Great update, thx!

Oleg, with MSFS dropping out of the game, I think you have an opening for making civilian flight sims based on the SoW engine. I really wouldn't want to see that personally, because I like to shoot things up, but I think you could do it, and that is where the really big money is.

The whole issue will be decided by how you approach the third-party developer issue. How to make tools for them. How to allow them or not allow them access to core features. Third party involvement is essential, because one single developer can never satisfy the thirst for content by modern-day users.

If you step back from all the extremely detailed issues these forums are full of, I think you should try considering yourself more like someone setting the ground rules for a whole industry, rather than just a developer of a single product. It would be the next step.

:D

OLEG... LISTEN... THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE! I've been watching the industry since the early 80s and I can tell you that the timing is now to capture the entire flight sim industry that MS has left behind... I'm sure you know that, but I can tell you from a grass roots level of looking around those types of forums, etc that the shell has been cracked and folks are looking for a new base to build a general aviation simulator on...

Do you have anyone aggressively pursuing the opportunity? I've noticed that even BOP has been able to make users in that community giddy... And... X-Plane of course... 20 years from now, let's hope you're living off the royalties of a 3rd party A-380 :)

Oleg,

BUTTKICKER question:

I can't speak for all the planes, but I've always thought the IL-2 Sound Engine was incredible on IL-2 for the 109 which I fly about 98% of the time. The turbine whine, the 3D capability to capture correct dopplar affect at all speeds of the plan and at all throttle settings was incredible.

Then I bought a BUTTKICKER GAMER and took the experience to a new level. For me, the positive change was analogous to going from no trackIR to using a trackIR... a great thing.

http://www.buttkickergear.com/ButtKi...er_p/bk-gr.htm

Is the sound code being worked in such a way to specifically take advantage of the BUTTKICKER device? The device works reasonably well in IL-2, although the settings were somewhat sensitive, making adjustment to a sweet spot somehat difficult when different planes were flown...

Can you comment on any specific considerations done for this device?

ASUS Mobo???
Realtek ALC1200 is a Realtek ALC6xx wich ASUS bought in huge numbers wen Realtek dumped them, ASUS added a few new features trough the Mainboard and Relabled it as ALC1200, its a pretty poor Soundchip, maybe they where hoping to sell more Sonar cards that way?

Only way i see that being better than an X-Fi is if you where using a ExtremeAudio wich has no X-Fi procesor and is simply a Rebranded Audigy with an X-Fi user-interface, or if you where using the wrong settings for it.

Realtek HDA ALC8xx are the ones you want an they beat a X-Fi ExtremeGamer easly for this game but only because IL2 uses DirectX DirectSound (not DirectSound3D, wich is difrent but gives the same isue) so it cant make use of anything the X-Fi has to offer and your better of (higher FPS but it can also solve crashes) if you Disable all the Soundcards features both in Windows and in the Game.

Here is a quick explanation of the difrences between DirectSound(3D) and OpenAL Sound under Vista (Windows 7): http://connect.creativelabs.com/open...%E2%84%A2.aspx

S!

Yes, ASUS M4A79T Deluxe (AMD 790FX chipset) mobo. The Realtek seems to work just fine, all games I play I have had zero problems. Could be an ExtremeAudio card I got, need to check. I would rather buy a really good sound card if I knew SoW will support it :D I have had no problems with this AMD rig I use for now, works at least and even slightly better than my Intel rig I had before, heh!

Insuber, I'll second this even though Oleg's already answered your post. IL2 came into my experience somewhere around 2002 when a friend gave me a demo he found inside a magazine. The "passion + competence" that went into this simulator was immediately apparent and it just kept me coming back for more. Attention to detail and desire to improve are marks of a true artist. Oleg and his growing team are true artists IMHO :grin: Look forward to SoW also and if my computer won't handle it the DVD package will look great on the shelf until a new computer comes online.

It is really very hard task but my target.
At the moment we can't begin with civilian big aircraft. There is not some special features that are neccessary for modeling such aircraft and envirouments (modern radar system, speeches, etc)
But....
Right at the time when we will release first tools will be possible to make:

1. Sport piston engine aircraft
2. Almost any or any piston engine or multi engines aircraft of WWII time
3. envirouments, including new ground objects that will corresponds to that time (cars, ships, U-boats, tanks, rail road cars and many other things...)
4. to make own campagin engines, including for online. As a separate modules, that are using our API.
6. To program new devices for aircaft and other technics (this will happens a bit later that all above).
7. To add new calsses of controlable units in the game (cars, tanks, ships, u-boats, maybe even human as a first person... ). But this tool will be relased as the last from our side and for this we will need a time. The most complex.

Then... at the same time we should make own next sim. The next will be separate sim, but it will be possible to install as a merged version with previous one... Experience show me that this is the only one right way.
With new sim we will add new features (like in the past). Half or the models already done for the new sim so probably you may calculate what the sim it should be. Can't name you... because everything may happens... And in reality we was planning two sims right after BoB.... Maybe this also happens. All will depends of success or no success on the market with BoB. Hope success... everything will be fine then. I even can image how fine and how great will be life of this project :):):) Then I can to retire on a pension :):):):) after some 10 years of SoW success :):)

Oleg, you're going to be like that Hideo Kojima guy who does the Metal Gear Solid game series for Konami. He keeps stopping it but then comes back to do another, then another, then another. I don't know how much of your simulators are thanks to you (because this is a major team effort, and you must have incredibly talented intelligent guys working for you to have such few people responsible for so many areas, and still making them so good) - and so I don't know how the IL-2 game series will go if you retire. Maybe someone to take over.

But hey, SoW isn't even out yet, and 10 years is a long time. Imagine what leaps can be made in technology and how your urge to develop more cool things can be revitalized even more.

EDIT: As for the next sim, if half the aircraft already made.. Battle of France including Dunkirk maybe. :) Possibly Barbarossa as it uses all the German planes. MTO also a strong possibility.

EDIT2: After my question on the rear gunners of aircraft like Bf 110, I went and looked around the forum searching, and I found one answer you gave stating that there are plans to make the gunners communicate positions of enemy aircraft to the pilot.

I can develop with team any type of the games. However I'm with love to aviation during all my life. And I understand that it is small niche in the games market, where are going not so great money like in other some genres. The principle of meged separate sims in one in time - the only one system that can help stay on the board and make hi-end class avia sims.


