|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
02-26-2010, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If you mean wide screen - then it works without any problem. If you mean PC itself - sure we have probably better than you have now in terms of power. However I always prefer not so much powered PC for programmers... because the result of their work directly corresponds to the power of PC. If it is too much power - then the code would not be so much optimized. Hope you got my point. Other your questios. Please read my answer above. I never tell before I would know how it will be in final. I know the answers. But I can't tell. I don't like to look later like promiosed all, but developed nothing... You have many such samples in this industry I think. Especiually in flight sims niche. Beginning from B17II and finishing.... Should I show it by my finger?  Finally. Graphics Engine of SoW is way more advanced than Il-2. Il-2 can be "warmed up" to the photographic look on the surface. But will never looks like SoW and its features. Trust me. Maybe you understand me if I will tell comparison by other way: Compare quality of images of these cameras: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...8_Digital.html http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...al_Camera.html The first is Il-2. The second - BoB at initial release. Blue ray. No. I heard form Dmitry Goryainov about some Blue ray... 
|
|
#2
02-26-2010, 08:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Oleg, will SoW have support for DX11?
|
|
#3
02-26-2010, 08:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
02-26-2010, 08:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#5
02-26-2010, 08:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
02-26-2010, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#7
02-27-2010, 12:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
02-27-2010, 03:08 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Oleg,
thanks for the update and interview 2 questions: 1) the re-fueling and re-arming issue: A) this has been extensively discussed in the last few years at ubi forums, simhq, and the other main flightsim forums. the conclusion was that historical evidence presented confirmed it is possible, and was done in real life, to re-arm and re-fuel a spitfire or hurricane in under 15 min during the busiest periods of BoB (iirc) when every aircraft counted and they had to relaunch aircraft as fast as possible on certain days ! i even still have the historical video footage that shows the whole rearming procedure for the spitfire or hurricane (one was easier then the other, iirc the hurricane was significantly faster then the spitfire because the ammo boxes in the wings were more accessible). with that footage you can time exactly how long it takes, it was either 9 or 11 minutes, using the normally available ground crews for that situation (they had a team of 2 men working on each wing, so 4 ground crew per aircraft) note: historically you didnt usually have 15 aircraft all land together for quick refuel and rearm, but it was aircraft coming in solo or in little groups of 2 and 3. when a whole squadron came back from a mission and were debriefed, aircraft made ready for next flight etc, this would take much longer obviously, but that is entirely different. if you have any doubts about this, then let us present some of those facts to you so it can be implemented, it makes a BIG difference in coops and online play, even for stand alone missions in solo play. obviously if you would land a plane at an airfield that has been extensively damaged by a recent enemy bombing raid, the airfield would be disorganised and crews and supplies might be damaged or destroyed, but that should not determine how quickly this can happen at a normal airfield. maybe add a pilot command to airfield "stand by crews for refueling and rearming", so that once landed and taxi to the pit spot, it can be done in historical time. if we dont pre warn the airfield, and it is chaos on the ground, maybe it can take longer. in the options for re-arming refueling we also need a setting to choose for ex a) realistic refuel rearm = 15 min b) accelerated refuel and rearm = 3 min etc.. B) if landing a damaged aircraft, or one that needs to be refueled or rearmed, we also need an option of "choose other available aircraft at airfield", with a small delay before we can start the new aircraft (equal to the time needed to walk/run to the next aircraft, and not have the instant refly we have now when selecting an aircraft for ex) 2) for the new complex engine management, will we get messages of the type of problem encountered ? eg: - icing of wings/windscreen - low oxygen for pilot - "right wing ammo box exploded" etc ? if you physically sit in a real aircraft, you get a lot of clue's physically with your body senses about what it happening to the pilot and aircraft, sitting behind a pc monitor we dont experience this. for ex low on oxygen an experienced pilot notices before blacking out and does something about it, similar with vibration of flaps are not retracted (or gear) etc.. the game software needs to SIMULATE this pilot awareness, if need be with some basic msg's flashing on screen (as an on/off option in preferences, so the fake-real people who want to fly deaf dumb and blind can do so to) please consider
Last edited by zapatista; 02-27-2010 at 03:11 AM.
|
|
#9
02-27-2010, 03:15 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
But I think the sounds will be great, graphics great, systems simulated accurately and with the instruments finally working properly, there's no need for me to have any helmet projected display handicap to understand that something is wrong. Having options for helmet mounted display projecting system status is is OK to have as an option, and I don't think it takes any development time away. EDIT: in the example of the low oxygen, there's other more creative ways to give clues to that something isn't right (slightly blurred vision, more suseptible to blackouts, blacking out even when flying straight, a bit sluggish controls, some head-sway when moving around with headtracking). Imagine a drunk person - they often have such bad judgement that they cannot even understand that it is they who are the problem when trying to do something requiring accurate control, instead they can think something is wrong with the system. Wing ammo box exploded: Just what kind of special thing does a pilot get that make is blind and deaf in comparison? Surely some loud explosion, major wing damage, severely affected handling (if the wing is still even attached). We have everything we need to figure it out similar to a real pilot. Icing: This is already described. Check the temperature gauge, look at the ice on the windows (visually) and on the wings, and note how it affects the engine performance. If it also affects handling like it should, then you'll notice this as well when moving the stick around and seeing how the aircraft behaves in contrast to how it normally should. Landing gear vibrations: Vibrations are trickier. It can be seen visually if the gears are out as the plane just doesn't fly without vibration (shaking the camera and the horizon a bit). Also, force feedback makes a big (trust me) difference here, but not everyone has such hardware. I think if the sound engine was more realistic, there would be some other sounds as well in those old planes, maybe rattles, squeeks etc. Last edited by MikkOwl; 02-27-2010 at 03:24 AM.
|
|
#10
02-27-2010, 05:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
I know atmospheric modeling will deal with temp, but will we be able to find relative humidity in BoB? Most of avoiding things like carburetor icing comes down to preventive actions, knowing the conditions and using good airmanship so you don't get the problem. The instruments required to diagnose the problem will be modeled, but diagnosing the problem will be the hard bit (as in real life)! Although unlikely, I wonder if fuel injected motors like the German planes will have similar problems with induction icing? Cheers! Last edited by Skoshi Tiger; 02-27-2010 at 05:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
