PDA

View Full Version : Oleg speaks about IL-2, BOB and the future.



Pages : [1] 2

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 10:42 AM
Greetings on the inpatient ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Allow me to introduce part of the inteview with Oleg maddox that was posted at sukhoi.ru I translated it to best of my abilites hehe.


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?

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 the same level of quality, which was set by us.


Aviaforum: After recent breaking into SFS files, what is being done to protect online play in BOB?

O.M.: During last month, month and the half entire system of coding was rewritten from scratch and will be implemented with nearest add-on. On the side note, I would like to thank people who broke into the code for not spreading information around. Actually this had happened before, but back then, we only implemented small changes. Now, we completely changed concepts of code protection. Same system with modifications will be introduced in

AviaForum: Is it possible to organize combined server for many players?

OM: New engine allows to organize combined are for many players. If we get support from the publisher, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also tanks, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.

Aviaforum: How will you implement work of radar stations? Will players be able to request information from then about situation in the air? Are you planning to develop tools for coordination of the actions pilots in the air? Are you planning to expand control over AI wingmen?

O.M.: It will be the same as in real life. Radar stations will coordinate pilots and direct them in the areas where enemy planes were spotted. If you are talking about german technologies in using radar, I cant promise anything yet, not sure if they will be implemented in BOB. Amount of commands for AI will be expanded. Structure of the menu will remain the same, but variations will increase.

Aviaforum: When soviet-geman conflict will appear in BOB, how are you planning to develop series even further?

O.M.: BOB will progress identical to IL2 series, it will contain series of simulations which will work together or individually. Dates of the release of eastern front are not known yet. I can only tell that part two will not be dedicated to GPW, we are planning to implement theater that was never introduced in the simulation before.

Aviaforum: What will be expected system requirements? Is it possible to release Benchmark for it?

O.M. We don€t have exact system requirements yet. All I can say that system that runs IL2 on the max settings will run BOB on lowest ones. I don€t see a reason to make a benchmark, it will be not less then 1GB in size and spending time and resources for something that nobody can pull off the internet is just silly. о.

Aviaforum: How different are physical aspects of the flight model between BOB and IL-2. Will model be completely new or just improved and corrected IL-2 model? Are you planning to model wind?

O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect..

Aviaforum: AI in BOB: seeing behind, accuracy of gunnery, etc€¦.

O.M.: AI significantly changed and will use a lot more resources than it does now. Visibility from AI perspective is honest even now, it just aces look behind them a lot more often then rookies. Clouds are not see thru for AI and virtual pilots. Accuracy of shooting will depend on g-forces. During active maneuvering accuracy will be reduced and under effect of great forces will not be possible at all. Besides, in BOB crew members will have different skills, meaning pilot could be an ace, but gunners rookies and so on. Difference will be drastic, for rookies we model panic, that is when they shoot all over the place.

Aviaforum: what is the progress of BOB, what stage is it on. When can we get screenshots, videos, ect€¦.?

O.M. Not this year.

Aviaforum: Will you improve instruments for making in game tracks?

O.M. FоÑ€м?Ñ" .trk will not be supported anymore. Format of ntrk will be expanded. Right now I cannot say precisely what kind of tools will be implemented, but it will be greatly increased.. We are not planning to make any utilities for conversion ntrk files in other formats. There are plenty of great programs out there for that purpose.

Aviaforum: Are you planning to make civil aviasimulation?

O.M.: No, we don€t have such resources. This is difficult task for us, since we don€t have specialists with good level of knowledge in some areas, for instance modern navigation systems. That means we have to figure it all out from scratch, but this is time and money, big money.
But we are including SU-26 as a bonus. We are hoping that further development of aerobatics planes will continue and we are planning to support this as much as we can.


the end and to be continued.........

faustnik
08-02-2006, 10:48 AM
If we get support from the distributor, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also <span class="ev_code_RED">tanks</span>, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.

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

Please be true...

Please be true...

Please be true...

mynameisroland
08-02-2006, 10:52 AM
I want BoB to be a flight sim only any other aspects such as fps or quasi tank sim will dilute the efforts of a small specialist Flight sim developer.If I wanted to drive around in simplistically modelled tanks Id buy another game.

xTHRUDx
08-02-2006, 10:54 AM
Aviaforum: what is the progress of BOB, what stage is it on. When can we get screenshots, videos, ect€¦.?

O.M. Not this year.

hmmm..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

georgeo76
08-02-2006, 10:54 AM
OMG! this is awesome news

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 10:56 AM
100% disagree roland. This scenario is probably a wet dream of many people for many years. WW2Online, Maddox style... can it get better then that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEBillfish
08-02-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If we get support from the distributor, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also <span class="ev_code_RED">tanks</span>, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.

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

Please be true...

Please be true...

Please be true... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd HOPE and am betting that does not mean you bail out, run over and jump in a tank and drive it......Simply meaning you can order other forces much like AI.......So I'm assuming so FPS people I'd not get my panties in a bunch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 11:00 AM
According to what i read... you can do either...or. But cant have both. It will not be BF1942/COD type. You chose the tank, you die with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

faustnik
08-02-2006, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If we get support from the distributor, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also <span class="ev_code_RED">tanks</span>, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.

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

Please be true...

Please be true...

Please be true... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd HOPE and am betting that does not mean you bail out, run over and jump in a tank and drive it......Simply meaning you can order other forces much like AI.......So I'm assuming so FPS people I'd not get my panties in a bunch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm hoping it means that we can start out in a tank. For instance, please keep the Sturmos off our backs with your Bf109 Ms. Billfish, we'll take care of the T-34s with our Tigers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

MM-Zorin
08-02-2006, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aviaforum: what is the progress of BOB, what stage is it on. When can we get screenshots, videos, ect€¦.?

O.M. Not this year.

hmmm..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now don't tell me you are surprised...

triad773
08-02-2006, 11:07 AM
Ivan- great news! Thank you for the update. I can tell some are getting too antsy; posting screenies from other sims and the like. The scope of BoB-SOW sounds IMMENSE and will attract other gamers who do ground battle and the like.

From the sound of things it well may be 2008; but with little updates it helps the wait.

Thanks again

~S~

LEBillfish
08-02-2006, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by faustnik:
I'm hoping it means that we can start out in a tank. For instance, please keep the Sturmos off our backs with your Bf109 Ms. Billfish, we'll take care of the T-34s with our Tigers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I'm actually hoping NOT...........Not trying to be a kill joy but I personally don't see Maddox Games quintupling their resources before the release........Meaning, every bit of available time applied to any other aspect except air combat will detract from it.

What do you want out of BoB......Your favorite plane ACCURATE, or not and a above average tank, or shoddy planes just so you can have more shoddy tanks..............It all takes time.

MrMojok
08-02-2006, 11:09 AM
What is GPW?

HuninMunin
08-02-2006, 11:09 AM
If there were playable tanks, subs etc. and all this in high quality, who will not like that?
You can still only sit in your 109 shooting down stuff.
But I bet its more fun to bombard player controlled ground targets then ai controlled ones.
And to read the chatlogs:

"**** wheres our ******* aircover!"

"Get those bloody Flak!"

etc

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by MrMojok:
What is GPW?

Great Patriotic War - Russia

faustnik
08-02-2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I'm hoping it means that we can start out in a tank. For instance, please keep the Sturmos off our backs with your Bf109 Ms. Billfish, we'll take care of the T-34s with our Tigers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I'm actually hoping NOT...........Not trying to be a kill joy but I personally don't see Maddox Games quintupling their resources before the release........Meaning, every bit of available time applied to any other aspect except air combat will detract from it.

What do you want out of BoB......Your favorite plane ACCURATE, or not and a above average tank, or shoddy planes just so you can have more shoddy tanks..............It all takes time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I don't expect 1C to do anything shoddy. BoB will of course have little use for armor, but, I'd sure like to see tanks developed for the future addons. I'd rather see a few tanks, such as the PzIII and T-34 modeled well than a lot of different types.

MrMojok
08-02-2006, 11:13 AM
Ah, thanks Ivan. I should have known that.

fordfan25
08-02-2006, 11:15 AM
fordfan in a jeep mouted with .50BMG for the win. tigers look out http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

HayateAce
08-02-2006, 11:32 AM
O.M. "We are not planning to make any utilities for conversion ntrk files in other formats."

Mistake. Any number of your 1,000s of game patrons can work like junior marketing reps to increase sales. Make their "job" simple with an "export to" button.



================================================== ================

WonderWoman 262 Engine:

http://www.jetcompost.com/harvesters/2430onehand.jpg

carguy_
08-02-2006, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
O.M. We don€t have exact system requirements yet. All I can say that system that runs IL2 on the max settings will run BOB on lowest ones.




O.M. Not this year.


So?Anyone objects that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

carguy_
08-02-2006, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by HuninMunin:
And to read the chatlogs:

"**** wheres our ******* aircover!"

"Get those bloody Flak!"

etc

Or

"109 pilot to 88FlaK battery:

STOP SHOOTING AT ME YOU *$[%@#!

269GA-Veltro
08-02-2006, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by xTHRUDx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Aviaforum: what is the progress of BOB, what stage is it on. When can we get screenshots, videos, ect€¦.?

O.M. Not this year.

hmmm..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is not a surprise....

Who said november 2006 was drunk...be sure.

Thank Ivan for the info.

sakai2005
08-02-2006, 11:36 AM
sounds like a years worth of work yet to be done to me.

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 11:47 AM
Originally posted by sakai2005:
sounds like a years worth of work yet to be done to me.

Not that long. November of 2006 sounded un-realistic and IMO anouncement was rushed. Me thinks that BOB will see teh daylight in mid 2007.

csThor
08-02-2006, 11:54 AM
Finally a statement that puts this moronic "Nov 2006" release announcement into the dustbin (where it belongs).

That "MMP" simulation with all those components - Sorry, Oleg, but I think your team is way too small to achieve that and keep it up-to-date without neglecting the retail game version(s). Drop that thought - UBI is probably the wrong partner for such an enterprise, too.

269GA-Veltro
08-02-2006, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Greetings on the inpatient ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

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?

O.M. : Development of IL-2 will be stopped after planned add-ons. <span class="ev_code_yellow">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</span>. 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 the same level of quality, which was set by us.

Could somebody post this at the Shockwave forum?

http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=1...82cd640328483ad5d28e (http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=10&sid=d4dcd5d2993782cd640328483ad5d28e)

It would be simple a dream if we could have some addons for IL2 from those guys...........

A Bf-109 addon....a FW-190 addon...a P-47 addon ecc. ecc. ecc....with new models and cockpits....new sound effects....new dynamic campaign...

Chivas
08-02-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
I'm hoping it means that we can start out in a tank. For instance, please keep the Sturmos off our backs with your Bf109 Ms. Billfish, we'll take care of the T-34s with our Tigers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

I'm actually hoping NOT...........Not trying to be a kill joy but I personally don't see Maddox Games quintupling their resources before the release........Meaning, every bit of available time applied to any other aspect except air combat will detract from it.

What do you want out of BoB......Your favorite plane ACCURATE, or not and a above average tank, or shoddy planes just so you can have more shoddy tanks..............It all takes time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There won't be any WWII on-line type scenerio included with BOB, so it won't be delayed or diluted in that respect.

I do see them including tanks in a future add-on to the Storm of War series. i.e. the Med would be fantasic with the inclusion of desert tank warfare. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Chivas

knightflyte
08-02-2006, 12:45 PM
If we get support from the distributor, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also <span class="ev_code_RED">tanks</span>, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.



He didn't say that the MMO would BE SoW:BoB. He said BASED on BoB. I didn't get the impression he was adding these features to the flight sim we are all waiting for....SoW:BoB.

As usual I may be wrong. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Oh, and Ivan.....Thanks for taking the time and effort to translate and supply this info to the forum. You've gone a great way to stop the frustration that's permeated the forum.

Capt.England
08-02-2006, 12:51 PM
O.M. We don€t have exact system requirements yet. All I can say that system that runs IL2 on the max settings will run BOB on lowest ones.

When is the Alienware P7 6Ghz, 5 Gig memory, 2 Gig GFX100,000, Holodeck output P.C. coming out that can play full settings B.o.B?

