PDA

View Full Version : Open source IL2



darelc
06-08-2006, 02:50 PM
How about when BoB is released that IL2 is open sourced so that we as a community can take it further (refine models, add new planes etc)?

ID do similar when their engines get slightly out of date (release the source code to the community).

darelc
06-08-2006, 02:50 PM
How about when BoB is released that IL2 is open sourced so that we as a community can take it further (refine models, add new planes etc)?

ID do similar when their engines get slightly out of date (release the source code to the community).

La7_brook
06-08-2006, 03:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darelc:
How about when BoB is released that IL2 is open sourced so that we as a community can take it further (refine models, add new planes etc)?

ID do similar when their engines get slightly out of date (release the source code to the community). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>that would kill the game faster then BOB would have

crazyivan1970
06-08-2006, 03:22 PM
Oleg made it pretty clear. IL2 source code will not be open to public, but will be open to members of 3rd party development, only some parts of it and under supervision. Opening source will kill IL2 very quickly ....while it`s still have lots of life in it.

Viper2005_
06-08-2006, 03:54 PM
Ivan is wrong. The opensource project has in fact been progressing in secret for some time with key contributions from "certain forum members". Behold! I have an early screenshot!

Here we see a classic 1944 encounter on the Western front:
http://membres.lycos.fr/sosleader/pix/la14.gif

VW-IceFire
06-08-2006, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darelc:
How about when BoB is released that IL2 is open sourced so that we as a community can take it further (refine models, add new planes etc)?

ID do similar when their engines get slightly out of date (release the source code to the community). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
While I'm a fan of Open Source in some circumstanc this is not one of them.

Opening the source code will not likely happen for two good reasons:

1) BoB's source and technology seems to be built using IL-2 source and technology so revealing one would more or less reveal the other (to some degree)

2) IL-2's lack of serious cheating and online exploits are largely because of its closed and encrypted source.

WTE_Galway
06-08-2006, 10:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darelc:
How about when BoB is released that IL2 is open sourced so that we as a community can take it further (refine models, add new planes etc)?

ID do similar when their engines get slightly out of date (release the source code to the community). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isnt IL2 source currently being sold to a number of other developers for use in other games ?


Aside from which, once the online airquake point-*****s got the code and started spamming us with planes that flew like your average hollywood brainwashed kid thinks they should, I for one would quit and take up the Sim Farm or something.

crazyivan1970
06-08-2006, 11:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
Isnt IL2 source currently being sold to a number of other developers for use in other games ?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not it`s not. Just heavily modified parts of the game engine.

BBB_Hyperion
06-09-2006, 07:48 AM
Anyway if it gets open source i reserve following modules

Mission Triggers,
Briefing,
Server Commands
(like remind player) (not to kick but to remind with big text on client screen) )for example for wrong planchoice)
(like sleep player) (if not following rules player can only use gui and refly like dead pilot until rule is observed)
Server Management Interface available all ingame Objects and their State.
(For detailed statistics of hitpoints on planes etc)
Spawning Player cant be hit for set time (For carrier takeoffs can just take off through other planes without explosion (better for multiplayer)

AI Modification for DF Mode Multiplayer.
AI Spawnable in DF Missions.

LEBillfish
06-09-2006, 07:54 AM
If the game gets open sourced I'll demand that all cockpits get curtains, I think a nice MaryKay pink for the paint & NetNanny is installed in the chat engine........

Still want open sourcing?

KG26_Oranje
06-09-2006, 03:53 PM
Open?

Oh u mean PIMP MY PLANE hehehehe.

S!

Haigotron
06-09-2006, 04:44 PM
Open source seems to work for first person shooters or games that dont rely on being realistic...

But a simulator should have a single version of a model to keep things constant

Just imagine...50 diff versions of a Bf109 F4 variant,...which servers has which? do we have diff version on the same server...

I think the only openess should be level designing...maybe beef that up a bit more...

darelc
06-09-2006, 05:10 PM
A couple of replies:
if IL2 is going to be so similar to BoB then how can they be marketing BoB as a 'new game'

I don't buy the crapped up models as i dont think people would play those servers.. I do work for a quite large open source game and players just reject non serious servers.. (developers usually give up then as they aren't interested spending time developing something people won't play).

Having said that I guess IL2 open source is a pipe dream.. Won't happen (esp not with the likes of UBI at the helm).

I just don't want IL2 to die when BoB comes out!

Viper2005_
06-09-2006, 05:21 PM
Why should it? IL2 covers a lot of fronts that the SoW series won't get to anytime soon.

erco415
06-09-2006, 05:27 PM
On the other hand, the folks over at Fighting Steel Project have taken Fighting Steel much further than the developer was interested in doing, all the while keeping the integrity of the game intact and in many ways refining it. Lots of differences between their situation and Il2, but it does show that it's not all pink curtains...and besides, I've seen pink P-40s and Lb-30s.

BBB_Hyperion
06-09-2006, 05:43 PM
Open Source does not mean all parts of the game are free to change.

Just some aspects . Of course "the bar" would be on many top priority lists of pits mods were these changeable.

csThor
06-10-2006, 12:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">if IL2 is going to be so similar to BoB then how can they be marketing BoB as a 'new game' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because it is but will - of course - use knowledge and experiences (and probably code parts) gained in Il-2. But the question can be turned around:

BiA - RtH30 was one game and BiA - EiB was also marketed and sold as full game. Yet both offer a similar story, share the same engine and effectively are the same game in two different sets of clothes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Mysticpuma2003
06-10-2006, 02:26 AM
I agree about Open Source and that it could 'wreck' the sim.

What I would like to see is Oleg outsourcing the work to the community who could finish the P-47 cockpit and also give us the B-24 and B-17 cockpits/ gunner positions.

It will be a very long time before any (if ever) of the above make it into BoB, and I feel that the inclusion of a four engine bomber would graetly increase the life of IL2, especially in the mission and campaign builders sections.

As for the P-47, the money for licensing it has been paid, so surely it could now be completed, even if this means out-sourcing it.

After reading so many posts about the P-47, I know that there are guys out there who would wilingly complete it, and the same applies to the four-engine bombers.

If anything, as he has done with the patches, these could be downloaded only as an official update, therefore staying closed source, but at least giving the option for someone to create and complete this game.

Cheers, MP.

darelc
06-10-2006, 12:00 PM
By the way, Pink Spitfire -&gt;

http://www.acf.clara.net/scale/scale-pics-4/low/pink-spit/spit-9.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

VW-IceFire
06-10-2006, 12:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darelc:
A couple of replies:
if IL2 is going to be so similar to BoB then how can they be marketing BoB as a 'new game'

I don't buy the crapped up models as i dont think people would play those servers.. I do work for a quite large open source game and players just reject non serious servers.. (developers usually give up then as they aren't interested spending time developing something people won't play).

Having said that I guess IL2 open source is a pipe dream.. Won't happen (esp not with the likes of UBI at the helm).

