wonder what he has up his sleeve for land, city, harbour etc etc.

He's been keeping those details very very close to the vest. I wouldn't be surprised if he's invented a whole new way to view them with great detail - even at long distances.

IL2 suffers hugely from pop up. and at distances the cities are nothing more than ashen smudge marks.

MSFSX has desent detail, but is a huge resource hog, and still suffers from pop up.

While the scenery is generic in X Plane it handles city scapes better on my machine than MSFSX. In that regard X Plane looks more realistic. I'll take off from Beverly Airport and head toward Boston and I'll see Boston on the horizon verses nothing untill I get closer, and even then it's a few buildings untill I fly even closer.

I'm hoping, and really think that what Oleg puts out in regards to cities and scenery in BoB will be revelutionary. I'm thinking he has designed an efficient way to display in a realistic manner the shores and cliffsides of GB. You'll be 30 miles out and see London on the horizon instead on 2 Kilometers out, and experience pop up like we do in other sims.

We'll see....... These pics show a lot of promise for our upcoming addiction.

WTE_Galway
11-17-2008, 07:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Monterey13:
Oleg has already hinted that this may be a complete WWII sim...not a flight sim.

He also mentioned that SoW will have drivable submarines. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I have to say... The thought of submarines is interesting.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many points will you get for shooting down a submarine ?

ElAurens
11-17-2008, 07:52 PM
Not sure about shooting one down, but catching one on the surface charging it's batteries while on patrol in your Beaufort could be very rewarding.

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

Duckmeister
11-17-2008, 08:17 PM
Folks, I highly doubt we have the technology today to have both Red Orchestra and IL-2 in the same game. Don't get your hopes up for something really big besides detail, more triggers, and lifelike appearances.

For all of you that really want to play down below, get Red Orchestra NOW!

jarink
11-17-2008, 08:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uufflakke:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
combined with infantry.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as they don't look like Playmobil... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's a good point. How immersive will all those extraordinary ground objects seem without similarly realistic people to man them? I'm sure it can be done, but I'm wondering what sort of performance hit will be involved. (How many people even today can turn on 3D gunners without getting a slide show?)

Buzzsaw-
11-17-2008, 09:40 PM
Salute

A lot of people here just DO NOT get it... lack of brain cells no doubt... perhaps from too much playing 'Guitar hero' with the volumn on supermax...

Here's a little blast from the past for those who were in diapers when IL-2 arrived.

Tune your little brains in and IMAGINE... Way, WAY, back...

Back then we had WORLD WAR II FIGHTERS, and EUROPEAN AIR WAR, with an astounding 8 players online at a time...

Or we had ACES HIGH, with cartoon graphics.

Or we had B-17 II, with nice graphics, but a code which was so poorly written that the designers CANCELLED online play.

Or Rowan's BATTLE OF BRITAIN, which BARELY ran with 4 players online...

THEN we had IL-2 STURMOVIK.

Code that was so well written, that the developer was able to offer 16 online initially, then double, then QUADRUPLE that number. All with the BEST graphics/flight model/damage model EVER seen in a flight sim.

Cast your pint sized brains back to the moment when IL-2 came out, and the sound of people's jaws dropping was a clattering echo from one dimly lit den in suburbia to the next...

"Honey, come on to bed..."

"Honey it's 3 AM..."

"You've got to work in the morning!..."

"I'VE GOT TO WORK IN THE MORNING!"

"I'M GOING HOME TO MOTHER!!!"

Yes, VACANT ones, you have NO idea what is in store for you. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Divine-Wind
11-17-2008, 09:45 PM
I remember the first time I lost a tail fin in Il-2. This was after CFS2, where you blew up if you landed too hard. Sometimes I would just sit there trying to make different parts of my plane fall off, it was just that cool.

And now here we are looking at the possibility of realtime cosmetic damage modeling.

LEBillfish
11-17-2008, 10:12 PM
Jack of all trades = master of none......

Here for the flight sim. Not Infantry, Tank, Sea, undersea, etc.. It's great objects look so nice. Yet the second tremendous effort goes into making them usable, that's the second some aircraft doesn't get made.

K2

WTE_Ibis
11-17-2008, 10:17 PM
DuxCorvan: Quote:
yeah, I've even chosen the computer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner) I'm gonna buy to run it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/QUOTE]
-----------------------------------------------

Well I'd wait untill it's released m8 because I think you'll need an upgrade by then.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


.

Fehler
11-17-2008, 10:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stiletto-:
Sorry but just because you are too poor to afford a decent rig doesn't mean the game should be scaled back for you, take your broken worthless bat and go home. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL!!! That's a classic!

Choctaw111
11-17-2008, 10:45 PM
For those serious simmers, the ground is very important.
Navigation by terrain association. We could have no ground objects, just a one color green ground with a one color blue water, just like the old days of PC flying...just as long as the flight models are good and the air war stuff is done well.
You don't really believe that stuff do you?
Having a more detailed anything gives more realism...as long as all the things in the sim receive the same amount of detail.
There's not much worse than seeing a highly detailed bridge spanning a pixelated river and blurry landscape...or any ground object on low res terrain. We don't have that here. Why do people complain?
The aircraft are clearly much more detailed. Should we still have the same terrain from the last sim, or should that be improved as well? Of course it should.
Why folks are worried that Oleg is going to do a poor job on this I have no idea.
It's those people that have Oleg holding off on many of his updates...because all they do is complain.

LEXX_Luthor
11-18-2008, 12:53 AM
Because the increasing "detail" won't be seen from the cockpit at combat speeds and distances. During gameplay, low polygon sim objects of ten years ago look like high polygon sim objects of today. In the ground shooter sims, you get up close and personable with ground objects. In the air shooter sims, you don't get up close and personable with anything, even other aircraft except in collisions which are rare, very fast, and too adreneline pumping to worry about the "detail" you collide with. And you already know all this! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Choctaw:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Should we still have the same terrain from the last sim, or should that be improved as well? Of course it should. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Different game design subject. Better terrain modelling can be seen from the cockpit at altitude where high polygon Perfect Trucks still look like Gumby trucks.

LEXX_Luthor
11-18-2008, 12:53 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/Kaytoo/Me/Damsite78.jpg :: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Jack of all trades = master of none......

Here for the flight sim. Not Infantry, Tank, Sea, undersea, etc.. It's great objects look so nice. Yet the second tremendous effort goes into making them usable, that's the second some aircraft doesn't get made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+1

Although its more than planes not being made. Needed advancements in the air warfare environment will suffer and lack of that keeps immersion low and prevents historical air combat tactics, especially online with human-vs-human gameplay...unless offline AI can be programmed to respond to the air warfare environment which Oleg should be doing instead of modelling the Perfect Gumby.

Oleg is a hobbiest underwater photographer. We may Be Sure that the SoW underwater combat environment will be immersively modelled. If only Oleg was a hobbiest weather photographer. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Aaron_GT
11-18-2008, 01:18 AM
What people are failing to take into account are LODs. Whilst you might be able to count the rivets on the Bofors at ten paces I'd expect a low polygon model to be used when you are 5000 ft above it. Hopefully the LODs will be configurable so for lower end machines you'll be able to scale detail to improve performance. We can do this today although the exact behaviour we won't know for 2 weeks/1 year.

Gnomie
11-18-2008, 01:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Because the increasing "detail" won't be seen from the cockpit at combat speeds and distances. During gameplay, low polygon sim objects of ten years ago look like high polygon sim objects of today. (...) Better terrain modelling can be seen from the cockpit at altitude where high polygon Perfect Trucks still look like Gumby trucks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed. Things like better ground textures, shadows, trees, hills, roads, railroads, bridges, cities, clouds and water and all that is what really matters for when you're flying. These are what are important for navigation as well, and they can be seen from a large distance. And these are jobs that that could have been done by the same people who have been modelling rivets for the past six months!

F19_Orheim
11-18-2008, 02:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jarink:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uufflakke:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F19_Orheim:
combined with infantry.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As long as they don't look like Playmobil... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's a good point. How immersive will all those extraordinary ground objects seem without similarly realistic people to man them? I'm sure it can be done, but I'm wondering what sort of performance hit will be involved. (How many people even today can turn on 3D gunners without getting a slide show?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty much my point. Don't get me wrong - I love the fact the we see ground objects get their work done for SoW, and I am very eager for this title, and the latest objects looks great.