I would just love to know what on earth is Mr. Oleg testing the new sim on? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Capt.England
08-02-2006, 12:52 PM
Forgot to say thanks C.I for the translation.

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

TheGozr
08-02-2006, 01:25 PM
Thx Yvan it's very interesting

slo_1_2_3
08-02-2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If we get support from the distributor, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also <span class="ev_code_RED">tanks</span>, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.

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

Please be true...

Please be true...

Please be true... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

reverendkrv1972
08-02-2006, 01:27 PM
thanks for the update Ivan,nice one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
something to look forward to whilst flying fb http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chuck_Older
08-02-2006, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by slo_1_2_3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by faustnik:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
If we get support from the distributor, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also <span class="ev_code_RED">tanks</span>, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.

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

Please be true...

Please be true...

Please be true... </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">based on BOB</span>

What you're reading about is a proposal to make a sort of OFP, using BOB's technology. This is *not* to say that BOB will support player controlled tanks, ships, subs, etc. Read the quote carefully, folks

F6_Ace
08-02-2006, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
100% disagree roland. This scenario is probably a wet dream of many people for many years. WW2Online, Maddox style... can it get better then that? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I agree with Roland - I can't think of anything worse.

In the interview, Oleg admits to not having enough resource/knowledge to cover civil aviation etc yet he thinks they have enough to cover new ground vehicles and weapons etc?

I hope Oleg and the boys have done their marketing homework because he may just see his flight simulation-orientated customer base wane when, instead of getting improved flight physics and aircraft, they get some new tanks or a PaK 40 to play with.

Besides, it's hardly very authentic for a downed pilot to just 'hop into the nearest tank' to make a getaway in.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

If "they" (how much say did EA have in making his product "more mainsteam or else?") have to go down this route why not make the 'interface' to the game flexible enough to allow other simulations to co-operate with it? It would be much better to have 3 or 4 hardcore simulations connected together than a half-ars*d attempt at fitting it all in one.

If it is executed very well, it sounds exciting but I can't see that happening with the resource available.

RCAF_Irish_403
08-02-2006, 01:33 PM
Good Stuff...

Better AI....No cookie cutter settings (Average, Vetren etc)...AI is affected by G forces and weather...more commands

My guess is that the second installment of SoW will be Club Med

nealn
08-02-2006, 01:36 PM
Ivan,
Thanks for taking the time to translate and post.

Am dissapointed about the next year release date, but never really expected Nov. 2006 anyway. Too bad for Oleg though as he will miss out on the Holliday season sales. When BOB finally does arive I am sure it will fantastic.

Neal

LEBillfish
08-02-2006, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
If "they" (how much say did EA have in making his product "more mainsteam or else?") have to go down this route why not make the 'interface' to the game flexible enough to allow other simulations to co-operate with it? It would be much better to have 3 or 4 hardcore simulations connected together than a half-ars*d attempt at fitting it all in one.

If it is executed very well, it sounds exciting but I can't see that happening with the resource available.

Yep, agree with that and would be the way to go....for perhaps 1c to sponsor a second "seperate" sim with say armor that interfaces with BoB......More so, now you're not only just touching on one core group yet 2, most likely those having interest in the one would try the other as well.

TROOPER117
08-02-2006, 01:38 PM
MMO?... NO, NO, NO!
Please don't do this to our premier WWII flight sim. FOR GODS SAKE NO!!

I need to go and lie down.. I can't believe I'm reading this.

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 01:40 PM
I dont see a reason for having doubts that all around simulation might succeed. There are few other companies or programmers that could probably get under 1C`s wing and participate in the project. They can deliver performance charts, specs, 3d models, etc. Why not? Nowhere in his interview Maddox said that his crew will handle the load. All he said that engine is capable of such simulation. And by publishers support he means not just "OK" - do it, he more likely meant financial aspects. Where mode human resources could get invlolved in development and for other expences, such as documents, blue prints...etc. This could be a real winner. And grow beyond flight combat sim market. And everyone will only benefit from it IMO.

p.s.

Those who played WW2Online might agree or disagree with me€¦.but, that was THE BEST, hands down experience online ever. It wasn€t a simulation, no, but had some elements of simulation in it. No game/sim comes even close, at least to me. If Maddox brings something like this to the table, but with a lot more elements of simulation€¦. Man, I might just get divorced after all heeh.

steve_v
08-02-2006, 01:48 PM
Lots of good things to look forward to in 2007. Thanks for the update Ivan. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/The_Presz/domodomo.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
08-02-2006, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by TROOPER117:
MMO?... NO, NO, NO!
Please don't do this to our premier WWII flight sim. FOR GODS SAKE NO!!

I need to go and lie down.. I can't believe I'm reading this.

Go Back and re-read what Maddox said...this will be a MMO based on Sow

AH_BlueKestral
08-02-2006, 01:58 PM
S! all
Thank you Crazy Ivan for taking the time and effort to translate and post this.
I wonder how much MS Vista has to do with the release date? Will the new Direct X have a major impact, due to its combined release with MS Vista?

F6_Ace
08-02-2006, 02:00 PM
If Oleg does bring something like WW2Online out, it will be 'just another WW2Online clone' with a few bells and whistles when you might think that he'd prefer to focus on what is, supposedly, what he knows best - flight simulators.

Perhaps he's seen what Targetware have achieved and decided the can't compete? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Stiglr?

More seriously, if it is the case that it's only the engine that can support it then fair enough but the slightly worrying thing is that O.M. seems to be suggesting that the flight aspects won't really be improved over what we have now. And we all know the limitations of the current physics.

Only time will tell, that's for sure.

Brain32
08-02-2006, 02:07 PM
More seriously, if it is the case that it's only the engine that can support it then fair enough but the slightly worrying thing is that O.M. seems to be suggesting that the flight aspects won't really be improved over what we have now. And we all know the limitations of the current physics.
Maybe I misread but:

Feel of the flying will not change much.
and

Simply we`ll add more details.
Isn't that what we esentially want? I mean we mostly discuss details, besides the most important factor is weather influence which O.M. directly mentioned

We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect..
I'm either a huge fanboy or there are many ways to understand a few simple words http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 02:11 PM
I dont think i am getting my point across. Nobody needs to copy ww2online. It`s done, it`s out there. I am talking about concept, that`s it. Engine can support ground forces to be human operated...but BASE, the CORE is still flight simulation. SOW is flight sim people, all Oleg wants to add new element to it. Anywho, what`s the point to argue, when something comes out, we shall see.

Bearcat99
08-02-2006, 02:28 PM
Thanks for the birthday present Ivan.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I want BoB to be a flight sim only any other aspects such as fps or quasi tank sim will dilute the efforts of a small specialist Flight sim developer.If I wanted to drive around in simplistically modelled tanks Id buy another game.

..... and you know they will be simplisticly modelled because....? I say wait and see what is in the pot before you start to turn up your nose at it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Who knows... you might find yourself coming back for seconds and thirds....


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I'd HOPE and am betting that does not mean you bail out, run over and jump in a tank and drive it......Simply meaning you can order other forces much like AI.......So I'm assuming so FPS people I'd not get my panties in a bunch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
According to what i read... you can do either...or. But cant have both. It will not be BF1942/COD type. You chose the tank, you die with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Even that would be great!!


I too knew that 11/06 was a dream at best..... No worries... I am still happy with what we have... and I think the extra time will just make BoB that much better. I expect better than my imagination with 1C... and so far I havent been disapointed... not really... I would like to see more.. but what we have is great.

PF_Coastie
08-02-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

O.M.: Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language.

Hmmm, No more Java? Still OpenGL or switching to DX10? Interesting!

Thanks for the update Ivan.

GreyFox5
08-02-2006, 02:30 PM
Hey there Ivan!

Thanks for the translation and update.

I hope that somehow in there development they go back to Spanish Civil War and sort of run the entire war with addons. Wanted to try out the Bf-109B and C versions...

Also I hope they have improved the User Interface for Mission building... man that would help out alot.

Cheers

Fox

NerdConnected
08-02-2006, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I dont see a reason for having doubts that all around simulation might succeed. There are few other companies or programmers that could probably get under 1C`s wing and participate in the project. They can deliver performance charts, specs, 3d models, etc. Why not? Nowhere in his interview Maddox said that his crew will handle the load. All he said that engine is capable of such simulation. And by publishers support he means not just "OK" - do it, he more likely meant financial aspects. Where mode human resources could get invlolved in development and for other expences, such as documents, blue prints...etc. This could be a real winner. And grow beyond flight combat sim market. And everyone will only benefit from it IMO.

p.s.

Those who played WW2Online might agree or disagree with me€¦.but, that was THE BEST, hands down experience online ever. It wasn€t a simulation, no, but had some elements of simulation in it. No game/sim comes even close, at least to me. If Maddox brings something like this to the table, but with a lot more elements of simulation€¦. Man, I might just get divorced after all heeh.

Well, I see a future merger of Theatre of War (alias ToW) and SoW. It would make a lot of sense and I guess that where's Maddox heading...;-)

Most of the hard-core ground details are already in ToW, but it's done on the basis of the Il2 engine. Next step is maybe to merge the two?

Anyway, very exciting news and I guess I wont be buying any hardware for a year or so.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Mark

Viper2005_
08-02-2006, 02:54 PM
Well, I'm glad that the game isn't going to be rushed. I just hope that we get updates every couple of weeks so that we know what's going on.

jamesdietz
08-02-2006, 02:55 PM
Not ...this....year...????? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif
Oh well putting a positive spin on it:I get to keep this PC for a bit longer & keep saving pennies for the big PC...and...I guess those new add-ons are looking better & better...and besides I think I still have about 200 new careers to fly...so all thats too the good ...isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 02:59 PM
As far as hardware goes, i wouldnt buy anything untill SOW is released. Dont expect much from system requirements on the box... it will be off, usually is hehe. That applies to minimum and suggested as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TROOPER117
08-02-2006, 03:14 PM
I don't need to re-read anything thanks.. I'm displaying humour, using a hint of melodrama and sarcasm?
Please, can people re-read MY post and confirm I was actualy extracting the micheal somewhat!

FUN... IT IS ALLOWED!

Regards.. Dave S.

slipBall
08-02-2006, 03:19 PM
Very interesting interview, thanks for posting.

klemlao
08-02-2006, 03:19 PM
Having trod the Air Warrior and Aces high trail - and moved on due to naff modelling - the one thing I miss is a true MM capability and the community to support large scale scenarios.

No, I don't want to go to those huge Noddy make-believe maps etc. for routine Squad Nights but large historical maps and organised scenarios - Yes Please!

btw did I just blow my hard earned cash on my Asus A8N32 dual 3800+ and XFX7800GT? Better not have! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

VW-IceFire
08-02-2006, 03:23 PM
Thanks Ivan!

Sounds interesting about the multiple aspects of warfare being integrated into it. I would like to point out right now that we don't know to what extent Oleg suggests to plan this around. It may not be so much driving individual tanks as commanding them in a more RTS style. If the game engine he has developed has sufficient features then they could definately have another development team do a WWII tank simulator and "simply" plug the component pieces into the engine. If done right you could even have the two games running on the same server...and while we would never do anything except fly planes the other guys would be doing nothing except driving tanks.

Its a wet dream for sure. Battlefield's format touches on that slightly but nothing is done to any detail.

Rebel_Yell_21
08-02-2006, 03:24 PM
Since ToW IS due out in 2006 and it will likely make 1C a lot more money than BoB, don't plan on flying anything but Il-2 for a looooong time.

russ.nl
08-02-2006, 03:28 PM
Thank you Ivan for the translation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Can somebody plz introduce 1C Maddox to Tripwire.
In a recently released interview with Tripwire (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/721/721049p1.html)I found that they have the same kind of gaming and selling ideas as 1c Maddox. And Tripwire is really into realistic just like Maddox. Tripwire has done pretty good on the tanks but could use some help from oleg. So if you let Tripwire do the infantry, Tripwire and 1C Maddox do the tanks together and 1C Maddox do the planes we would have one hell of a good game. Maps would be IL-2 sice ofcourse and online.

