Birds of Prey GC 2008 trailer

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by Biggs

it seems like the production team is just mix and matching types of planes together which is really disappointing.

It seems to me, that you are one of those guys, who knows everything better.

We are using a lot of materials, and historical consultants as well, paying them money, and you are measuring fueselage length in trailer.

I really don't want to continue that discussion.

[Tbag]

This is just looking awesome. I'm going to buy a PS3. I'm not going to buy a PS3. I'm going to buy a PS3, I'm not...............

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Anton Yudintsev

It seems to me, that you are one of those guys, who knows everything better.

We are using a lot of materials, and historical consultants as well, paying them money, and you are measuring fueselage length in trailer.

I really don't want to continue that discussion.

Might want to pay them a bit better then...there are some obvious inaccuracies I've seen so far. If this is to be an authentic experience then the details better be right. Doesn't have to be rivet for rivet...but the look of the planes and the armament better be right. Or the right types better be used.

If the time period is supposed to be Battle of Britain then the most obvious types should be Spitfire Mark I and Hurricane Mark I. The Mark I.b was a rare type that failed in the front line role. The early Hispano cannons it was fitted with jammed after only a few seconds of firing at best. Only a couple of squadrons flew them and while they appreciated the hitting power...hated the fact that the cannons jammed and wanted their old Mark Is back. So for a rare type...its showing up surprisingly allot in the trailers. Looks beautiful...but if its going to be accurate...if thats your audience....then it should be accurate.

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by IceFire

So for a rare type...its showing up surprisingly allot in the trailers. Looks beautiful...but if its going to be accurate...if thats your audience....then it should be accurate.

I just don't get you point.
1. There WERE such hurricanes (with Hispano).
2. They were rather rare.

So what?
I know they were rare. And we both agree they were really exist.
'They appear too often in trailer'. Huh? They appears in the game rather often.
Our intention is NOT making all planes appear on screen statistically accurate percentage of time. It even sounds a bit silly, you know.
We are making game.
They are some historical air battles - but even those are not documentary movies, player participates there.
And some are not present at all.
Some planes we like more than others.
Some planes are not even present in the game.
In 'Simplified' (arcade) mode - there is cross on the screen showing where to shoot. No spins, and auto-flaps working on landing. I don't think that Earth should stop because of that.


So what?
It seem to me, that you are trying to show your own knoweledge - I agree, you know what you are talking about (at least here).
But than you'd better to confirm that what we see in trailers is historical accurate planes, not arguing about that because 'they were rare'.
We are not writing books, we are making games.

Simetimes, I think it is better to stay away from forums, like Oleg does
It doesn't seem to help performance of our title.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Anton Yudintsev

I just don't get you point.
1. There WERE such hurricanes (with Hispano).
2. They were rather rare.

So what?
I know they were rare. And we both agree they were really exist.
'They appear too often in trailer'. Huh? They appears in the game rather often.
Our intention is NOT making all planes appear on screen statistically accurate percentage of time. It even sounds a bit silly, you know.
We are making game.
They are some historical air battles - but even those are not documentary movies, player participates there.
And some are not present at all.
Some planes we like more than others.
Some planes are not even present in the game.
In 'Simplified' (arcade) mode - there is cross on the screen showing where to shoot. No spins, and auto-flaps working on landing. I don't think that Earth should stop because of that.


So what?
It seem to me, that you are trying to show your own knoweledge - I agree, you know what you are talking about (at least here).
But than you'd better to confirm that what we see in trailers is historical accurate planes, not arguing about that because 'they were rare'.
We are not writing books, we are making games.

Simetimes, I think it is better to stay away from forums, like Oleg does
It doesn't seem to help performance of our title.

Oleg and I have gotten along quite well actually...not that we talk that often but a few good ideas exchanged on rare occasions. I'm quite realistic about what goes into making games and indeed works of art because thats what I think games are.

But let me get back to my point. Another forum member is pointing out that there are some issues with your planes and you have assured us that you have people working on the history. Great! Then lets make sure we have something that represents history...so either include all of the different types present (i.e. 8 gunned .303 Spitfire I versus Spitfire Ia with twin cannons) or choose the most common type that represents the time period the best.