Rear gunner: Speeches of them is work of Ilya. Programmer can make some limited AI interaction. The main thing - to make some most important and useful things.
Already now we have much more commands to AI comparing to Il-2 (I'm speaking about control by command across the Tab button in Il-2)

Well, life isn't only about making even more money. Having fun doing it and being able to focus on something one has passion for ranks very highly I think (as long as you meet some minimum standard of life quality otherwise). I would choose the same thing as you I think... and by the way, I loved airplanes my whole life I think. At first more modern looking jets (starting with F-4 Phantom II to modern times. I found myself in the middle of the 1980's (born in 80) with the planes then, where it was cold war type aircraft. Thanks to IL-2 many years later, I got a big, if not bigger, interest in WW2 era aircraft too :)

The method you use for selling more versions is clever and logical. Eagle Dynamics are doing similar things, and they realize it is the best way too I think. Because then the older sims can be benefit from technology of the new sims, and at the same time keep the 'family' of the sims together. But a requirement for this to be successful is that the start sim engine technologically is 'future proof' so that can upgraded and adapted easily for the coming sim stand-alone expansions. IL-2 was like this and SoW will be too.

The gunners don't need that much AI or commands. But since they are always with us, they probably need a bit more variation to their speech than other aircraft. Even when everyone else is shot down, you still have your crew members/gunners in the same aircraft so it is logical.

I use a program called "Shoot" for Windows sometimes, that can recognize my speech (very accurate and fast!), and I use it to talk to the AI in IL-2. It is a bit complicated to set up with all the keypresses needed, but I managed to make it so fast that it is impossible to see the HUD radio stuff appear (realistic). I think that a native feature in IL-2 to support speech recognition would be a good idea for many reasons, including for third party expansions etc. For civilian flying too. There is a lot of possibilities for anyone developing the AI speech and pilot speech interaction using such a feature. Native is better than external. And this is an area that has very little development in the game world, developers just didn't care about developing and using it.

EDIIIIIT: Some things would make speech interaction much easier and useful (here are suggestions).

1. Logic to permit someone to be talking only to one other plane (selection basically, other AI ignore the commands). This way it is possible to keep closer communication with a single wingman or leader. Naming another aircraft or the group makes them listen to commands again.
2. Related to 1, tell the other pilot to execute basic maneuvers like "break left/up/down/right" or "tach weave". Wingman tactics benefit a lot.
3. Be able to use numbers to tell them more specific things. Like altitude, heading, speed, the direction of a contact, how many contacts, the range at which to open fire (just examples of possible uses). This is impractical for typing but not a problem for speech recognition.

yea speech recognitions is possible... in one language... and if u have an accent... makes it even harder for the computer to understand... and if someone else wants to play... the computer has to learn their voice too... and not many people want to read an entire novel to their computer so that it can understand their voice enough to command AI in a game...

Don't have to read a novel (although that SHOOT program, which is based on very old technology, needs a bit of training to function properly).

Nothing to force English, can use any other language that has support from whatever speech API/engine is being used.

And, nothing that says that one must fly with this specific option. A simple way of calling out a contact to an AI could be just to look at the contact (with your headtracking or whatever) and then click a button, and the right direction, height, distance etc is done automatically.

1. We had the very first in the word own game with the speech recognition build in game driver. With the training it was working 100%. Used for voice control of weapon, like on some soviet aircraft of 70-80th (MiG 25 had it for example)
The game, except not so modern for that time Engine (better than Duke 3D but worse than Quake II, had a lot of innovations, that never had before. Some features like two hands weapon control, fancy weapon, etc - was copied later by other developers.
My game simply was born too early... (except 3D engine and used DOS OS).

The game called Madspace and released in 1997. Currently I found just one english language source that describing other features of the game (12 years ago):

http://www.stereo3d.com/madspace.htm

Original box of the game was looking: http://www.old-games.ru/games/M/mads...pace_cover.jpg


2. We did many new commands... especially when you now can command up to 40 aircraft at once. Or separatelly...

the structure of commands we tried to keep as more as possible close to IL-2 structure. - more easy to learn. Also we add there new features (for example like typing altitude :)).

Hey, that's neat! I didn't know you made anything before IL-2 to be honest. I always assumed it was probably something flight related. You do seem to like to push for new things other people have not yet exploited (innovator).

I will see how it works out, then pass hard but fair judgement. :mrgreen:

Anything that involves typing for stuff can be made to work with external programs, like "Shoot" that I mentioned (since it pushes keys). Request: ability to hide the interface for anything related to AI commands. Like NoHudLog=1.. It should still work, just not be visible. This makes it look better when using external voice programs - no hud stuff, no typing of letters being seen. Also the structure should be such that there is no need to reprogram the button presses when switching roles (for example, from being a new pilot at lowest rank flying wingman, and then another mission flying as squadron leader - the keypresses should always be the same to reach a plane/group. Otherwise, voice commands suddenly mean something else in one mission to another).

I vaguely remember reading that SoW will have it's own voice protocol, like IL-2 had it (no one uses it now though, people mostly use nothing, sometimes teamspeak or ventrilo). And something about the radio reception and transmit being simulated by the radio type and atmospheric conditions, range etc. It would hopefully mean too that getting your radio shot means no communication. And no communication when bailing out or crashed (this is a very unrealistic part of using teamspeak online, I don't like it). Perfect for multiplayer. One reason people don't speak can also be because they have to be quiet (play at night, people nearby, thin walls bla bla. Headphones make them hear everything but cannot talk).

A problem is still that some people don't want to talk to others directly. And people are divided by teamspeak and such other things. Maybe they are shy, exhausted whatever. It would be nice if we could make these people communicate by allowing the AI radio interface work with human players too. One can talk voice, the other can reply with the tab-number key interface if they want, instead of typing (because typing is really impractical and unrealistic). They can even use speech recognition to push those buttons.. funny but it would work. For really shy people :P I just remembered that Battlefield 2142 has a bit of this system. Limited, but worked.

More EDIT

Wish: Radio commands assignable to controller.

Method for non-speaking people to interact with others online: To call out contact, zoom in on contact and push some button. Then it transmits the contact report to the flight group in voice actor voice, just like AI would call out contacts.

One top-hat on a joystick is enough to control a lot of practical radio interaction without even having a microphone. If advanced, can be context sensitive. Call out the correct plane, determined by plane is closest to center (and distance) on view screen.

Example (top hat):
WATCH OUT (someone on your tail) - Context Sensitive.
BREAK LEFT! - Context Sensitive.
BREAK RIGHT! - Context Sensitive.
HELP ME! (anybody :P )

If held for 1 second:
AFFIRMATIVE
NEGATIVE
CONTACT REPORT
WHERE ARE YOU?

Some things can be automated. Like "I'm bailing out", "I'm wounded".

To permit interaction properly with voice users and avoid spam: timer before the next command can be sent. Commands are not sent if someone is actively talking in the same flight - delay until they finish their transmission.

We did from 1992 too more than 40 games small or big before Il-2. There was one fancy flight sim called Stormfighter (1995). Also we were working with City Information System GmbH - the final result Navigations maps in cars (first was for PC).
I hope when we finally will have a separate site - all or main part of that info will be placed there.

