PDA

View Full Version : BOB Demo Video!



UnknownTarget
10-06-2006, 08:09 AM
Taken from SimHQ:

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=152;t=000081 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=152;t=000081)



Happy Friday!

Find here (http://www.filefactory.com/file/8a0e35/) here or here (http://rapidshare.de/files/35683872/BOB.avi) here BOB demo's video presented in Leipzig and in Moscow.

One of the game developers warned that this is a two-month old movie. Only vehicles physics, landscape over Dover and clouds from the new engine.

Haigotron
10-06-2006, 09:39 AM
coooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

cockpit was awesome! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
and the ground vehicles with suspensions = http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Alas, I also suffer from excruciating historical accuracy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

MEGILE
10-06-2006, 10:00 AM
I am too lazy to register with file factory, and Rapidshare doesn't allow me to download.

Wake me up when it's on googlevideo

Haigotron
10-06-2006, 10:01 AM
and Rapidshare doesn't allow me to download

did you click on free at the bottom of the page? it then does a stupid countdown from 60s, then you have to type what you see in that little box, and voila...

the same darn steps i take to entertain grandma...http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

MEGILE
10-06-2006, 10:02 AM
Been their, done it.

Maybe Germany just hates me

Fighterduck
10-06-2006, 10:09 AM
nice....but presonally nothing that impressed me at the moment.

Heavy_Metal1982
10-06-2006, 10:33 AM
I'm really impressed with the ground object detail in that footage. It was awesome, and you can see that this engine might be used in a FPS type deal like RO or BF.

Scen
10-06-2006, 11:18 AM
All that detail like having doors that open on vehicles is going to cost in CPU power. I understand it's next gen but if they keep adding that level of detail you're going to need to speed a lot of money to get it to run properly.

I like detail but I also like playability.

XyZspineZyX
10-06-2006, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Fighterduck:
nice....but presonally nothing that impressed me at the moment.

What did you expect? Something revolutionary? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Basically its just FB+AEP+PF with moderately improved visuals.

ploughman
10-06-2006, 11:54 AM
Clouds are much better, vehicles look fabbo. Otherwise, clearly a work in progress. I can't wait to see the finished product, if the quality of the cockpits is an indicator of the quality of the whole thing it really will be a work of art.

F6_Ace
10-06-2006, 11:59 AM
Yep, no wonder we'll all need a step change in hardware to run it...lots of things which, when you are engaged in *air warfare*, you can't see (or care about) anyway.

Red 2: "Break left! Tracers above my wing!"
Red 1: "Never mind about that, look at the detail on the rudder pedal"

Aimer: "Skipper..left a bit...right a bit....bombs away!"
Skipper: "Nice work"
Aimer: "Skip...Did you SEE that suspension working on that truck?! Incredible"
Skipper: "We're at 25,000 ft. What truck?"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Clouds are better. But only if the AI cannot see through them.

ploughman
10-06-2006, 12:08 PM
Reality doesn't extend to your environment looking as real as possible then?

Real aircombat in Il-2's P-47.

Red 2: "Break left! Tracers above my wing!"
Red 1: "Never mind about that, look at the primitive rendering of my gunsight and the lego-land layout of the rest of the pit."

(Apologies to Gib.)

triad773
10-06-2006, 12:11 PM
Nice video and yes sure it will progress from there. I suspect that detail will be revealed on some sort of layer regime: why would truck suspension be a factor on the graphics rendering at 3,000 feet?

Somehow I get the idea that evidence of the moving switches indicated clickable cockpits, or at least evidence of that being an option. So one might be able to click, or bind a key command, and see the switch move as evidence of the command being executed (instead of the insidious text "Flaps: Combat... Takeoff... Landing).

Hey no complaints here lads, looks all good and getting better!

~S~

bhunter2112
10-06-2006, 12:15 PM
Looking good ! The ground objects look suberb. I wonder what will happen if you strafe the motorcycle with side car ? I cannot wait to get at the FMB.