NerdConnected
08-02-2006, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
As far as hardware goes, i wouldnt buy anything untill SOW is released. Dont expect much from system requirements on the box... it will be off, usually is hehe. That applies to minimum and suggested as well http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

What about this? I have two systems - most nerds, even 'normal' people with kids have 2 'puters. One for the girlfriend/wife for AIM and Word and one for serious hard-core gaming http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif - both 3200+ and a 1 or 2 Gb ram.

What about off-loading certain part of SoW two the 'wife' puter while she's chatting? ("Am I doing something wrong? Word is so slow lately...").

Are Oleg an collegues thinking of this kind of setup? It would save me from buying new and expensive hardware http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Mark

xTHRUDx
08-02-2006, 03:40 PM
oleg needs to partner with Battlefront.com like 1c did with ToW and ditch Ubi.

F6_Ace
08-02-2006, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> More seriously, if it is the case that it's only the engine that can support it then fair enough but the slightly worrying thing is that O.M. seems to be suggesting that the flight aspects won't really be improved over what we have now. And we all know the limitations of the current physics.
Maybe I misread but:

Feel of the flying will not change much.
and

Simply we`ll add more details.
Isn't that what we esentially want? I mean we mostly discuss details, besides the most important factor is weather influence which O.M. directly mentioned

We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect..
I'm either a huge fanboy or there are many ways to understand a few simple words http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No, I think you might be right. If I take my 'cynicism' hat off, which I wear most of the time, and take the words as you have interpreted them then, assuming that the general feel of flying will stay the same but that there will be acceleration, stalls, spins, dive, energy handling that doesn't favour tnb modelled accurately (or should that be 'at all?' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) etc, then fantastic.

Miki40
08-02-2006, 04:17 PM
O.M. Not this year.

"Today Ubisoft, one of the world€s largest video game publishers, announces Storm of War: Battle of Britain, to come in November 2006 for PCs worldwide. Storm of War: Battle of Britain is the first instalment in the new Storm of War franchise from award-winning developer Maddox Games. Ubisoft and Maddox games previously collaborated on the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik and Pacific Fighters games."

No comment! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

HayateAce
08-02-2006, 04:19 PM
And so the mismanagement~miscommunication begins...

slappedsilly
08-02-2006, 04:19 PM
Thanks for the news Ivan. Would have liked to seen some screens, but it sounds like that might be a while yet. The idea of Oleg doing a project like this is very exciting. It will be done right and will draw many new customers towards the flight sim genre, which is much needed. I have never seen any world wide sales info on the current sim, but I'd bet it pales in comparison to many lacking games out there. So thanks again for the news!

bun-bun195333
08-02-2006, 04:33 PM
Thanks Ivan, I need a reason to build a new computer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ElAurens
08-02-2006, 04:34 PM
Thank you Ivan.

Looks like a lot of good things to look forward to.

ytareh
08-02-2006, 04:45 PM
Gutted this uber game isnt coming in November but partially relieved as this current game has so much life left in it.....

sakai2005
08-02-2006, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sakai2005:
sounds like a years worth of work yet to be done to me.

Not that long. November of 2006 sounded un-realistic and IMO anouncement was rushed. Me thinks that BOB will see teh daylight in mid 2007. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


no matter i can wait.ill work on flying the planes we have ive not got to yet.

slipBall
08-02-2006, 05:22 PM
I think the recent hacking problem, threw a wrench in the gears

DHC2Pilot
08-02-2006, 05:33 PM
With regards to the comments centering around the new sim having elements of ground and sea warfare, it occurred to me that what may happen is that this may all tie together online, with several seperate sims interfacing in a virtual world. We, the flight simmers, would interface into the 'world' piloting aircraft of course. The ground warfare folks would have a completely different sim which meshes into this world, however we wouldn't have access to the tanks, etc. unless we purchase the game specifically aimed at this genre. Then there could be the sea element, with yet another entirely separate game, where players could select a sub, battleship, etc. Something along the lines of Ultima Online, except not a RPG. There could be elements of FPS introduced if you decide to enter the 'world' as an infantryman. If this is the direction the game is headed, then it would require collaboration of an unprecedented level between Oleg and other game designers. I see no way for Oleg to pull something on this scale off by himself with his limited resources. But, on the same token, if collaboration is possible, then this could take the whole online war scenario to a whole new level. I think it would also draw some more people into the flight sim arena. I mean imagine if your online as a tank driver, and your buddy is in a IL-10 in the same theatre. Naturally you would want to try flying one too.

I think the online scenario is likely to be correct - even in 2 or three years, given the advancement of processor and memory speed in the past 10 years, we're likely to break the 4 GHz processor speed (on Dual Core) and who knows about quad core. On a single PC, all of the aforementioned genres running together would tremendously bog down the FPS, even with an insane amount of memory. Now, if you staged the virtual world on server class machines which were all working together to chew up the code in pieces, this would be a definate possiblility. Now, factor in the online experience where the bandwidth offered by some ISP's are currently 4 mb or better - where will it be at in another year or two? I'm sure there are ISP's out there planning on pushing their bandwidth close to 10 mb connections.

It is possible. Time will tell.

Capt.LoneRanger
08-02-2006, 05:39 PM
So, now it makes perfectly sense, to upgrade when BoB is released - who knows where we'll be in 2 years...

On the other hand, I hope that thing about the little room to improve the flightmodel over IL2 was some sort of a programmers-joke. If somebody still feels rudders and controls, stalls and ground-handling in IL2 is close to real... well, I guess it was a joke after all...

russ.nl
08-02-2006, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by DHC2Pilot:
With regards to the comments centering around the new sim having elements of ground and sea warfare, it occurred to me that what may happen is that this may all tie together online, with several seperate sims interfacing in a virtual world. We, the flight simmers, would interface into the 'world' piloting aircraft of course. The ground warfare folks would have a completely different sim which meshes into this world, however we wouldn't have access to the tanks, etc. unless we purchase the game specifically aimed at this genre. Then there could be the sea element, with yet another entirely separate game, where players could select a sub, battleship, etc. Something along the lines of Ultima Online, except not a RPG. There could be elements of FPS introduced if you decide to enter the 'world' as an infantryman. If this is the direction the game is headed, then it would require collaboration of an unprecedented level between Oleg and other game designers. I see no way for Oleg to pull something on this scale off by himself with his limited resources. But, on the same token, if collaboration is possible, then this could take the whole online war scenario to a whole new level. I think it would also draw some more people into the flight sim arena. I mean imagine if your online as a tank driver, and your buddy is in a IL-10 in the same theatre. Naturally you would want to try flying one too.

I think the online scenario is likely to be correct - even in 2 or three years, given the advancement of processor and memory speed in the past 10 years, we're likely to break the 4 GHz processor speed (on Dual Core) and who knows about quad core. On a single PC, all of the aforementioned genres running together would tremendously bog down the FPS, even with an insane amount of memory. Now, if you staged the virtual world on server class machines which were all working together to chew up the code in pieces, this would be a definate possiblility. Now, factor in the online experience where the bandwidth offered by some ISP's are currently 5 mb or better - where will it be at in another year or two? I'm sure there are ISP's out there planning on pushing their bandwidth close to 10 mb connections.

It is possible. Time will tell.

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

I think IL-2 engine would be a great "official" tester for this kind of gaming. If it then works out ok and there is enough animo the SoW engine or series could be used for the reall deal.

Daytraders
08-02-2006, 06:20 PM
more time to save for a new pc http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif thx for the info and below sounds great if it happens.

New engine allows to organize combined are for many players. If we get support from the publisher, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also tanks, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.

skarden
08-02-2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by klemlao:
Having trod the Air Warrior and Aces high trail - and moved on due to naff modelling - the one thing I miss is a true MM capability and the community to support large scale scenarios.


Yeah i gotta agree with you Klemlao i also cut my teeth with aces high 2.I loved the feelin that you were part of something bigger then just an on going furball(Which can can be damm fun dont get me wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif )I used to love patrolling high pickin off ppl on there way to support an offensive on an area,sometimes with a couple of buddies.

Then i found IL-2 and well...that was that.So to have a similar game based on SOW(or IL-2 for that matter) would be friggin sweet in my opinion.

Anyone who thinks that this kind of sim will not be fun I highly recomend Downloading aces high 2 and use the 2 weeks free online play to sample this for themselves(although the flight models aren't as nice)and I think that some of you will start to get an idea of how cool this could be

Plus it sounds like we're still gettin SOW as a flight sim only anyway and this MMO as a seperate game.

jensenpark
08-02-2006, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by bun-bun195333:
Thanks Ivan, I need a reason to build a new computer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Bun? You alive? Call home!!!!

WWMaxGunz
08-02-2006, 07:29 PM
I would not mind seeing an AI director player 'position' where the player with 3rd person
view would direct one AI element that would possibly lead others or a group of AI's using
mouse clicks or more to designate targets, set routes, things like that. IL2 series could
use such as it would 'fix' many of the bonehead AI general actions in Coops if 1 or 2 such
directors were active. It would require no extra modelling or any of that, but an extra
interface for sure. Whole thing could probably be done with devicelink type programming
that would need AI-access commands, and follow with those AI view as playback POV will
for planes but also for ground vehicles and guns. Online commo would not be changed
except 'manned' AI would be more intelligent.

Too bad no time for this in IL2 series......

VFS-22_SPaRX
08-02-2006, 07:49 PM
Oleg:

Aviaforum: How different are physical aspects of the flight model between BOB and IL-2. Will model be completely new or just improved and corrected IL-2 model? Are you planning to model wind?

O.M.: <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change.</span> Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect..


The yellow highlighted text is what I find most interesting. Why you might ask? Let's take a little trip back in time


Oleg:

V4.0 introduces the pre-BoB Flight Model (FM). <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">In this add-on we are partially introducing FM from our next simulation (BOB)</span>for worldwide test in our current engine.


From Readme 4.02

Flight Model

- adjusted ground effect *
- adjusted gyro effect *
- Aerodynamic focus dependency on angle of attack *
- Flap position now affects aileron sensitivity



From Readme 4.03

Flight Model

........

Increased damping factor for the ball indicator.
Minor changes in reaction of the controls.


With every patch released we have seen changes in the flight model, even if there was not statement about it in the readme.

I think that from this you can conclude we are pretty much already flying BOB's flight model. Sure there might be some minor additions and refinements, but I highly doubt it will change much. I think there are going to be alot of disappointed people when BOB comes out pretaining to the Flight Models.

p1ngu666
08-02-2006, 07:55 PM
could always have humous vechicles, like london bus, tractor, the bike/track thingy the germans used, just be a nice little sideline to poottle about on/in them.

incidently MMO's can work, heck ive been addicted to guildwars for months now.

heck, IL2 is similer to guildwars, just hyperlobby is the town/outpost, then u go in a mission/dogfight and your with your chosen group, which is how guildwars works..

WWMaxGunz
08-02-2006, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
With every patch released we have seen changes in the flight model, even if there was not statement about it in the readme.

I think that from this you can conclude we are pretty much already flying BOB's flight model. Sure there might be some minor additions and refinements, but I highly doubt it will change much. I think there are going to be alot of disappointed people when BOB comes out pretaining to the Flight Models.

I do think that Oleg is making his statements from POV of the final IL2 series FM which we
still don't have. 4.06 or is it 4.07 there is supposed to be a change in the handling that
we only got a few words on and then loads of speculation what, a month ago now?

RaVe_N
08-02-2006, 08:20 PM
Tanks, Ships, Player controlled? hmmm thats just like Aces High. they have 800 players on at the same time working to capture bases together thats kind of cool.
Its works well in that sim but it would be twice as nice with olag quality. sounds good
to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Viper2005_
08-02-2006, 08:35 PM
I just hope we get better transonic and supersonic performance. At present, many piston engined aircraft in the game are supersonic in a dive, and some of the jets are supersonic in level flight at altitude. This is very unrealistic.

In addition, some aircraft (such as the P-38) have TAS related issues (as a stand in for Mach related issues) which really damage their low altitude performance.

VFS-22_SPaRX
08-02-2006, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VFS-22_SPaRX:
With every patch released we have seen changes in the flight model, even if there was not statement about it in the readme.

I think that from this you can conclude we are pretty much already flying BOB's flight model. Sure there might be some minor additions and refinements, but I highly doubt it will change much. I think there are going to be alot of disappointed people when BOB comes out pretaining to the Flight Models.