I just don't want IL2 to die when BoB comes out! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its going to be more detailed and revamped but its a combat flight simulator...things aren't likely to change in a massively unexpected way. If they do then something is wrong. But you can bet that Oleg will be using stuff from the old engine in the new engine when its appropriate.

Crapped up servers? Not play on them? If the source is opened security will likely be compromised and people will figure out ways to cheat. Thats a serious problem and Oleg has been incredible enough to prevent most types of cheats with IL-2. This is a valuable thing and opening it up will degrade that. THAT...will destroy IL-2.

I doubt it'll be going away when Storm of War starts...BoB is a limited planeset so I'm sure we'll be playing both.

anarchy52
06-10-2006, 01:02 PM
I don't think anyone would need to alter the game to cheat. Just fly russian planes. You can be an ace too.

And if you feel like an uberace then take a Spitfire (almost as good as russian wonders)

BTW Did you know MG151/20 was porked in the last patch?

AKA_TAGERT
06-11-2006, 12:41 AM
Have we learned nothing from CFS3?
Online flight sims (any game really) that have open souce code or a built in method to tweak the performance die as fast if nto faster than a hacked online game or online game with cheat codes.

The method Oleg has now is the best any flight sim has ever come up with. Controled 3rd party suport addons

Treetop64
06-11-2006, 01:07 AM
I agree. Opening IL-2 would be a bad idea. If anything, it should only be opened to the point of allowing users to create maps (so that we get the Phillipines, Solomons, Java, etc.), but that's it.

Bearcat99
06-12-2006, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darelc:
A couple of replies:
if IL2 is going to be so similar to BoB then how can they be marketing BoB as a 'new game'
I don't buy the crapped up models as i dont think people would play those servers.. I do work for a quite large open source game and players just reject non serious servers.. (developers usually give up then as they aren't interested spending time developing something people won't play).
Having said that I guess IL2 open source is a pipe dream.. Won't happen (esp not with the likes of UBI at the helm).
I just don't want IL2 to die when BoB comes out! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind that FB is "similar" to IL2... but it isnt the same... and the code had to be modified to make it possible for all the stuff we now have....

SoW:BoB will be an entirely new engine.... from the ground up.... Not a tweaking of the current one.

IL2 is already dead for the most part...

FB on the other hand is alive and well and will be for sometime. There are people who are just now coming to this sim because they just are able to upgrade from the PC that kept them in CFS,FA3,AH,EAW,AH or any other WWII sim that requires less muscle to run than this one... The wont be upgrading for BoB in the next 12 months... gauranteed... Not only that.... a lot of guys who can upgrade and will, will get BoB and love it.. but still want to fly other theaters.... hang with thier friends.... fly other planes not featurerd in BoB... and where else will they go for that but FB........ with thier beefed up BoB ready rigs that will stretch FB even further.... Haven't you noticed that with each upgrade you still manage to find something new and improved in this sim? Even if it is a small thing....?

UBI has less to do with this engine staying closed than Oleg himself.... and I for one am glad..... if there is one thing that history has shown us in this genre it is that if there is a way for someone to push the envelope on the DL to gain a leg up that the genpop doesnt have.. it will be done more often than not..



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anarchy52:
I don't think anyone would need to alter the game to cheat. Just fly russian planes. You can be an ace too.
And if you feel like an uberace then take a Spitfire (almost as good as russian wonders)
BTW Did you know MG151/20 was porked in the last patch? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Take someone who thinks like this for instance..... since he knows that the Russian planes have an unfair advantage built in... which is what a "cheat" is.... then you mean to tell me he wouldnt "fix" that.... with his own idea of how other planes should be.... which of course is far more correct and reralistic than the developers of the sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif......?

Open source...... yyyyyyyyahhhhh riiiiight... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

anarchy52
06-13-2006, 02:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Take someone who thinks like this for instance..... since he knows that the Russian planes have an unfair advantage built in... which is what a "cheat" is.... then you mean to tell me he wouldnt "fix" that.... with his own idea of how other planes should be.... which of course is far more correct and reralistic than the developers of the sim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif......?

Open source...... yyyyyyyyahhhhh riiiiight... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Bearcat, I do think that some (many of them are VVS planes) do have unfair advantage, but it's hard to prove anything in the game because anyone can dispute the tests (net lag, didn't do 200 tracks, delta wood, etc.).
The easiest part is climb rates and speed for which there is a lot of data available and it's easy to check, relative turn rates can be *approximated* by comparing wingloading/powerloading. This is where the first glitches occur. IL2 compare is a powerfull tool for examining manuverability numbers. It clearly shows some planes are way off.

But the really hard part is DM/CM. It's impossible to produce accurate tests.
We have all seen that LaGG-3's inline engine is much tougher then say P&W radial in P-47. We have all seen P-39s flying forever leaking oil, a condition that in most planes means certain and inevitable engine death.
B-25s taking close to 100 20mm hits and flying away. 109 wings breaking off from single UBS 12,7mm round while taking multiple hispano hits. We all felt that FW-190 takes a big performance hit when damaged, while witnessing negligable performance loss of planes like La-5 when hit by multiple 20mm HE rounds on their wooden wings.

How to quanticize the experience?

We have the arcade mode, however it's of very limited use. It can be used to show how much it takes for catastrophic damage to occur, sometimes it can give you a hint on the location of hitboxes, but real effect can't be measured. We have hits rate stats. But we do not know what we hit because visual model and hitbox model are different (Mosquito DM bug for instance).

To see if the DM is fair we would have to have another set of tools showing hitbox data and flight parameters change with damage. We do not have access to that data in a fully closed sim.

Nobody (except maybe competition) wants to read the source code, but many would like to see the parameters used in modelling the planes.

I think Maddox did a great job, perhaps even saved the combat flightsim genre. The difference between you and me Bearcat is that I respect Oleg's work while you believe blindly in Saint Maddox.
Lack of critical thinking and blind faith turns people into sheep. That can lead to disasterous consequences as WWII has shown us.

Bearcat99
06-13-2006, 06:49 AM
I understand where you arew coming from... and circumstantially..... it is debateable.... However my point was... with open source.... anything can happen and usually does.... Id rather have level FMs ... even if I dont fully agree with all of them.. than the free for all that open sourcing invites....

mrsiCkstar
06-13-2006, 08:50 AM
Falcon 4

HayateAce
06-13-2006, 09:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Ivan is wrong. The opensource project has in fact been progressing in secret for some time with key contributions from "certain forum members". Behold! I have an early screenshot!

Here we see a classic 1944 encounter on the Western front:
http://membres.lycos.fr/sosleader/pix/la14.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. But why is the Fb109 attacking the Fb190?

SeaFireLIV
06-13-2006, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Have we learned nothing from CFS3?
Online flight sims (any game really) that have open souce code or a built in method to tweak the performance die as fast if nto faster than a hacked online game or online game with cheat codes.