You may also find other very popular our game in the world - gagboy or under other name - Minx (then all was copying this game even for sells) :):):) Don't fall from the chair when you will read "about" in this game by the second click of mouse :):):)
It was free distributed and was one of the puzzles in erotic game Gag

Oleg, can the altimeter gauge be set on the aircraft in SOW

Do you mean to set zero altitude on the airfiled by the user-pilot? You all want to know too much! :) Yes we have it. By separate command-button. If you don't press it before the flight - will show Sea Level. Youi need to set it before each flight. Don't know if it will be saved auto for the currently used airfield. Maybe yes.

Also I was asking my guys to make presets for trims. Saved for each aircraft by user. How it will looks/works optimal - don't know yet. Probably it ill be 3 sliders in the panel of arcraft customization. Default - trimmed for cruise speed. At least I have such idea. Useful or not - you may discuss already now. I personally thing it is very useful, especially for the beginers that begun to use more complex settings... My lder son have a problem using trimmers... my little son - simply don't understand it yet... and ask Papa to set plane to fly normal without constant input of stick.

You have dealt with us for over a decade, Oleg. You must have known we're a bunch of over-inquisitive misfits. :razz:

Thanks boss :grin::grin:

I simply have a great list of suggestions from around the world on my computer. From the beginning of first Il-2 and for the latest dates. And not only on PC, but also in my own head. I remember almost all suggestions for the last years as a general line.

We make the sim not for us, but for all. No all things are possible due to limits of resouces and time, but we try to implement everything possible using experience of Il-2 nd suggestions of community (if not crazy suiggestions :):):)).

And as you know all I don't advertize anything untill the time when I'm sure that it is done.... at least in 98% cases.

Presets for trims - yes please!

I am developing it for IL-2 already. It's not very complicated (not for you SoW guys at least, for me it's worse using devicelink etc).

I made the following functions that are logical. I imagine SoW should use the same functions (what else is there?)

Set range of trim possible (to avoid excessive sensitivity and extreme trim we never need anyway).

Set trim off-set from center (since many aircraft only need to be trimmed to one side from center, it's a waste to always have the other side included. With this users can make use of the whole range of their trim axis, not just half. It also permits even lower range used, further making trim less sensitive and easier to be accurate).

Only one profile so far. To add in user customizable trims for different planes.. work work work.

many good news this week ,

also can we have wreck of plane , boat , vehicule , bom crater , smoke , haze of smoke when massive bombing or blitz etc ...., all of that which d' ont disappear after a few time but stay during all the mission ?

it's will be shame to not see your nice DM during the party and better for immersion but not good for fps :grin:, also perhaps a game option ?

So probably I'm right with this at least for a sim. :)

Heh, yeah. :) It's the way to go.

Just consider that if using off-center function, there must be a way for the users to know that their trim is centered (they can no longer rely on physically watching their real controller). I tried without and it's very difficult to know (watch the rudder pedals move? heh).

On the G940 I am made a throttle button light shine yellow if a trim is centered, just like the Pe-2 aircraft does. Will add a sound effect too I think. I don't know what you can come up with. :)

I will think about it. Should be useful for all doesn't matter which one of devices they are using.

Currently we are using customizable and saved separate profiles for each aircraft. They can be selected and loaded by user for using with his beloved aircaft. The is is also tuned curves for Joy.

Over a decade? I´m 37 and plan to live at least 50 more years. So Oleg, you better be alive and making sims or your decendents will pay the treachery! :mrgreen:

Hi Oleg and teamwork guys!!!:-P

-Suggestion:

will be there a option for a 1/1 scale cockpits view?
(for the cockpitbuilders)

- Question: Will be there a Ju 52? I dont see it by any side, and the Junkers 52 was omnipresent in all war campaigns.


A GREETING :grin:

PD: In this site you found very interesting photos of BF 109 in Spanish civil war:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/39472...%F1a+-+Parte+5

thx

How many of the aircraft in SoW have visible functional trims in the cockpit? Real pilots could probably see this before take off and in flight. Then our off-set makes no difference and causes no problems (it does in IL-2, because IL-2 often does not have these cockpit details). When airborne we can just see or feel if we need to trim so center doesn't even matter there.

Optional helper: Small, transparent pop-up window (at any time) showing the position of our flight controls. Useful for more than just checking trim positions.

Profiles: Force feedback tweaks, and the 'force sensing joystick' tweaks (I posted topic a week ago suggesting how it should work) could be useful for each aircraft. Our force feedback joystick motors are not strong. Also some hardware doesn't work that well with too much or little forces involved. Flying a heavy plane can make it function badly while a normal one is ok. Profile tweak can fix so we don't have to alt-tab each time.

Force feedback for SoW. Much better than IL-2? There's a big spring deadzone in IL-2 from the old FFB drivers, and the center of forces is always in the same place.

Trims and joystick center - This is a big topic for controllers. IL-2 trims control surface deflection directly, making it possible for us to let a spring joystick rest in at center yet still fly straight. Can even fly aircraft completely without having a joystick connected.

In real aircraft, trims only changes the forces on the stick, allowing the pilot to push the stick to a new position (required for flying straight) and keep it there without force. With the arrival of the G940 (and other existing no-absolute centering joysticks - Tarmac Aces in France make some amazing things) and probaby more to come, we could allow trims to work like real trims; change the force feedback, not the control surface deflection (they still permit the control column in game to move further during compressability though, as this cannot be simulated purely through a consumer type joystick).

If using curves with a sharp center point on the joystick it can become slightly less intuitive when the stick is off-set. If trimmed forward because of high speed (dive etc), moving the stick can give a different response to input. But (edit) we never need to move the stick far for trimming anyway (except in exterme situations, but then we are not gunning, or the plane simply cannot move much anyway due to compressability), and we don't have to use a 100% spiked curve for the joysticks. A bit flatter, larger center of the curve and it won't be noticed. The offset in our hand also makes it obvious the stick is not centered.

From this point(above) will read-answer tomorrow.

I don't know if you didn't quite understand what I meant or you have some other top secret reasons for not answering my question, but I'll take a chance and ask about it again :)

S!

Gagboy, that game sounds..umm..I rather not write down those flashes of my imagination here :D That other game sounded very interesting, maybe a version of 2010 could be made?! ;) Duke Nukem became history so now..

MikkOwl. Your ideas are good, expecially the ones with the sticks. But indicators on screen..well..maybe for testing etc. In real aircraft you can see from the trim wheel or and indicator near it the position of your trim. This in most planes. And with SoW having very detailed cockpits, from we have seen so far, this pose no problem to actually look at your trim wheel for the indication. Spitfire has this trim position Up/down in the dashboard etc.

Thank you Oleg for the respones in this thread, really interesting read :) I have one question about SoW. As it is mentioned in some interview or a website, the planes in SoW will wear in use etc. If I recall right that is. So for this, can we see the plane get dirty, the bullet holes (fixable, minor ones) and other tear & wear visible on "our" plane in outside view, for example after landing or in briefing?

