Excellent looking development update!

Has anyone mirrored those download links? They are taking forever to download.


I like the river bank under the Stuka in this photo... I mean screenshot:

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y12...back/CoD01.jpg



BTW. Cliffs of Dover = CoD = Call of Duty.


__

Smoky England:

http://rememberwhen.gazettelive.co.u...rom_bridge.jpg

There is much more to a sim than the looks. Fidelity is a huge part of it as well.

Combat flight sims (IL-2, DCS, & ROF, for example) have a much more realistic flight / damage model than sims like FSX or X-Plane.

In combat flight sims, if you push your aircraft outside of its flight envelope, you can destroy it without touching anything, like in real life. FSX isn't going to let you shed your wings, even if you are pulling 12G's at speeds exceeding VNE.

The way the aircraft handle feels much more realistic in combat sims, with things like sideslipping and spins, largely based on my experience flying Cessnas. DCS BS compares well to my one discovery flight in a helo. IL-2 feels good to me, and FSX feels like a cheap toy. It's like a Formula 1 sim where you can jump curbs, go offroading, all without fear of damaging your car.

The only reason to run FSX or X-Plane seems (at least for me), for particular aircraft, airports, or ATC. The flight experience though, is lacking.

I'd rather fly non-combat flights in a combat flight sim than fly in FSX or X-Plane.

I have to disagree here. I know X-Plane better than MSFS, but you can definitely "over-G" your aircraft. Wings fly off and you have no parachute :). It's a long, spinning ride to a quick stop....I've done it more than once lol.

I would also say that the flight models, for well done aircraft, are closer to reality than a combat sim. The flight sim spends all of the computing power on the flight model (not counting elements common to both flight sims and combat sims). Combat sims have a lot more going on (ballistics, other aircraft, damage, etc..) and have to "cheat" a bit with the flight models.

So while flight models on well done aircraft and weather effects may be better in a flight sim, no flight sim can do "good" combat. The computing resources just are not available and I know as far as Laminar Research (X-Plane's developers) are concerned, they have no interest in combat.

Between such a flight sim and a combat sim like SoW, one is not better than the other...they are not the same thing. I LOVE both and cannot knock either. A flight sim gets old sometimes and I want combat. Then after a while I want to do some good old fashioned bush flying.

There is room on any game shelf for both. I'm definitely buying X-Plane 10 when it comes out around Christmas AND can't wait to get my hands on SoW whenever it comes out.

Splitter

Hello Oleg

Breathtaking, spectacular, I just can't express how excited I am.

Here is something from a member of the community who admires and appreciates all your hard work:

I am going to buy 5 copies of the game just to show my appreciation.

When I consider how many years of enjoyment I'll get from it, this is a small price.

I haven't tried over-G in X-Plane, but when I tried spinning Cessnas (in both X-Plane and FSX), I was disappointed with the results. I couldn't get the planes to spin, and my experience flying Cessnas told me that it was wrong. In IL-2, you can easily enter a spin through a sharp uncoordinated turn as well as through a stall. I guess that particuarly bothered me, because it was one of the things I enjoyed most about flying Cessnas. :P

In theory, if all things were equal (spec vs. performance), then a combat flight sim either couldn't do as much, or would have to have lower fidelity than a non-combat flight sim. But different flight sims are built off of different code, have different modeling methodologies, and different system requirements. It's not true that a combat flight sim must have lower flight fidelity due to dealing with things like ballistics. The same code would just require additional resources.

Sometimes aircraft with particular handling characteristics don't fit well in a survey sim. As an example, the Me 163B in IL-2 is much less forgiving than what I've read about the real aircraft. Then again, in IL-2 it won't blow up wihout external influence, so maybe it is a compromise. ;)

I will most likely get X-Plane 10, too, and I hope that I have a better experience with it than with version 9. MS Flight looks like it might be less realistic than FSX, just laden with more eye-candy. If so, I will probably skip it.

Needless to say, I will buy SOW at the first opportunity that presents itself.

Nice one Skorzeny. Oleg Maddox, Michelangelo of the development world. :-)

So true.

He has painters, sculptors, architects and engineers under his command - just like Michelangelo, and he is building a cathedral of a sort (a monument to human creative effort).

Although, I think I'd liken Mr. Maddox to a Stradivarius - we won't see products of the like again (at least not often). His sims may well not just set the benchmark - they may be effectively definitive.

Obsequious fawning.

All you have to say is how you appreciate the update.

Personally, I find Avimimus's acclaims, accolades, appreciation, approbation, compliments etc. rather poetic.

Awesome work! I'm really looking forward to this excellent work...
The only thing I hope will see some improvement are the clouds. But I guess it's still a placeholder in there...

Just for inspiration: http://www.realenvironmentxtreme.com/products.html