Why choose the type that failed in combat? Or...in the case of the Mark II Hurricane...simply was not available until the battle was already decided? Unless your time period is September to November in which case the Mark IIa is perfectly acceptable. I'm not actually sure off the top of my head when the 12 gunned IIb arrived...but I don't think it did during any of the time considered part of the Battle of Britain. Then there is the 109E which is firing a 20mm cannon through the propeller hub (another forum poster here rightly spotted that one). Again...a type that was extremely rare. I forget the model number of the top of my head but a 109 expert can surely tell you that this type is not a common one at all.

Yes it existed...absolutely...your not wrong in this. But all of these were rare, not present at the battle, and generally failed as major production variants at the time. But yet suddenly they are everywhere. If the other types are present as well...then bonus...these are neat to have as bonus aircraft. But not the main types.

Its OK if this is meant to be an arcade shoot em up for XBox with nice graphics and a fun style of gameplay. Believe me...I'm actually a fan of Blazing Angels because they intentionally did not go the route of being historical. Just loosely based on history. But this new IL-2 game is doing two things:

1) Purporting to be related to earlier IL-2 titles by using the same branding and name thus trying to gain the attention of sim pilots.

2) Trying to look very realistic and simulate a real battle that took place.

Thats what it looks like...and if thats what its trying to do it should do it and do it to the highest possible standard including the history. Rare planes should be rare. Or not present. Common types should be present to be most historically accurate. Feel free to disagree but I think it does a disservice.

I sincerely and honestly wish the team involved the best of luck because they are working on a subject very near to my heart...but I wish a little more care was used. Then again...its meant for the XBox 360 and maybe we shouldn't expect such seriousness. But I do. I'm definitely in the target audience owning a 360 and being an avid follower of aviation.

And please don't think I'm some how showing off my knowledge. Thats not my style. I know things and I talk about them when its relevant only

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Oleg and I have gotten along quite well actually...not that we talk that often but a few good ideas exchanged on rare occasions. I'm quite realistic about what goes into making games and indeed works of art because thats what I think games are.

But let me get back to my point. Another forum member is pointing out that there are some issues with your planes and you have assured us that you have people working on the history. Great! Then lets make sure we have something that represents history...so either include all of the different types present (i.e. 8 gunned .303 Spitfire I versus Spitfire Ia with twin cannons) or choose the most common type that represents the time period the best.

Why choose the type that failed in combat? Or...in the case of the Mark II Hurricane...simply was not available until the battle was already decided? Unless your time period is September to November in which case the Mark IIa is perfectly acceptable. I'm not actually sure off the top of my head when the 12 gunned IIb arrived...but I don't think it did during any of the time considered part of the Battle of Britain. Then there is the 109E which is firing a 20mm cannon through the propeller hub (another forum poster here rightly spotted that one). Again...a type that was extremely rare. I forget the model number of the top of my head but a 109 expert can surely tell you that this type is not a common one at all.

Yes it existed...absolutely...your not wrong in this. But all of these were rare, not present at the battle, and generally failed as major production variants at the time. But yet suddenly they are everywhere. If the other types are present as well...then bonus...these are neat to have as bonus aircraft. But not the main types.

I know it. You know it. How much of others here know it?
There can be some author's vision in the game, can't it?
We are not throwing away historical realizm like Blazing Angels series.
Just pushing some limits. Because it is game, and because it allows better gameplay. And still histrically true - because there WERE such planes.
As an example.
Have you seen 'Battle of Britain' movie (1969)?
It is historical movie. But it is movie.
No flyable Mk I were even that time, and producers used other modifications.
Some scenes were completely fictitious.
But still it is great, historical accurate movie.
Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_(film) .

Believe me...I'm actually a fan of Blazing Angels because they intentionally did not go the route of being historical. Just loosely based on history.

Blazing Angels is arcade game. It is far away not only from history, but from simulation as well. And even reality - I don't think, what I've played in BA2 was _airplane_ .

And please don't think I'm some how showing off my knowledge. Thats not my style. I know things and I talk about them when its relevant only

I was only giving you a credit.