Many times mechanics of FiAF mentioned the noses of the Bf109's being greyish of guns being fired and they had to clean the glasses etc. This applies to modern planes as well, seen under years how the planes gradually turn from factory fresh to dirty, paint patched more used planes today :) So possibility of dynamic dirt and show of damage etc?

There could be some nice features of the ground crew added later, but which ones are interesting for a few times and pointless to the game and those that really would matter is another issue. Maybe pilot (gamer) checks the plane before flight, the pre-flight inspection etc. Just a few..

I´m at work and can´t search properly for a good source to confirm what i´m stating, but i think you are mistaken. It might be true what you say with aircrafts where the stick does not have direct physical connection to the control surface, but have connection to an artificial force system. But on WW2 aircraft, and modern light airplanes, where the stick have´s direct physical connection with the control surface, using the trim does imply moving the control surface, and by doing this, you are releived of the effort of continously have to apply force over the stick.
The trim could work by moving the control surface directly, or moving a tab that moves corespondly the control surface, but triming the aircraft does imply that the control suface is moved.

Well that settles it. Oleg has no excuse for not permitting off-set adjustment of trims. :) The problem for him to tackle is instead: "are my SoW models awesome enough for the task? :confused:". :P And, it is optional after all. If anyone doesn't want to use it they don't have to. But anyone can benefit a lot from it with trimming, as it makes our poor little devices so much less twitchy and crazy sensitive with trimming in game. And if we reduced range to make it less twitchy, we can even get increased range again by using off-set trims (positioning the range at the 'right part of the trim' makes sure no part of axis is wasted).

Well yes, I know about how trim tabs work, and that only describes the mechanism behind the result: as far as the control surface and stick goes, only the forces acting on the control column changes. If stick is kept centered and trim tabs are moved, nothing at all happens, the control surface does not move (only that tiny tab).

I don't know how non-trim tab aircraft function, but I am not really aware of any WW2 combat aircraft having that sort of trim. If you know of any I would be happy to read up on them.

If they move the whole surface directly, completely independant on the control column, then yes, they should be like now (just far smaller range of movement). But I'm fairly sure they are by far the exception, and that nearly all aircraft are using trim tabs.

Wow, this update is really incredible! As I said to a friend, it sounds like you guys are raising the bar, loading it into a cannon, and firing it into orbit! :grin:

I especially like that you'll offer even more detailed start-up procedures and cockpit controls...

It sounds like we'll have our hands full! So... I really, really, really hope that we'll get descriptive, interactive tutorials! Like, have a narrator highlight the various controls, tell you what they do, and let you click them in order!

In IL2, the tutorials were just movies, and it was hard to find info on engine functions. I bet many new 109 pilots damaged their engines and never knew that they had to engage the MW50 at low power and then WEP and afterwards drop the power and then turn off the MW50. ...or maybe they didn't realize that you had to set the supercharger to the next stage at a particular altitude or else you'd lose power and your engine would run rough.

It'd be great to have a flight-school with an in-game narrator to go over what prop-pitch, radiator flaps, mixture, magnetos, etc, etc, etc, do and when you'd want to use each... It'd probably help break the ice for newbies trying to get into a complicated and daunting simulator.

Better repost this...:)

I wanted to know the same thing And is there going to be 64 bit Suport (64 bit .exe) so the game can make use of more than 2GB of System Memory etc. under a 64 bit OS?

You are correct, and now i think understand the problem you are refering. The problem comes of what happens inside the sim whem we use trim, and what happens to our joystick in the real world.
I think IL-2 hadles well trim, because when you aply trim, inside the sim the virtual control surface moves, as the virtual stick. But meanwhile on the real joystick without any force feedback, you have to release the joystick so you are not adding more command that the needed and giveng by the trim, and you get the result of not having to push you joystick anymore (if its pitch trimming, for example).
But how can you make that while your real joystick is on its center position, when you apply trim, nothing must happen. You cant, because on the virtual world of the sim you are moving the tab and the control surface, and also the virtual stick.

At least that we use a force feedback joystick that when you move the trim on the sim and at the same time the real joystick chage position accordingly, i don´t see how the problem can be solved. The problem is that our joystick do not move according to the virtual stick, thay go to the center position, instead of staying on the trimmed position.

Well Rudolf Heiter has worked on Birds of Prey and way back on Forgotten Battles, and probably some projects I haven mentioned, I'm sure he knows what's required with his experience :)

Several times i asked myself what if BoB recommend four or more gigas of RAM. Then obviously an 64 bit machine and OS will be needed.
How many people would be left out because they have a 32 bit OS?

S!

If I got it right, SoW will have DirectX 9 mode as well and it should pose no overwhelming obstacle to anyone. DirectX 11 is the mode for all the bells and whistles aka eye candy. This is why I referred that SoW will make even a high end machine to sputter a bit if EVERYTHING is cranked up ;) More graphics and fidelity in all areas of the game = more horsepower you need to run it :) But as seen before I am sure SoW will be very scalable for many computers without suffering from looks that much. And I am sure the program can use more memory than IL-2 can :)

Scalable architecture should make it all fine as long as we turn down settings. It would be unfeasable to sell a game in the year 2010 that requires 4 gigs of memory to run properly. I would be more worried about what kind of extreme graphical cards are needed for pushing the detail settings. It's already been said that no contemporary computers will be able to run it full on release, due to this.

They released FSX in 2006 that requires 4 GB to run properly with high end add ons. I plan to buy a new 64 bit PC soon after BOB is released. 64 Bit is the future and this future is very close. Most new PCs are delivered with 64 Bit windows version now. According to the latest Steam hardware survey 2/3 of all Windows 7 versions are already 64 Bit. Since SOW series should last for 10 years a 64 bit .exe will probably be necessary sooner than later to stay competitive. Of course most people still use 32 Bit operating system so any sim released this year should support it. Maybe in aspect it's a bad time to release anything that should last for years now, when transition from 32 to 64 bit is underway at full steam.

I don't see any reason why Storm of War would have to use IL-2's trim and joystick system. If a force feedback stick is detected and we choose to use this real-trim behaviour, then the control column in the simulator will move only from movement of the joystick. Trims will change the force feedback only (and permit the control column to move more when controls start to freeze up at high speed, just like in IL-2).