Stackhouse25th
10-06-2006, 12:24 PM
sigh....i should be a beta tester http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CAF96th_Sillyak
10-06-2006, 01:23 PM
looks good, a work in progress be sure. I think its cool we get the Su-26

Fighterduck
10-06-2006, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Skunk241981:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fighterduck:
nice....but presonally nothing that impressed me at the moment.

What did you expect? Something revolutionary? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


sure

and agree with yome of us...details is a nice thing. but personally i really dont care about suspensions and opening car doors.

Taylortony
10-06-2006, 02:46 PM
All they need to develop now is a spell checker.

ploughman
10-06-2006, 02:58 PM
How are you supposed to get in a car if the door doesn't open?

slappedsilly
10-06-2006, 04:00 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif I don't have the codec http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif Please help

La7_brook
10-06-2006, 04:50 PM
BOB is already bis ,we get a spit and no 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-06-2006, 05:40 PM
Very nice clouds. Very nice Cockpit (singular). Nice vehicle suspension. Nice water.

"Excruciating historical accuracy" & "Easilly surprised award-winning quality of Il-2 Sturmovik, aircraft and cockpits restored in our new simulator are exact copies of their war-time prototypes"

Worried that the demo video stutters. What chance has my rig got if Oleg's can't cope? The terrain looks a little reminiscent of EAW from altitude, and I haven't seen a Whirlwind yet...but what the heck - count me in.

And one last point - why did this appear on SimHQ before Ubi (who share the end credit logo)? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Gitano1979
10-06-2006, 05:46 PM
Did someone noticed that there are two different graphic engines in the flight sequence?
First, the new engine with Spit Mk.I's, then Spit Mk.V in the old IL-2 engine altough with new clouds (wich are very good for "flying sensation" IMO)...

FritzGryphon
10-06-2006, 06:09 PM
Worried that the demo video stutters. What chance has my rig got if Oleg's can't cope?

It seems like they captured that choppy video at a lower FPS than the rest of the movie.

If it was performance based, the FPS would be more variable.

Real-time video capture is not practical on any machine, even in FB/PF. Movie makers usually use time compression and capture at a low frame rate.

NekoReaperman
10-06-2006, 06:30 PM
Uploading the video to youtube now, but it may take a while (40MB at 8-10KBPS)


Will re-post when its done (its now at 36%), feel free to put it in original post

Taylortony
10-06-2006, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by slappedsilly:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif I don't have the codec http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif Please help

the media player should download it, if it does not do a google search for it.

Popey109
10-06-2006, 06:50 PM
Do I fly low enough to see throuh the open door of a car?...Why yes! I do! Can only emagine what some of the movie makers will do with that kind of detail http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

NekoReaperman
10-06-2006, 07:50 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig

Youtube link, hosted on my account... feel free to put on original post or do whatever you want with it :-)

Feathered_IV
10-06-2006, 08:26 PM
Just watched it too. Better appearance evrything? Oh dear! Stiglr is going to be in here any minute...

major_setback
10-06-2006, 08:52 PM
I don't like to sound as if I'm complaining, but...(I've said this before):
The houses on the maps look wrong.

The long side of the houses should face the road. This is vital if the towns are to look realistic. The door is usually on that side of the house and that faces the road on most English houses. At the moment the houses look like toy blocks.

I know that the modellers probably don't know how a British town should look, that is exactly why I'm pointing this out.

WWMaxGunz
10-06-2006, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Skunk241981:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fighterduck:
nice....but presonally nothing that impressed me at the moment.

What did you expect? Something revolutionary? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Basically its just FB+AEP+PF with moderately improved visuals. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Where you get that? BoB plane models will have distributed weight and more detailed internals.
The "BoB" FM we have is partial, our planes do not have distributed weight as may be noted that
center of mass does not change with fuel use but IIRC does when bombs are dropped, they are
external models themselves. The graphics look better because the models are detailed far more.
I think they have a new 3D engine but then they'd need to to get the 3DoF that IL2 won't
mostly-flawlessly support.

Bartsimpson-
10-06-2006, 09:59 PM
Codec error , anyone have a fix or link please post .