But as we seem to speak about immersion (that's the point right), a lot of ground objects will not really do it for me, it will become a stale environment, and again we have to "imagine" these invisable men. Infantry, or any kind of "Human presence" is pretty much necessary for immersion - or it'll look like a WWII vehicle exhibition http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Now of course I understand performance problems, and I am sure Oleg & Co now lay the foundation of this platform for the future to include such things as people, and maybe.. just maybe, a first step is to populate the airdromes?

Skoshi Tiger
11-18-2008, 03:03 AM
Hopefully the SOW series will have the same sort of life span as Il2

Although at 1650x1080, you may not be able to count the polygons in a truck at 1000 feet, if it pulling a bofors on a trailer you will still be able to see if its driving around a corner or reacting to driving over rough terain.

If the SOW series is still going in 5 years time the display technology (VR goggles, data display contact lenses etc) will fairly well put the best we've got to show now-a-days to shame. With proper LOD implementation and scaling, it won't hit too hard on todays systems but you don't want to condem the game to a premature demise by limiting it at it's start.

And if worst comes to worst,I'm sure you will be able to convince the MOD community to produce low pixel count, low detail, low textured objects to fix up Olegs excesses!

Sturm_Williger
11-18-2008, 03:03 AM
I find myself agreeing with Billfish, Luthor and Orheim here. A photo realistic Bofors is all very well, but I'd rather see a low-medium polygon Bofors manned by medium polygon people.
Modelling the rivets does not enhance the AI or provide a flyable Dornier, but it likely takes resources away from them - and the former at least MATTERS a great deal to a flight sim.

For my part, I'd rather Oleg proved the flight sim before making AA etc. mannable - he could always produce "SoW-Ground Combat" as a mergable install a la PF, later, when SoW has sold well and is popular enough to justify such an addition. But first and foremost I would hope that the FLIGHT SIM part gets all the attention.

Model me an aero engine running rough with a busted cylinder before you model me a drivable truck, please. Give me an airfield populated with low or medium polygon people before you give me mannable AA, please. I'd rather see smoke on the horizon than the numberplate on the truck parked next to my plane, thank you.

F19_Orheim
11-18-2008, 03:17 AM
and a lot of dirt gravel, pebbles and cr@p rushing over your canopy when you bellyland... as I do a lot these days http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG52Uther
11-18-2008, 03:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
I find myself agreeing with Billfish, Luthor and Orheim here. A photo realistic Bofors is all very well, but I'd rather see a low-medium polygon Bofors manned by medium polygon people.
Modelling the rivets does not enhance the AI or provide a flyable Dornier, but it likely takes resources away from them - and the former at least MATTERS a great deal to a flight sim.

For my part, I'd rather Oleg proved the flight sim before making AA etc. mannable - he could always produce "SoW-Ground Combat" as a mergable install a la PF, later, when SoW has sold well and is popular enough to justify such an addition. But first and foremost I would hope that the FLIGHT SIM part gets all the attention.

Model me an aero engine running rough with a busted cylinder before you model me a drivable truck, please. Give me an airfield populated with low or medium polygon people before you give me mannable AA, please. I'd rather see smoke on the horizon than the numberplate on the truck parked next to my plane, thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly.

GregGal
11-18-2008, 03:20 AM
These picturs are very impressive. Still I'd rather like to hear about squadron takeoffs, flight models, AI, clouds, tracers, anything that's relevant to a flight sim.. Honestly, I don't care whether the pigs in a French farm are pink or whites with black dots. It's very ice to have such detailed ground objects, but the frame rates and gameplay are 1.000.000 times more important for me.

DD_crash
11-18-2008, 04:56 AM
Didnt Oleg mention that he wanted to offer the sim for TV and film use?

Skoshi Tiger
11-18-2008, 05:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DD_crash:
Didnt Oleg mention that he wanted to offer the sim for TV and film use? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And look at all the highly talented people in this community that have been making films with the IL2 engine. The detail in SOW films will be mind blowing!

major_setback
11-18-2008, 05:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by McHilt:
[QUOTE]
Who the **** is... Gumpy.... actually??? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Joe the Gumpy, Obama would say.
weird name </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gumby 1:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gumby

http://dvanzant.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/gumby.jpg

Gumby 2

http://ayup.co.uk/00/03pic/gumby.jpg

I hope we get the Gumby mkII !!!!!!!
:-)

Gumby mkII infantry:

http://static.flickr.com/53/134424808_59ad0728c1_o.jpg

Chivas
11-18-2008, 09:34 AM
This detailed software is being developed for more products than flight sims. Also all levels of detail will being improved. If you just want more detailed FM's and AI's...well tough... your still going to get more detailed eye candy. I'm sure there will be options to turn down the details if you only want to spawn in and out of the sim at combat speed.

ElAurens
11-18-2008, 10:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
A lot of people here just DO NOT get it... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Post of the week sir.

S!

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-18-2008, 11:08 AM
Ok, you guys need to relax a little. I'm going to make several points here so pay attention. Oleg is NOT going to make ground models this detailed and leave out the flight part of the game so use these pics as perspective, if this is what AAA looks like then what will the rest of the game be KNOWING that Oleg will not leave the rest of the game behind this level of detail. For those saying it's a waste of resources, no it's not! the Person working on ground objects has no other responsibility but ground objects, so detailed AAA does NOT mean one less flyable AC by any stretch of the imagination. For those saying that if Oleg tries for a land/sea/air sim that they will all suck, no they will not and here's why. Oleg has said that his goal is to integrate these aspects of WWII, but he stated clearly that these other aspects (other than flight sim) will be open to do by third party developers, all Oleg is doing is creating the game in such a way as to allow these things to be added to the incredible flight sim he's making. Don't worry about increased poly count, Oleg is just making sure that 5 years from now we can turn the details up and still get modern looking graphics.

Most importantly, remember, Oleg is very worried about the competition getting a hold of what he's up to. If you have this incredible game in the works and you want to let people get a glimpse of whats up but don't want to give anything away what do you show? Well ground objects of course! It gives an impression as to what is possible (and we should know Oleg enough to know everything else is on par with these pics or better) without giving the competition anything they can use, what are they gonna do, make a more realistic looking AAA gun? Big deal, no one is going to be able to make the flight sim Oleg will. Just have some faith folks, you see some screen shots of ground objects and flip out like thats all there is, no, thats all you're allowed to see so get over yourselves. Use your brains people, when CFS2 and EAW and stuff like that was all we had Oleg came by and created absolute magic, he's made the best flight sim ever made and it's lasted 7 years+, give credit where credit is due and stop thinking that you guys have any clue whats going on behind the scenes or pretending that you know how to be a better Oleg than he does......

Duckmeister
11-18-2008, 11:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sturm_Williger:
Model me an aero engine running rough with a busted cylinder before you model me a drivable truck, please. Give me an airfield populated with low or medium polygon people before you give me mannable AA, please. I'd rather see smoke on the horizon than the numberplate on the truck parked next to my plane, thank you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely and totally agree. I want people running around on my airstrips, a use for landing clearance other than taking turns with your squad, being able to have at least some of the air traffic control stuff that FS2004 had.

I want to see barracks, pilot's and officier's quarters, mess halls, AA shift breaks (guys running to replace tired gunners), all fully functional.

THAT's what I would like to see detailed in a flight sim, is actual life.

I want squad members who stayed home on the mission to run out and greet you and cheer you when you finally land, officiers jeeps driving around to the different quarters.

You know something simple that I want?
An intercom, to blast orders over the entire airstrip. I want real mechanics checking on my plane...

The list goes on and on. I hope that we can have at least some of these things.

Dustysquareback
11-18-2008, 12:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Are you guys seriously complaining about improved ground pounding?! The ground game was the most missing part of Il2, ground pounding is fun but nigh on pointless in Il2. This makes it look like we may be able to actually accomplish things in a campaign or coops. Imagine a flight of ground pounders going in and clearing out as much AAA and radar as possible before the bombers and their escorts come in to hit the real target. This would be an exercise is suspension of disbelief in Il2, sounds like in SoW this will be critical and effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to THAT brotha!

Sensation of speed is directly correlated with how much sh*t you you see blasting past your canopy. More detail = more immersion.

jarink
11-18-2008, 12:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
For those saying it's a waste of resources, no it's not! the Person working on ground objects has no other responsibility but ground objects, so detailed AAA does NOT mean one less flyable AC by any stretch of the imagination. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is a waste of resources if the person making nothing but ground objects could instead be making aircraft, at least part of the time.