The method Oleg has now is the best any flight sim has ever come up with. Controled 3rd party suport addons </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. the fact that Oleg holds onto it always makes me know we`re in for quality - and I don`t have to choose between a thousand `mods` that`ll all call themselves the `ultimate` mod and `the best mod ever`, just to find it`s some goik`s personal view of how he thinks the world should be. Oleg has proven himself pretty unbiased. i`ve never seen a sim where I`m actually scared of taking on 109s in a Spitfire! Or La5s against 109G10s, etc - actually, I tell a lie... BOBwov`s enemy AI is quite scary....

And imagine the confusion on the servers with everyone arguing about which mod is being used for each server! It`s bad enough just with 4.04 and 4.05 at the moment.


Although some have benefitted (like fantasy Oblivion, Morrowind, RTW), but a realistic simulation won`t benefit inmho.

joeap
06-13-2006, 09:39 AM
Agree with Tagert and Seafire...though I do think SH3 has some fine and realistic mods. The naval sim crowd are even geekier than flight sims, and far fewer so it's ok. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Cossack13
06-13-2006, 09:47 AM
Put me down as voting "No!" on open source.

Stackhouse25th
06-13-2006, 09:56 AM
The game was never intended for true open source. We all have to have the same versions on each others PC' to properly see updates. I personally would be ok with open source to a specialized group of people in 2 years, well after BOB has been released.

anarchy52
06-13-2006, 10:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Although some have benefitted (like fantasy Oblivion, Morrowind, RTW), but a realistic simulation won`t benefit inmho. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I can't find any title that hasn't benefited from mods (arguably CFS - for offliners online cheats were irrelevant).

I enjoy making skins as much as I do flying the sim. I always wanted to do more then that. And we wouldn't waste so much time on forums hunting down bugs. Remember MG151/20 issue. Oleg accepted it after so much testing that only thing left was to tell him which line of code to fix.
I like the idea of 2 kinds of servers (announced by Oleg): official and modded. It's left to be seen how it will be implemented in the end.

I know some of you would really like to fly 4 engined heavies, or the unfortunatelly missing pacific theater warbirds.

darelc
06-13-2006, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Id rather have level FMs ... even if I dont fully agree with all of them.. than the free for all that open sourcing invites.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm Ok..

So it seems IL2 is already partly opensource as alot of the modelling has come from the community. These changes go through the quality filter that is Oleg - although the same is usually true for opensource projects (usually there are highly qualified and quality concious admins.

I think the overall reaction has been negative, which is fair enough, but I still think it is a thought worth thinking out loud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I just happen to be a fan of alot of opensource and think it does have some benefits that can come in handy when source gets abandoned.

Opensource doesn't have to be a free for all, it just means that you can actually see the source, and suggest changes to it, the mantainers may not accept your patches of course.

I wonder how many of us will still be playing IL2 when BoB comes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Aaron_GT
06-13-2006, 01:47 PM
Community contributions are not the same as open source.

Open architecture is not the same as open source.

Open source means you get to see the source code. This also implies open architecture as well, although if the architecture is complex then a logical open architecture might be more useful than open source in some ways. Also some things have a more open architecture than others.

Open architecture means the ability to plug in new content, or new modules, or reskin things. How much you can do depends on the way things are structured. Some of this content can include code - for example the plugins you can get for the MS flight sim series that are little bits of code that do particular tasks.

Community contributions means new content created by the community, but no open architecture so it has to be plugged into the game by the developer.

I get the impression that the IL2 architecture isn't as amenable to being open architecture as the MS Flight Sim series, and that custom code has to be added to the existing code base rather than simply being a plug in to allow new aircraft to be added, so it probably makes it hard for it to be open architecture.

There is FlightGear in terms of a totally open source flight sim, although I never really got to grips with setting it all up. Maybe installation is easier now? And then there is Falcon, Mig Alley, BoB I (not WOV) and SDOE which have been open sourced (i.e. the actual C or C++ code) to some extent. I did look at the Mig Alley code briefly, and it would have taken a while to get to grips with it.

triggerhappyfin
06-13-2006, 02:55 PM
The main thing is if Oleg let access to the source code he´d have to say by-by to any further earnings on IL-2 series. The game engine surely will make him some more good money in future.

darelc
06-13-2006, 02:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Community contributions are not the same as open source.
. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

of course http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif (I didn't mean it quite literally) I guess I meant it wouldn't be such a big transition for some (some seem to have a deep understanding of the architecture anyway).

Flightgear still sucks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Bearcat99
06-13-2006, 03:22 PM
IMO as long as whatever is loosened.. as long as the FMs and DMs stay untouchable I can live with it... that goes for objects as well as aircraft...

VW-IceFire
06-13-2006, 04:35 PM
Anarchy...the main reason we have alot of Russian aircraft performing in usual ways...or at least the reason I feel for it is because they were amongst the earliest to be added to the sim. While the 109 and 190 have had upgraded DM's through the entire process (mostly because of complaints that they weren't) the Yak's and LaGG's were largely ignored. The Yak and LaGG engine simply do not have the detail in the DM...so they go on taking some interesting levels of damage sometimes and other times come apart at the seams for no reason. If you don't fly Red ever (and I'm not sure if you do or not) with these planes then you need to so that you fully appreciate that not all of these things are a bonus.

Climb rates, relative turns, that sort of thing you can quantify and comment about. I don't have and have never seen any charts for any Russian aircraft so its hard to compare numbers against the sim. The FM's have stayed up to date and unlike the DM's the FM's should be equal. Now we have at least one guy who has actually flown a real prop driven Yak and said that the FM is not right...but that its tweaked downwards in some ways. Again...having a solid perspective of both sides of the fight leave you with a different impression...if you only fly 109G's against Yak-9s in the 1943 scenario then you're liable to feel that the Yak-9 is overmodeled...until you fly the Yak-9 and find out that its not really all that special.

Another huge thing with the Russian planes is the guns. Most people don't know that the Russians spent most of the 1920s and 30s developing the best aerial guns for their situation possible. Now that the Mine shell issue for the MG151/20 has been worked out and the ShVAK sits firmly in third place for hitting power there is less in the way of argument over it...but some still question and to this I say that history, the experts in the field, and the game agree to relative values.

I'm very much looking forward to returning to the Eastern Front in Storm of War. I know we will eventually. I look forward to it because Oleg can do alot more for the details of the Yaks (like being able to see the fuel guage from the cockpit finally!) and the LaGG's in all respects. Hopefully he'll be able to head off problems like the P-39 running forever on a damaged engine (BTW: the USAAF only P-39s and P-400s do this as well), the LaGG-3's stunningly old DM resisting all but a few types of guns, and the Klimov engine lacking any show of engine damage. The engine does get damaged...it does take more than its share of hits...and it almost never shows anything to the external viewer (Yak pilots know that suddenly you just stop having power...the prop is running fairly normally but you're loosing speed and its game over - the 109 guy never knew). Finally I look forward to finally having a Yak that doesn't instantly want to roll over on its side because one 20mm shell glanced off the wing. Its worse than the FW190 is.

