Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[T}{OR]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Point 3 from Lancelot#s post would definitely add something, the others I am less sure. I think this only would lead to tear more planes to one spot as soon as another pilot of one's own side has detected an opponent. This would make life of a bomber a miserable one.

Bomber pilots would not be afected if this is limited to ground targets only. Not a bad idea there but somehow switching between many static cameras to get to that one thing you're searching for might be a bit boring IMHO.


Also:

Originally Posted by T.}{.O.R.

A couple more questions if I may.

1) Refering to your answer on my question no. 7. I guess we won't be able to sink ships with a lucky shot like Japanese sunk Arizona, but - will armour piercing bombs have a different impact of ships than normal high explosive ones?

2) After seeing that spitfire new and weared screenshots. Together with fuel and rearm / repair options - will we see patched bullet holles as well?

3) During online play, on dogfight servers - will server be able to filter (limit) markings which you can put on your aircraft, depending on the team you're flying? So we don't see luftwaffe or italian markings on Spitfires and RAF markings on Heinkels, 109s and so on...

4) Since paying attention to so many details like weathering and effects on the plane - will it be possible to put confirmed kill markings on your plane during campaign (something like player controled option - if you want it you can have it painted on your plane, if not then you can choose not to)? Or even kills during online play, which will show up after every 'refly'?

Thank you for your answers so far.

Just so they don't get missed.

[Asheshouse]

Thanks for taking the time to respond.
I look forward to the next development update.
They are always amazing.

[igitur70]

Hello Mr. Maddox, thx for the great work.

I'm very impressed by the amazing level of detail on all the ground objects and vehicles. I can hardly figure out how it will look like on the 1:1 scaled map you're creating. Now I'm thinking that it would really be a shame not to be able to walk around and discover that beautiful environment from a first person perspective. Even more, I begin to dream about a tactical FPS, using that huge map and the new AI to issue orders to our squad members, just like we currently do to our wingmen.

Dont get me wrong : I know that you're doing a flight sim. I dont expect it to be possible at the release date. My question is : does the game engine allow it, and how far would you allow some 3rd party developpers to work on the non-flight aspects of the sim.

Thx again to you and your team.

[Thunderbolt56]

Personally, I hope the non-flying aspects of user inter-activity are kept to a bare minimum. Manning AAA emplacements has already been said to be included, but I feel if additional interactivity on the ground is added, it will be more of a BF1942 instead of a detailed, high-quality flight sim.

[igitur70]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56

Personally, I hope the non-flying aspects of user inter-activity are kept to a bare minimum. Manning AAA emplacements has already been said to be included, but I feel if additional interactivity on the ground is added, it will be more of a BF1942 instead of a detailed, high-quality flight sim.

Ok, you're welcome

But I dont get the argument though. As far as the accuracy of the flying aspect is not in question, I cant see anything being lost in such a development. The realism of the sim experience would not suffer at all from it, but on the contrary would allow the player to evolve in an world of intricated events, just like it was in real. But ok, that's just me.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56

Personally, I hope the non-flying aspects of user inter-activity are kept to a bare minimum. Manning AAA emplacements has already been said to be included, but I feel if additional interactivity on the ground is added, it will be more of a BF1942 instead of a detailed, high-quality flight sim.

Personally I hope 3rd party development, if not 1c, take the land and sea elements of the "sim" to the same level as the Aircraft eventually.

There is far more potential for this not turning into BF1942 style of "game" if done right, in fact some dogfight servers on HL are not far off BF1942ish "air quakes" at present

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

, in fact some dogfight servers on HL are not far off BF1942ish "air quakes" at present

Too true

[Antoninus]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt56

Personally, I hope the non-flying aspects of user inter-activity are kept to a bare minimum. Manning AAA emplacements has already been said to be included, but I feel if additional interactivity on the ground is added, it will be more of a BF1942 instead of a detailed, high-quality flight sim.

I second that. Oleg and his team needed 5 years to cover most of WWII in Il-2. If they want to redo all theaters with BOB engine featuring a much increased level of detail plus include controllable tanks, ships and infantry it will either take forever or will become arcadish at some point.

[mazex]

Holy cow! That map making tool looks just awesome. To bad that we are not allowed to do full size maps ourselves. At the other hand, I understand that with a tool this easy - someone would do a full map of the med in quite a short time etc...

Another interesting thing is naturally that OpenGL still seems to be the favoured API Now that OGL in Vista has become quite OK in SP1, I don't feel bad about that.

/Mazex