JtD
11-18-2008, 12:33 PM
What's the point in modeling aircraft with i don't know how many polygons if you hardly ever get close enough to see a bit more than 20 pixels?

Probably the same point as in making ground objects as nicely looking as they are.

Personally, I'm looking forward to that. *decent ships*, *decent ships*, *decent ships*

ytareh
11-18-2008, 12:41 PM
All this gives me mixed feelings ...It sounds like a real whine but this stuff is just TOO detailed ...seriously an electric generator ?!This is gonna be some /all of :

A Released in 2015
B Bloody mind blowingly good!!!
C Unplayable on all but the best pcs
D Run out of steam and end up not being produced

I just hope it's B alone .I am a big fan of Oleg's work and have bought multiple copies of it all but,well ...all we can do is wait and hope...

Aaron_GT
11-18-2008, 12:47 PM
Some traffic control on the ground, especially online, would be nice, or even just more intelligent and configurable spawning.

Aaron_GT
11-18-2008, 12:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What's the point in modeling aircraft with i don't know how many polygons if you hardly ever get close enough to see a bit more than 20 pixels? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg has said he has an eye on an additional revenue stream from TV, e.g. recreating dogfights for History Channel, and I've seen some CGI work creeping in, e.g. the recent Bader documentary. If he is looking to this then he has to exceed the graphical quality in FSX.

trumper
11-18-2008, 01:37 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I do wonder whether some of this work could've been added at a later date if it will delay the "main " part of the sim.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif Mind you ,whats the point of all this detail if Oleg is adamant he won't use realistic sounds,no more flying lawnmowers please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Duckmeister
11-18-2008, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dustysquareback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
Are you guys seriously complaining about improved ground pounding?! The ground game was the most missing part of Il2, ground pounding is fun but nigh on pointless in Il2. This makes it look like we may be able to actually accomplish things in a campaign or coops. Imagine a flight of ground pounders going in and clearing out as much AAA and radar as possible before the bombers and their escorts come in to hit the real target. This would be an exercise is suspension of disbelief in Il2, sounds like in SoW this will be critical and effective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to THAT brotha!

Sensation of speed is directly correlated with how much sh*t you you see blasting past your canopy. More detail = more immersion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well duh, but immersion comes at a cost. I can get the same sensation of speed with low-detail crap flying past my canopy. Sensation of speed has nothing to do with immersion anyways.

Like Luthor said, high detail objects won't change gameplay, they are JUST high-detail. Ground pounding has nothing to do with how detailed the things are that are being pounded.

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-18-2008, 03:37 PM
Detail does matter, I find it rather difficult to pick out target objects when they are in the midst of other objects, do you know why? Because one low detail crap looks like another. And yes detail comes at a cost, but for carps sake just turn the settings down until you have a pc that can take it, just like we do now, no one said this is how it's going to look and you just have to deal with it, this is a pc game, this is why I love pc games, just adjust the graphics settings to your liking, like we do now......

I swear, some people in this thread just WANT SoW to suck.....

WTE_Galway
11-18-2008, 03:42 PM
I am told the rabbit in the second picture is overmodelled.

JtD
11-18-2008, 03:42 PM
3 damage to target creature OF player?

JG52Uther
11-18-2008, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

I swear, some people in this thread just WANT SoW to suck..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No,I'd just like it to turn up before I die of old age.

WTE_Galway
11-18-2008, 03:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Uther:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:

I swear, some people in this thread just WANT SoW to suck..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No,I'd just like it to turn up before I die of old age. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why assume the delays in release are necessarily connected with the level of detail ?

slipBall
11-18-2008, 04:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What's the point in modeling aircraft with i don't know how many polygons if you hardly ever get close enough to see a bit more than 20 pixels? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg has said he has an eye on an additional revenue stream from TV, e.g. recreating dogfights for History Channel, and I've seen some CGI work creeping in, e.g. the recent Bader documentary. If he is looking to this then he has to exceed the graphical quality in FSX. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I'm sure that this aspect is very important to Oleg, and his long term business model for 1C

Thekid321
11-18-2008, 05:06 PM
Oh well. I don't see the point of arguing over something that Oleg's team is working hard on and that we can't do a thing about. I can't wait for the game just like the rest of you. But I think we should just wait patiently. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

major_setback
11-18-2008, 05:51 PM
Just for the sake of clarity: Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Oleg also added several aircraft recently; the Tiger Moth as flyable, Sunderland as AI, Recon Do215(?) as AI. Maybe others too.

LEXX_Luthor
11-18-2008, 07:54 PM
Urufo:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Detail does matter, I find it rather difficult to pick out target objects when they are in the midst of other objects, do you know why? Because one low detail crap looks like another. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Detail is squat if you can't see it during gameplay from the cockpit. At the distances you are having to search for targets, all of this new detail will be far from visible. IF Oleg is making a combined arms sim where his customer base is ground combat simmers or he is making a USA Dogfight Channel grafix tool requiring external cameo closeups, the ground object detail makes sense.

The problem with spotting ground targets is likely textures and lighting modelling.

AWL_Spinner
11-18-2008, 08:00 PM
Well, some folks think detailed startup/shutdown procedures are where it's at in the immersion stakes, so if they include a highly detailed aircraftman to swing the prop, and a pretty WREN to bring me my well-modelled sandwiches for the long recon flight ahead, who am I to argue?

Think of the movie-makers, people!

WTE_Galway
11-18-2008, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

The problem with spotting ground targets is likely textures and lighting modelling. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Speaking of textures, I think those shots use a lot less polygons then people seem to think. There is some clever texture work going on. The top of the ammo cases for example is just a flat surface with a texture to represent the shells inside. The canvas on the truck also appears to be just a texture.

Divine-Wind
11-18-2008, 08:45 PM
You know what I think? If it's there, yippee. If not, oh well. All of this is obviously ingame, and something tells me the comments of a handful (Even a rather large handful) of players will make Oleg change his mind. It's there, so yippee! is what you'll be hearing from me.

It's not as if we weren't going to have to get ridiculously good computers to begin with.

Just my 2 cents.

Choctaw111
11-18-2008, 08:58 PM
I understand what people on both sides are saying, and agree with parts of both.
I don't believe that Oleg's "Storm of War" is suffering because of additional details to things other than the aircraft.
I also agree with Lexx that at 10,000 or even 500 feet, the extra polys on the ground object won't make any difference from inside the pit.
Oleg's goal is very ambitious, and I know he will pull it off.
He needs the high detail of the ground objects now, as he plans to have us doing "ground stuff", and we will see those ground objects very closely.
He wants the ground war to be as good and look as good as the air war. No game has ever done this on the level that Oleg is going for.
Many of you don't want the ground stuff in SoW. Many of you think that somehow the air war is suffering because of Oleg's ambition.
Oleg is an amazing person. Although I have never met him personally, I have been in touch in the past through personal emails, and I can tell you that he is an honorable and respectable man. He will give us what he says and then some.
We will all have a difference of opinion, but some of you are already implying that however good the air war is going to be upon release, it could have been better. There are just some people that can never be pleased.

LEXX_Luthor
11-18-2008, 10:25 PM
Well, if the ground shooter game is hugely popular like mainstream, it MIGHT fund the needed advances in air war simulation. We shall see. Hey, maybe Oleg got fed up with CFS...he knows infantry don't Whine about flight models.

I hear ya Choc, but honor and respect in the past never prevented Oleg from crippling FB as a sim at the request of a tiny minority of anonymous public server players. Dogfight server gaming and coding it is Oleg's personal hobby -- very cool -- but he let his hobby get in the way of his business.

Asas_Portuga1
11-19-2008, 03:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DD_crash:
More stuff (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040&page=2) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GREAT WORK, nuff said !

asas

Feathered_IV
11-19-2008, 04:02 AM
I don't normally bother commenting on SoW these days, seeing as it is so far away. But I'm curious, how many people here are actually so stupid that they think this level of detail will be rendered to distant objects?
It's astounding that some people here brag about how they've been playing the game since the demo, yet they haven't even the tiniest inkling about how the thing works. Incredible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail_(programming)

Airmail109
11-19-2008, 05:33 AM
Wow theyve managed to release a couple of dozen shots of ground models in the 5 years since it's been in development.


http://www.forge22.com/wallpaper/dual%20monitor/Duke%20Nukem%20Forever%202560x1024.jpg

tsisqua
11-19-2008, 06:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Asas_Portuga1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
I don't normally bother commenting on SoW these days, seeing as it is so far away. But I'm curious, how many people here are actually so stupid that they think this level of detail will be rendered to distant objects?
It's astounding that some people here brag about how they've been playing the game since the demo, yet they haven't even the tiniest inkling about how the thing works. Incredible. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_detail_(programming) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

HEY...

u probably born allready knowing" about how the thing works" .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif a genius (not) we must say.....

next time u use "so stupid " look at the mirror and u see one.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't been able to post here in a long time due to some serious life issues that nearly killed me, but I can't be quiet about this one.