They have problems...but the biggest problem is that they don't have any of the detail of the new planes. The German planes are "lucky" as they have been upgraded...otherwise they would be the rock solid, undamagable, questionable FM types as the Russians are. Fortunately not...I think they are pretty good.

But the one thing I seriously object to is calling flying Russian fighters or aircraft cheating or outright UFO's. They are not...these are excuses made by people who can't beat them because they used the wrong tactics. There are problems...they are across the board...we should not generalize and start pointing fingers.

anarchy52
06-14-2006, 02:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VW-IceFire:

Another huge thing with the Russian planes is the guns. Most people don't know that the Now that the Mine shell issue for the MG151/20 has been worked out and the ShVAK sits firmly in third place for hitting power there is less in the way of argument over it...but some still question and to this I say that history, the experts in the field, and the game agree to relative values.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The guns themselves are probably modelled correctly. v0, mass, chemical content, ROF not too many parameters to load, but the problem is the effect on target.

You can land a solid burst of 4 (four!) 20mm cannons thats ~50 20mm shells per second, P-39 or La-5 lights up like a christmass tree and then executes 19s 360 deg turn. No percieveable loss of performance.

On the other hand, as Vrabac has shown with his track, one single round of 12,7mm UBS can break the wing of a Bf-109. Shvak itself might not be as powerfull as hispano or MG151/20 but it's effect on 109/190 is far greater then the other way around.

Yak's and Lavotchkins were not as strong structurally as 109 and especially 190.
quote Major Kozhemyako: "if one 20mm HE hits the Yak, well.. the plywood would fly in all directions and one has to bail out, can´t fly much with missing surfaces"
In the game it's the other way around - soviet fighters are more resistant to performance degradation when hit, while FW-190 - probably structurally and armour wise one of the toughest single engined fighters of WWII is put out of action easily. I've posted a picture of FW-190 coming home with part of the wing missing following a colission with enemy fighter (Spitfire).

I do not know how they calculated the effect of hits but I'm pretty sure a 20mm He shell on lightly built plywood skinned plane would cause far more serious problems then 1-2 12,7 mm hits on the wing of all metal construction.

I've flown some western front sorties after quite a while flying eastern front exclusivelly. I was totally stunned by the effect of 20mm cannons on Spitfires and Tempests. They felt like Zeros compared to P-39s and La-5s, not to mention LaGGs.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
But the one thing I seriously object to is calling flying Russian fighters or aircraft cheating or outright UFO's. They are not...these are excuses made by people who can't beat them because they used the wrong tactics. There are problems...they are across the board...we should not generalize and start pointing fingers.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Most soviet fighters are modelled optimistically but their DM can sometmes be characterised as just plain ridiculous. Any plane can be beat, but its very frustrating to have this feeling of playing two completelly different games, with the other guy having unrealistic advantage like being able to outperform you plane (not the pilot) after taking 4-5 20mm shells on the wing. That's what annoys me.

It's also annoying to put 152 hits on the B-25, he proceeds to make a low level attack on the airfield getting pounded by 20mm flaks and it took another FW-190 to finally put him down. I will post the track when I get home.

HFC_Dolphin
06-14-2006, 07:12 AM
Definitely NO open source.
Please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JamesBlonde888
06-14-2006, 07:45 PM
I for one do not want to see a bunch of trekkies get their grotty hands on this classic piece of art. No spaceships or weird jets that destroy an airfoce at 500 km and then go beep to tell you that they have done it.

Thanks

Alexandrian
07-21-2006, 09:36 AM
Is there a way to develop aircraft for il2 using say 3d studio max or Gmax? and if so, how can one participate or submit his own add ons to Maddox Games?

What guidelines should one follow if one desires to develop add ons for both IL2 and BOB?

Chuck_Older
07-21-2006, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Ivan is wrong. The opensource project has in fact been progressing in secret for some time with key contributions from "certain forum members". Behold! I have an early screenshot!

Here we see a classic 1944 encounter on the Western front:
http://membres.lycos.fr/sosleader/pix/la14.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously photoshopped as the wingman's S-foils are not in attack configuration

Treetop64
07-21-2006, 08:52 PM
Yeah. And when did we ever see nebulae in Star Wars, eh?

It's gonna take more than that faked screenshot to trick us, Viper2005! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

starfighter1
07-22-2006, 01:07 AM
hi,
1st
what is opensource in flightsims ?

before we talk about it ?

one explination here:

http://www.flightgear.org/introduction.html


http://www.flightgear.org/features.html

I guess some people don't know about they are talking http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/


By the way I'm not shure if the O.M. team use some parts of that flight dynamic model source above or in the case of development the fm engine at all .. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

my question
is that the last aswer to advanced flight sim modelling at pc ?
(like X-plane for example)

dear folks the flight dynamic model to pc/computers at all is not
a development in basic features by Maddox team http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

it's knowledge of several special technology departments in universities http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

starfighter1
07-22-2006, 01:20 AM
re to the link: http://www.flightgear.org/features.html
about flight dynamic models

here another opensource fm written by NASA experts.

http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/


I don't know if O.M. is using some basic coded fm from a special russian space or fligtsim authority.

so let's talk about more of a closed code in a
flight simulation game I repeat game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


[QUOTE]Originally posted by starfighter1:
hi,
1st
what is opensource in flightsims ?

before we talk about it ?

Chuck_Older
07-22-2006, 06:30 AM
Jeez starfighter, we all know that the FM in this sim isn't perfect. It's still a simulation, regardless of your axe to grind. It simulates flight. Don't like the FM? Good for you! I disagree with LOTS about the FM too. That doesn't make this less of a simulation. It's the best WWII air combat sim going. Do I want a better one? You bet. I demand it of OM and 1C

But your issues with the sim and the way you present them...tell you what, PM me with the name of the person or persons holding a gun to your head to play the sim, and I'll get the cops over there to rescue you

starfighter1
07-22-2006, 07:49 AM
hi,
my arguments of opensource fm/code
does't lead automatic to low arcade fm simulation in games for example or in any other software area.

I'm looking forward to many new projects of opensource combatsims or projects based on advanced fm engine like x-plane.

