oleg, you better hurry, RoF is releasing a ww-2 sim next

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by proton45

Its like listening to an artist talk about someone else work...Oleg only comments on the good things.

I truly wish more people would follow his example. Seems in these times it's mostly the other way around...

@Oleg:
After all the infantry-based games that want to be vehicle- and flight-simulations (like ArmA or BF2) and fail utterly, it's a great idea to have a flightsim giving players the chance to use ground-vehicles.

Another revolutionary idea, though it was truly overdue!

[proton45]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

I truly wish more people would follow his example. Seems in these times it's mostly the other way around...

@Oleg:
After all the infantry-based games that want to be vehicle- and flight-simulations (like ArmA or BF2) and fail utterly, it's a great idea to have a flightsim giving players the chance to use ground-vehicles.

Another revolutionary idea, though it was truly overdue!

Ya, I agree with ya...

Its pretty hard to escape the reality of the internet. The idea of the internet was to put information in the hands of the "people", and for the most part the "free" exchange of information is the most successful aspect of the internet in the 21st century. But along with information the individual now has the opportunity to express oneself to a world audience. Its just sad that so many people either mistake rudeness for self expression (empowered by the anonymity of the internet) or lack the imagination to explore the world of language and how it can help define who we are. The internet is still pretty young and mabey at some point a more mature attitude will develop...(rant over...)

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by proton45

Ya, I agree with ya...

Its pretty hard to escape the reality of the internet. The idea of the internet was to put information in the hands of the "people", and for the most part the "free" exchange of information is the most successful aspect of the internet in the 21st century. But along with information the individual now has the opportunity to express oneself to a world audience. Its just sad that so many people either mistake rudeness for self expression (empowered by the anonymity of the internet) or lack the imagination to explore the world of language and how it can help define who we are. The internet is still pretty young and mabey at some point a more mature attitude will develop...(rant over...)

Agreed 100%.

Though I doubt it will improve much. Humans always showed the most ugly sides of their personality, hiding behind the anonymity of a mask, a vail or a uniform. Same for primates, btw.
So I guess it comes down to the individuals personality to be pleased with a half-filled glas or shout and scream because it's half-empty. The later are not the majority though, just the ones that shout the loudest and the most often...

[Abbeville-Boy]

Originally Posted by proton45

Ya, I agree with ya...

Its pretty hard to escape the reality of the internet. The idea of the internet was to put information in the hands of the "people", and for the most part the "free" exchange of information is the most successful aspect of the internet in the 21st century. But along with information the individual now has the opportunity to express oneself to a world audience. Its just sad that so many people either mistake rudeness for self expression (empowered by the anonymity of the internet) or lack the imagination to explore the world of language and how it can help define who we are. The internet is still pretty young and mabey at some point a more mature attitude will develop...(rant over...)

true in life, so many negitive peoples. good for us that we have oleg, a very positive person to lead the way

[Abbeville-Boy]

I wonder if we will have a "squad of soldiers" in objects list to march with tanks that would look so cool from up in the air

[virre89]

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

I truly wish more people would follow his example. Seems in these times it's mostly the other way around...

@Oleg:
After all the infantry-based games that want to be vehicle- and flight-simulations (like ArmA or BF2) and fail utterly, it's a great idea to have a flightsim giving players the chance to use ground-vehicles.

Another revolutionary idea, though it was truly overdue!

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

[Chivas]

[QUOTE=virre89;80676Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.[/QUOTE]


What's scary are people who are offended that other people express their appreciation for a decent product. The product is not perfect but its the best we have in WW2 air combat. When a person says "you are a God Oleg" doesn't mean he thinks he's is a god. lol

Originally Posted by virre89

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

+1

[Bobb4]

Originally Posted by virre89

.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

Nodes, my dear chap nodes... You spawn at combat nodes where the action is while the rest is handled by the AI...

But again speaking from an SEOW background the ability to plan ground movements and combats is already in IL2.
Adding infantry and other cool stuff will advance the game for sure...
Straffing an airfield with troops scattering in every direction???? If you only fligh up high in a boom and zoom plane you will miss half the fun. But for us who like to get down and dirty in the mud, well the more objects the better.

As for the complete warfare package, air land and sea. Arma 2 has shown it is possible. While SOW is unlikely to have it the fact that Oleg has thought that far ahead is the reason why Il2 has stood the test of time.
My guess is if it is not Oleg himself that does it it will be a third party doing it with the SOW engine.

The fact that he has not totally ruled out online authentication is in my opinion a great step forward as well.

[Feuerfalke]

Originally Posted by virre89

Well, first of all BF2 doesn't try to be a simulator at all and it defiantly didn't fail both 1942 and bf2 was a huge success and is still one of the top competetive / public pc games played out there with Battlefield 3 being in the works as well.

Arma 2 approaches a combat simulator and it succeeds i mean it has loads of bugs but there is no game that comes close in it's overall realism , sure it doesn't have the indepth FM or flightsim feel but it does it way over the arcade level for all it's vehicles and weapons.

To be honest i don't think a mega sim of which some of you guys seem to beleive in here is possible, having a tank , ship , infantry and flight sim in one and a map as larage as the one in RoF or BoB would just be impossible unless you render everything very low detailed , and exclude physics etc.

You've to remember that these games that contains different formats such as flying vs Infantry has limited maps usually smalls ones.. Arma 1,2 has a very big one for being this type of game. The ground graphics archived in Arma 2 I'd kiss Oleg if that ground graphic would be there in SoW but it won't.

Tell me how in the world it would first of all even be fun with a map as large as say whole England or more and to be able to drive tanks, seriously you'd have to drive, walk etc forever and you could get so lost that it's freaking insane i mean even a simulator has limits, besides how about wild life, civilians etc... this is just not possible on that scale not by far at this time.

I say stick to your market which is flight sims and make it as awesome as possible and model key ground objects such as AA etc which you're already doing, leave infantry , tanks and other ground based stuff for simulators like Silent Heroes , Red Orchestra etc.

Oleg is a person not a god btw chill on the fanboism it's freaking scary sometimes..almost like the John Carmack fans at ID Software ffs.

I didn't say they failed as a game, but they utterly failed as battlefield-simulations, though they're even named after that high goal! Even ArmA2 is merely an extended Ego-Shooter, that implemented aircraft and vehicles because they somewhat belong to warfare, but they are still far from being ment seriously. And while all the games noted succeeded as games, they utterly failed in simulating even the most basic physics, as this ArmA2-Video shows pretty nicely:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP-n4F_n4UU

And this is not a mere bug, it's ArmAs physics. Hell, the game doesn't even fit the aircraft with flares and chaff, but tons of Anti-Air tanks and launchers! And don't tell me, that they couldn't modell this level of detail!


And to the speed-differences: I think you have a basic misconception of modern warfare and game-design as well. While there is a frontline in war, it does not mean that there are thousands of units fighting in a single long line along that hundreds of kilometer long front. Most of the action is taking place at a limited area at a time, with spearheads and massed units attacking and defending for a strategic point. Infact, it's that exact slow motion you mentioned for games, that dictates this.

So back into the game, while the aircraft may spawn at an airbase some 10km behind the fenceline, your tank-platoon might just spawn at the depot 1km behind the action.
That not only makes it more suitable for playing, but also more realstic compared to planes in the games you named, that rearm by flying at 100ft and Mach1 over an airfield to rearm and repair and reappear fully armed 20 seconds after the last bombrun.