Bartman.

NekoReaperman
10-06-2006, 10:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig

You all blind? :-)

TheGozr
10-07-2006, 12:34 AM
Well 3D models are fantastic the lights should be very good as well, the ground is just aweful, the village are as bad as il2. will see more i hope.

HQ1
10-07-2006, 01:18 AM
cockpit and vehicles looks perfect. clouds also not bad except the overcast. But the landscape such as cliff Dover is still not very good, something is like cartoon. Look the pic below. i think it should be more livelily than what presented in this video. keep up good work. thank you very much Oleg!!!
http://www.jnf.co.uk/plane_rally/2004/album/images/White%20cliffs%20of%20Dover.JPG

StG2_Schlachter
10-07-2006, 02:56 AM
The Alpha version is build upon the old engine.
I would not jump to make any conclusions right now.

F6_Ace
10-07-2006, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
Reality doesn't extend to your environment looking as real as possible then?

Yes, it does but only those items which you are seriously bothered about. Like I've said before, it's nice to be able to switch to external views and 'marvel' at the attention to detail of things which don't really matter in a combat flight simulation but nice is all it is. For example, it would be nice to have the effects of winds moving crop fields about but is that at all necessary? Exaggerating a little, would it be necessary to have the steam coming off someones freshly cooked dinner on a table through a house window in Manston being modelled?

Always assuming finite resources being available, I'd prefer to see the desire for attention to detail (and CPU resource) being focused on the aircraft and associated systems, physical effects on the pilots and weaponry than a bit of foam on the shoreline or some truck suspension.




Real aircombat in Il-2's P-47.

Red 2: "Break left! Tracers above my wing!"
Red 1: "Never mind about that, look at the primitive rendering of my gunsight and the lego-land layout of the rest of the pit."

(Apologies to Gib.)

That's just the P47's poor modelling; the 110, Gladiator and Tempest pits provide the benchmark for what is possible given the time and effort. Realistic cockpits are, though, another matter as they are something that is part of the aircraft involved and they should be modelled well.


Someone will come along and tell me that it's quite possible to have all these things but until I actually *see or try* something that suggests that to be true then I'm afraid I'll have to remain sceptical.

Manu-6S
10-07-2006, 03:40 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Yes, it does but only those items which you are seriously bothered about. Like I've said before, it's nice to be able to switch to external views and 'marvel' at the attention to detail of things which don't really matter in a combat flight simulation but nice is all it is. For example, it would be nice to have the effects of winds moving crop fields about but is that at all necessary? Exaggerating a little, would it be necessary to have the steam coming off someones freshly cooked dinner on a table through a house window in Manston being modelled?

Always assuming finite resources being available, I'd prefer to see the desire for attention to detail (and CPU resource) being focused on the aircraft and associated systems, physical effects on the pilots and weaponry than a bit of foam on the shoreline or some truck suspension.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

major_setback
10-07-2006, 05:10 AM
Originally posted by HQ1:
cockpit and vehicles looks perfect. clouds also not bad except the overcast. But the landscape such as cliff Dover is still not very good, something is like cartoon. Look the pic below. i think it should be more livelily than what presented in this video. keep up good work. thank you very much Oleg!!!
http://www.jnf.co.uk/plane_rally/2004/album/images/White%20cliffs%20of%20Dover.JPG

Actually that's a very good photo. It shows that the amount of detail isn't the issue. Those field couldn't be simpler, and would be easy to model. Also there are just a couple of houses. What is important though is that the cliffs are quite complex, and that the oversimplification that we see in the work-in-progress needs to be avoided.

I would also prefer to see a few well modelled smaller towns/villages that are realistically modelled rather than larger, badly planned ones.

Kurfurst__
10-07-2006, 05:53 AM
Originally posted by Fighterduck:
nice....but presonally nothing that impressed me at the moment.