Anyway BoB is the next step and the discussion
is back end of 2006 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

if you want to discuss this points in a serious way the developer should show his basic parameters and fm setting backgrounds of the plane containers and more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

that needs no open code http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Jeez starfighter, we all know that the FM in this sim isn't perfect. It's still a simulation, regardless of your axe to grind. It simulates flight. Don't like the FM? Good for you! I disagree with LOTS about the FM too. That doesn't make this less of a simulation. It's the best WWII air combat sim going. Do I want a better one? You bet. I demand it of OM and 1C

But your issues with the sim and the way you present them...tell you what, PM me with the name of the person or persons holding a gun to your head to play the sim, and I'll get the cops over there to rescue you </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GerritJ9
07-22-2006, 08:29 AM
There are some advantages to open source. For CFS2, for instance, items have been developed that are sorely lacking for the Singapore map in PF such as the famous/notorious 15" guns, and of quite good quality. They are immediately available and if somebody else does a better job it is easy to replace the items added earlier. Maps can be corrected (deletion of the non-existent second causeway and a proper R.N. Dockyard and Keppel Harbour added to name but a few examples of the most glaring errors/omissions on the PF Singapore map)and adding Java/Sumatra/Philippines or other maps would be more easily achieved.
On the downside, it would create the possibility of tweaking the performance of aircraft to ridiculous levels. And while I would love to have a Buffalo with a top speed of 490 mph, the climb rate of an Me 163, the turning ability of a Ki 43, the firepower of a P-47, the service ceiling of a Ta-152H and the ability to absorb battle damage like an IL-2, it would be totally unrealistic. So on balance, I would not support open-source despite the obvious advantages in creating new objects (such as ships) and rapidly making them readily available.

anarchy52
07-22-2006, 03:58 PM
I'm firmly pro opening Il-2, checking that server and clients have same version is quite anough. Not convinced?
Take a look http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFTRsBcSyk8

from the same guy that cracked the il-2 .sfs "encryption".

NerdConnected
07-22-2006, 05:17 PM
No OpenSource please. Within months we would have 100 different versions of this game ;-(

Maybe Maddox can try to sell Il2 4.07 (somewhere in the near future) to another game company who can then make some kind of an 'ultimate' edition. One with most of our wishes like AI tweaks, missing theaters, dynamic weather, better dynamic campaigns etc, etc (the list is of course endless....).

This concept is already used: e.g Luthier creates add-ons. Surely this proces can be taken one step further just like they did with Falcon4 .

This game is far from dead, just like Falcon4 was, and has hardly any competition right now. To me, it sounds like a very viable option.

As a result Maddox will earn some extra cash for their SoW add-ons and we'll get a final and 'ultimate' pacific fighters with lots of fixes and new theaters, planes etc, etc....

However, I think Maddox first tries to make SoW a succes. If it catches on, maybe then they will try to sell the entire Il2 engine (i.e. 4.07) and we'll see such a thing.

I'm a bit worried though that an 'ultimate' edition of Il2 will still compete with SoW because Il2 has so many planes and theaters whereas SoW only involves BoB.

If SoW is that good as they say it is, it won't be a problem, but if it aint, it will be.

In the end, everything depends on the quality and success of SoW I guess.

My 2 ct.

Mark

JG54_Lukas
07-22-2006, 10:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Alexandrian:
Is there a way to develop aircraft for il2 using say 3d studio max or Gmax? and if so, how can one participate or submit his own add ons to Maddox Games?

What guidelines should one follow if one desires to develop add ons for both IL2 and BOB? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The time has come and gone for submitting third-party models for FB, and no modeling requirements have yet been announced for SoW.

msalama
07-22-2006, 11:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No OpenSource please. Within months we would have 100 different versions of this game ;-( </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But how about modifying the game platform so that all FMs are server-sided (meaning no local FM content is used when playing online, which would at least guarantee a server-wide level playing field) and _then_ opening up the code base? We'd most certainly see many different versions of the game at first, yeah, but natural selection would surely take care of that after a while... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wouldn't be crack-proof, I know, but an interesting idea anyway IMHO. What do you think?

starfighter1
07-23-2006, 05:56 AM
hi,
once again:
opensource does not mean 'ufos' to all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

opensource flightsim engine is a chance to discuss and program all plane FM and other features on background of an open source code for optimate software programming.
the interest of the opensource community is not to build up FM features which are unrealistic
or have arcade game features http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

the discussion here is far away from that points opensource community is doing in real life

of course it's possible to program an 'ufo' or arccade sim by opensource ...
but there are more chances to more advanced sim programming by many pogressive and qualified partners than in a small group which is in hurry to next business and a lot of game feature compromises even to the policy from the different publishers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

OK there is also a market to enduser products using opensource FM sim engines.
the market of software products in data storing based on open source or other applications is another story.

Of course a sim dev team can produce their own advanced products based on opensource software including best scenery and other game features

the arguments of bad or wrong FM programming based on opensource code FM engine
is gamers kiddy bul**** http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

many scientists and simulation instituts use opensource FM programs and give a feedback to more and better qualified development

http://www.ae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/apasim.html

http://www.flightgear.org/Projects/

also X-plane engine is usefull in developement
Yes... this Austin Meyer works a lot of time himself on this sim(not a pc-game as this many combatsims) or now with few partners..but there is a continuous progress

and hacking X-plane does not mean to change basics FM in a Cessna to an Ufo plane
http://www.x-plane.com/hacking.html


and of course there is this this targetware project http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
http://www.targetware.net/
first look to new cockpit designs shows:
yes ...realistic view in combat views is possible
one small point among a lot of other progressive features

OK a lot of people work on it and that take a little time
to best results

If BoB comes over with points/customization like Austin Meyer is doing at X-Plane
it's could be interest to next combatsim future arround WW-II fighters and scenery http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No OpenSource please. Within months we would have 100 different versions of this game ;-( </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But how about modifying the game platform so that all FMs are server-sided (meaning no local FM content is used when playing online, which would at least guarantee a server-wide level playing field) and _then_ opening up the code base? We'd most certainly see many different versions of the game at first, yeah, but natural selection would surely take care of that after a while... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Wouldn't be crack-proof, I know, but an interesting idea anyway IMHO. What do you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F6_Ace
07-23-2006, 06:22 AM
^ Agree.

Why not open source it so the graphics engine became available to someone like the targetware boys; after all, that is open source and there are no UFOs in that and certainly no more than there are in Il-2 already.

Decent FMs mated with decent graphics may just give a new lease of life to those people who won't be shelling out on a Cray n to run BoB.

JG52Karaya-X
07-23-2006, 06:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
^ Agree.

Why not open source it so the graphics engine became available to someone like the targetware boys; after all, that is open source and there are no UFOs in that and certainly no more than there are in Il-2 already. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So Oleg should give away his expensive technology for free even to rivaling "soon-to-be-commercial" projects (TW *cough*)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Why should he, why should anybody do something like that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Decent FMs mated with decent graphics may just give a new lease of life to those people who won't be shelling out on a Cray n to run BoB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OF COURSE, why didnt Oleg think of that! Well maybe because he could equally well shoot himself then because why should anybody buy BoB then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif
Sorry, but your logic is a little bit naive...

F6_Ace
07-23-2006, 08:06 AM
Why is it naive? The old, creaking, ageing and clearly overburdened Il-2 engine may become licensed to other developers but they're much more likely to want to licence the BoB engine (if it is any good) as not many companies will want to release a product on an nth generation engine. So, what happens to the engine as is? Is it better to leave it to die or to use it, knowing that it poses little commercial threat, to promote open source flight simulation that may bring in new customers to BoB?

If TW is 'soon to be commercial' then I agree that it is another matter entirely because that wouldn't be in the spirit of making it open source. However, there may be other people out there who could use it for a 'free' (as in beer) flight simulator.