I do think that Oleg is making his statements from POV of the final IL2 series FM which we
still don't have. 4.06 or is it 4.07 there is supposed to be a change in the handling that
we only got a few words on and then loads of speculation what, a month ago now? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah Max, I too believe we dont have all of it yet. But I bet by the end of IL2 we will have most of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

csThor
08-02-2006, 09:39 PM
I dont see a reason for having doubts that all around simulation might succeed. There are few other companies or programmers that could probably get under 1C`s wing and participate in the project. They can deliver performance charts, specs, 3d models, etc. Why not? Nowhere in his interview Maddox said that his crew will handle the load. All he said that engine is capable of such simulation. And by publishers support he means not just "OK" - do it, he more likely meant financial aspects. Where mode human resources could get invlolved in development and for other expences, such as documents, blue prints...etc. This could be a real winner. And grow beyond flight combat sim market. And everyone will only benefit from it IMO.

p.s.

Those who played WW2Online might agree or disagree with me€¦.but, that was THE BEST, hands down experience online ever. It wasn€t a simulation, no, but had some elements of simulation in it. No game/sim comes even close, at least to me. If Maddox brings something like this to the table, but with a lot more elements of simulation€¦. Man, I might just get divorced after all heeh.

With all due respect, Ivan - WW2 Online is the reason to let such plans drop like a hot potatoe. The Rats and Maddox Games are comparable in team size and to this date I have not heard about a major improvement in the flight modelling department in WW2 Online. When was the release of said game? Run that by me again ...
I had high hopes for WW2 Online, but was so utterly disappointed that I never touched it after a quick look at the various boards and reviews. As a whole this project was just way too much for the Rats and I firmly believe such a project would suck out Maddox Games's ressources like a vampire. An "Allround Simulation" is kinda a perpetuum mobile as it has to model air combat, infantry combat, tank combat and ship combat accurately. But this does need manpower, money and time - and in the software business those are the rarest things. I simply think Oleg's imagination has gone a bit overboard - I still don't think his team would be able to manage such a project unless they tripled their size and got more money. Either seems unlikely or impossible.

Bearcat99
08-02-2006, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by russ.nl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DHC2Pilot:
With regards to the comments centering around the new sim having elements of ground and sea warfare, it occurred to me that what may happen is that this may all tie together online, with several seperate sims interfacing in a virtual world. We, the flight simmers, would interface into the 'world' piloting aircraft of course. The ground warfare folks would have a completely different sim which meshes into this world, however we wouldn't have access to the tanks, etc. unless we purchase the game specifically aimed at this genre. Then there could be the sea element, with yet another entirely separate game, where players could select a sub, battleship, etc. Something along the lines of Ultima Online, except not a RPG. There could be elements of FPS introduced if you decide to enter the 'world' as an infantryman. If this is the direction the game is headed, then it would require collaboration of an unprecedented level between Oleg and other game designers. I see no way for Oleg to pull something on this scale off by himself with his limited resources. But, on the same token, if collaboration is possible, then this could take the whole online war scenario to a whole new level. I think it would also draw some more people into the flight sim arena. I mean imagine if your online as a tank driver, and your buddy is in a IL-10 in the same theatre. Naturally you would want to try flying one too.

I think the online scenario is likely to be correct - even in 2 or three years, given the advancement of processor and memory speed in the past 10 years, we're likely to break the 4 GHz processor speed (on Dual Core) and who knows about quad core. On a single PC, all of the aforementioned genres running together would tremendously bog down the FPS, even with an insane amount of memory. Now, if you staged the virtual world on server class machines which were all working together to chew up the code in pieces, this would be a definate possiblility. Now, factor in the online experience where the bandwidth offered by some ISP's are currently 5 mb or better - where will it be at in another year or two? I'm sure there are ISP's out there planning on pushing their bandwidth close to 10 mb connections.

It is possible. Time will tell.

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

I think IL-2 engine would be a great "official" tester for this kind of gaming. If it then works out ok and there is enough animo the SoW engine or series could be used for the reall deal. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

That would be awesome.... the problem would be tieing it all together so that the flight simmers could see the ground action... and hit it... or support it.. and the ground simmers could see the air action... if a sea warfare sim were also introduced into it all with the same fidelity and atten tion to detail or better of this sim.... that would be just practically illegal it would be so darn good..

VW-IceFire
08-02-2006, 10:14 PM
In total agrement Bearcat. That'd be awesome.

Again...interfacing from the pilots perspective so we can keep our airpower thing going but with independantly controlled tanks and AT guns on the ground or some such...fantastic. And who hasn't been interested in jumping in a AAA gun at least once while your field was being vulched.

crazyivan1970
08-02-2006, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by csThor:

With all due respect, Ivan - WW2 Online is the reason to let such plans drop like a hot potatoe. The Rats and Maddox Games are comparable in team size and to this date I have not heard about a major improvement in the flight modelling department in WW2 Online. When was the release of said game? Run that by me again ...
I had high hopes for WW2 Online, but was so utterly disappointed that I never touched it after a quick look at the various boards and reviews. As a whole this project was just way too much for the Rats and I firmly believe such a project would suck out Maddox Games's ressources like a vampire. An "Allround Simulation" is kinda a perpetuum mobile as it has to model air combat, infantry combat, tank combat and ship combat accurately. But this does need manpower, money and time - and in the software business those are the rarest things. I simply think Oleg's imagination has gone a bit overboard - I still don't think his team would be able to manage such a project unless they tripled their size and got more money. Either seems unlikely or impossible.

With all due respect Thor, nowhere in my post i suggested that ww2online was the game model we need. You decided not to play it based on reviews, i played it for a year. And if it wasnt for IL2, it could have been longer. It`s not about how they modelled it, it`s about concept. And concept was great. You never experianced combined attacks of the airforce and tanks, infantry and artillery, all human operated with 900+ people on the server. It`s hard to describe unless you are really there. I understand your worries about whether Maddox will be able to pull this off or not, whether publisher will support him or not. If UBI decides that they are interested and this approach could be the right thing to do, why not? If they are interestedm they pay for it and that will solve both things that you meation as unlikely and impossible. Money do wonderful things Thor. It just a matter of having it. Maddox in his interview made it pretty clear... "IF" publisher will support it. I guess we have nothing to worry about then, do we?

Jettexas
08-02-2006, 10:25 PM
DHC2Pilot for the win...

A series of high quality titles,each able to stand alone,but which all posess the ability to integrate online.

Crappy fantasy mmos draw millions of subscribers
with a ridiculou fantastical back-stories, surely a larger market exists for something rooted in actual history?

As far as dev costs?..no bank turns down a loan, when you walk in with a fistful of pre-paid orders...build a good product the rest will take care of itself.

The weakest link here would have to be publisher support.

All the best Oleg and Co.
If anyone can pull it off its you guys.
Sounds like great stuff.

RF

shinden1974
08-02-2006, 10:31 PM
Well good news I suppose. The MMO idea is a good one if it generates revenue and doesn't take to much from BOB (from my point of view) ...but I think the idea that this MMO will be taking something away from BOB will follow BOB and it's add-ons forever if this MMO is done and some aircraft/theater/Map for BOB hasn't...it's already starting. Many people like this sort of thing...I have a lot of trouble caring, give me single-player oblivion over everquest not-an-RPG anyday/give me a flightsim over a MMO not-a-sim. Hope he sells a lot of copies, I won't be one of 'em.

At least they are not trying to incorporate BOB itself into an online all war concept...the graveyard for that idea is a vast one...I think the three all-time great jet sims: LOMAC, F4 and JF/A-18 were supposed to try this idea.

I guess the race is on...what will come out first...BOB or Il2:SOM? give the edge to BOB so far! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jermin122
08-02-2006, 10:34 PM
If BoB won't be out in Nov 2006, please enable 6-dof surpport in the next patch.

bun-bun195333
08-02-2006, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by jensenpark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bun-bun195333:
Thanks Ivan, I need a reason to build a new computer. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Bun? You alive? Call home!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep Kelly, I'm still kicking. Had to shut the game down for a while for various reasons and lost track of time. Send me an email and we'll catch up on how everyone is doing.

DHC2Pilot
08-02-2006, 11:12 PM
The one HUGE plus to my thoretical online setup is that there would essentially be no AI. No UFO aircraft, or ship AA that have pinpoint laserlock on you from 30 miles away. You would be fighting against tanks, ships, etc. that have real humans controlling them, making the bonehead mistakes that humans are famous for. Very little would have to be scripted in the game. The fact that the processor doesn't have to eat up resources to calculate the AI's next move could potentially be a huge boost to the FPS.

Now, getting players to work together in teams, forming squadrons, developing a plan of attack, etc. would be a pain in the A**. Everyone would want to do their own thing. There would have to be some way to devolop squadrons, tank battalions, armadas of ships, etc. that work together toward a common goal. There'd have to be radio communications, someone would have to take on the role of generals, etc. to formulate the plan of attack. As awesome as it would be in it's Utopian form, getting it to all come together would be a very very difficult.

LEBillfish
08-02-2006, 11:16 PM
How can I say this without breaking any hearts or making anyone feel as though they're not the unique little flower they all want to be, independant and rebellious............

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">WHAT A BUNCH OF FAN BOYS!!!!...BAWHAHAHAHAHAHahahahaha</span>

Now I'm a fangoil so no insult intended....Yet think about it. A vague, roughly translated interview from Oleg that really does not say a whole bunch and look at all the speculation, planning, excitement and buzz. As though every word brings promise and hope....He could say "my dog sniffs bottoms" and it would generate 20 pages of speculation.

So ADMIT IT!!!....You're all excited even though you know nothing as nothing is set in stone yet......Go ahead, we all know, you can say it.....You're a Fanboi http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

DHC2Pilot
08-02-2006, 11:23 PM
Hey, we can dream, can't we. The technology exists to do this. There's no reason Oleg shouldn't be the one to blaze the trail and go where no one has gone before. Yeah, yeah, I'm probably way off, but then again, maybe not! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Destroyer110
08-02-2006, 11:25 PM
..
.. On the side note, I would like to thank people who broke into the code for not spreading information around.


Gee wiz, not all hackers / modders are 10 year olds looking to cause mischief. Some want to expand the potential of a restricted game.


..

AviaForum: Is it possible to organize combined server for many players?

OM: New engine allows to organize combined are for many players. If we get support from the publisher, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also tanks, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim.



hmmmm, in regards to BOB, i don't see the need for this .. UNLESS! .. he's talking about BARGES!! you can never have enough barges in any game .. milling around the ports of France until the RAF is beaten back and then the command is given .. "LOOSE! .." and then those barges head for the English coast .. barges full of .. GORILLAS! Gorillas with pointy german helmets! .. yes, I can see it now! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Seriously, watching the german invasion fleet hit the beaches or controlling a german tank as it hits the beach, or watching the huge aerial armada fly overhead from a ground observers point of view would be nice. If SOW extended to the Atlantic Campaign, then controlling a Condor, U-Boat, tanker or destroyer might be ok.

But as others have said, I hope IL2 quality and feel isn't destroyed by adding those other elements.

I would MUCH PREFER to control aircraft tactics and formations before battle. To see if new ideas might have helped failed aircraft or events.


..

Aviaforum: How will you implement work of radar stations? Will players be able to request information from then about situation in the air? Are you planning to develop tools for coordination of the actions pilots in the air? Are you planning to expand control over AI wingmen?

O.M.: It will be the same as in real life. Radar stations will coordinate pilots and direct them in the areas where enemy planes were spotted. If you are talking about german technologies in using radar, I cant promise anything yet, not sure if they will be implemented in BOB. Amount of commands for AI will be expanded. Structure of the menu will remain the same, but variations will increase.



SOW must have Air Command Headquarters, with all those pretty women moving those markers around and Whinny grumbling in the background.



..

Aviaforum: AI in BOB: seeing behind, accuracy of gunnery, etc€¦.

