Oleg Maddox's Room #1

[csThor]

@ baco

So real liefe pilots can switch between squadrons, choose missions they want to fly and enter the cockpit inflight?

I think you misunderstood my words. I didn't argue against dynamic campaigns - I argued against placing Falcon 4 on a pedestal as a shiny example when - in my opinion - the campaign presentation was very basic and uninspiring at best. It did not create immersion for me, it lacked everything which draws me "into" a campaign. Red Baron II never had an underlying engine as F4 did, but it had a nearly perfect presentation which created enormous amounts of immersion. In comparison Falcon 4 was sterile and soulless.

[grecobd]

I think the best dynamic campaing of all time was the MicroProse 1942 pacific air war, which had a summary for each campaign and a great Immersion with briefings as the EAW, and you had really afraid for his life if the pilot was dead or MIA you no longer could fly with him, had to start from the beginning without medals, kills or promotions. It was with that you really nervous when you get at a numerically disadvantage , and if you was at damage plane, you had to fly to your front side before bail or your pilot would be considered as missing in combat also what the force to resume with a new one with the profile from zero. it had no buttom of refly.

excuse my english, and talk about a game of the years 90s, but its one of the few games that i keep up today with its original box on my shelf saved with the il2 sturmovik

[AdMan]

Sounds like you are working on a masterpiece Oleg, so far BoB SoW seems like everything I could wish for, a couple questions:

1. Will the new FM allow for simulating mach tuck? I don't believe I have ever experienced tuck in IL-2 with planes that have the tendency to do so.

2. In IL-2 all coastlines are sandy beaches, will there be any rocky shorelines on SoW maps? I would love to see those nice waves crashing into cliffs and rocks from above

3. is the possibility of having US aircraft at some point completely out of the question???

[KG26_Alpha]

Oleg + 1C team

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

I remember IL2 when you shot a plane small bits fell off it and it lost control then went in, If I remember it was around the v4.?? that the "Hollywood Effect" appeared.

I hope this has been removed for BoB SoW.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

this was a concern after watching some of the BoP gameplay footage, a particular scene where a plane disappears in an explosion - a way too small explosion might I add, the explosion was actually smaller than the plane itself. Also the explosion was static, meaning it didn't keep traveling with the speed and trajectory in which the plain was traveling, just "poof" and it was gone

otherwise a great looking game tho

[Antoninus]

Originally Posted by KG26_Alpha

Oleg + 1C team

Have you re-thought for BoB SoW the unrealistic way IL2 1946 has ended up with the Hollywood style exploding aircraft, wings getting cut off and aircraft cut in half.

I remember IL2 when you shot a plane small bits fell off it and it lost control then went in, If I remember it was around the v4.?? that the "Hollywood Effect" appeared.

I hope this has been removed for BoB SoW.

Planes could already break apart or explode in Il-2 and FB 1.0 and it could happen in RL as well. Besides your gunnery skills the frequency mainly depends on the caliber of your weapons. Use machineguns and you won't see structural failures or explosions as often as when using 30 mm cannons with exploding shells, which are arguable overmodeled. I've not noticed any change during the games evolution.

[KG26_Alpha]

Originally Posted by Antoninus

Planes could already break apart or explode in Il-2 and FB 1.0 and it could happen in RL as well. Besides your gunnery skills the frequency mainly depends on the caliber of your weapons. Use machineguns and you won't see structural failures or explosions as often as when using 30 mm cannons with exploding shells, which are arguable overmodeled. I've not noticed any change during the games evolution.

You are kidding right ??

There were never exploding planes in the original Sturmovik you mention v1.0 like there are in IL2 1946.

IL2's used to fall apart from FW190 20mm back then but not this silly damage modelling we have in IL2 1946 with aircraft exploding into millions of pieces.

[Antoninus]

Il-2 demo 2, ca. early 2002

Crimea map, Fw-190 A5 default armament

Plane exploding, plown into a million pieces:




aircraft cut in half:




wings getting cut off:

[Abbeville-Boy]

oleg, you still plan for sow forum, when you announced, it seemed so close to being up and running in a week

[Baco]

Originally Posted by csThor

@ baco

So real liefe pilots can switch between squadrons, choose missions they want to fly and enter the cockpit inflight?

I think you misunderstood my words. I didn't argue against dynamic campaigns - I argued against placing Falcon 4 on a pedestal as a shiny example when - in my opinion - the campaign presentation was very basic and uninspiring at best. It did not create immersion for me, it lacked everything which draws me "into" a campaign. Red Baron II never had an underlying engine as F4 did, but it had a nearly perfect presentation which created enormous amounts of immersion. In comparison Falcon 4 was sterile and soulless.

Hi aggain, yes you are right about a lot of thing sin ypur post: teh Falcon 4. camapign presentation and reports is radder uninspiring and yes there is no better example for presentation of a campaign as Red BAron II, that game was all about inmersion, no fancy graphics, no eycandy, pure soul jeje.

----------------------------------------------------------------

About wind drift: guys even modern jets with triple redundant computers and guided weapons consider wind drift a very important factor.

Not considering wind drift for AG ordinance is like not considering balistics efects on cannons and machine guns. Up to the invention of smart guided weapons every AG mission acounted Wind as a factor to decide the IP and course to traget, and attack parameters.

I can understand that Oleg might not want to add another cpu demanding task to the engine, but to say it´s a minor issuer not worth considering is ridiculus.

Not onlly the efect on the ordinance, but the efect on the plane should be considered.
With medium to strong winds the nose of the aircraft is not ussualy pointing to the vector, or line of movement in witch the aircraft is taveling. So theres not onlly ordinance drift to compensate but the planes own drift influences if you hit the target or not.
Then aggain that is an entrielly new world of realistic navigation taking into acount wind to plot a course...