Graphical scalability is more "easy" that cpu and ram scalability. I mean, you can reduce number of polys, texture quality, viewing distance, and lots of graphical related things to make the sim run on a lower en graphic card. But for number of objects you NEED ram and cpu power. RAM for handle all the moving and fixed objects, and don´t have an slide show because of continuous reading the hard disk for loading fixed objects, and CPU power for handle all the physics and AI of all those objects. And at least that the user edit manually every mission, we can assume that the numbers of objects of a particular mission are the same on every pc, so also assuming that you have similar cpu power that can handle lots of aircraft, if you make a realistic mission where you have hundreds of planes and ground objects, not to mention building on citys, RAM becomes a very serious issue, specially if you have OS RAM limit.
Still, seeing from other perspective, right now with il2 1946 we have big maps with thousand of objects, and most people still have 32 bit OS systems, and RAM doesn´t seem to be a problem on missions, the problem is usually cpu power or graphical, so probably RAM OS system wouldn´t be a problem to have the optimum system.

In 2005 we've already seen these two. No further process reported since then, though I think the models have already been finished.

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/ju-52_03.jpghttp://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/ju-52_01.jpg

Hi Oleg I'm a stalker on forums usually just read a lot and ask a question from time to time so I would just like to say hello and say how wonderful your products are.

With what you are saying is possible as far as adding vehicles and people etc have you ever thought of maybe the next add on would be for ground warfare? I have read somewhere that you are allowing Human controlled AAA on airfields which is really cool.

What I am getting at is that sims for all niches are hard to sell and be profitable and If it were possible to make the community explode by having an all in one game like World War 2 online. It is so hard to find a game where all aspects can be represented.

Sometimes I will crash near a target area and just hang out to watch the AI tank battles etc and think how cool it would be if I could be in control of that King Tiger on the hill pushing through to capture a town and its airfield.

We are living in amazing times and technology is advancing everyday, IL2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles has lasted 10 years and still looks and plays great. So with a life expectancy of maybe another 10 great years would this be possible?

I know some people would say that this type of game, with this type of detail, would take to much resources. But what if the add-ons you released were stand alone as well.

For instance perhaps you are a tank simmer and you have no interest in flying at all you just want to drive tanks etc. You could buy Tubruk, Operation Barbarossa or how ever you wanted the timeline to go.

Im not sure how well the game would look to troops on ground level but you could have their stand alone adapt for them where as all the graphics and mechanics of the game would be geared for "tank simulation". And it would be able to interact with SOW.

Where as all the flight mechanics wouldnt be needed and could be instead be replace with the tanks. Then for online play the way the missions are setup you could just have the tanks spawn in a staging area on the map where as not to be too far from the frontline. Possible have tanks be AI controlled unless taken over by Human. Have breakthroughs where your line crumbles from not enough air support and now your pilots have to stop the blitzkrieg from reaching the town.... the possibilities are endless.

Point being is you make such a quality game if you could unite the differents sim communities together in one package with high quality sims that work together it would be amazing. Then that for sure would garuntee the success of the game. Imaging if you add human soldiers you would get lots of FPS players to the game. Not only supporting a great sim but helping to grow the community. Even naval warfare is possible.

How sweet would it be if you could have a Normandy scenario where everything was alive take your posion... invade or defend the beaches bombard the beaches with your ships strafing the beaches in your 109.

Wow Im rambling sorry its just that this has been a dream of mine for so long and I hope to see the day it comes true. I just know it will but when.

...

Guys, need some "intel" about those two equipments ?

I would greatly appreciate .


http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/b636aea3.jpg


http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/0bd5c3a8.jpg

...

Suggestion. Didn't understand you question about scale 1/1.

Question: Ju-52 - will be. AI

thanks for the link

these are elements of German system of radars.

Maybe in time. There is some problems with such features in continues buttles (sigle or online. At least possible to make special models - damages and lace them as an objects , add smoke , etc... But in automatic code - don't know yet. this is a geat work with additional models (various damaged).

The features of this is freezed already. Open was only about trims.

There is different in Il-2 and in BoB. In I-2 just for some parts was selected identical. There was a limit.... say mustang wouldn't fly at some maneuvers without damage of spars.... 6 G.... was limit in technical manual.

Yes we have this feature in code. In time from mission to mission the plane looks older. But of coure it isn't 100% real life changes. Just approximation. But looks superb and add immersion

That to make inspecition we should add a lot of other features of unprepared or prepared for the flight aircraft. Then it will have sense. But we don't plan to go in this direction. It is too complex code in terms of time cration and don't have too good effect on the gameplay if to calculate ration time/money = final effect

For any feature is some calculation in these terms. In two words - how much cost and what the result...

HB252, thanks for the link to Spanish civil War Messerschmitts, some great pics there! Lovely photo of Mölders and really funny photo of the two 109s with broken landing gear. If they had only learnt from that they would not have had so much trouble with the 109 in WWII...

Oleg, now you have had a chance to see the wonderful comics by Romain Hugault. Incredible, aren´t they? I really think you should consider having him work with you. He is very happy to do work outside of comic books, and he knows your sims too. He could do some magnificent illustration for SoW-BoB in a very momorable and unique style.
- His blog:
http://romain-hugault.blogspot.com/
- Cover of his latest album, girls and planes, what more can you ask for!:
http://rhugault.free.fr/images/bd/PW2couv.jpg

BTW, if you go to rome one day, you should really see the Italian air force museum at Vigna di Valle. Quite a few well-preserved WWII types there, I think you would find it interesting... ;)
- Panorama of one of the halls:
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/d...Valle-2009.jpg
- more pics:
http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...(LIRB)+(closed)
- Info and link to home page:
http://luftfahrtmuseum.com/htmi/imh/iva.htm

Will there be an upper altitude and speed limits on the SoW engine?

Cheers.

Currently 3 Gb RAM minimum for running the game. More - beter.
Waht will be final specs... can't say. Maybe 4 minimum. I'm unsure.
Sure that if there will be more greater size map with the same level of the details - then we will need really more RAM if we would like to play smooth.
We try to optimize everything and keep balance in that.

I have only one thing to say ....
Thank you Oleg to take time to answer the questions of the community !!!

:grin:

Didn't understand. If you speaking about some unprecise things in IL-2 over 10,000 meters then I would say that SoW has totally new physics engine.

I know it is a big task, but who else is there to pick it up? ;)

MS threw the hat in the ring, Austin Myers is doing his (great) thing but doesn´t seem too interested in systems modelling of more complex planes. But that is exactly the point: systems modelling of complex modern planes CANNOT be made by the same guy who makes a civil flight sim "back-bone". It MUST be outsourced to 3rd party developers, who will flock in if they get the right engine to work with.

As Obama learned in politics: If you are a small player, it is necessary to start a MOVEMENT, not just do all yourself, or with a small staff. If SoW can become a civil sim backbone, then giving the right instruments to 3rd party developers could possible create a catalyst effect, and we would have Take-Off!

From what I see in the Spitfire vid and elsewhere, SoW has the technical capacities in-built for professional developers to create content. The requirements are too high for amateur developers like the third-party scene around Il-2, but professionals who can actually earn money selling add-ons should be able to work with it, I guess. Just get some translators to work on documentation (very important!) and change the name of the engine (SoW is too warlike).