Feathered, you have been here long enough to get that huge post-count (without being a serial-spammer), and yes, Bro, you know what you are talking about. Ground objects are not rendered until they come into view, otherwise we wouldn't be able to play the game we DO have. You are good enough writer to give references to back up your statements. You didn't even call anyone "stupid", you only asked who would be willing to step up to the plate and wear the shoe. You've been here since 2004, and like many of us can remember when Oleg used to be here posting regularly, explaining some of the "secrets" of this art to us, as well as asking for input as to what we would like to see. Yes Sir! This sim wasn't just built by an overpaid MS developer, or even a poor russian genius . . . it was built by all of us . . . who have been here awhile.

Tsisqua

blairgowrie
11-19-2008, 06:50 AM
Good to see you back Tsisqua. It has been a while.

Sorry to hear about your life issues nearly killing you. Hope that is all behind you now and all is now well.

tsisqua
11-19-2008, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by blairgowrie:
Good to see you back Tsisqua. It has been a while.

Sorry to hear about your life issues nearly killing you. Hope that is all behind you now and all is now well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

~S
Thank you, Sir.

Asas_Portuga1
11-19-2008, 07:38 AM
tsisqua,Feathered,

just wont to appolagise my behavior.

~S~


asas

tsisqua
11-19-2008, 09:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Asas_Portuga1:
tsisqua,Feathered,

just wont to appolagise my behavior.

~S~


asas </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, Mate. BTW, I copied your sig/quote (6 Mistakes Of Man) into a notepad for later reference . . . very good!

Tsisqua

Asas_Portuga1
11-19-2008, 09:35 AM
Glad u liked, m8.

and if i didn't excuse myself, i wouldn't be acting According to my sig, so I'm pleased that we sort things out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Cheers
ASAS

Dustysquareback
11-19-2008, 12:11 PM
Good LORD!.

If I was Oleg, I would be taking down the names of all you silly bastards whining and crying about how awesome the ground textures are (without having seen ANYTHING about the flight models you are so sure he's ignoring) - and I would hard code the game to make it so NONE of you were allowed to fly lower than 2000 meters.

Seriously guys, chill out. Oleg will deliver. There are a thousand compelling reasons to have detailed system-integrated objects on the ground (like radar, AAA, lights). If you guys can't get over your knight-high-in-the-sky complex long enough to appreciate that, then just keep flying Il2 fer chrissakes.

Look, at first this will be a BOB sim ONLY, remember? We are only GETTING a few planes anyway b/c of the theatre choice. So quit all the damn crying about "time he could have spent making me a new plane waaaaahhhh".

Personally, I'd get tired of flying BoB missions constantly. So what sort of things can flesh that dynamic out more? Detailed operations against ground units, that's what. Jerry will be pounding the hell out of your Limeys' 'unsinkable carrier'. The more authentically that happens, the greater the trigger sophistication, the greater the physical detail on all the components, the cooler and more interesting that experience will be.

More detail DOES = more immersion. Anyone here who claims otherwise is old and blind, has a sh*t monitor, or is lying to themselves.

The very first time you bust the throttle through that copper wire and blast for home radioing for help with Jerry glued to your *** - I guarantee the grass rippling in the wind a few meters below your cockpit will make that experience all the more real. Even if you don't THINK you notice things like that, your brain does. It all adds up.

Have a little faith people. You're all still trolling away in a room for a 7 year old sim. Oleg knows how to make it last, and it isn't by cutting corners and skimping on details. Let him do his job, and half of you will still be here in another 7 years starting polls about the best adult diapers to wear in your sim pit. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

~S~

slipBall
11-19-2008, 01:00 PM
I quess everyone is a bit tired of waiting so long...it gets to me I know. When we finally get it in our hand's, all that ground stuff will be much enjoyed by one and all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-19-2008, 05:58 PM
Yep, that detail will not be seen from the cockpit at combat speeds and distances.

Granted, if Oleg can make a mainstream success from the ground shooter game, this could generate resources to make the needed advances in air war simulation. That may be his Plan.

ie...sure, less percentage of resources are given to the air war, but far greater resources are generated by the ground war playing customers. Less percentage of ALOT may be greater than full percentage of a LITTLE in a less mainstream less "popular" pure combat flight The Sim.


Dusty:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The very first time you bust the throttle through that copper wire and blast for home radioing for help with Jerry glued to your *** - I guarantee the grass rippling in the wind a few meters below your cockpit will make that experience all the more real. Even if you don't THINK you notice things like that, your brain does. It all adds up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
...adds to nothing when the customers abandon the sim when grass waving in the wind fails to cover a lack of immersive air war simulation.

On the other hand, a detailed combat lawn mower sim would require... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-19-2008, 07:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...adds to nothing when the customers abandon the sim when grass waving in the wind fails to cover a lack of immersive air war simulation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, why in the world does everyone assume that detailed ground objects can only come at the cost of less detailed air war simulation? Oleg is first and foremost a flight sim maker, and the best damn one on the planet when it comes right down to it. Do you really think that Oleg would give up his dream of creating the ultimate flight sim just to make some pretty ground bits?! That's madness to think that.

ElAurens
11-19-2008, 08:35 PM
Why are so many people thinking so small?

I don't get it.

We have probably seen less than 1% of what has been done on SOW so far, and a certain cadre of negativsits are ready to throw in the towel.

It's no wonder that Oleg, and most of the old timers who still play the sim never come here anymore.

LEXX_Luthor
11-19-2008, 09:54 PM
Urufo, I poasted that in response to the false statement that grass waving in the wind adds immersion to a combat flight sim -- the high speed escape offered contradicts the grass waving assumption.

What you (Urufo) need to do here is quote what I poasted above that. We can help you... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lexx:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Granted, if Oleg can make a mainstream success from the ground shooter game, this could generate resources to make the needed advances in air war simulation. That may be his Plan.

ie...sure, less percentage of resources are given to the air war, but far greater resources are generated by the ground war playing customers. Less percentage of ALOT may be greater than full percentage of a LITTLE in a less mainstream less "popular" pure combat flight The Sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then you (Urufo) can poast: "wow Lexx, you are right as always http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif and maybe Oleg can make this thing work."
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

skarden
11-20-2008, 12:32 AM
Sorry lex but I'v read and re-read yours and other posts but i just plain dis-agree,I think detailed ground stuff will definatly add to the imersion and suppension of belief.

It is ONLY 1 aspect of a sim but i think it'll play a big part in the overall feel of the SOW.Which I think is going to be one hell of a sim when we do get our hands on it too,which I for one am quite willing to wait for http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

As far as everybody else freaking out over these shots and making doom and gloom calls over them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
dammed if you do dammed if you don't eh

WTE_Ibis
11-20-2008, 01:16 AM
Love the detail, love it but:
I'm afraid I'll be in a home for the bewildered by the time it gets here.
Mr. Oleg sir, please release the sim, then give us the detail in patches. I'll gladly pay for them.


.

major_setback
11-20-2008, 02:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
Love the detail, love it but:
I'm afraid I'll be in a home for the bewildered by the time it gets here.
Mr. Oleg sir, please release the sim, then give us the detail in patches. I'll gladly pay for them.


. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I I'm starting to strongly believ that Oleg is in no hurry whatsoever. We are the ones wanting a quick release, and I don't think he prioritizes our wishes.

If I was Oleg : I would spend time perfecting the grounds for the ultimate combined forces sim, one that will stand the test of time, and bring financial security for the rest of his life; then I'd be able to sit back and reep the rewards while third party developers do most of the remaining work in the future. I'm not saying he has to work on the small details, but allow for their implementation later.
I think it's work on these details that is time consuming.
Meanwhile the model builders have plenty of time for adding rivets etc.

Wasn't Oleg's first sucessful sim (in Russia) a ground forces combat sim, without any aircraft? I believe so.