O.M.: AI significantly changed and will use a lot more resources than it does now. Visibility from AI perspective is honest even now, it just aces look behind them a lot more often then rookies. Clouds are not see thru for AI and virtual pilots. Accuracy of shooting will depend on g-forces. During active maneuvering accuracy will be reduced and under effect of great forces will not be possible at all. Besides, in BOB crew members will have different skills, meaning pilot could be an ace, but gunners rookies and so on. Difference will be drastic, for rookies we model panic, that is when they shoot all over the place.





Excellent news .. better AI. G-force effects accuracy .. EXCELLENT!!! Even rookie gunners. All that's needed is common sense. Rookies fire from too far a distance, for too long, while more experienced gunners wait for the kill. Of course G-force seriously effects their ability. panic mode is an excellent idea, not just for rookies! ..and don't forget to fix that bug where gunners keep firing even though the plane is heading down.


..

end.

.......

Old_Canuck
08-03-2006, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Miki40:
O.M. Not this year.

"Today Ubisoft, one of the world€s largest video game publishers, announces Storm of War: Battle of Britain, to come in November 2006 for PCs worldwide. Storm of War: Battle of Britain is the first instalment in the new Storm of War franchise from award-winning developer Maddox Games. Ubisoft and Maddox games previously collaborated on the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik and Pacific Fighters games."

No comment! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

As a few forumites had suggested this announcement was just a (successful) smokescreen to cover the 4.05 fiasco. To the one who labeled it "vaporware" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif you were right .. some of us knew you were right when you posted it.

uteboy
08-03-2006, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Those who played WW2Online might agree or disagree with me€¦.but, that was THE BEST, hands down experience online ever.

IS the best, and still keeps getting better.

knightflyte
08-03-2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Old_Canuck:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Miki40:
O.M. Not this year.

"Today Ubisoft, one of the world€s largest video game publishers, announces Storm of War: Battle of Britain, to come in November 2006 for PCs worldwide. Storm of War: Battle of Britain is the first instalment in the new Storm of War franchise from award-winning developer Maddox Games. Ubisoft and Maddox games previously collaborated on the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik and Pacific Fighters games."

No comment! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

As a few forumites had suggested this announcement was just a (successful) smokescreen to cover the 4.05 fiasco. To the one who labeled it "vaporware" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif you were right .. some of us knew you were right when you posted it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Oh PUH-LEEZE!!!!!

It was probably more that some dimwad decided with veiled threats to release the 6DOF code and forced the developers to rewrite code to protect their rightfully owned intelectual property.

The cynasism in this place is getting to smell like swamp water.

But if it makes the sad few feel better to prophecy the doom and gloom to fit their need, then by all means have fun.

Oleg_Maddox
08-03-2006, 12:30 AM
Hi all.

I just would like to point one thing.

For these who afraid that we will go by WWIIOL style of the game - don't worry.
If we only would go for massive multiplay it will be separate game....

So you may get:
1. the flightsim in general, like it was with Il-2 series with single play and online gameplays (in both cases advanced)
2. Massive multiplay game where you may drive aircraft, tanks, vehicles, submarines (including minisubmarines Italian or Japanese http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), etc where the control of the tanks or ships will be simplified (this means you don't need all of the crew in tank and hundres saylors on the ship....)/ However the control of aircraft will be taked from item 1 above.

Item 2 also means that we will jsut control the other team of developers, that will use our engine and models (there is already enough that to begine already now such development).

Thats all what I would like to tell now.

Waldo.Pepper
08-03-2006, 12:34 AM
I would also hope to see wake turbulence from planes in front of you. (Like when you are pursuing someone you should get in their wash).

Also Oleg's comment on RADAR did not impress me yet. I would hope that the British CH stations would be ineffective if the Germans came over above 20000 feet (as it was), and I would hope that it became ineffective if the raid was low enough.

Both these cases were rare as these limitations were not widely known to the Germans during the battle. But still I would like to see it properly modelled.

Also I would like to see the ability of the AI to see at night modelled something like this.

If the light in the sim varies from total daylight (say value 255) to total night (say value 0) then the range they can see at and their comprehension of what they are seeing could also suffer along that gradient. Remember that in order to shoot they not only had to see the target but be able to ID it as an enemy plane.

I am still on the fence about BOB. However, Olegs comments about third party modellers picking up the ball with IL2 are music to my ears.

knightflyte
08-03-2006, 12:34 AM
Thanks for the clarification Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

vocatx
08-03-2006, 12:36 AM
Oleg, many thanks for dropping in. SOW sounds like it's really going to have many different interesting facets to it. I can't wait.

sg1_gunkan
08-03-2006, 12:37 AM
WW2Online, as global warfare simulator is the best. But the fight simulation is a mess. Unplayable to me, and i do tryed.

woofiedog
08-03-2006, 12:40 AM
Oleg... Will SOW have a UberDemon type mission editor for the QMB??

russ.nl
08-03-2006, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by DHC2Pilot:
The one HUGE plus to my thoretical online setup is that there would essentially be no AI. No UFO aircraft, or ship AA that have pinpoint laserlock on you from 30 miles away. You would be fighting against tanks, ships, etc. that have real humans controlling them, making the bonehead mistakes that humans are famous for. Very little would have to be scripted in the game. The fact that the processor doesn't have to eat up resources to calculate the AI's next move could potentially be a huge boost to the FPS.

Now, getting players to work together in teams, forming squadrons, developing a plan of attack, etc. would be a pain in the A**. Everyone would want to do their own thing. There would have to be some way to devolop squadrons, tank battalions, armadas of ships, etc. that work together toward a common goal. There'd have to be radio communications, someone would have to take on the role of generals, etc. to formulate the plan of attack. As awesome as it would be in it's Utopian form, getting it to all come together would be a very very difficult.

I think getting players to work together will come by it self. It will be a new kind of gaming that the players will have to get used to. I find that with Red Orchestra wich has build in TS you can motivate the whole team if you have just a couple of good objective speakers. And as every sim unit will have its own clans/squads they will be working together. Just like real life. Different infantry battalions and different squadrons. Like bomber squads, ground support squads ect. Maybe even infantry artilery divisions.
The only problem would be the ranks. There can only be one 5 star general ect.

Flying_Nutcase
08-03-2006, 01:08 AM
Thanks for the word in our ear Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

russ.nl
08-03-2006, 01:11 AM
Thank you Mr.Maddox for your time and responce. I can't wait for your juwel.

starfighter1
08-03-2006, 02:11 AM
hi,
I guess You are in the wrong forum and waiting for a flight combatsim which never will come from that develovper in the future ..
be shure http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

"O.M.: BOB will progress identical to IL2 series, it will contain series of simulations which will work together or individually. Dates of the release of eastern front are not known yet."

BoB as an main game sim-engine to Theatre at WW-II ..or Addons as in Battlefield 1+2 by EA

see discussion at
http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb....topic;f=144;t=005719 (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=144;t=005719)

maybe a good idea to next MS flightsim development.
why not a simulation with the SIMS at holiday http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/1womo.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

and try to get first step in how to fly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

the serios way of advanced flight combatsims
has turned over to battlefield and warefighter
game simulations at this developer and publisher

indeed EA is on the way in real business too and try to take over some publishers/developers http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif



Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I want BoB to be a flight sim only any other aspects such as fps or quasi tank sim will dilute the efforts of a small specialist Flight sim developer.If I wanted to drive around in simplistically modelled tanks Id buy another game.

joeap
08-03-2006, 03:55 AM
GEZZ are you people think headed or don't you know how to read??? BoB will be a sim this MMO will be a SEPERATE game so purists need not worry.

Read:


Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Hi all.

I just would like to point one thing.

For these who afraid that we will go by WWIIOL style of the game - don't worry.
If we only would go for massive multiplay it will be separate game....

So you may get:
1. the flightsim in general, like it was with Il-2 series with single play and online gameplays (in both cases advanced)
2. Massive multiplay game where you may drive aircraft, tanks, vehicles, submarines (including minisubmarines Italian or Japanese http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), etc where the control of the tanks or ships will be simplified (this means you don't need all of the crew in tank and hundres saylors on the ship....)/ However the control of aircraft will be taked from item 1 above.

Item 2 also means that we will jsut control the other team of developers, that will use our engine and models (there is already enough that to begine already now such development).

Thats all what I would like to tell now.

russ.nl
08-03-2006, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by joeap:
GEZZ are you people think headed or don't you know how to read??? BoB will be a sim this MMO will be a SEPERATE game so purists need not worry.


Yes.... allot can happen you know while you're typing a reply.

GerritJ9
08-03-2006, 04:45 AM
I hope that the final release for FB/PF (whether paid-for or free) will include the D.XXI, CW-21B and F2A-3 which were already announced as flyables.
For now I will not upgrade until the required specs for BoB are definite- probably AMD Socket AM2 dual-core with 3 GB of DDR-2 etc etc as a minimum..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

russ.nl
08-03-2006, 05:09 AM
Originally posted by GerritJ9:
I hope that the final release for FB/PF (whether paid-for or free) will include the D.XXI, CW-21B and F2A-3 which were already announced as flyables.
For now I will not upgrade until the required specs for BoB are definite- probably AMD Socket AM2 dual-core with 3 GB of DDR-2 etc etc as a minimum..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

Hoezee http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

KOM.Nausicaa
08-03-2006, 05:40 AM
By including the possibility to use other weapons like Tanks or Subs, Oleg can open the sim publicwise, bring it out of the niche of the purist flightsim, and attract more customers. Those can on the other hand be attracted to purist flightsimming once they try a couple of planes, a thing they would maybe not have done before.

I think it's a very smart economic decision, and a lot of fun for the team. It will ask for a big effort, but the result can be brilliant.

mynameisroland
08-03-2006, 06:03 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Thanks for the birthday present Ivan.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I want BoB to be a flight sim only any other aspects such as fps or quasi tank sim will dilute the efforts of a small specialist Flight sim developer.If I wanted to drive around in simplistically modelled tanks Id buy another game.

..... and you know they will be simplisticly modelled because....? I say wait and see what is in the pot before you start to turn up your nose at it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Who knows... you might find yourself coming back for seconds and thirds....


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
I'd HOPE and am betting that does not mean you bail out, run over and jump in a tank and drive it......Simply meaning you can order other forces much like AI.......So I'm assuming so FPS people I'd not get my panties in a bunch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
According to what i read... you can do either...or. But cant have both. It will not be BF1942/COD type. You chose the tank, you die with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Even that would be great!!


I too knew that 11/06 was a dream at best..... No worries... I am still happy with what we have... and I think the extra time will just make BoB that much better. I expect better than my imagination with 1C... and so far I havent been disapointed... not really... I would like to see more.. but what we have is great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever played any game/simulator ever that has captured tank driving, ship sailing, infantry manning and aircraft flying all to the same high degree ? If you have please tell me so I can buy it because it must be the best game ever.

My strong doubts arise from the fact that it is next to impossible fiscally and in terms of skill set to create the ultimate WW2 game where you can man everything. Think about the processing power required, if I am driving around in a Sherman tank and there is a dogfight 10,000ft above me featuring 30 aircraft how will my computer cope while at the same time caluculating armoured formations travelling through the same world physics ?

Flight simulations require different physics to make flying believable. If you apply the same ground rules to sea warfare and land warfare do you build seperate base models for lets say a fighter, bomber, tank , destroyer and battleship ? or do you save money and twaek the numbers using an IL2 as the base FM model for every vehicle? Which is cheaper and easier to implement in the short term ...

Then we can consider the problem of game balancing. Unless Oleg decides to model the T34 and Sherman as favourably as he modelled the P39 and Lagg3 there will be serious gamer issues when it requires 5 or more Allied tanks on average to destroy one German Panther. Will they ban Panthers because they are too uber ?

Seriously this is the most ambitous game idea I have yet heard of. This isnt like World of Warcraft where it is a relatively simple game engine this is a game that aspires to REALISTICALLY simulate 3 very different types of warfare each requiring very different research and game models yet each of which would have to co exist in the same game environment on the same server.

Id love the ambition of 1C to be to create the best flight simulation possible and charge me 150 for the game and all of its patches over its 5 year life span than try and make a game that encompasses everything whilst charging me the same 150 for effort split 3 or 4 different ways.

mynameisroland
08-03-2006, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Hi all.

I just would like to point one thing.

For these who afraid that we will go by WWIIOL style of the game - don't worry.
If we only would go for massive multiplay it will be separate game....