Oleg won't care about those people not upgrading because he knows there are enough mugs..er..punters in this community who are waiting precisely for BoB to come out before they upgrade their hardware. And it IS naive to think otherwise than that. So, what does he do? Go with the times or continue to sell minute quantities of PF via bargain buckets @2.99 a time (there has been the same copy of PF on the same my local supermarket shelf now for over 12 months) each or provide an opportunity for the Il-2 engine (in part) to live on? Still, it's up to him at the end of the day.

It may well also be of great benefit to Oleg to get his simulator running properly on Linux because I forsee an explosion of popularity for it what with Vista's hardware requirements and Linux's 'pretty much usable by anyone without even owning a pair of sandals' status.

KG26_Alpha
07-24-2006, 03:42 AM
@ F6_Ace
So your saying IL2 dont run stable on Linux 64bit already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ????

Cadega was running IL2 AEP FB in 2004.

DX10 on Vista only will be the $$$$$ for good old BG.

Mind you with the quad cores from Intel coming out @ BoB SoW time, theres going to be some really frustrating developments with compatibility.

LEXX_Luthor
07-25-2006, 02:09 AM
darlec:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think the overall reaction has been negative, which is fair enough,... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
First, "open source" is a slogan that computer gamers take from the Linux community. More likely you are asking for Open Sim which means open for modding, but does not always mean open computer game source code. For example, Microsoft never opens its computer source code, yet 3FCS was an open sim.

Second, you are asking the wrong people. As 13HelSqnProtos says, this is mostly an Online player webboard where, amazingly enough, they tell Oleg his Online anti-cheat security is not worth them paying for. The far greater number of Offline players would find a more immersive air war simulation would be made available if the sim was at least more open - - and "open source" is not needed for this.

Very interesting -- the only people who want to mod FM's to gain cheating advantage online are...Online players (some, not all).


Open Source or Open Sim, I don't think Oleg's FMs are great for modding, for the reasons AaronGT poasted...

AaronGT:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Community contributions are not the same as open source.

Open architecture is not the same as open source.

Open source means you get to see the source code. This also implies open architecture as well, although if the architecture is complex then a logical open architecture might be more useful than open source in some ways. Also some things have a more open architecture than others.

Open architecture means the ability to plug in new content, or new modules, or reskin things. How much you can do depends on the way things are structured. Some of this content can include code - for example the plugins you can get for the MS flight sim series that are little bits of code that do particular tasks.

Community contributions means new content created by the community, but no open architecture so it has to be plugged into the game by the developer.

I get the impression that the IL2 architecture isn't as amenable to being open architecture as the MS Flight Sim series, and that custom code has to be added to the existing code base rather than simply being a plug in to allow new aircraft to be added, so it probably makes it hard for it to be open architecture.

There is FlightGear in terms of a totally open source flight sim, although I never really got to grips with setting it all up. Maybe installation is easier now? And then there is Falcon, Mig Alley, BoB I (not WOV) and SDOE which have been open sourced (i.e. the actual C or C++ code) to some extent. I did look at the Mig Alley code briefly, and it would have taken a while to get to grips with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am thinking that, unlike true purpose designed open sims like the StrikeFighters series, very few people would be able to "mod" FB/PF flight models. Other parts of the sim, who knows? It would be nice to be able to skin our own airfields.

F6_Ace
07-25-2006, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KG26_Alpha:
@ F6_Ace
So your saying IL2 dont run stable on Linux 64bit already http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif ????
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I find it runs fine under Linux...better than Windows in general. I don't know about 64 bit because I don't have the extra transistors http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Only trouble with it is that the hatswitch doesn't work (MSFFB2) under Wine.

I'm talking about running it natively.

Philipscdrw
07-25-2006, 08:17 PM
This thread is so much farting in the wind. Ask yourself these questions:

Q: Who owns the Il-2 program?
A: 1C:Maddox Games.

Q: What would they gain by making Il-2 open-source?
A: Nothing. In fact they'd lose the revenue from licensing their engine.

The defence rests, your honour.

starfighter1
07-26-2006, 07:40 AM
you are right 'Philipscdrw'

indeed there are 'Targetware' or 'flightgear' and hope to many next advanced steps in that programs/even at Targetware and that is much more interest in the future than this old IL-2 engine with so many old wrong basic features (example/virtual view engine/cockpit and combatview/which is still not fixed in the running FB/PF at many planes http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif )

so the future could be also filled with five sceneries:

1) free game flightsims based on opensource with
a wide field of community and updates

2) buyable game flightsims/combatsims based on
opensource FM and game engine with third
party advantages

3) buyable game flightsims/combatsime with few
changes but based on main coded FM/game
engine

4) arcade game flight sims to pc and consoles
based on coded game engine


5) semi-proffesional flightsims based on
PC-programslike X-plane(parts of flightgear)
and approved for real pilot trainee

a lot of opportunities to gamers world http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
This thread is so much farting in the wind. Ask yourself these questions:

Q: Who owns the Il-2 program?
A: 1C:Maddox Games.

Q: What would they gain by making Il-2 open-source?
A: Nothing. In fact they'd lose the revenue from licensing their engine.

The defence rests, your honour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

F6_Ace
07-26-2006, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
This thread is so much farting in the wind. Ask yourself these questions:

Q: Who owns the Il-2 program?
A: 1C:Maddox Games.

Q: What would they gain by making Il-2 open-source?
A: Nothing. In fact they'd lose the revenue from licensing their engine.

The defence rests, your honour. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unless...

Q: Does anyone want to commercially licence the Il-2 engine?
A: No

Q: Would Maddox, therefore, benefit any more than if he made it open source?
A: No

csThor
07-26-2006, 10:18 AM
F6_Ace

Pardon me, but you're wearing a pair of very pink goggles. Take them off - MG is not going to let common players fiddling with their code. We don't know what business deals they made or are going to make - so don't assume the engine is worthless to them. And:

Since some 4.0X patch we're flying on FM values that are a part of what BoB is going to simulate. It's safe to assume that at least parts of the Il-2 code and BoB code are similar if not identical. Opening Il-2 would open a gap in the defense of BoB's code. And that's not going to happen.