Blood_Splat
11-20-2008, 08:25 AM
http://www.seoconsultants.com/links/images/no-whining-2x.gif

Chivas
11-20-2008, 11:14 AM
SOW didn't become a priority until last year when they finished IL-2 1946. I doubt we will see a controlable combined forces sim for many years. They probably will be laying out the ground work for such a sim as they expand the air theaters. We will probably see BOB, MED Theater, Eastern Theater, Western Theater and Pacific Theater first. We will see manable AA units in BOB, and maybe even add more manable ground and/or sea assets in the Med theater, and so on during the series, or wait and add the sea and ground units in one sim package. By that time computers may be able to handle the detail required for full theater, high quality combined forces sim.

Buzzsaw-
11-20-2008, 12:44 PM
Salute

For those who don't think we need detailed ground visuals, go to this video, and the 10:56 point, when a Mustang is strafing a parked Ju-88, and watch the aircraft explode and chunks fly into the air.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27650485#27650485

This video is poor resolution, I guarantee in BoB, that you will see something like this, but in almost photo realistic images.

The damage model of the aircraft will be that detailed, Oleg has already said this, if you look through the damage pics he has posted, and in order to complement , the ground aspect also needs to be as detailed.

It is all part of Oleg's very carefully laid out plan for the best ever flight simulation.

Remember this: This is Oleg's second time around. As good as the IL-2 series was, Oleg has LEARNED from the first time, now he is going to produce something even more refined, with all good parts of IL-2, but also with all the new elements which his team and the more advanced state of computers will allow.

skarden
11-20-2008, 02:12 PM
perfectly said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Airmail109
11-20-2008, 11:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Salute

For those who don't think we need detailed ground visuals, go to this video, and the 10:56 point, when a Mustang is strafing a parked Ju-88, and watch the aircraft explode and chunks fly into the air.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27650485#27650485

This video is poor resolution, I guarantee in BoB, that you will see something like this, but in almost photo realistic images.

The damage model of the aircraft will be that detailed, Oleg has already said this, if you look through the damage pics he has posted, and in order to complement , the ground aspect also needs to be as detailed.

It is all part of Oleg's very carefully laid out plan for the best ever flight simulation.

Remember this: This is Oleg's second time around. As good as the IL-2 series was, Oleg has LEARNED from the first time, now he is going to produce something even more refined, with all good parts of IL-2, but also with all the new elements which his team and the more advanced state of computers will allow. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well in that case it will never get released because 3 years after Oleg has released it, it will be graphically and technically obsolete.

With current advances in computing you can never produce a perfect game, those who have tried have failed miserably and ended up releasing outdated games because they worked on it for to long.

skarden
11-21-2008, 01:09 AM
Ya cup seems a bit half empty there Aimail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2008, 03:30 AM
Spot on Airmail. DOOM3 showed how quickly real people get bored by pure "detailed" grafix. Granted, the Doom3 really is a grafix engine to be used by other game developers. The problem for Oleg and others seems to be that computer game grafix are designed around ground object interaction and not the air warfare environment, and this continues to cost air combat sims dearly.


skarden:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Sorry lex but I'v read and re-read yours and other posts but i just plain dis-agree,I think detailed ground stuff will definatly add to the imersion and suppension of belief. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You seem unable to offer why you "plain disagree." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Dustysquareback
11-21-2008, 03:37 AM
Thread summary:

Pessimists: Arg! Shiny fluff! Waste of time! grumble grumble!

Everyone else: Dang! Those screens look f'ing GREAT! If that's what the AAA looks like, I can't wait to see the rest of the game!

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2008, 03:40 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Dusty:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thread summary:

Pessimists: Arg! Shiny fluff! Waste of time! grumble grumble! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have not addressed the Pessimists conclusions, so you concede they are correct. And now you can only...

Arg! Pessimists! grumble! Whine!

ElAurens
11-21-2008, 05:42 AM
Lexx, your posts are an endless loop of your feelings about computer simulation, and in no way reflect the reality of what is going on for us here in the IL2 universe. Of course knowing what sim you have worked on goes a long way towards understanding why you think ground object detail is meaningless. TK's sims have even worse ground meshes than Micorsoft's FS series has.

All of you naysayers are working off of some pretty dubiouis assumptions about the next work from Oleg.

But do carry on, you are providing some interesting comedic relief for these grey old boards.

BTW, yours are not conclusions, but merely assumptions. But don't let that get in the way.

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-21-2008, 05:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Dusty:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thread summary:

Pessimists: Arg! Shiny fluff! Waste of time! grumble grumble! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have not addressed the Pessimists conclusions, so you concede they are correct. And now you can only...

Arg! Pessimists! grumble! Whine! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The pessimists conclusions are not worth addressing IMO, since they are based on pure speculation and have no factual basis whatsoever. They are merely the opinion of the pessimist and therefore have no weight.

Chivas
11-21-2008, 10:52 AM
SOW will not become obsolete in 3 years, simply becomes the series is updated every 2 years with new combat theaters and features. When the new theater arrives with updated FM's, AI, etc the past theaters are updated.

Its amazing that the pessimists come to the conclusion that if the ground objects are well modelled the air aspects must be porked. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I think we will see a cinematic sim with an outstanding FM and DM. The AI will be by far the most difficult part. How long have people been trying to build decent autonomus robots and we are just now making decent strides.

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2008, 05:18 PM
Urufu:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The pessimists conclusions are not worth addressing IMO, since they are based on pure speculation and have no factual basis whatsoever. They are merely the opinion of the pessimist and therefore have no weight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And you (Urufo, and others) cannot refute the so called "Pessimists" here, but can only make rather derogatory (or snotty) forum statements. Try the challenge, I'm willing to talk in case you didn't notice the conscession last page.

There's a reason real people in the real world think combat flight sims are not interesting, and even rather silly, and why they fail in the general market. Only the "hardcore" stay with them, and I am one of them, which is why I am the long term Optimist here (well, Bullish), as I know what is needed, and that is a primary focus on immersive air war simulation. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d178/Lexx_Luthor/Smileys/thumbs.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-21-2008, 05:27 PM
Excellent detailed ground objects for sure. But seriously I would love to see some detailed aircraft pics for a change. After all, this will be a flight sim...at least as far as I can remember. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-21-2008, 07:56 PM
There's nothing to refute dude, whats to refute? All you have is "there's no reason for details on the ground so the air simulation MUST suffer for it", there's no factual basis for that assumption. I've stated before that the only reason we're seeing all this ground stuff is because Oleg feels it's not safe to show anything more. Now that's my theory and nothing more but at least it's logical and based on what Oleg has said in the past about the competition getting his secrets. The assumption that detailed ground objects comes at the cost of detailed air war is based on nothing as far as I can tell. Oleg has proven himself, the fact that we're here still, playing this game still is proof enough of that. If you want to assume that Oleg will screw up the air war based solely on the detail of some ground objects then you are the one who needs to back up your claims, because the weight of past events falls squarely on the side of Oleg knowing what he's doing.

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2008, 08:40 PM
Right. You have a theory, well so do I. Deal with it. Yours sounds pretty good, but like you say, its nothing but theory although based on Oleg's statements. Limited resources is not theory. How limited? That's something that a combined arms sim could address.

I see that the weight of past events falls on Oleg making mistakes and crippling his own sim at the request of a minority of online dogfight competition players. That may change and we hope he has learned since then. That's what I'm thinking anyways.

But ya, these details that will never be seen from the cockpit will cost the air war simulation, since the resources could be put into that instead. That you might refute, but you have not so far. I offered a potential refutation but you ignored it.

Now if the goal is a larger combined arms sim that might pay for vastly greater resources overall...well all that's been poasted last page if you care to review it now. After you do so, we may talk here if you wish.

Divine-Wind
11-21-2008, 08:47 PM
This is funny


it's like watching people throw napalm on a bonfire, while they yell at other people because they're throwing napalm on the bonfire

or something like that

LEXX_Luthor
11-21-2008, 09:02 PM
Yea, I got little irritated there (sorry Urufo), but questions and doubts remain, as it always should. Hopefully it all works out.


Something else: I have heard that Oleg will, according to the story, liscense (always sp? on this) to other developers to addon the ground war sim, and it possibly works with the core BoB air combat sim.

Chivas
11-22-2008, 12:54 AM
LEXX...I don't think its a matter of one aspect taking away from another. There are different people assigned to different aspects. The modeller of the ground units was assigned the job of making the best possible ground unit within restraints of the poly count(or whatever restrains them). L.O.D's should handle most frame rate issues.