So you may get:
1. the flightsim in general, like it was with Il-2 series with single play and online gameplays (in both cases advanced)
2. Massive multiplay game where you may drive aircraft, tanks, vehicles, submarines (including minisubmarines Italian or Japanese http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), etc where the control of the tanks or ships will be simplified (this means you don't need all of the crew in tank and hundres saylors on the ship....)/ However the control of aircraft will be taked from item 1 above.

Item 2 also means that we will jsut control the other team of developers, that will use our engine and models (there is already enough that to begine already now such development).

Thats all what I would like to tell now.

This seems more achievable than a sim which replicates tank driving ect to the same high quality of IL2. If you are looking for simple yet good tank simulation game PanzerFront series on PS and PS2 are good.

stathem
08-03-2006, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:

Have you ever played any game/simulator ever that has captured tank driving, ship sailing, infantry manning and aircraft flying all to the same high degree ? If you have please tell me so I can buy it because it must be the best game ever.



That doesn't mean that an attempt shouldn't be made at some point. One day it will be possible, why not start the planning now.

crazyivan1970
08-03-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Hi all.

I just would like to point one thing.

For these who afraid that we will go by WWIIOL style of the game - don't worry.
If we only would go for massive multiplay it will be separate game....

So you may get:
1. the flightsim in general, like it was with Il-2 series with single play and online gameplays (in both cases advanced)
2. Massive multiplay game where you may drive aircraft, tanks, vehicles, submarines (including minisubmarines Italian or Japanese http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), etc where the control of the tanks or ships will be simplified (this means you don't need all of the crew in tank and hundres saylors on the ship....)/ However the control of aircraft will be taked from item 1 above.

Item 2 also means that we will jsut control the other team of developers, that will use our engine and models (there is already enough that to begine already now such development).

Thats all what I would like to tell now.

Thanks for stopping by and clearing this up Oleg. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crazyivan1970
08-03-2006, 06:55 AM
mynameisroland, with your approach there will never be any progress. Possible or not possible, why not give it a shot.

Bearcat99
08-03-2006, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Have you ever played any game/simulator ever that has captured tank driving, ship sailing, infantry manning and aircraft flying all to the same high degree ? If you have please tell me so I can buy it because it must be the best game ever.

My strong doubts arise from the fact that it is next to impossible fiscally and in terms of skill set to create the ultimate WW2 game where you can man everything. Think about the processing power required, if I am driving around in a Sherman tank and there is a dogfight 10,000ft above me featuring 30 aircraft how will my computer cope while at the same time caluculating armoured formations travelling through the same world physics ?

Flight simulations require different physics to make flying believable. If you apply the same ground rules to sea warfare and land warfare do you build seperate base models for lets say a fighter, bomber, tank , destroyer and battleship ? or do you save money and twaek the numbers using an IL2 as the base FM model for every vehicle? Which is cheaper and easier to implement in the short term ...

Then we can consider the problem of game balancing. Unless Oleg decides to model the T34 and Sherman as favourably as he modelled the P39 and Lagg3 there will be serious gamer issues when it requires 5 or more Allied tanks on average to destroy one German Panther. Will they ban Panthers because they are too uber ?

Seriously this is the most ambitous game idea I have yet heard of. This isnt like World of Warcraft where it is a relatively simple game engine this is a game that aspires to REALISTICALLY simulate 3 very different types of warfare each requiring very different research and game models yet each of which would have to co exist in the same game environment on the same server.

Id love the ambition of 1C to be to create the best flight simulation possible and charge me 150 for the game and all of its patches over its 5 year life span than try and make a game that encompasses everything whilst charging me the same 150 for effort split 3 or 4 different ways.

Well.... I had never flown a flight sim like IL2 either..... until 1C made it and I bought it and flew it.... and my "gaming" took on a whole new dimensiopn of obsession... my point is..... let's wait and see before we start to talk about how good it wont be.....

As a side note... You think we have FM & DM gripes in here now.....LOL.. can you imagine what it wuld be like with ships and tanks.... I can see it now..... "My Sherman is severley undermodelled!!!" "WHAT!!!???? My Tiger shouldnt even take damage from .050 cal rounds!!" and of course..... "Oh yeah... How come the Russian tanks are modelled so tough!!!! BIAS!! BIAS!!!!" LMAO...... That alone may put the kIbosh on the idea.....LOLOLOLOL


seriously though......

I think if anyone can pull this off and do it with quality modelling.. not just arcade style "play" but a close representation of simulation 1C can.... I'll be enjoying what I have now untill the next phase of combat simulation begins.... and I have no doubt that just as 1C revolutionized the flight sim industry with the original IL2 and then FB..... they will do the same for any venue they go into.... and I will hold that view until they prove otherwise.

I see your point though about how to accurately track all tat action from the various parts of the sim at once..... yes it is a daunting task.. but like I said.. I have seen enough innovation in this series from IL2 to now to know that if anyone can do it..... 1C can.

joeap
08-03-2006, 07:09 AM
Bearcat, you the FANMAN dude. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

csThor
08-03-2006, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
With all due respect Thor, nowhere in my post i suggested that ww2online was the game model we need. You decided not to play it based on reviews, i played it for a year. And if it wasnt for IL2, it could have been longer. It`s not about how they modelled it, it`s about concept. And concept was great. You never experianced combined attacks of the airforce and tanks, infantry and artillery, all human operated with 900+ people on the server. It`s hard to describe unless you are really there. I understand your worries about whether Maddox will be able to pull this off or not, whether publisher will support him or not. If UBI decides that they are interested and this approach could be the right thing to do, why not? If they are interestedm they pay for it and that will solve both things that you meation as unlikely and impossible. Money do wonderful things Thor. It just a matter of having it. Maddox in his interview made it pretty clear... "IF" publisher will support it. I guess we have nothing to worry about then, do we?

I know about the "IF", Ivan, but even that makes my stomach churn. I have stopped counting how many suggestions for improvements or corrections have been met with "Sorry, no time" responses from Maddox Games. Do you honestly think they could pull through such a project without running out of manpower/money/time when they already had problems to work on the Il-2 codebase?

Secondly I dare to say that your outlook on such a gameplay is kinda "optimistic" (to say the truth). Remember the long threads about "No Pay-to-Play for me"? And what would such a game be? Exactly - Pay-to-Play. IMO there are way less people willing and able to go this route so I'd be very careful to make any assumptions about a potential customer base. And even if MG pulled it off - they would still have to compete with WW2 Online (and in a certain way AcesHigh and Warbirds).

To me it's simply a too great risk for Maddox Games to take, a chase for the holy grail of combat simulations. Since there is currently no other competitor (which managed to capture my interest with its products, that is), I'd rather see Maddox Games not join the ranks of Microprose or Sierra which have ceased to exist years ago.

Von_Rat
08-03-2006, 08:29 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:

With all due respect, Ivan - WW2 Online is the reason to let such plans drop like a hot potatoe. The Rats and Maddox Games are comparable in team size and to this date I have not heard about a major improvement in the flight modelling department in WW2 Online. When was the release of said game? Run that by me again ...
I had high hopes for WW2 Online, but was so utterly disappointed that I never touched it after a quick look at the various boards and reviews. As a whole this project was just way too much for the Rats and I firmly believe such a project would suck out Maddox Games's ressources like a vampire. An "Allround Simulation" is kinda a perpetuum mobile as it has to model air combat, infantry combat, tank combat and ship combat accurately. But this does need manpower, money and time - and in the software business those are the rarest things. I simply think Oleg's imagination has gone a bit overboard - I still don't think his team would be able to manage such a project unless they tripled their size and got more money. Either seems unlikely or impossible.

With all due respect Thor, nowhere in my post i suggested that ww2online was the game model we need. You decided not to play it based on reviews, i played it for a year. And if it wasnt for IL2, it could have been longer. It`s not about how they modelled it, it`s about concept. And concept was great. You never experianced combined attacks of the airforce and tanks, infantry and artillery, all human operated with 900+ people on the server. It`s hard to describe unless you are really there. I understand your worries about whether Maddox will be able to pull this off or not, whether publisher will support him or not. If UBI decides that they are interested and this approach could be the right thing to do, why not? If they are interestedm they pay for it and that will solve both things that you meation as unlikely and impossible. Money do wonderful things Thor. It just a matter of having it. Maddox in his interview made it pretty clear... "IF" publisher will support it. I guess we have nothing to worry about then, do we? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ive been playing ww2online for years, i still play, it was my 1st flight sim. but ever since i discovered il2 fb about 2 years ago, ive been dreaming of oleg doing somthing with the same concept.

the rats team is also very small, and they don't have a big time publisher like ubi behind them.

ww2online is a good game, but the flight models are a joke, and they have been stuck in the battle of france since they started. the main reasons for that are lack of money, and resources to develop ww2ol to its true potential. if oleg can get the resources to do the job the way he has indicated, i believe he'll be able create a game that imo will be second to none.

imo theres a large number of current and ex ww2ol players who would jump to a combined arms game done to olegs hi standard.

CRO_Adriatic
08-03-2006, 09:54 AM
"If we get support from the publisher, we are ready to release MMO simulator based on BOB, where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also tanks, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim."

100% support from me. I hope there is more people thinking like me. I will stay pilot, and it will be nice to have people down there.


"We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect.. "

Yes yes yes orgazammmmmm


No mather whan, just do it right Oleg, I will wait.

Immermann
08-03-2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:

Aviaforum: what is the progress of BOB, what stage is it on. When can we get screenshots, videos, ect€¦.?

O.M. Not this year.



Good news, now I don't have to check in here before christmas.

Maj_Solo
08-03-2006, 10:43 AM
Big error not to be able to convert .ntrk to .avi, it was a tool Oleg spoke of before and now seems to have dropped.

Talk to Eagle Dynamics Oleg! A simple crude way to create .AVI files! The simulation allready have speed control I assume. LockOn just drops down the speed to close to 1 FPS and just ripps the frames out of the framebuffer and shuve them into a CODEC.

This will not take them long to implement. 2 weeks tops. Ask around make some calls ... gather information ..... 2 weeks tops 1 man.

And we be guarranteed to be able to render movies using ALL and EVERYTHING he have made for the sim checked. Something only a rediculously expensive system will be able to do when BOB is released.

Big mistake Oleg.....

------

About stopping cheaters. 100% proof it cannot be. If someone hacked the sim they can recode it and have it cheat and lie to the server.

But I have been thinking of how to protect from ordinary data table cheaters. And that involves having the critical part of the FM in libraries which the sim rolls over to create a checksum and all pariticipating computers check that they have the same checksum. If a skew between versions and setups is allowed then a list of checksums is sent checsumming each aircraft FM instead.

If the isolated FM code is small enough it can be instead downloaded from the host. Client says "my version of WOW is supposed to have these three aircraft flyable. And server sends FMs for those three". This is done during connection.

-----

Still sorry no AVI tool being developed, hope I have misunderstood.

Bearcat99
08-03-2006, 10:49 AM
Now I can save a bit more for my upgrade..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

crazyivan1970
08-03-2006, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by csThor:

I know about the "IF", Ivan, but even that makes my stomach churn. I have stopped counting how many suggestions for improvements or corrections have been met with "Sorry, no time" responses from Maddox Games. Do you honestly think they could pull through such a project without running out of manpower/money/time when they already had problems to work on the Il-2 codebase?



Thor mate, did you read Olegs reply? About SOW and this comined sim being two different sims and some other company doing ground part under control of Maddox?



Secondly I dare to say that your outlook on such a gameplay is kinda "optimistic" (to say the truth). Remember the long threads about "No Pay-to-Play for me"? And what would such a game be? Exactly - Pay-to-Play. IMO there are way less people willing and able to go this route so I'd be very careful to make any assumptions about a potential customer base. And even if MG pulled it off - they would still have to compete with WW2 Online (and in a certain way AcesHigh and Warbirds).


Once again Thor, i am not saying that ww2online is the way it should be done. I am talking about concepts, such as human operated ground forces and NOT about pay per play, etc. Why are you keep dragging me back there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif



To me it's simply a too great risk for Maddox Games to take, a chase for the holy grail of combat simulations. Since there is currently no other competitor (which managed to capture my interest with its products, that is), I'd rather see Maddox Games not join the ranks of Microprose or Sierra which have ceased to exist years ago.