Same here. I could actually tell it apart very little from Il2, though the video was poor qualitiy, and if I am not wrong it was simply a MkVB 3d model from old Il2 engine that was flying. I am not to impressed graphically, and also the behaviour of the plane seemed very much the same. Some new additions like more ground detail, but I fail to see the next gen feeling coming out from the BoB sim...

NekoReaperman
10-07-2006, 06:28 AM
Thats because the MKVB flying around WAS the old engine...


It was just IL-2 4.0X with the new clouds added (you can do it yourself, there was a .txt config file floating around the forums a week ago)


The Spitfire 1's were the only ones in the new ingame engine, and it looks just fine to me...


Remember, the closer we get to photorealism the smaller the jumps are, we all remember the maxis rsims, RB3D and such, and in just 5 years there was a massive jump. but that wont happen anymore...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig

VMF-214_HaVoK
10-07-2006, 07:53 AM
Nice to see some life of BoB but the only thing that was impressive and looked good to me was the cockpit and ground objects.

I really hope things improve a great deal before the day. It still looks like a spruced up version of the IL-2 engine as well.

Im looking forward more to IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 and Knights of the Sky.

Spinnetti
10-07-2006, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by NekoReaperman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig

Youtube link, hosted on my account... feel free to put on original post or do whatever you want with it :-)

Thanks for the post.. I couldn't view the original.. Looks GREAT to me! - I just hope there are more people on the ground so it looks less sterile..

UnknownTarget
10-07-2006, 08:42 AM
You know, it's funny...other developers try and release as much stuff as possible, to keep the fans interested, and to have publicity. 1C and Oleg, however, don't release anything, and when they do, it's just a bad beta video with a lot of stuttering.


The thing that struck me the most was the lighting. We're in 2006, we have bump maps, shaders, stencil shadows - why is none of this in this sim? You know, you could probably save about 5k worth of polies in that cockpit if you used a bump map to simulate some of it. Or you could actually model the panel lines on a fighter by adding bump maps. Stencil shadows would be a great addition - and yes, it would bring the visuals closer to realism. More so than working truck suspension.

I don't know, I mean the sim looks interesting, but it looks like IL-2 with the same terrain set. Where's the pizazz? I understand that a sim doesn't need great graphics to look good, but good water can only do so much - I want to see some new graphical touches on my aircraft, besides the cockpit (and remember, once you look around the cockpit at the outside world - it's still the flatland of bad lighting out there. You go from super realistic cockpit to 2001 unrealistic lighting effects and whatnot). This sim is supposed to revolutionize, that's great, but it doesn't look like much of a jump from IL-2.

staticline1
10-07-2006, 09:35 AM
Right on unknowntarget, I have my doubts that this video is even from BoB and if it is no thanks. I didn't see really anything new except the addition of the new cockpits added into the video, the clouds were nice and can someone post a link to the thread for those clouds?

DuxCorvan
10-07-2006, 09:36 AM
And we know nothing about gameplay yet. Looks like they worry more about the visual and technological stuff than about the simulation itself, or the immersion.

And sincerely, what I see on that video, doesn't justify so much hype and secrecy. I personally abhorr those cheerful bright colours. Despite the amazing models, it looks less realistic visually than FB.

Unless -I hope- we are seeing just early premature 'testing' ugly stuff.

Monty_Thrud
10-07-2006, 09:36 AM
Its probably because 1c, as usual show all their work with the lowest video card settings, take a look at their screen shots.

Plus, they probably haven't got a computer powerful enough yet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

slappedsilly
10-07-2006, 09:41 AM
You know, it's funny...other developers try and release as much stuff as possible, to keep the fans interested, and to have publicity. 1C and Oleg, however, don't release anything, and when they do, it's just a bad beta video with a lot of stuttering.

Yeah, they know we'll buy it anyway (and dam them, they're right). Unless ofcourse it looks like that video. That (IMO) is some harmfull marketing. I can only hope thats some mis-information. I have said it before, the less you show the more the expectations will be, and mine are quite high. "looks like real" means looks like real to me, and so far I haven't seen anything that looks like real. The sky looks ok, but heck BoB2 by Gmx clouds looks better now. I'm hoping this is all old engine stuff, if not jewels are fastly falling out of Olegs crown (IMO).