He was probably hired as a graphic artist and would be not much help doing AI routines, FM, or Weather algorithems. Although there should be more than enough work to graphically build a highly detailed 1939 era Britain, etc. to keep him busy for sometime. He could build another aircraft but it may put to great a workload on other people already overloaded to incorporate it.

I'm not sure which aspect of the highly detailed Aircraft, FM's, DM's, AI, Ground terrain and objects, with moving Weather systems, would require the most work, but it would take a large group of people with a multitude of talents. The latest blog from Rise of Flight gives us some idea. http://riseofflight.com/blog/

~Salute~

Chivas

LEXX_Luthor
11-22-2008, 01:32 AM
Yeah, plus there may be volunteers working details. Remember the PF team did that, which is cool. I'd love to do clouds if I had a chance, or at least be weather grafix advisor. And its really more than just resource distribution. Its overall developer ignorance of what makes an immersive air war simulation, the air warfare environment required, and keeping vast numbers of Newbies interested long term yet keeping the "hardcore" happy as well. Oleg's not there yet.

Recall Oleg's poast here that "dynamic campaigns are arcade." That poast was a very bad sign, and another reason for questioning. This was about 2-3 years ago, early in BoB development, so maybe Oleg has learned since then. Online War is a dynamic campaign, or it better be. UBI could pay ME a monthly fee and I still would not sign up for a RAF vs Luft 1940 static online war.

squareusr
11-22-2008, 07:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Buzzsaw-:
Remember this: This is Oleg's second time around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember, and i am not so optimistic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_system_effect

csThor
11-22-2008, 08:21 AM
@ Lexx

I'm quite amazed that you (especially you) fail to realize the advantages of realistic (i.e. working suspension systems etc) and good-looking ground objects for any campaign. Actually I am always dismayed by the drastic quality differences between the latest and the oldest Il-2 ground objects (compare a Panzer III J with the newer Pz 38(t)). If it was up to me I'd go into even more detail for the ground AI (i.e. technological advantages such as the german Zeiss optics for more precision or the german three-man turret crew for higher ROF). All of this simply to allow for more historical ground battles which require less "babysitting" by the mission designer.

Il-2 already allowed campaign makers to include short movies into static campaigns ... SoW will hopefully enhance these features (not to mention Oleg's hope of seeing the SoW engine used for commercial TV renders - the ancient Warbirds III engine did this for a channel with some success and this engine looks sh1tecompared to SoW).

And lastly - a person programming a dedicated server and an admin tool for it is usually someone else than the 3D Designer or Texture Artist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Choctaw111
11-22-2008, 08:44 AM
This thread is staring to become something else, I'll tell ya.
There are so many level headed folks in here acting in such a manner as I have never seen before.
Surely the waiting for BoB for this long hasn't made people crazy, has it?
For those that don't think we have seen that much in the way of screenshots and things, there are plenty. We have seen the aircraft, and the pits and many other things...they are beautiful. There are hundreds of screenies out there.
There was a fellow who had a link to a photobucket account to all the screenies he saved when they came out.
Take a look at the aircraft. They are not suffering at all. What's better is that everything else looked just as good, vehicles, ground objects, etc.
So Oleg is the type of guy to make everything look so good, and have the flight models be horrible, or the game run like a slideshow? Let's face it. Oleg is got going to make to game playable on a PentiumII 400. You are going to have to have a half decent rig. Isn't that the way it is with all new release cutting edge games? How many folks are pi$$ed because they can't play Far Cry on their PIII, 6200 with maxed out settings?
Even after release, there will still be people who are not satisfied, and will blame what they think is wrong with the sim on the extra time spent on the ground stuff.

Monterey13
11-22-2008, 08:57 AM
All I can say to the whiners is...If you don't like what you see so far, then....you DON'T have to buy it.
Oleg is making what he thinks is best, and what will help pay his bills and keep food on his table. You'll either buy it or you won't....simple.

triad773
11-22-2008, 09:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
This is funny


it's like watching people throw napalm on a bonfire, while they yell at other people because they're throwing napalm on the bonfire

or something like that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like porno for pyros? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Divine-Wind
11-22-2008, 10:08 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I agree with Monterey. Nobody is forcing you to buy the game, and I seriously doubt any amount of whining on your part will make Oleg reconsider. This is his sim, he will do with it as he likes. If he wants to make a hot pink UFO armed with Mk 108 turrets and filled with giant dancing pandas, that is within his right to do so.
If he decides to make incredibly detailed ground objects (Which, as have been stated, are made by people who have little or nothing to do with the air aspect), that's also within his right, and I am definitely not complaining about those. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Airmail109
11-22-2008, 11:30 AM
Oleg this Oleg that...is he some kind of emperor sun god?

Really, it's not garaunteed it'll even be released guys. Bigger, better funded and more publisized games have been resigned to vaporware in the past.

Uufflakke
11-22-2008, 12:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
For those that don't think we have seen that much in the way of screenshots and things, there are plenty. We have seen the aircraft, and the pits and many other things...they are beautiful. There are hundreds of screenies out there.
There was a fellow who had a link to a photobucket account to all the screenies he saved when they came out.
Take a look at the aircraft. They are not suffering at all. What's better is that everything else looked just as good, vehicles, ground objects, etc.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That "fellow" was me. I am surprised to read that you remember the thread with the Photobucket link from more than 4 months ago. I searched for it and found it. Well, for those who complain about the lack of BoB screenshots here is the old thread with the Photobucket link (339 images):

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4201072376

I don't know if it is updated since July but at "The Other Side" they have loads of screenshots too of SoW: BoB.
Actually it should become a sticky overhere I think with all the Sow: BoB screenshots. Just screenshots, no comments.

VMF-214_HaVoK
11-22-2008, 12:13 PM
Who is whining? And why are we whining about whiners? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

S!

Aaron_GT
11-22-2008, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Recall Oleg's poast here that "dynamic campaigns are arcade." That poast was a very bad sign </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That was in the context of CFS3 in which your actions as an individual pilot can affect the whole outcome of the war. That is indeed arcade.

major_setback
11-22-2008, 12:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:

There was a fellow who had a link to a photobucket account to all the screenies he saved when they came out.
Take a look at the aircraft.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif!

I haven't updated for a couple of months, as Oleg has now made his own place for this kind of thing.

Here is the place though -


SoW:BoB aircraft, some ground objects and buildings:

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/


There are lots of early WIPs too on that link!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/hurricane1.jpg?t=1227382452



___________
___________

major_setback
11-22-2008, 12:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uufflakke:

That "fellow" was me. I am surprised to read that you remember the thread with the Photobucket link from more than 4 months ago. I searched for it and found it. Well, for those who complain about the lack of BoB screenshots here is the old thread with the Photobucket link (339 images):

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4201072376

.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No!!!!
That fellow was ME!

It's my photobucket account in the name of 'restranger'. I am the only one who can add images to it.
I started it as a place to collect all the SoW WIPs as Oleg didn't keep them in one place, and they were difficult to find.

Look at my sig - I am setback/restranger.

I am glad it has been noticed! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


________
________

slipBall
11-22-2008, 01:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uufflakke:

That "fellow" was me. I am surprised to read that you remember the thread with the Photobucket link from more than 4 months ago. I searched for it and found it. Well, for those who complain about the lack of BoB screenshots here is the old thread with the Photobucket link (339 images):

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4201072376

.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No!!!!
That fellow was ME!

It's my photobucket account in the name of 'restranger'. I am the only one who can add images to it.
I started it as a place to collect all the SoW WIPs as Oleg didn't keep them in one place, and they were difficult to find.

Look at my sig - I am setback/restranger.

I am glad it has been noticed! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


________
________ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



There can be only one "me"...the both of you will have to take the lie detector test, OR pistols at 5m http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Divine-Wind
11-22-2008, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
There can be only one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/Highlander.jpg

Friendly_flyer
11-22-2008, 04:05 PM
Personally, I'm quite happy to see Oleg pay attention to a detailed battery trolley that I'll see every time I need to take off.

Uufflakke
11-22-2008, 04:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uufflakke:

That "fellow" was me. I am surprised to read that you remember the thread with the Photobucket link from more than 4 months ago. I searched for it and found it. Well, for those who complain about the lack of BoB screenshots here is the old thread with the Photobucket link (339 images):

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4201072376

.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No!!!!
That fellow was ME!

It's my photobucket account in the name of 'restranger'. I am the only one who can add images to it.
I started it as a place to collect all the SoW WIPs as Oleg didn't keep them in one place, and they were difficult to find.

Look at my sig - I am setback/restranger.