Sorry, asking if SoW engine will support space flight parameters, very very high altitude and speed.

Example, in future, would it be possible to do X-15 expansion properly with this engine?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_X-15

Thanks.

Frozen, ok :) But I was asking: force feedback taking any step forward (significantly) compared to IL-2? And then I made a wishlist request on how it could/should behave. :-P

Thanks for the links. Sad, I never was in Italy. Just my wife was there several times with our son. If I will be there - of course aircraft museums are my target to visit. I do it simply in every country if there is such museum.

Comics I saw alive :)

Can't say you right now. We put it in the final development.
As for my personal opinion - FF doesn't reflect real things. No one existed. And in realistic flight sim really FF is more bad then the good feature comparing to real life.

So the work over FF is the very secondary in our plan. This should be important for totally arcade game.

In the past I tried to communicate with all manufactures of FF joysticks to make some standard in forces, that would reflect more realistic things... Really only Trustmaster and partially Saitek were listening me in the past.

Hope with BoB this communication will be again up and probably we may set the stadards in future. But untill that time to spend a lot of time for FF I personally very dislike.

This should be done by some third party - special driver for any FF joy.
Manufactures should follow that standard (non MS SDK code, that we were using in the past with Il-2). Should be tunable special separate tool not in the sim, only external.

I can't spend right now time to explain all my thoughts about this issue.

You should talk to real pilots asking their opinion about joys with FF.
Probably they will say the same... also they would say that Joystick do not replace real control column 100% in feel of aircraft control.

With some of manufactures we had in the past the speech about what should be done for realistic control column useful in flight sims... But the price would be really more higher... and effect on the market (to sell it) will be not so successfull.

However I have several good ideas and drawings how to make it with more or less commercial success. But for this - SoW should be on a horse...

S!

Thank you for the answer, that covered it all. I agree on the checklist etc. IT is a lot of work to implement correctly as you would have to know the procedures Luftwaffe, RAF and others used for their checks. And investing time for research it, code and implement = not worth it in terms of returns it gives. And most users would not use the feature after a few times anyway. So best is to just implement those that are used, not too hard to implement and give immersion to the sim.

Museums..you should visit some plane museums in Finland too, some nice planes to see. I have great interest in the VL Pyörremyrsky (Typhoon) and if it could be done for IL-2, we took pics and such at museum last time visited. 1 was made and it flew 27h and 31 flights. Performance surpassed Bf109G in climb and turn easily, speed was somewhat the same.

I am sure Ville and Raimo did speak about them when meeting you. Boy was I green in face when they showed the pics and told how it was :D Maybe some day could haul my son and myself to Moscow, Monino would be great to see and MAKS :)

I hope that in time some of listed of your dreams will be possible.
Its way aleady in BoB we put so many ground objects, AI for them...
Simply because BoB shouldn't be limited only for battles over channel.
It is important for online gameplay, for other than channel scenarios, developed by users and of course by third party.
It is important for futures modifications...

You also should understand that we unable to make everything by our small team.
Say... that to contro tank there should "cockpit", system modeling, charging shells system and o on, control system ... and... command interaction with other such units doesn't matter AI or player controlled.... It is simply sim in the sim.
But it is possible in future if, i will reapeat:

1. Success of BoB.
2. Support for and from third party
3. Probably understanding of publishers or other owners of my team to invest in that direction even with separate team inside. 1C has other teams... but they are busy with other projects. That is a problem.

So without item 3 - just part of my and you(all) dreams are possible...
Howver is possible licensing of engine and work in cooperation with other teams...
But it shouldn't be like it was in the past with Il-2 where finally we simply gave sourse code for nothing....

Regarding the civil flight sim, I realise it is probably too much to start a huge, big project covering all the Earth and complex airliners.

But, what about a smaller project based on SoW, which would open up the eyes to the 3rd party scene regarding the potential to work with the engine?

A small modern sim showing off superior modelling of flight, weather, landscape.

OK, I will admit, I already have one idea in mind :) But I will keep it to email, I think. "You´ve got mail" at your 1c.ru-address.

Agree that there should be standards. Third party tweaking - hmm. Sure, why not. It can allow specialists, or the manufacturers themselves, to tweak things to suit their hardware. Users too. Instead of having to rely on game developers to work with specialized hardware OR having 'one size fits all' force feedback which is not ideal either.

I have a personal story that I want to relay regarding the topic of force feedback. I like racing simulators, and racing around a bit in real life as well (especially in the past). The force feedback wheels used to be very crappy. The racing sims did not use even that old hardware well either. Back then, maybe I thought a bit like you, that it just isn't close enough to a real car and is even worse in many ways. But then comes some better simulators using hardware, and then the Logitech G25. It completely changed things. I have it now and it really turned force feedback from something clumsy and badly flawed into the most realistic option (for consumer price range).

Flight sims are the same now (SoW not yet released) with force feedback as 9 years ago. Maybe even worse. Manufacturers have not done anything for force feedback sticks over this whole time, except some optimizations (quieter, smaller etc). Only Logitech's G940 which just came out advanced the hardware noticably. But the market is empty of flight sims that use the hardware.

And think about what you said: you asked me to ask pilots what they think of force feedback joysticks with sims in the year 2001, not what it can be with existing hardware. If I ask racers what they thought of FF wheels with sims from the year 2001 they would also say it is horrible compared to reality. It is not a sound argument against force feedback for flight sims. You have such an innovative approach; I think you might have overlooked how the new hardware can be used, dismissing it based on how it was like in the year 2001.

EDIT: Maybe I was a bit unfair. You did point out that you cannot relay all thoughts on it, and that you have tried to make the manufacturers more responsible for allowing better force feedback programming (not just the hardware itself in the past) etc. I hope SoW will bring something new with FF to the market because that sort of thing is needed to get FF advancing. Only having hardware, or only software without hardware, does not bring it forward well.

S!

Freycinet, maybe 1930-1940's airlines first as many are there..like Ju52 for Lufthansa, DC2/3 for others, Dragon Rapide..We already would have maps of that era with SoW :) Just a thought..then later expand to more modern days..

(quote)
And think about what you said: you asked me to ask pilots what they think of force feedback joysticks with sims in the year 2001



I think what he meant was to ask real pilots about stick forces in real aircraft...ff is very arcade and unreal in flight sim:)

Good idea Flanker! - Maybe it won´t be a big sell, though, it is a rather specialised subject...

Oleg, you write that "Support for and from third party" is essential. Yes, and the most important thing is TRANSLATED support documentation. Translated by mother-tongue English-speaker.

I have seen that this small but crucial step is often missing from Russian sim developement teams. Neoqb didn´t get it done either.

Translation work should be done now. Doesn´t matter that the programs will change later on, the documentation can be updated later (as a living document online). The big 95% of translation work should be done now. Please dedicate half a day to hire someone to get it done...