F6_Ace
07-26-2006, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pardon me, but you're wearing a pair of very pink goggles. Take them off - MG is not going to let common players fiddling with their code. We don't know what business deals they made or are going to make - so don't assume the engine is worthless to them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Similarily, you shouldn't assume it is worth something [commercially] to someone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since some 4.0X patch we're flying on FM values that are a part of what BoB is going to simulate. It's safe to assume that at least parts of the Il-2 code and BoB code are similar if not identical. Opening Il-2 would open a gap in the defense of BoB's code. And that's not going to happen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The latter part is the only decent argument I've seen to not opening it up. However, it's not safe to assume anything (unless you are on the development team, of course) and you should have said, "Opening Il-2 may open a gap in the defense of BoB's code" because that would be more appropriate since neither of us are on the development team (again, unless you are, of course) and I might be more inclined to agree with you.

stubby
07-27-2006, 09:34 AM
Once BOB arrives with its fancy new graphics and realistic physics, Il2 series will simply die out. It's the way of things. At that point, who cares what happens to the source code. Heck, it will be fully reversed engineered by then anyway so releasing it will be just a formality.

sparty7200
07-27-2006, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stubby:
Once BOB arrives with its fancy new graphics and realistic physics, Il2 series will simply die out. It's the way of things. At that point, who cares what happens to the source code. Heck, it will be fully reversed engineered by then anyway so releasing it will be just a formality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree...there are many on these forums and even more who are not that simply dont have the resources to super dooper their existing rigs for IL2 ..never mind BOB!..so in that light..there will be many ..by default who will stay with IL2 just because of finances etc!!!..until the price of ati/nvid sli etc with dual core process..whatya ma callit get cheaper!!

Regards

sparty

triad773
07-27-2006, 10:16 AM
On IL-2 dying once SoW BoB is out I concur in that while the return on investment for the series is very good for enthusiasts, it (IL-2) will be around until the high end eqt comes down. I just have got to the point where the game runs pretty well on perfect everything. It will start over (sometime) for SoW BoB.

~S~

F6_Ace
07-27-2006, 11:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Once BOB arrives with its fancy new graphics and realistic physics, Il2 series will simply die out. It's the way of things. At that point, who cares what happens to the source code. Heck, it will be fully reversed engineered by then anyway so releasing it will be just a formality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's already been reverse engineered (at least in part) which is presumably why the release of 4.06 is shrouded in secrecy and taking so long. Well, either that or a programmer is ill or the dog ate the patch or whatever. So, as it is only a matter of time before someone cracks it again, and because there will be no support for Il-2 post-BoB release, the effects of cheating via it being open source may well be a moot point. In fact, at least if it were open source, everyone could "cheat" rather than the elite few who had cracked it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

starfighter1
07-27-2006, 11:54 AM
hi,
some more arguments http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

maybe the background of IL-2 engine(up to FB) is based on some old free codes of flightsim games/FM or parts of source codes of several free simulation sim codes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

what a desaster or not ..when everyone would recogcnice that the O.M. team did only tweaks and several updates to that basic codes

I remember some discussions in the past about licencing some old sim engines ..nearly round about 1998/1999 about sim fm basic codes like
some civil sims even at that time the O.M. team started with the IL-2 project http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OK maybe speculation but I have that feeling for a long time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
even by some basic FM handlings like in some old civic sims and combatsims http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Once BOB arrives with its fancy new graphics and realistic physics, Il2 series will simply die out. It's the way of things. At that point, who cares what happens to the source code. Heck, it will be fully reversed engineered by then anyway so releasing it will be just a formality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's already been reverse engineered (at least in part) which is presumably why the release of 4.06 is shrouded in secrecy and taking so long. Well, either that or a programmer is ill or the dog ate the patch or whatever. So, as it is only a matter of time before someone cracks it again, and because there will be no support for Il-2 post-BoB release, the effects of cheating via it being open source may well be a moot point. In fact, at least if it were open source, everyone could "cheat" rather than the elite few who had cracked it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

starfighter1
07-27-2006, 12:08 PM
hi,
this link to history of PC-fligtsims gives alot of information and aswer to that points http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

http://www.migman.com/

http://www.migman.com/1998_combat.htm

http://www.migman.com/1990_civil.htm



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by starfighter1:
...

OK maybe speculation but I have that feeling for a long time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
even by some basic FM handlings like in some old civic and combatsims http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Once BOB arrives with its fancy new graphics and realistic physics, Il2 series will simply die out. It's the way of things. At that point, who cares what happens to the source code. Heck, it will be fully reversed engineered by then anyway so releasing it will be just a formality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's already been reverse engineered (at least in part) which is presumably why the release of 4.06 is shrouded in secrecy and taking so long. Well, either that or a programmer is ill or the dog ate the patch or whatever. So, as it is only a matter of time before someone cracks it again, and because there will be no support for Il-2 post-BoB release, the effects of cheating via it being open source may well be a moot point. In fact, at least if it were open source, everyone could "cheat" rather than the elite few who had cracked it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

darelc
08-03-2006, 08:16 AM
From the crazyivan BOB thread

AviaForum: Oleg, are you planning to continue development of IL--2 after release of BOB? Is there possibility of passing IL-2 to some 3rd party company for further development?

<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> O.M. : Development of IL-2 will be
stopped after planned add-ons. Passing it off to
the third party is possible and we are ready to
discuss it such offer if we receive one.
Meanwhile, nobody offered anything. Main request
to potential partner is serious support of the
product, guarantees that balance and order on
line will be kept and readiness to work on
same level of quality, which was set by us.</pre>


You can see that the main wish from OM is that
the potention partner is serious, and will keep the level of quality, I think there is probably enough skills and quality in the community to be able to pull that off http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif but realistically I think that what will happen is as soon as BoB is released IL2 support and development will die, and online activity slowly disolve into nothing, which is a shame because i think it is a great game and still has potential for further development..

F6_Ace
08-04-2006, 07:18 AM
Yes, I saw this also. Interesting that he has no takers (as of yet) for the Il-2 engine.

If no commercial takers come, then Il-2 is going to die anyway so at least it would makes sense to possibly sell it a token Euro to the open source community. And, if they screw it up, it doesn't matter because people will be able to fly 4.07 or whatever the last version will be anyway.

No one loses. Theoretically.

csThor
08-04-2006, 07:57 AM
I think Oleg was more talking about some serious business folks instead of some loose fan project. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

F6_Ace
08-04-2006, 08:43 AM
I know exactly what he was talking about and he has no takers [yet] so you need not wink. Or did you think that I thought that Oleg would prefer to make it an open source project in preference to selling it? If you did, well.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

OK, let me ask you this: what would you prefer if no one does actually take it on commercially? It just dying or someone, even a loose fan project, taking it on and doing something with it...good or bad?

After all, if it's bad, you can just leave it.

csThor
08-04-2006, 08:53 AM
Ok, let's be hypothetic. If there was a commercial group taking on 3rd Party Development I would not mind as long as they stick to authenticity and do not listen to whiners.

Example: People whining for B-29 (even though we don't have the maps to use them correctly or only as gamey ackstars)? They (these potential developers) should ignore them and look closely at what is really justifiable within the game's limits.

But I do not want to see this "community" get its hands on the code. Why? Because this community as a whole lacks maturity, knowledge (and I don't mean "But I've read this or that in this book ...") and perspective to do it right. All we'd get were tons of mods all claiming to be the holy grail of this sim, biased results of the work of either biased people or limited sources and perhaps some "KeWl" planes which are downright useless except for Quakers which like to play ackstar at 500 meters plowing an airfield with their B-29 and claim "that's historical". Call me a cynic, but I'd rather not see any further development than the scenario I've described.