I guess antill he tries will never find out whether him and his crew is capable of such project or not...which brings us back to big "IF" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Miki40
08-03-2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Hi all.

I just would like to point one thing.

For these who afraid that we will go by WWIIOL style of the game - don't worry.
If we only would go for massive multiplay it will be separate game....

So you may get:
1. the flightsim in general, like it was with Il-2 series with single play and online gameplays (in both cases advanced)
2. Massive multiplay game where you may drive aircraft, tanks, vehicles, submarines (including minisubmarines Italian or Japanese http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), etc where the control of the tanks or ships will be simplified (this means you don't need all of the crew in tank and hundres saylors on the ship....)/ However the control of aircraft will be taked from item 1 above.

Item 2 also means that we will jsut control the other team of developers, that will use our engine and models (there is already enough that to begine already now such development).

Thats all what I would like to tell now.

Can you please comment on the release day discrepancies between the Ubi press release and your response: "Not this year"!

F6_Ace
08-03-2006, 11:15 AM
Here's a direct question, Ivan - will it be pay per play?

Yes or no?

crazyivan1970
08-03-2006, 11:18 AM
It`s a good question Ace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I doubt that anyone will have answer now. First "IF" part has to be taken care of, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
08-03-2006, 11:28 AM
You'd think an MMOG version would have to be subscriptive. That means a constant inflow of money for constant improvement---something required in a MMOG.

While I have no problem with the idea, and combined arms game like ww2ol, they have to include infantry as the primary unit, everythign needs to model infantry interactions properly FIRST. WW2OL fails this, IMO. It plays like an equipment game with infantry added. I'd expect in any game based on BoB that a player might control a unit of infantry like a Platoon, it's the only way to see proper amounts of infantry.

BTW, I'm a pre-day one player at ww2ol, and was a WB player back when it was $2/hr and I ran up multi hundred dollar a month bills every month.

tater

Tater-SW-
08-03-2006, 11:32 AM
I'd think the most important wind effect to add would be wake turbulence.

tater

Brain32
08-03-2006, 11:36 AM
Most important is our brand new FW190A Jager http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

F6_Ace
08-03-2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
It`s a good question Ace http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I doubt that anyone will have answer now.

So, that's a yes then http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


First "IF" part has to be taken care of, right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Indeed!

WWMaxGunz
08-03-2006, 12:00 PM
Big MMOG will require heavy server with mondo bandwidth, not just best PC and broadband.
It will need real money to operate including pay for full-time staff as once something
goes pay to play there must be attendants to stave off and handle problems immediately.

As for turning tracks to AVI it is as simple as TV-out videocard and a recorder. To have
TV-in on videocard or seperate capture card is bonus for editing. None of that is super
expensive... I am sure by having but I learned the bad way never hook up TV-out while there
is power on at either end. My next videocard however, I will remember. This one no longer
has TV-out in color.

WWMaxGunz
08-03-2006, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Waldo.Pepper:
Also Oleg's comment on RADAR did not impress me yet. I would hope that the British CH stations would be ineffective if the Germans came over above 20000 feet (as it was), and I would hope that it became ineffective if the raid was low enough.

Both these cases were rare as these limitations were not widely known to the Germans during the battle. But still I would like to see it properly modelled.

As long as the people with binoculars and listening horns are also modelled then.
The radar will pick up massed planes on high at a distance. It's an angle thing.
Consider the origins of radar was spotting clouds as science/tech and speculated
as a way to predict weather patterns as done since, just later since.

Maj_Solo
08-03-2006, 12:16 PM
yes but you can not go past your systems max ability. In LockOn I can go max on the graphics, dictate what resolution I want to record at, and dictate the FPS to be used. So if I wanted I could render a movie at

1600x1200 pixels with max graphics and a FPS of, well I just make one up, 378 FPS. System spec is irrelevant. It is the other way around, you study the CODEC and international standards instead, and read what certain formats should have and then you render.

I like it so much because this gives the ability for everyone to render movies. They don't have to buy a special card, or waste hundreds of dollars on the most expensive. I know the HW can be considered cheap these days but there will always be the poor little boy somewhere who don't have that last $400 to get the top pf the line CPU and card and MOBO and memory da da da da daa.

Same with TIR, also a device that costs money. Why not a good padlock system instead, makes more sense to me.

No, a renderer would be good, not cost to much for Oleg to do, and it will benefit anyone who want to make BIG movies and perhaps convert to MPEG2 and burn to DVD. For distribution over Internet one need to move to MPEG4. HDTV quality is then possible. A few minutes is possible at around 100MB.

I don't mean Oleg should build anything to help with video post-production. Just to be able to render that's all.

MEGILE
08-03-2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I dont see a reason for having doubts that all around simulation might succeed. There are few other companies or programmers that could probably get under 1C`s wing and participate in the project. They can deliver performance charts, specs, 3d models, etc. Why not? Nowhere in his interview Maddox said that his crew will handle the load. All he said that engine is capable of such simulation. And by publishers support he means not just "OK" - do it, he more likely meant financial aspects. Where mode human resources could get invlolved in development and for other expences, such as documents, blue prints...etc. This could be a real winner. And grow beyond flight combat sim market. And everyone will only benefit from it IMO.

p.s.

Those who played WW2Online might agree or disagree with me€¦.but, that was THE BEST, hands down experience online ever. It wasn€t a simulation, no, but had some elements of simulation in it. No game/sim comes even close, at least to me. If Maddox brings something like this to the table, but with a lot more elements of simulation€¦. Man, I might just get divorced after all heeh.


agreeeeeeeeee 100001%

I'm passed caring about the minute details of accuracy which gets posted on these forums day after day... I'm after an authentic feel, and good tactical game play.

If Oleg can do a WW2 sim... more power to the man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
If the FW-190 turns out to be 5% too slow... we will have to find a way to get over it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

stathem
08-03-2006, 12:21 PM
I entirley fail to see the problem with pay-to-play:

It looks like there will be a flight sim you can fly offline for free (after purchase):

The same flight sim you can fly online for free as we do now with Il2:

A separate MMO you may have to pay to play. Can anyone really expect to play an MMO with all the server resources and bandwidth that that requires for free? Those that fly a lot on dedicated servers now already do and should contribute (on an ad hoc basis) to server costs.

F6_Ace
08-03-2006, 12:38 PM
One problem with pay per play is that you don't have to do it now.

The second issue is that if you do choose to pay, you are providing fellow enthusiasts with enough money to keep the servers running as opposed to lining the pockets of greedy suits and their equally greedy shareholders.

stathem
08-03-2006, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by F6_Ace:
One problem with pay per play is that you don't have to do it now.

Well I don't currently play a high fidelity MMO simulating 4-d WW2 scenarios, so that's no surprise. And if I don't choose to in the future, then it looks like I could still flight sim without having to pay.


Originally posted by F6_Ace:
The second issue is that if you do choose to pay, you are providing fellow enthusiasts with enough money to keep the servers running as opposed to lining the pockets of greedy suits and their equally greedy shareholders.

I would be very lucky if the only suits and shareholders I had to worry about were gaming industy ones. They are last on the list.

Personally I think you're just scaremongering for devilment F6_Ace.

carguy_
08-03-2006, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by Brain32:
Most important is our brand new FW190A Jager http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Don`t hold your breath.Oleg never stated he was wrong about the Wurger,so we might just have the same POS in BoB.


Other than that,I`m glad Oleg cleared up the issue with WWIIOL type of game.Been there,done that,it stinks.It`s too early,ppl have too weak PCs,MG is not Microsoft.100%concentration on aerial DM/FM,full support for "fixes" we have now.If ppl want to play this **** it`s ok with me as long as they don`t touch my state of the art WWII flight simulator.

F6_Ace
08-03-2006, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by stathem:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by F6_Ace:
One problem with pay per play is that you don't have to do it now.

Well I don't currently play a high fidelity MMO simulating 4-d WW2 scenarios, so that's no surprise. And if I don't choose to in the future, then it looks like I could still flight sim without having to pay.


Originally posted by F6_Ace:
The second issue is that if you do choose to pay, you are providing fellow enthusiasts with enough money to keep the servers running as opposed to lining the pockets of greedy suits and their equally greedy shareholders.

I would be very lucky if the only suits and shareholders I had to worry about were gaming industy ones. They are last on the list.

Personally I think you're just scaremongering for devilment F6_Ace. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you could flight sim..but not necessarily online which is, after all, where the interesting things happen.

I also object to any suits/shareholders trying to squeeze a few extra quid out of me here and there...it all adds up, after all.

Whether you think I am scaremongering is completely irrelevant. *I* just want to know if *I'm* going to have to pay suits to play something I don't have to pay for at the moment.

stathem
08-03-2006, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Hi all.

I just would like to point one thing.

For these who afraid that we will go by WWIIOL style of the game - don't worry.
If we only would go for massive multiplay it will be separate game....

So you may get:
1. the flightsim in general, like it was with Il-2 series with single play and online gameplays (in both cases advanced)
2. Massive multiplay game where you may drive aircraft, tanks, vehicles, submarines (including minisubmarines Italian or Japanese http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), etc where the control of the tanks or ships will be simplified (this means you don't need all of the crew in tank and hundres saylors on the ship....)/ However the control of aircraft will be taked from item 1 above.

Item 2 also means that we will jsut control the other team of developers, that will use our engine and models (there is already enough that to begine already now such development).

Thats all what I would like to tell now.

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


Originally posted by F6_Ace:
Yes, you could flight sim..but not necessarily online which is, after all, where the interesting things happen.

Which part of Items 1 and 2 are you struggling with?

F6_Ace
08-03-2006, 02:15 PM
Ahem....you seem to read and/or understand selectively.

Ivan has not ruled out pay per play nor does your "1" say that online gameplay will be free which is, after all, what I was talking about. In fact, Oleg actually says, 'you may get...'

On the basis that we were *supposed* to get BoB by the end of the year, I'll take a lot of what was said with a pinch of salt if you don't mind http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So, you may be right or I may be right. If *you* think you are right and I am wrong, then you must either have a crystal ball or be on the marketing team.

In which case, I'm not wrong http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

crazyivan1970
08-03-2006, 02:46 PM
Woawoa.... Ace, hold it right there buddy http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ivan is JUST forum moderator, so.... leave Ivan alone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Whatever Ivan says is his opinion and it does not indicated anything heeh.

Tater-SW-
08-03-2006, 03:08 PM
I would not parse Oleg's words in english too finely. The conditional nature of "may" might well have been lost in translation. I think we've all seen the odd turn of phrase that was misinterpreted because Oleg doesn't speak english like a native (though he does considerably better than 99.99999% of us would do in Russian).

tater

F6_Ace
08-03-2006, 03:09 PM
Ya, I know squire. But you didn't rule it out...nor did you say it would be that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

So, you haven't really done anything wrong, have you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

shinden1974
08-03-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Hi all.

I just would like to point one thing.

For these who afraid that we will go by WWIIOL style of the game - don't worry.
If we only would go for massive multiplay it will be separate game....

So you may get:
1. the flightsim in general, like it was with Il-2 series with single play and online gameplays (in both cases advanced)
2. Massive multiplay game where you may drive aircraft, tanks, vehicles, submarines (including minisubmarines Italian or Japanese http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif), etc where the control of the tanks or ships will be simplified (this means you don't need all of the crew in tank and hundres saylors on the ship....)/ However the control of aircraft will be taked from item 1 above.

Item 2 also means that we will jsut control the other team of developers, that will use our engine and models (there is already enough that to begine already now such development).

Thats all what I would like to tell now.

M-M-Minisubs?!...well, may have to rethink that "I ain't gonna buy it!" line...good job exposing me as a pathetic fanboi.

klemlao
08-03-2006, 03:22 PM
ummmm just one thing....

What happens when we load up BoB, hammer each other to death and the Germans, well, sort of.... 'win'.

Won't they need barges? And paratroops? How else do they 'win' the Battle of Britain? How else does Sealion succeed?

Yes, of course I'm joking. I just think the speculation's getting a bit ahead of itself.