Box-weasel
10-07-2006, 09:45 AM
Yeah, how about decent in-game lighting & bumpmaps. I would've thought that these would have been pre-requisites for next-level game graphics. Also, am I alone in thinking that the cockpits should have uniformed arms & legs modelled and not just be piloted by ghosts that move levers by magic? Or, for the cockpit purists, how about coding for limbs only when controls are moved.

The IL2 world looks too happy cheerful for my taste. Northern European sky and sea should have a touch of grey to them. Not impressed.

DuxCorvan
10-07-2006, 09:46 AM
BTW, I know it is Russian stuff, but they should have at least asked a competent writer in English to make those titles, if they were to show this to someone.

Those mispelled texts looked just kinda weird and had a funny grammar, like something you'd hear from an oriental taxi driver. Spacially, "excruciating" sounds strange in a laudatory context.

It's supposed to be part of a limited PR campaign, but with those texts it looks a bit 'blotchy' and house-made, doesn't it?

DuxCorvan
10-07-2006, 09:58 AM
Ha! Now I remember:

"Excruciating, isn't it? Ha ha ha!"
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40042000/jpg/_40042465_bill_gordon203.jpg

trumper
10-07-2006, 11:34 AM
Clouds look good,cockpits look superb BUT http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif The cliffs,towns and the early Spitfire shown are AWFUL,the shapes are wrong and the colours look wrong.The whole thing looks cartoony,i just hope that this really is along way off the real finished article. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
What hope is there for sound improvements/Merlins if the rest is wonky to start with.
Come on Oleg if this is a publicity video to ENCOURAGE people it's not good.

Sandman_UK
10-07-2006, 01:20 PM
Whilst I dont agree with the above post about the video being somewhat uninspiring it did have a lot of plus points. But the problem i think is that eh plus points on show were nothing to do with the actual thing we play this game for and that is the plane itself.

To me the things that looked awesome were the ground vehicles, ground objects, a proper 3d landscape, nice looking clouds (although it looks like too much space to hide in)and the cockpits are awesome.

But...

The disapointing thing was the plane, again the Roundels are over coloured and look stuck on like an airfix model. Have they learned nothing from Mat manager??? its all well and good having weathered engine effects, but what about the actual plane identification. And that Spity texture was just so bad! its just plain and boring and again over saturated in the colours.

Nice vid, but all the plus points are in the wrong place in my mind.

NekoReaperman
10-07-2006, 01:27 PM
This is a pre-alpha link, i dont even know if it was intended for public sight, hell, half of the ingame footage was in IL-2, but what i did see looks alright to me even in its incomplete state...

trumper
10-07-2006, 01:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Spit early mark shown is wrong,the wings seem flat and non Spitfire as well.

KOM.Nausicaa
10-07-2006, 04:47 PM
Take a break guys. This video is pre-pre alpha and it doesnt' show the new engine yet. No lighting yet either. What I saw *new*, clouds, cockpit, ground objetcs, did look awesome. And I also like the cliffs. This will be a awesome sim. have a cup of tea until next year and stay calm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Low_Flyer_MkVb
10-07-2006, 04:54 PM
Good idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com/

Philipscdrw
10-07-2006, 05:51 PM
There's a vocal minority of Chicken Littles on this forum.

"Boontybox will kill your children! Avoid!"

"BoB looks like Road-Runner cartoons! Mine eyeballs, they bleed so!"

"46 addon is stupid and pointless, no-one wants to fly fantasy planes, 1C would instead give us another twelve conventional aircraft to add to the 200 we already have if they had any marketing sense!"

"FB/AEP/PF/Pe-2 will split the community, no-one will play online, no-one will buy sequel, sim-genre will DIE!!"

There's no sense in worrying about this stuff; Il-2 was the best in 2001, is still the best in 2006, and will remain the best until BoB is released, 1C are devoted, skilled and work very very hard, Ubisoft are willing to support the genre, 1C have had 5 years to explore the limits of the Il-2 engine and will now know how to push back those limits for BoB!

