Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Will be fair till end: Startup procedure don't make money that we need for the continues of development. Instead it is eating money and resouces of development. There are many other things that are way more important for making successful on the market combat fligth sim.

I'm sure you're focusing on all the right things and as SOW will have a long future ahead of it the core functionality of the product needs to be one that stands in the test of time.

As I've mentioned in my previous posts atleast I am 100% ok not having these functionalities in the initial release or even coming from you. IL-2 has been fantastic without having startup procedures is still fun after years and years. For me it's quite ok to pay extra for this functionality from a 3rd party developer and keep you focused on the essencial parts for making SOW a commercial success for the masses.

What I am a bit concerned about however is that if there would be a 3rd party development like for example this startup procedure feature, clickable cockpits and extra aircraft or whatever does that mean that it would be usable in online servers running vanilla SOW?
Or will I be isolated running it locally or maybe with mates that have bought the same bits and pieces?

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by JG53Harti

I would like see you on a DF-Server 50 enemies over you airfield and you must press button 1, button 2, move lever X ten times.... you will be dead and have to start again
Press button 1 again, 2 again and dead again
You will be frustrated and you will never start the game again, because Oleg has not build in a quick start button


So in this way I prefer the one-button-startup

Its the main reason as well.
Great experience of the online gameplay voting for one button start. But with a lot of modelling systems you should be more accurate than it was in Il-2.

And.... pupular game has always online gameplay. If it isn't well done or close to well done, or completely absent or absolutely not interesting, then the game soon will be failled out from the stores.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

you quoted the wrong part of the text in your quote (using my reply instead of the original posters text)

i just responded to his earlier post where he claimed fs9/10 was so much better from all altitudes, and gave a list of examples why oleg's work is better for the lower altitude levels that are important in a combat sim

and me referring to "martian vomit" in low altitude fs9/10 scenery is because you just get a few spare houses (the carrot chunks) sitting on top of a textured flat satellite image map, with a few odd trees randomly placed (the parsley chunks). not really something you want to use in a combat flightsim where you might have to go hunting for enemy tank formations on the ground, or target a specific road/bridge to slow down troop movement

[Splitter]

I was agreeing with you, Zap . You had already made the point disagreeing with the post that you quoted (dang, this internet stuff can get confusing even when you get it right! lol).

As an example, flying over Niagara falls without seeing any falls.....this satellite stuff is not all it's cracked up to be in every instance.

Looks good from Angels 30 though .

Splitter

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you quoted the wrong part of the text in your quote (using my reply instead of the original posters text)

i just responded to his earlier post where he claimed fs9/10 was so much better from all altitudes, and gave a list of examples why oleg's work is better for the lower altitude levels that are important in a combat sim

and me referring to "martian vomit" in low altitude fs9/10 scenery is because you just get a few spare houses (the carrot chunks) sitting on top of a textured flat satellite image map, with a few odd trees randomly placed (the parsley chunks). not really something you want to use in a combat flightsim where you might have to go hunting for enemy tank formations on the ground, or target a specific road/bridge to slow down troop movement

Totally correct

FSX terrain mesh cannot handle complex ground parameter as IL2 1946 does.

Global textures for terrain is not good enough especially when you start to go online with the sim.

IL2 1946 out performs all sims in this area for its net code and complex terrain IMHO