P.S.
Spitfires engine sometimes stopped, when flying down. I haven't heard players complaining, that in game there is no such effect Because it simply silly.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Anton Yudintsev

I know it. You know it. How much of others here know it?
There can be some author's vision in the game, can't it?
We are not throwing away historical realizm like Blazing Angels series.
Just pushing some limits. Because it is game, and because it allows better gameplay. And still histrically true - because there WERE such planes.
As an example.
Have you seen 'Battle of Britain' movie (1969)?
It is historical movie. But it is movie.
No flyable Mk I were even that time, and producers used other modifications.
Some scenes were completely fictitious.
But still it is great, historical accurate movie.
Read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain_(film) .



Blazing Angels is arcade game. It is far away not only from history, but from simulation as well. And even reality - I don't think, what I've played in BA2 was _airplane_ .



I was only giving you a credit.

P.S.
Spitfires engine sometimes stopped, when flying down. I haven't heard players complaining, that in game there is no such effect Because it simply silly.

Fair enough on the authors vision. If such a vision is the case then by all means...its not mine...it is yours and ultimately your the author.

Also a fair point on the Battle of Britain. One of my most watched DVD's (and tapes ) in my collection. A superb movie that gets as much right as it can. Indeed no Spitfire Mark Is were available. The very similar to almost identical Mark II (the only one flight worthy at the time) makes an appearance in most of the close up shots. The rest are Mark V and IXs with the cannons taken off or cleverly concealed. They did a pretty good job there too. No CGI for them to hide behind. Definitely trying to make them look like bog standard Mark Is on the other hand which was the intention. Absolutely a fair point.

Early Spitfire and Hurricanes had carburetor fed engines which when pushed forward into negative G maneuvers would cause the fuel to rush away from the feed and the engine would indeed stall. This could happen upsidedown, yes, but also while pushing forward on the stick to chase a 109. This was later solved...particularly in the Mark V series of Spitfires and later. In IL-2 1946 and in all previous versions a negative G engine stall occurs on the Hurricane I as it should. One of the many stop gap solutions was called "Miss Shilling's orifice" after the inventor came up with a simple solution to the problem. Have a look if your interested

Honestly I wouldn't mind a proper engine stall in the game BoP as well. Simulation mode on. Certainly I'm looking forward to that in Storm of War. Not so much silly in my mind

In any case...as I say...wish you the best of luck in the development of this game. A big challenge and a work of art absolutely.

[Anton Yudintsev]

Originally Posted by IceFire

Early Spitfire and Hurricanes had carburetor fed engines which when pushed forward into negative G maneuvers would cause the fuel to rush away from the feed and the engine would indeed stall. This could happen upsidedown, yes, but also while pushing forward on the stick to chase a 109. This was later solved...particularly in the Mark V series of Spitfires and later. In IL-2 1946 and in all previous versions a negative G engine stall occurs on the Hurricane I as it should.

Yeah, I know a history.
But in IL-2 it happens on the Hurricane I, but not on a Spitfire, which was my point.
In our game we have identification of engine stalls, but engine won't break, only engine power lowers. (sometimes engines've stopped running in a real).

Honestly I wouldn't mind a proper engine stall in the game BoP as well. Simulation mode on. Certainly I'm looking forward to that in Storm of War. Not so much silly in my mind

I was talking about our console players - they were not asking for that .
They'll be confused in such a case.

In any case...as I say...wish you the best of luck in the development of this game. A big challenge and a work of art absolutely.

Thanks a lot.

[Biggs]

artistic license is one thing, but when you clearly have a model (variant) of a 109E that actually shows the Mgs in the cowling, yet you code the plane to fire a cannon through the nose cone that isnt even there, is something completely different.

im sorry to say but its just plain incorrect.

yes 3 cannoned 109s existed, but they were not the 109E.

im really not trying to rain on your game.. i think its beautiful and ill probably buy it.... im just saying you should look more carfully at what your programmers are doing to particular aircraft models.

[Chivas]

I'm sure the majority of simmers will find IL-2 BOP very entertaining. If its possible to continue support for the game with new maps, features, and aircraft it will have a long life.