Yeah, and who makes those sims? :-P There has been no (flight) sims to make advances in the programming of force feedback and only recently any real hardware advances. Racing games have more mass appeal than flying, yet they also had loads of bad FF devices and sims not using it that well. It's only in the past 3 years or so that it made a huge (really huge) jump forward. So to ask pilots what they think of FF joysticks with flightsims, is to ask what they think about how it was like in 2001 basically. Of course it will be pretty negative. EDIT: And most things are unreal and arcade with our consumer grade sim gear, as I pointed out. Yet we think they are better than going even lower, like go back to keyboard and mouse because spring joystick just doesn't behave like a real control column etc.

Just so everyone understands what I wish for is a quality in all aspects of a game. The one thing that erks me about WWIIOnline is that the flight model of planes is childish and the FPS aspect of it is primative I only enjoy the armor in that game.

When you say its sim on sim I understand that then maybe yes it wouldnt be to much to have all at once since it is already there. But the manpower to make it all work and to share your hard work with someone for nothing doesnt make much business sense either.

But if you were able to make an arrangement with a 3rd party such as Gaviteam the makers of STEEL FURY that benifited both parties and added more to SOW why not.... thats a big IF of course.
\
They too are a small team and have a wonderful tank sim which can be found here http://graviteam.com/games/steel-fury-kharkov1942.html

Maybe it would be possible that since you both have a quality sim you could team up together.

LoL im such the match maker anyways I know its all far fetched and its alot easier to say it then to do it. But like I was saying the people that play SOW and Steel Fury are hardcore simmers that demand the best. And since it is after relatively a small niche in the game market if you could put multiple great sims into one it would benifit both parties.

You have a really low opinion of "amateurs"...Most often "amateurs" are professionals in other ways and understand what it means to start, drive and complete a project and in consequence some of them can perfectly tackle add-ons for SoW...

Most of the "professionals" in MSFS third-parties have started as "amateurs" (you have to start at one point!), and many top-level add-ons for MSFS are from "amateurs" and will give nothing in quality to any of the professional ones...

Another advantage of being an "amateur" is that you are not in for the money but only out of passion, of willingness to prove something etc...this allows them to explore ways which would be too costly in time for the developer for an unforeseeable result, and/or to not be constrained by time considerations!

Give everybody a chance at it and be prepared to be surprised...and also to get some sub-standard stuff but that's the name of the game!

JV

Perfect words!

I would add just following:

To make the base - the first game or sim with special tools that allowing third party to make additional content is way more profesional work than to make additional content...
To develop the base code of engine and its initial main features is way more different and more complex than to modify it....

You can be professional creator of add-on, but you can't make the main thing - the engine and its features.

Investments in development of the main code around which all the things doing third party isn't even close in comparison to investments of third party. By other words... to add something in already ready advanced product isn't the same as to develope from zero this advanced product.

Simply people should understand this great difference.

Mergin of two different base codes isn't possible. Cooperation could only be by other way: SoW is the main... others can add or in cooperation with us to make cockpits for tanks etc.... that will corresponding to our engine features or programmed by us additional features.

Then online code will define everything if we would like to "get all in one"

True not so easy.... and direct merge is impossible.

We have Ilya, native american guy. He is superb writer. Probably it will be his personal additional work.

And maybe Ian Boys can give a hand too... ;)

Ok, sorry JVM, I didn't mean to belittle amateurs, I love much of their work. But I was talking about for-sale add-on work, which - by definition - is not done by amateurs, but by people who are paid for their work.

For sure amateurs are doing great 3rd party work. But on an un-paid basis, I think it isn't realistic to have an amateur do more than maybe a few models at the standards demanded by the SoW engine (lod's, damage modelling, weathering, etc, etc.). For a whole add-on package a more professional business set-up would be required.

S!

I see your point Freycinet. But a so called amateur, no pun here, can make a lot if he/she has proper documentation and specifications on the standards required for the job. Hard to do anything if info is vague and you have no real clue what is required. Sure it could take a bit longer from this individual than from a dedicated team, but good instructions take you a long way already.

SoW will be the base for everything when released. Oleg & Team have a base with all the tools required, a ready graphics/physics engine, the knowledge and professionalism. With time it will expand, as have many other games done, for example EVE Online. Even from a different planet literally, this game is continually expanding. So why would SoW be any different in this matter. And this time with SoW Oleg & Team have all the experience from IL-2 and the lessons learned from there. So it gives a huge advantage.

It will be really hard to let go of IL-2 as it has grown on me for the last almost 10 years. Like did EAW before it. But good thing is that IL2 still gets support from TD and Oleg so it will co-exist with SoW quite a time still :)

Good times ahead for sure..

I think that even if SoW is all that we hope and expect it to be, IL2 will be on our hard drives for many years to come. It's still looking good!

As more expansion packs and 3rd Party additions are released for SoW, we will just play Il2 a little bit less until gradually the SOW series fills all our requirements and areas of interest.

Until about a year ago I had copies of Janes WWII fighters installed on my home network and used it to "introduce" my nephews to flight sims. They were only six and eight at the time and we used to play co-ops. It was only after I made my latest computer that I realised that as the boys had got older we were playing IL2 more often and hadn't touched WWII Fighters for a while so I didn't try to get it working on my new PC.

Cheers!

S!

Exactly Skoshi, IL-2 will co-exist until SoW will have more than just BoB. IL-2 has it all and more right away and in a package that is STILL playable and looks good. SoW will eventually phase out IL-2, but not in a year or two. TD's new additions help with this as well. It was one helluva slick move to get TD work on IL-2 to ensure longevity for it until SoW gets on full speed with additions :D

I understand what you mean about the code what I was suggesting was that since their are people out there with this work done as far as all the armor values, true ballistics data, modeled interiors and optics etc. that they could add their work to your exsisting models and suggest how the characteristics should be. See how you guys are the experts at flight maybe not so much for other stuff.

Because like you said its alot of work to do but if most of its is done or at least all the data was there and needed to be remodeled for SOW engine it could be done. Steel fury also has a good mod community that has made some excelent mods.

Perhaps you could take a poll or ask your team members how they fell just to see if people are interested in the idea and its worth pursuing.

I do not share that view. I wish it was true though. Let's face it once you fly the next generation sim (SOW) in this case you will be left expecting more that IL2 can offer. What I expect is a faster delivery cycle.
While IL2 was ten years in development (if you consider it is not yet finished thanks to TD) SOW will move faster and quicker, driven partly by third party developers and partly by a proven fan base for particular theatres of the war.
Most of Westen and Eastern Europe will jump at a Barbarossa expansion.
then you have the pacific theatre and of course Korea.
While IL2 meandered it's way into our hearts, SOW is going to leap forward.
I predict two years after release we will be exactly where Il2 is now in terms of planes, maps etc.
Look at the original IL2 expansions as marketing gambles. With SOW you know which theatres sell best. You also know which planes are flown the most.