I am glad it has been noticed! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


________
________ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get mad at me major_setback/restranger. There is some misunderstanding here. Choctaw referred to "a fellow who had a link to a Photobucket account". And I replied that it was my thread he was talking about and I did nót say that the actual Photobucket account in my old thread was mine too. If you reread my reply or click on the included link you will notice I never ever took the credits of your collected BoB screenshots.
Hopefully everything is clear now.
But thanx for collecting these screenies I think I've seen them all and I am sure I am not the only one! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

major_setback
11-22-2008, 04:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uufflakke:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Uufflakke:

That "fellow" was me. I am surprised to read that you remember the thread with the Photobucket link from more than 4 months ago. I searched for it and found it. Well, for those who complain about the lack of BoB screenshots here is the old thread with the Photobucket link (339 images):

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/4201072376

.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No!!!!
That fellow was ME!

It's my photobucket account in the name of 'restranger'. I am the only one who can add images to it.
I started it as a place to collect all the SoW WIPs as Oleg didn't keep them in one place, and they were difficult to find.

Look at my sig - I am setback/restranger.

I am glad it has been noticed! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


________
________ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get mad at me major_setback/restranger. There is some misunderstanding here. Choctaw referred to "a fellow who had a link to a Photobucket account". And I replied that it was my thread he was talking about and I did nót say that the actual Photobucket account in my old thread was mine too. If you reread my reply or click on the included link you will notice I never ever took the credits of your collected BoB screenshots.
Hopefully everything is clear now.
But thanx for collecting these screenies I think I've seen them all and I am sure I am not the only one! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wasn't upset. No problem. :-)

LEXX_Luthor
11-22-2008, 05:35 PM
AaronGT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LEXX:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Recall Oleg's poast here that "dynamic campaigns are arcade." That poast was a very bad sign </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That was in the context of CFS3 in which your actions as an individual pilot can affect the whole outcome of the war. That is indeed arcade. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
What he said referred to his ideas of dynamic campaigns in general. Oh yes, its probable he was forming his opinion from other sims, CFS3 as direct competitor included.

The model to follow is Online War, all humanoid players, no AI.

No single online player or squad is given "special" status, and that should be the case for offline dynamic campaigns as well. However, a sliding "realism/arcade" scale could be made that allows a choice of player-centric to "online war" model with intermediate options in between. I would choose the full real no player-centric, but others may prefer other options. That would be the ideal system.

LEXX_Luthor
11-22-2008, 05:40 PM
csThor (yellow added):: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm quite amazed that you (especially you) fail to realize the advantages of realistic (i.e. working suspension systems etc) and good-looking ground objects for any campaign. Actually I am always dismayed by the drastic quality differences between the latest and the oldest Il-2 ground objects (compare a Panzer III J with the newer Pz 38(t)). <span class="ev_code_yellow">If it was up to me I'd go into even more detail for the ground AI</span> (i.e. technological advantages such as the german Zeiss optics for more precision or the german three-man turret crew for higher ROF). All of this simply to allow for more historical ground battles which require less "babysitting" by the mission designer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think we agree! Advances in programming ground AI is required for advances in air war simulation, as they both interact. This does not require higher detail models, working suspension, nor textures, as these details will not be seen from the cockpit during gameplay. I'm assuming air war sim here, and no ground war component. The AI behavior's effects could be seen from the cockpit, either over a short or long time spanning multiple missions.

Divine-Wind
11-22-2008, 05:46 PM
For all we know Oleg might have aliens crafting the most uber AI we have seen. However, you can't post screenshots of AI. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-22-2008, 05:52 PM
What is needed for advances in ground war AI programming?

A simple example: After rain front Mud, and its effect on ground AI movement.

In FB, tanks fire away at each other in forests like they do in open ground. I would not suggest modelling individual trees for ground vs ground gunnery, as this would take more programming resources, and cost more performance. A statistical method, lessoning the range and/or effectivness at which ground vehicles can engage while both are in forest. If one is outside the forest, and one is at the forest edge, an advantage may be given to the units inside a forest..."hex"...for lack of better word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

mmm...stuff like that

fabianfred
11-23-2008, 03:28 AM
are there any ships in SOW...I don't recall seeing any screenshots
certainly the tanks and ships are horribly inaccurate in il2 (big guns...not AAA)

fabianfred
11-23-2008, 03:43 AM
Its the same old story....offline vs online..... dogfighters vs groundpounders..... some want only planes vs other want good ground objects too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

there are so many ifs and buts and what ifs in this thread its boring

Friendly_flyer
11-23-2008, 04:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
In FB, tanks fire away at each other in forests like they do in open ground. I would not suggest modelling individual trees for ground vs ground gunnery, as this would take more programming resources, and cost more performance. A statistical method, lessoning the range and/or effectivness at which ground vehicles can engage while both are in forest. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If Oleg is able to crack the problem of AI seeing through clouds and darkness, I think the "tanks-in-forests" problem will be solved at the same time. As you say, this is a question of certain areas having certain statistical characteristics.

slipBall
11-23-2008, 04:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
For all we know Oleg might have aliens crafting the most uber AI we have seen. However, you can't post screenshots of AI. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Here's one that I'm strafing just for giggles http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f394/SlipBall/grab0000.jpg

csThor
11-23-2008, 05:10 AM
There's even more. In Il-2 you have zero control over artillery units. To make things worse they act like direct-fire units instead of being indirect-fire units. I hope for SoW that I can place artillery units and give them a "fire zone" along with RoF and timing instructions - i.e. "harassment fire starting 08:45 hours, switching to suppression and annihilating fire at 09:45 hours on specified target zone" ... This is the role of the artillery, not direct fire which requires a direct LoS to the target.

Aaron_GT
11-23-2008, 05:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What he said referred to his ideas of dynamic campaigns in general. Oh yes, its probable he was forming his opinion from other sims, CFS3 as direct competitor included. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg also mentioned that objects destroyed in one campaign mission would stay destroyed in the next. You have to read those two parts of interviews with him together to realise that he is reacting to dynamic campaigns in which players have a big effect on the progress but not necessarily proposing a fully scripted one either, but perhaps one in which individual actions have a realistically small effect (e.g. shoot down a Do.17 before it drops its bombs on the factory at Itchen and the total stock of Spitfires at the end of the week is 2 higher than it would have been but the overall progress of BoB is unchanged).

Choctaw111
11-23-2008, 06:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by major_setback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:

There was a fellow who had a link to a photobucket account to all the screenies he saved when they came out.
Take a look at the aircraft.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blush.gif!

I haven't updated for a couple of months, as Oleg has now made his own place for this kind of thing.

Here is the place though -


SoW:BoB aircraft, some ground objects and buildings:

http://s58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/


There are lots of early WIPs too on that link!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g260/restranger/hurricane1.jpg?t=1227382452



___________
___________ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

THAT'S IT!!!
The "Restranger" account! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
When I think of BoB screenshots, THIS is the place to look.

Phillip58
11-23-2008, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
There's even more. In Il-2 you have zero control over artillery units. To make things worse they act like direct-fire units instead of being indirect-fire units. I hope for SoW that I can place artillery units and give them a "fire zone" along with RoF and timing instructions - i.e. "harassment fire starting 08:45 hours, switching to suppression and annihilating fire at 09:45 hours on specified target zone" ... This is the role of the artillery, not direct fire which requires a direct LoS to the target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would be great. Then you have to be carefull about flying near a arty barrage. The random plane being hit or shot down by a arty round would add more realism to the sim.

ElAurens
11-23-2008, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
What is needed for advances in ground war AI programming?

A simple example: After rain front Mud, and its effect on ground AI movement.

In FB, tanks fire away at each other in forests like they do in open ground. I would not suggest modelling individual trees for ground vs ground gunnery, as this would take more programming resources, and cost more performance. A statistical method, lessoning the range and/or effectivness at which ground vehicles can engage while both are in forest. If one is outside the forest, and one is at the forest edge, an advantage may be given to the units inside a forest..."hex"...for lack of better word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

mmm...stuff like that </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In one of Oleg's updates he did mention the use of a new Nvidia developed technology that allows instructions for ground units to be placed in the terrain mesh so that a vehicle moving on the ground would, for example, change speed when encountering a steep grade. I'm sure this could be used for mud, sand, etc as well. No input from the mission maker would be needed as that info would be coded in all the maps.

DuxCorvan
11-23-2008, 01:12 PM
Well, if you have two guys working on a project that requires 100 working hours to be perfect, working 10 hours a day, they will need 5 days to finish it.