The most exciting thing I've seen for BoB so far is this Su-26. It's a technology demonstrator for the BoB flight dynamics engine, apparently. If 1C are serious about marketing the BoB-engine to other developers, we're going to get a cluster of high-quality sims of many different sub-genres...

trumper
10-07-2006, 06:08 PM
So you think that it is ok to see something that is'nt correct or good and not comment on it.Why did'nt they [UBI] just release the bits that were finished and looked good so people go WOW instead of half baked stuff that cause debate and wonderment at getting the PR side so wrong.

hening_880Sqn
10-07-2006, 07:53 PM
That video left me wanting to see more. Would like to see a combat sequence and some explosions to see what else is in play with the video. Maybe some JU88s blowing up that London Bridge. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Nice job.

carguy_
10-07-2006, 08:25 PM
What has been shown clearly does not reveal much of a graphics revolution.To lure more eyecandy suckers 1C needs to do better than that.However,I`m far from believing this is high detail level.Just can`t be.

As for simulation fans,the cockpits,the new CEM,DM/FM and many other realism features(6DOF,ammobelt selection) will satisfy them fully I hope.


Still,the expectations are very high,too high IMO.

slo_1_2_3
10-07-2006, 09:46 PM
I wann asee damage , Am I the only one who cares how a bullet impact and damage looks?

slo_1_2_3
10-07-2006, 10:12 PM
Hey , I love this , the wheels are round http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif and other things that should be round , the polygon wheels always bugged the heck outa me for some reason

GR142-Pipper
10-08-2006, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Yes, it does but only those items which you are seriously bothered about. Like I've said before, it's nice to be able to switch to external views and 'marvel' at the attention to detail of things which don't really matter in a combat flight simulation but nice is all it is. For example, it would be nice to have the effects of winds moving crop fields about but is that at all necessary? Exaggerating a little, would it be necessary to have the steam coming off someones freshly cooked dinner on a table through a house window in Manston being modelled?

Always assuming finite resources being available, I'd prefer to see the desire for attention to detail (and CPU resource) being focused on the aircraft and associated systems, physical effects on the pilots and weaponry than a bit of foam on the shoreline or some truck suspension. Agreed. Get the flight models correct. As a matter of fact, I could care less about changing weather too. It's a COMBAT FLIGHT GAME...not a weather recce game. The quality of the work is fine but it seems to be straying from the focus of what this product is all about. I do agree that this is a peek but why are the developers even bothering with such completely trivial detail such as tank recoil and truck suspensions?

GR142-Pipper

HuninMunin
10-08-2006, 02:14 AM
Remember when the first cockpit shots arrived and we were all up and amazed by their quality?
I put all my money that this is the very first version presentable at all.
No post processing, no higher effects of any kind, early skinwork, just the bare skeleton wich will be the new sim in at least a year of work.
Flightsims were never like FPSs, were you would make an engine and can show the crowd pics of what the game will look like long before release.
Storm of War sets out to span the entire WW2 over the time.
It has to be capable of a graphical diversity unseen in this genre; not even starting about the FMs.
If I had to programm an engine that capable; I'd focus on the FM, weather, coding etc; all the stuff you need to have perfectly running having such long term goals with it.

I don't think they'll start intergrating bump maping or HDR lighting before they got the new weather systems working; I guess you get my point.

La7_brook
10-08-2006, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Yes, it does but only those items which you are seriously bothered about. Like I've said before, it's nice to be able to switch to external views and 'marvel' at the attention to detail of things which don't really matter in a combat flight simulation but nice is all it is. For example, it would be nice to have the effects of winds moving crop fields about but is that at all necessary? Exaggerating a little, would it be necessary to have the steam coming off someones freshly cooked dinner on a table through a house window in Manston being modelled?