@Bobb4

I believe you may be slightly optimistic...Considering the already hinted at numbers of hours needed to make a proper SoW aircraft model (ca 6 Months as average) it will take a sweet time before we can properly fill a specific theater in...And this is not taking in account the map itself which is so far removed from the Il2 one in terms of details it's almost frightening!

Do you know of all the nooks and crannies of all the Japanese main bases in the Pacific? have you all the road and railroad maps of Philippines (maybe a bad example this kind of map would be reserved to Oleg and team)? Detailed depots, marshaling yards, bridges, harbors etc etc

With some clever sleights of hand work it may be possible to do away with the maximum amount of detail but that will still be huge work (and guess what: I suspect only passionate amateurs can do it...it will be difficult to justify such a time investment for money seekers)!

JV

Personally I have to disagree. I'm already having problems dealing with some of the more dated aspects of il2 now (mainly visuals - maps and terrain objects, effects and explosions, damage modelling, some older cockpits (eg 109s), some ai issues, etc).

My feelings on il2 are that I've more than had good value and enjoyment from it. In its time it was a major leap forward for a WW2 flight-sim. It is still the best on the market all these years later, certainly from the simulation side (engine management, etc) but visually I find it lacking now, more due to expanding expectations as the technology has advanced so much in 10 years.

So, for me, I expect that after my first flight in a SOW Tiger Moth or Spit, I'll find it very difficult to ever 'settle' for the il2 experience again.

I know I'll miss out for a time on a lot of WW2 theatres and aircraft, but I expect that SOW will have such a depth of gameplay and visual 'you are there' quality that I wont be able to take that step back anymore.

Hi Oleg :)

Sorry, i try explain better about 1/1 SCALE cockpit view:

I said that there will be like a option.

- 1/1 scale is 1 cm (Centimeter) of the screen must be 1 cm of the real cockpit views. In this way, we cuold see all things in his real size: buttons, levers, throttle, gunsight....

Thx

PD: thx Foo´bar for show me the Ju 52 :grin:

On a view screen? This is a function of how big your monitor is, how far away you are sitting, and what FOV you have in the game. That's all. There are tools that calculate this. I am interested in it because it is related to realism and immersion.

On my 24" monitor, if I sit 50cm away from it, things have 1:1 scale if FOV is 55. Sit further away and the fov must be much smaller...

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=150


Thanks Oleg for your answer, but I'm looking for further information, like a accurate denomination/description like :

FuG 404 Jagdschloss A or FuMG 451 Freiburg II.


I've made some extensive researches on many specialise web sites but I can't find any picture / name of the real thing.

http://www.fortendenhelder.nl/radars...fkortingen.htm

http://www.atlantikwall.info/radar/technik/flum.htm

...

THose aren't radar systems but devices for Radio Navigation (Wotan I and II used for X- and Y- blind bombing procedure).

The only land-based radar system in Germany at that time was the FumB FREYA (although the exact type escapes me).

Oleg,

I have never asked you a question before, but I have been an avid player of IL2 since it was released, so I would like to ask a question about SOW.

This may have already been asked before:-

Will you model random engine or system failures? It would be interesting (maybe a little frustrating for the player of course) if just after you have taken off in your Spitfire, your engine starts to cough and splutter, forcing you to turn back and land.

This is maybe a degree of realism that some players wouldnt like, so could it be an option perhaps?

1 more question please,

Again, this may already have been asked. Do you have plans to allow 4 engine bombers (Lancaster, B17, B24 for example) to be flyable by players in future releases of the SOW series ? I hope so.

Thank you for IL2 and SOW looks like it will be every armchair pilots dream!
S! Bunster

...


Thanks csThor !


Y - Zweistrahlbake "Fridolin" , FuSAn 733,
Y7 "Anton" , Jobourg, Cotentin
Peilanlagen dienten zur Führung von Bombenangriffen

Bearing plants served for the guidance of bomb attacks

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/b636aea3.jpg

http://www.atlantikwall.info/images/...ler/049719.jpg

http://site.voila.fr/bunkers/ygerat1.jpg



And this mobile canteen ???? :grin:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-content/0bd5c3a8.jpg

...

Well, I believe it is all only in deeper thought about the problem.. I do not think that there is anything unrealistic about increasing of forces with the speed and additionally sensing of flight envelope edges (everything of course applied and adjusted in accordance with known real aircraft data/observations).

Of course, all other kinds of "shaking" during various events are nonsenses.. (well with possible exception of take of run and landing... but that's only my experience with L-13 Blanik on grass field with many tumps and burrows of European suslik :lol:.. have no idea about WWII fighter plane.. :cool:)

O.

I agree. A dedicated amateur with a passion for the game will give everything to reach his goal.

I don't do any game devolpment (other than hunting for reference materials for others), but I know from my own personal experience that I will put in 1000% effort, and go without sleep and meals for a hobby that I am passionate about. The pure pleasure of watching your own work (or a project you have taken some part in) near completion is all you need to keep going. My energy is endless for such a thing.

It would never be like this at a paid job, and I would never want it to.

It is working as radar system. Radars may have different purposes. As one of many - radio naviation. So anyway the name of this system is Radar in English.
Antennas of radar can be receivers or transmitters or both at once, depending ot the purpose and constructions, range of frequiency, etc, and so on...
Votans was just a part of the whole system of radio navigation.
Later we wiill see other types of devices used in that system. Including working devices in aircraft.

Unfortunatelly FF systems do not give us increasing of force except that this force is present in a couple of levels. So what you mean is really iompossible to make realistic. Usually just one stage FF IS and FF no... with jumping as wish the driver and system of FF joy.

Probably yes. As an option. Can't say right now with 100% sure.

Yes we plan in future bobers of such types. Depending of success again.

It is part of a FlaKstellung, an anti-aircraft battery:

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-conten.../vvv-04_01.jpg

http://fooblog.mexxoft.com/wp-conten.../vvv-04_06.jpg

Hi Oleg! I'm not sure if this has been asked (110% sure it probably has) But how will tracers look? Just like IL-2?

I always thought B-17II had the most realistic looking tracers compared to gun-camera footage.

B17II had one of the most unrealistic Z-looking tracers.

Vibration of the camera with corresponding frequency to the low frame rate(film speed) of camera was a result of Z-looking tracers in some films.
Developers of B-17II didn't research well...

The eye see other than that picture in reality.

In Il-2 we used colors of tracers found in the documents for exact shells and bullets used in each modelled weapon. So in reality the tracers in Il-2 maybe some time too bright at day light, but anyway was the most realistic. :)

Dear Oleg:
I have asked before and I think that you havent answer
Is going to be delivered the simulator in Spanish?
Thanks,keep working at this level ^^