If you add another 100 hours project to the queue, then they'll need 10 days, or the projects will be both half-made when released, or one suffered because of the other... unless you add more guys.

Oleg is adding more and more food in his plate. Sorry, but IMHO this project is getting overambitious, and AFAIK he can't hire many people -he has admitted many times his human and money resources are very limited.

My opinion is: don't expect this to be released anytime soon. If ever.

And, please, I'm not whining. I love the screenies. But, unless something's changed in Maddox Games in terms of resources, or unless Oleg was being too pesimistic about their capabilities, maths just don't match our expectations.

I really WANT to be wrong.

BTW,

I AM THE PHOTOBUCKET FELLOW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I challenge anyone who denies it to a nude wrestling match in a pool of cream.

Slurp! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif

LEXX_Luthor
11-23-2008, 05:58 PM
AaronGT::<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You have to read those two parts of interviews with him together to realise that he is reacting to dynamic campaigns in which players have a big effect on the progress but not necessarily proposing a fully scripted one either, but perhaps one in which individual actions have a realistically small effect </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Awsim, so few understand that. Thanks. I hope your right and Oleg knows this.

Monterey13
11-23-2008, 06:22 PM
Dux, just maybe Oleg made enough $$$ off of selling some of the stuff to the developers of Birds of Prey, to hire some more folks.

Chivas
11-23-2008, 11:09 PM
I don't remember Oleg ever stating he has money or manpower issues. He has said he won't spare manpower at this time to finish 4.09 as SOW BOB is the priority. That priority is the future monies required to keep his company going. He's sold IL-2, AEP, Pacific Fighters, Pe-2, etc and just sold IL-2 1946 last year.

If he runs into problems in 2009 he could release it with some features like active Weather systems delayed until the next patch or addon. We know nothing of his financial situation but if it were that dire he could easily patch something together with the work already done and sell it. The fact he hasn't done just that tells me things are just fine at the moment. If we were nearing late summer or fall of 2009 and things didn't appear right...then I would worry.

major_setback
11-24-2008, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fabianfred:
are there any ships in SOW...I don't recall seeing any screenshots.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If my memory serves me rightly:
On the DVD that came with "1946" there is a video of a ship breaking into 3 parts and sinking. I think it was a cargo ship. [It is shown on one of the monitors in the development team office].

major_setback
11-24-2008, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:....BTW,

I AM THE PHOTOBUCKET FELLOW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I challenge anyone who denies it to a nude wrestling match in a pool of cream.

Slurp! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

:-)

uurm..OK!

http://www.dearcher.com/images/RSaug%2024%20th%20volupcity%20Whip%20Creme%20Wrest ling%20079_psd_jpg.jpg

squareusr
11-24-2008, 12:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Well, if you have two guys working on a project that requires 100 working hours to be perfect, working 10 hours a day, they will need 5 days to finish it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They'll more likely need about 6 to 7 days, due to coordination overhead.

But this does not make a difference for your other conclusions, i think they are some of the best in this thread.

Choctaw111
11-24-2008, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:


I AM THE PHOTOBUCKET FELLOW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I challenge anyone who denies it to a nude wrestling match in a pool of cream.

Slurp! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dux, I can always count on you for a good laugh as you have a good sense of humor.
Thanks for my laugh for today http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-24-2008, 01:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
Well, if you have two guys working on a project that requires 100 working hours to be perfect, working 10 hours a day, they will need 5 days to finish it.

If you add another 100 hours project to the queue, then they'll need 10 days, or the projects will be both half-made when released, or one suffered because of the other... unless you add more guys.

Oleg is adding more and more food in his plate. Sorry, but IMHO this project is getting overambitious, and AFAIK he can't hire many people -he has admitted many times his human and money resources are very limited.

My opinion is: don't expect this to be released anytime soon. If ever.

And, please, I'm not whining. I love the screenies. But, unless something's changed in Maddox Games in terms of resources, or unless Oleg was being too pesimistic about their capabilities, maths just don't match our expectations.

I really WANT to be wrong.

BTW,

I AM THE PHOTOBUCKET FELLOW! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I challenge anyone who denies it to a nude wrestling match in a pool of cream.

Slurp! http://media.ubi.com/us/forum_images/gf-glomp.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



The reasoning here is fairly sound except for one factor. The skillset. The guy who is doing the ground objects would be a 3d modeler/texture artist, he most likely does not have the first clue as to how to code AI routines, or create dynamic weather algorithms, or create user GUI's. While it's true he could be redirected to aircraft creation they most likely have enough people on this already and would need the game coders to do more work to add this AC's model. The ground object modeler most likely has nothing else to do but create the best ground objects he can while he waits for the rest of the coding team to finish the rest of the game. If Oleg has a manpower shortage it's far more likely to be in the coding dept., not the modeling dept.

LEXX_Luthor
11-24-2008, 05:24 PM
Yeah, now that does make sense Urufo. THANKS!!! In the past, Oleg had one (1) FM coder, and maybe not enough profits to hire more along with more game coders. I dunno.

See what real ideas for discussion can do? You should have been here this time last year when AAA and The Mods first came out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

partic_3
11-24-2008, 05:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We know nothing of his financial situation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


brrrr... don't even think about it! I said 2 years ago the biggest risk to the delivery of SOW was the coming depression and I stand by it.

Chivas
11-24-2008, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by partic_3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We know nothing of his financial situation </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


brrrr... don't even think about it! I said 2 years ago the biggest risk to the delivery of SOW was the coming depression and I stand by it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wouldn't start worrying until late summer next year. Olegs hoping to release BOB by the end of next year so he must have funding to atleast that time frame. UBI lists the IL-2 series in the top ten of their sales list and he sold atleast 5 add-ons too this series world wide over the last 8 years.

A depression won't effect the development of BOB this late in development, but could effect any further development of the SOW series if sales are low. That said people still spend monies on cheap entertainment during a depression to get there mind of the realities at home. If you already have a decent computer system, buying a 50 dollar game with years of replayablity is a bargain.

Urufu_Shinjiro
11-24-2008, 07:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Yeah, now that does make sense Urufo. THANKS!!! In the past, Oleg had one (1) FM coder, and maybe not enough profits to hire more along with more game coders. I dunno.

See what real ideas for discussion can do? You should have been here this time last year when AAA and The Mods first came out. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lol, this is what I was trying to say the whole time. I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words so I'm not surprised my point didn't make it through till now, lol.

PB0_shadow
11-25-2008, 06:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
UBI lists the IL-2 series in the top ten of their sales list </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong on many levels:

1- IL-2 series is niot in the top ten sales of Ubi
2- Ubi does not list it in their top ten.

If you look at "Simulations" on the corporate Ubi site (http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/index.php?p=13), IL-2 is not even listed.

Il-2 sold well for a PC game but thinking it's in the top ten of sales is being way off. Far Cry2 sold more since it went out than the whole IL-2 serie for Ubi....

Chivas
11-25-2008, 09:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PB0_shadow:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
UBI lists the IL-2 series in the top ten of their sales list </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrong on many levels:

1- IL-2 series is niot in the top ten sales of Ubi
2- Ubi does not list it in their top ten.

If you look at "Simulations" on the corporate Ubi site (http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/index.php?p=13), IL-2 is not even listed.

Il-2 sold well for a PC game but thinking it's in the top ten of sales is being way off. Far Cry2 sold more since it went out than the whole IL-2 serie for Ubi.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

IL-2 was listed 8th out of ten in PC games, two days ago. I was about to post the link but I see they have just updated their site and I no longer see that particular list.

Zorin2008
11-25-2008, 11:13 AM
http://www.ubisoftgroup.com/index.php?p=65&art_id=

PB0_shadow
11-25-2008, 11:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chivas:
IL-2 was listed 8th out of ten in PC games, two days ago. I was about to post the link but I see they have just updated their site and I no longer see that particular list. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure, but 8 out of ten on PC doesn't make it for the overall top ten, not with PC sales of about 7% of Ubisales in 2007-2008 (see p.30 of the annual report) and 16% in 2006-2007

Aaron_GT
11-25-2008, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yeah, now that does make sense Urufo. THANKS!!! In the past, Oleg had one (1) FM coder, and maybe not enough profits to hire more along with more game coders. I dunno. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Oleg has alluded to having ~10 permanent staff plus about the same in volunteers (whether he means unpaid or temps I wasn't clear on). The Bofors might be a volunteer effort. Only Oleg knows (and the 3d artist).