Always assuming finite resources being available, I'd prefer to see the desire for attention to detail (and CPU resource) being focused on the aircraft and associated systems, physical effects on the pilots and weaponry than a bit of foam on the shoreline or some truck suspension. Agreed. Get the flight models correct. As a matter of fact, I could care less about changing weather too. It's a COMBAT FLIGHT GAME...not a weather recce game. The quality of the work is fine but it seems to be straying from the focus of what this product is all about. I do agree that this is a peek but why are the developers even bothering with such completely trivial detail such as tank recoil and truck suspensions?

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE> AS long as p51 turns better then a spit and 50,s hit harder then 108mk , FW190 AS too TOW a bus and 109 can NOT pull UP / it will be a REAL combat sim, Agreed !!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

La7_brook
10-08-2006, 02:38 AM
Agreed
No really i agree with oleg the 51 realy did sux ,spity was best thing dropped out of heaven and these LW planes well they lucky they ever got wings lol

major_setback
10-08-2006, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by hening_880Sqn:
That video left me wanting to see more. Would like to see a combat sequence and some explosions to see what else is in play with the video. Maybe some JU88s blowing up that London Bridge. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Nice job.

You won't be able to destroy London Bridge (I think you mean Tower Bridge by the way). Oleg has said that we won't be able to destroy historic monuments (Houses of Parliamen, St. Pauls, etc.). I don't know whether this is because of historical accuracy (they are still standing) or for other reasons. He has stated though that this is a decision taken by the publisher (UBI I believe), not by himself.


EDIT: the quote is from Maxim (developer) during an interview by SimHQ

".... But at every building on texture €" there€re 3D buildings. Everyone of them will be destructible, except of historical buildings and monuments €" it€s publishers position. It looks arguable to me, as at war both sides rarely took any care of historical legacy. Can€t argue with publisher though."

Here's the interview:

http://www.simhq.com/_air6/air_223a.html

DuxCorvan
10-08-2006, 10:12 AM
Sigh, I wanted Nelson to jump from that column... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

ploughman
10-08-2006, 10:56 AM
He died at that battle, what more do you want?

I'm disapointed that I won't be able to pulverise the Houses of Parliament though.

Haigotron
10-08-2006, 11:04 AM
Maybe some JU88s blowing up that London Bridge.

now that's "exruciating historical accuracy" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TheGozr
10-08-2006, 11:15 AM
As accurate as 46

ploughman
10-08-2006, 11:24 AM
1946 actually happened.

F6_Ace
10-08-2006, 11:55 AM
You can't blow up Parliament? What a crock.

If you can hop out of your plane and 'into a tank' or have pansy seaside foam, then I see no reason why Oleg shouldn't model the ability to go back in time, be an annoyed Catholic and blow up the house without the inconvenience of getting caught/drawn and quartered.

Only one problem with time travel, though...If it were possible, someone would have travelled back in time by now to tell us it was possible....surely

UnknownTarget
10-08-2006, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by KOM.Nausicaa:
Take a break guys. This video is pre-pre alpha and it doesnt' show the new engine yet. No lighting yet either. What I saw *new*, clouds, cockpit, ground objetcs, did look awesome. And I also like the cliffs. This will be a awesome sim. have a cup of tea until next year and stay calm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Then if it was pre-pre alpha, why did they release it as the only video (to my knowledge it's the only video)? If it was in such an incomplete state, and would have even the die hards wondering "what the heck are we waiting for?" then they should have kept it quiet, and just shown off pretty screenshots. Then, as they get closer to a more complete release, with all features implemented, they should have released a (non-choppy) video of a game that was much closer to completion. Otherwise, you have people doubting the new game, such as what's happening now. While I enjoy that they released a video, I would enjoy it more if they gave us pretty screenshots for awhile, then released a pretty video.

slappedsilly
10-08-2006, 01:33 PM
The worst thing about this is, we are simply left to ourselves to speculate and interpretate. Might be, could be, should be, who the heck knows. Such a wonderful marketing program isn't it?

Swivet
10-08-2006, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Scen:
All that detail like having doors that open on vehicles is going to cost in CPU power. I understand it's next gen but if they keep adding that level of detail you're going to need to speed a lot of money to get it to run properly.