F6_Ace
08-04-2006, 09:39 AM
Yes, I agree that it could go bad just as easily (if not more easily) than it could go good. However, at least it would be going somewhere.

I also agree with you about letting some in 'this' community getting hold of it; the FMs would yo-yo around with some correlation to the latest batch of server stats - NOT a good idea.

From my perspective, it isn't so much about many things being added but things being fixed/fine tuned. I'd much rather have some extra loadouts than a B29. I'd much rather see something done with the FW190 gunsight rather than n planes adding. I'd much rather have someone available to patch it up when it gets hacked next time (which is inevitable). I'd much rather have someone permit greater flexibility in the settings...for example, removing padlock when externals are active.

Besides, not all open source affairs end in tears. Look at targetware or the 1% project - they don't appear to be particularly biased - they're just trying to make the best of things. And, even if they were biased, we'd be in no different a position because things were biased when under Oleg's command.

Nimits
08-05-2006, 02:02 PM
What we need to see happen here is someone such such as Shockwave or even Leadpursuit (or some other group along those lines) pick up the engine to do another Pacific add-on (maps, ships, and those planes no directly affected by NTG).

Bearcat99
08-15-2006, 07:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stubby:
Once BOB arrives with its fancy new graphics and realistic physics, Il2 series will simply die out. It's the way of things. At that point, who cares what happens to the source code. Heck, it will be fully reversed engineered by then anyway so releasing it will be just a formality. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There are people still flying EAW and CFS1.... and IL2 for that matter.. although not many. I think the very nature of BoB will insure that people will still fly this sim for a few years after it's release at least.

knightflyte
08-15-2006, 08:58 AM
Over 200 airplanes verses a planeset of about 10.

A dozen or more maps verses one or two.

A graphics engine that has just recently reached it's peak.

When folks start upgrading to the next super duper computer to run BoB that will benifit IL2/PF. Why? Mission builders can then build missions with larger plans with uch larger bomber formations, and escorts.

I've not messed with the FMB too much. I've built a few scenarios for my own enjoyment. Are there buildings that would allow a mission builder to basically create large cities? roads? train tracks?

IL2/PF still has wings to fly for a few years post BoB. I know some are bored with IL2/PF, but I can't help but wonder how many things in the sim they have not tried. I know for myself there's oodles of fun in the box left for me.

Xiolablu3
08-15-2006, 03:46 PM
I hope the source is not released, this game is so good and to open the source would open it to hackers.

Plane models are so well done, dont kill the game by releasing the source please!

Xiolablu3
08-15-2006, 03:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
In fact, at least if it were open source, everyone could "cheat" rather than the elite few who had cracked it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot believe you think these spanners are 'elite'

Thats the last word I would use to describe them.

I think of spotty teenage virgins stuck in their own little world, really believing that they are 'L33t' for hacking a game.

Why ruin everyone elses enjoyment of the game for fun? D*ckheads.

I guess they never met girls before.

skarden
08-16-2006, 12:27 AM
While some ppl here make some good points.I think that most of you guys are jumpin the gun a little.If you go back and read a few of oleg comments in general I think it's clear that the open source will never be opened to the "community" at large and i for one think this is a good thing(anyone who doubts me go have a read of the current"why dont folks like the P-51"thread) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

But it sounds like he's keen to pass it on to someone though so i think that as long as some company puts their hands up and takes over from oleg and Co. then we will prob get a lot of the problems that have being floating around these forums for years fixed in the end.

and as bearcat says i dont think when BOB comes out it will kill FB,i certainly dont have the computer that's needed by the sounds of it and i'm willing to bet that most ppl here don't as well soI think that we'll all be playin this sim for a while yet.

Mind you after playing counter-strike for a few years(no more thankfully,thank you IL-2) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif I think that if the "community" at large got it hands on the code there WILL BE those who's first prioity will be to figure out a way to cheat(they're already tryin to do it now!!) and that will ruin the game a hell of a lot faster then BOB could ever hope too.

F6_Ace
08-16-2006, 01:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
In fact, at least if it were open source, everyone could "cheat" rather than the elite few who had cracked it </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot believe you think these spanners are 'elite'

Thats the last word I would use to describe them.

I think of spotty teenage virgins stuck in their own little world, really believing that they are 'L33t' for hacking a game.

Why ruin everyone elses enjoyment of the game for fun? D*ckheads.

I guess they never met girls before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Grasp the other end of the stick; you have read the intended meaning of 'elite' incorrectly. The term refers to the 'special few' who may capitalise on the ability to change the parameters of the game depending on how they feel on a particular day (a bit like Oleg and co). It is not used as a term of respect or 'celebrity worship.'

Besides, who is to say that the hackers are teenagers or spotty or virgins? They may well have excellent software and cryptanalysis skills, be well paid and married with kids. I think you are mistaking them with 'script kiddies' who don't have a lot of technical expertise. If those involved cracked the game to 'make a point' rather than 'to cheat' then they are no different from the people who report on exposing (rather than exploiting) security holes in Windows etc for the benefit of all.

LEXX_Luthor
08-16-2006, 10:20 AM
Thanks F6_Ace.

Its refreshing to see your non-sloganistic poasts in this bitter Old Timer community.

A breath of fresh air, truly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

liveforflying
08-16-2006, 10:52 AM
How about just open part of the engine, so we can import the refined aircraft model and cockpit? I mean if it is possible. I am really not so happy everytime I saw the incorrect bf109 model flying on my screen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-16-2006, 02:52 PM
Nobody ever notices any "incorrect" Bf109 3D model, except a few WW2 Book Buff 3-view diagram hobbiests who can't pay for the sim. I never noticed anything, but I usually skip over the 3-view diagrams when I read my WW2 Books. But, all customers pay attention to the maps in their sims.

In yet another Blunder of Britain, Oleg will open the maps for community development <span class="ev_code_yellow">only</span> for small sized "dogfight" maps, and keep closed the real maps that customers most enjoy. For real maps, the customers will be stuck with poorly designed developer made maps, like the dark and unusable Kurland map we have in FB for example. Unlike flight models, MAPS are one thing that the vast independent flight simming community can always do better and with more desire than the sim developers.

F6_Ace
08-16-2006, 03:04 PM
And while they're at it, maybe some open source modeller can put a nose back on the Spitfire and/or make the Seafire wings visible at a distance greater than one centimetre?

LEXX_Luthor
08-16-2006, 03:20 PM
I'd like to take out all those Building Objects in the Finland map for some purposes. You can fly missions across the northern half of the huge map, never coming near Lenningrad, but you still have to load 500,000 Building Objects.

The independent community -- this webboard -- had to fix some framerate crippling Pacific maps by "destroying" the Palm Tree Objects -- several thousand of them -- using the Destruction Slider in FMB. The customers got lucky in discovering that "trick." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

F6_Ace
08-16-2006, 03:55 PM
Yes, I agree about the Leningrad map. That's unplayable for me and always has been - even though my machine specs were far in excess of the minimum when that map was introduced.

It may as well not exist for a lot of people.