I like detail but I also like playability.


I agree totally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif...... we're all going to need significant upgrades acoordingly to run this thing.Time will tell, it looks great so far tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DuxCorvan
10-08-2006, 04:58 PM
Originally posted by Ploughman:
He died at that battle, what more do you want?

I'd want him to lose that battle. Or kick Villeneuve's chicken a$s for all eternity. But I'd comfort myself with making him jump from the column... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

JV44Rall
10-09-2006, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Swivet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
All that detail like having doors that open on vehicles is going to cost in CPU power. I understand it's next gen but if they keep adding that level of detail you're going to need to speed a lot of money to get it to run properly.

I like detail but I also like playability.


I agree totally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif...... we're all going to need significant upgrades acoordingly to run this thing.Time will tell, it looks great so far tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Looks good - I suspect they'll fix most of the details (crummy villages, etc. (where are the friggin trees?)) before release or in the first patch or two.

No one noted the obvious - there were no combat scenes in the trailer: no tracers, no bombs, no flak, which is a little surprising. It is a WWII flight combat sim, not MSFS with vintage aircraft.

I assume that a dogfight or ground attack mission would have dragged fps to a crawl.

Time to start saving. Daddy needs a new CPU.

triad773
10-09-2006, 01:55 PM
Wasn't there some quote fom one of the developers where they were trying to coincide the release with one of AMD's Quad core? That'd be great news having multicore/processor support.

TSmoke
10-09-2006, 07:45 PM
Flight sims are a niche market.....looks like the market is going to get a lot smaller. If they think every Tom, ****, and Harry can afford a quad processor.

The cockpits are nice, actual weather is old hat and its about time they pulled there head out of there azzez. Other than that nothing that is even worth mentioning. BOB is gonna flop in my opinion.

Bearcat99
10-09-2006, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by Swivet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scen:
All that detail like having doors that open on vehicles is going to cost in CPU power. I understand it's next gen but if they keep adding that level of detail you're going to need to speed a lot of money to get it to run properly.

I like detail but I also like playability.


I agree totally http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif...... we're all going to need significant upgrades acoordingly to run this thing.Time will tell, it looks great so far tho http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who knows how much of a hit though.... this is a new engine... and processors are much more powerful than they were when IL2 was first developed, so I am sure that they have considered more efficient CPU usage. We'll see.

bazzaah2
10-10-2006, 01:55 AM
I'm still waiting to see whether it will be a simulation of BoB with large formations of aircraft available or if it'll just be something along the lines of PF/FB with a BoB flavour. It concerns me that Oleg said that you can have a 1000 aircraft in FB/PF - sure you might be able to but who can? That strikes me as really disingenuous on his part. Personally I won't want to simulate Eagle Day with raids of 10 German aircraft and if it's like that I won't be buying, no matter how purty the car doors are.

mattinen
10-10-2006, 07:46 AM
Nice, but how aboat engine sounds? One thing I really would like to be upgraded in BOB is the engine sounds. Realistic vechile suspension and opening doors are of course nice, but I would prefer realistic engine noise. BOB is, after all, a flight sim.

Zoom2136
10-10-2006, 10:05 AM
Guys..... RELAXXXXXXXXXXXXXX il2 broke all barriers when it came out... WEEEEEEEEE were all crying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif for screenshots (which we now have a few) and videos to get a TASTE... of SoW

Now that 1C gives us an alpha version of what is to come... we go what the f***... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

HONESTLY who would take all the care in the world to have breathtaking cockpits (with moving switches http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif)... and awesome ground vehicles (with improved appearance, damaged models and physics) to botch the landscape... and plane exterior (man the spit M1 looks worst than the spits we now have in iL2 as far a coloring is concerned).....

HELLO are people that dumb... (I'm referring to some in the community here... not Oleg... (and... if you hade to read this little clarification to understand... then... I mean YOU http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif))

All I can say is that it looks promising... SoW is still far away and by then it will in no doubts look and feel far better... As for us upgrading... well its part of life... if you can't get with the program by a X-Box...