My main interest is in as realistic an air combat simulation (including Bombers etc) as possible. That means as accurate as possible FMs, DM effects, armament etc., which are already pretty good (someone gag the purist in the corner, we know what you're going to say and hopefully O.M. is always working on it).

Some simple manned ground vehicles/AAA to add to the experience would be welcome though and a bit of fun. Like the simple AAA and tanks in Aces High.

The current FB AI ground stuff is hardly ever used to determine a result. Kill enough and you win, yes, but seldom 'if they kill eachother you win/lose, so you'd better stop them', i.e. there's rarely a serious ground attack objective. So I doubt if accurate realistic ground vehicles would be of too much interest to we, mostly, fly-boys. Same with the troops. I want a stick in my hand, not a muddy rifle. And a PC that doesn't call for a cooling tower!

But maybe one day.....

Tater-SW-
08-03-2006, 03:35 PM
The purpose of a well done MMOG would be to provide a context for military operations. Poorly done, it's arena play with many unit types. Well done, it could be like the best of coop play in il-2, a Scorched Earth in real time. It's rarely the latter, however, and usually the former in my experience.

Real operations are not constant enough for online gamers. Add in the different speeds and time in combat for the various units, and problems pop up.

Ie: Planes are fast, but fly few sorties a day. If the MMOG combat day has a full day for the ground players in tanks and with infantry, the aircraft either need to be hugely limited in operations, or they will be out of all proportion with reality. Given that in a game players can chose what to play, the same is true. Instead of thousands of infantry walking around for every vehicle, you are luck if there is 1 player using inf for every tank, that sort of thing.

tater

MM-Zorin
08-03-2006, 04:22 PM
If there will be a third party Maddox want to pass Il2 on to, they MUST give them the other Ju88 models they have been given together with the A-4 we have in game. They have withhold us the fighter versions, the torpedo bomber and one or two other versions, which have the same setup as our A4, so there is no reason at all been given not to release them.

http://www.ju88.equitatura.de/ju88a4early.htm

Capt.LoneRanger
08-03-2006, 04:46 PM
Well, okay, I understand this sense of "hey, a complete wargame would be cool"-thing. I played OperationFlashpoint, too, and a lot of other games that were a bit more arcadish, like the Battlefield-Series.

Honestly speaking: I'm *GLAD* this is not what Oleg is aiming for. There is no way to build a highly detailed simulation, even of the level of IL2, which is almost 7 years old, and apply this level of detail to all possible branches and vehicles. Not even daring to speak of the detail level that was promised for BoB.
Even disregarding problems with map sizes, involved armies and equipment, travelling times to targets etc, there is no way of creating such a game and pleasing the tank-simmer, the soldier and the pilot the same way. Just consider the pure size of something that includes Red Orchestra on a map from Normandie to London, Silent Hunter3, IL2, DestroyerCommand and FireOnBalcans-TankSim.

Trust me, if you try to combine it, you get Flashpoint ***AT BEST***

triad773
08-03-2006, 05:46 PM
You know, funny thing: I do not know if this had been postulated before: on another thread there is this video:
http://files.games.1c.ru/ww2rts/files/movies/ss2fun_rus_vmw.avi

Perhaps it is a 'proof of concept?'

Here is the original thread:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/395...861011964#2861011964 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/3951099864?r=2861011964#2861011964)

What do you think?

Bandit.426Cdn
08-03-2006, 05:46 PM
On one hand, I can't help but be sceptical. First of all, BOB:SOW turns out to have a wildly forcast ship date, by Oleg's own words .. how is this sort of miscommunication/continued misrepresentation in promoting the product by UBI possible?

I can't help but remember another interview, during development of Pacific Fighters. Comments about possibilities of and for working aircraft carrier elevators and catapults come to mind.

AFAIK it's all marketing hype until they physical product enters the CD-Tray, when it comes to product promoting statements from UBI/1IC/OM. Sorry, but to trust otherwise, you are niave.

That all said, a limited ability to control existing ground objects (ie tanks, jeeps, artillery, LMG-HMG's emplacements, whatever, would be as cool as all heck. I don't support controlling battleships, cruisers, tank squadrons, whatever... thats entering "BF1942" territory. Keep it limited, keep it simple, and keep it primarily oriented to a combat flight sim. This sort of expansion on the sim could even have been implimented in IL2. There has been enough land warfare sims inside the 1IC umbrella, that Oleg could easily have collaborated with them, to get pre-existing, technically accurate internal models of weaponry already in existance in the IL2 sim as ground objects.

I don't think there is anyone out there, where the thought of expansion of the IL2 type sim to include a ground element in online play is very appealing. Bored of flying any particular evening? Still want to do something online with your mates, but different? Login, fire up the sim, and plan out with your mates a ground attack strike on the enemy airbase of operations. Your very own little Virtual Rat Patrol. It's up to other online players to pay attention to the player list as to who is flying (or driving) what, and plan strategies to protect themselves accordingly. Whether in an air-based reconnaisance and ground strike against the Rat Patrol, or a ground based counter-attack in period vehicles.

slipBall
08-03-2006, 06:05 PM
Aviaforum: How different are physical aspects of the flight model between BOB and IL-2. Will model be completely new or just improved and corrected IL-2 model? Are you planning to model wind?

O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality, so you can correct all you want, general feeling will not change. Simply we`ll add more details. Engine of BOB has nothing in common with engine of IL-2, it`s even written in the different language. We are modeling that only wind, but many other things, for example: thermal up-streams and different cloud effect..



If Oleg really want's perfection, the flight model could use a little tweaking

russ.nl
08-03-2006, 06:15 PM
It really is a zoo! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

crazyivan1970
08-03-2006, 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Trust me, if you try to combine it, you get Flashpoint ***AT BEST***


Trust you.... why?

csThor
08-03-2006, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Thor mate, did you read Olegs reply? About SOW and this comined sim being two different sims and some other company doing ground part under control of Maddox?


Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Once again Thor, i am not saying that ww2online is the way it should be done. I am talking about concepts, such as human operated ground forces and NOT about pay per play, etc. Why are you keep dragging me back there http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Come on, Ivan. You can't be that naive! Even a cooperation with other companies would require Maddox Games to have an eye on them and their work - and that takes time (for checking their stuff, for discussions etc pp), time that would be missing for Maddox Games's internal dealings. And secondly Massive Multiplayer games require a 24/7/52/365 server and are pay-to-play to cover the server costs first and foremost.

Has this "announcement" made you giddy with anticipation or why are you refusing to accept the very real problems (or even dangers) of tackling such a project? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

crazyivan1970
08-03-2006, 09:52 PM
Dont get personal with me Thor, i am not naive i just know bit more then you do on the subject. I rest my case here.

Feathered_IV
08-03-2006, 11:05 PM
All this speculation is about twelve months too early. No need to go crazy about it yet.

justiceboy
08-03-2006, 11:30 PM
Way too much speculation on everyone's part.
I for one would love to have both aspects a flight sim that would allow for servers in HL that wouldn't cost anything. And if it takes a pay to play for the complete package, I would pay, and i'm cheap.
I think 1c is doing a great job and like I have said so many times before. Video games have come a long way and I appreciate all the hard work.

Everyone forgets that it isn't cheap or easy to develope games like this and if you think it is, then get after it.

This is not a Kiss A post it is a thank you.

So for ALL the video game makers out there that have given me thousands of hours of enjoyment,
I Say Thank you, and I look forward to all the new stuff coming down the pipe. Keep up the good work.
Salute!

Maj_Solo
08-04-2006, 01:13 AM
The ground forces can be driving around down there controled by AI. And you can look on a situation map and jump into a tank that looks like it will see action soon.

There would be a popup window attached to the units where you can check their orders. Their waypoint times and TOT so you can select a good tank to jump into.

I can see a joint air and ground attack. You fly in, you bomb, maybe you land your plane, but then you can jump into those tanks you were helping.

As long as the player can jump into units the speeds of the units isn't that important, the player can find plenty action fast.

csThor
08-04-2006, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Dont get personal with me Thor, i am not naive i just know bit more then you do on the subject. I rest my case here.

You know nothing about me or my experiences with MMP Gaming (so making assumptions about what I might know or not know is highly speculative http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ), but I agree to rest the case. Right now it's speculation - not more than fog and mist on an autumn morning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

darelc
08-04-2006, 02:55 AM
I think BoB is gonna be great.

I am not to sure about how UBI will fondle with it and misrelease it though with overbearing copy protection that will just serve to annoy the paying customers whilst the crackers just go ahead and do their merry thing. I don't want 'pay to play' and online steam like licenses. I want a cold hard DVD in my hands that I can do what I like with. Charge a reasonable price and they will shift enough units to make a profit.

As for this MMO discussion, it will only make the game better I think, Listen to Oleg, he is saying that it won't impact on the normal IL2 like flight sim as it will probably be a separate team working on the other vechicles. IL2 was 95% of the way there with MMO and multi vehicle, all the parts are in place. Multi-vechicle nearly works in BF2 (although the maps are far too small and DM/FM too basic) I really think the BoB boys can pull it off taking into account the worlds best aircraft DM/FM they have today.

It is going to be a long hard wait for BoB though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif They are going to really need to drip feed us some more information atleast (if not screen shots and movies that we want). Just technical bulletins, something, anything so we know that the progress is good.

Build it and they will come http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KOM.Nausicaa
08-04-2006, 08:04 AM
Oleg gives some small hints about what his dreams are, and look what waves it produces.
Christ, let the man work. You'll get your super combat flight sim. The other one is an idea, nothing more. Sit back and relax http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif...and show a bit of believe in him. Maybe then he would come more often to this forum and even get some pleasure back of giving insights in his projects.

crazyivan1970
08-04-2006, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Dont get personal with me Thor, i am not naive i just know bit more then you do on the subject. I rest my case here.

You know nothing about me or my experiences with MMP Gaming (so making assumptions about what I might know or not know is highly speculative http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif ), but I agree to rest the case. Right now it's speculation - not more than fog and mist on an autumn morning http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually i was talking about SoW, NOT your experiances in MMP Gaming. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

csThor
08-04-2006, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Actually i was talking about SoW, NOT your experiances in MMP Gaming. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Oh, Ivan, there you were speculating, too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tater-SW-
08-04-2006, 09:01 AM
The most interesting aspect of the possibility of player controlled non-aircraft units is that their DMs would have to be on par with aircraft DMs instead of the hitpoint system they seem to have now. THAT would be interesting, even just in the flight sim.

Imagine ships with DMs that didn't suck. Vehicles that would get shot up and break down, catch fire, etc instead of taking X hits and becoming a wreck.

tater

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-04-2006, 09:01 AM
Personally, I could care less about driving around in a tank or armored car in a flight-sim. On the other hand I would love to be able to man some sort of airbase AA to quell a base-attack instead of A) trying to scramble and repel B) spawning in a bomber and using a top turret or something similar.

That's just me...


TB

kikka-01
08-04-2006, 09:41 AM
Dang, that proof of concept avi was pretty darn kewl! Did you see the way the tracks moved on the Tiger I.

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

Sintubin
08-04-2006, 11:05 AM
O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality,

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

Bye bye FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

HuninMunin
08-04-2006, 11:28 AM
He is quoted :Feel of flying [...] general feeling will not change.

I don't think he says that the FM isn't going to be
greatly improved.
What he says ( i think) is, that it won't feel different to steer the aircraft in the new FM.
It won't be a difference of feel like, say FAP and CFS 3.
SoW will feel like FAP, but won't carry the flaws of the engine.

russ.nl
08-04-2006, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality,

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

Bye bye FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

I've seen more of these kinds of posts but I don't understand what the problem is. I find the physics very good in this game. Infact I find that there is nothing better on the market that makes you feel like you are flying. And didn't 40 pilots beta test 4.02? That should tell you something.

JG53Harti
08-04-2006, 12:26 PM
of course the CEM needs a improvement. Now you can put the throttle to full and a prop-pitch of 100 and have fun all the time. The most important part now, is to find the correct altitude for the next stage of the charger.
if you read some combatmanuals for the planes i think you know what i mean.

knightflyte
08-04-2006, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by darelc:
I think BoB is gonna be great.

I am not to sure about how UBI will fondle with it and misrelease http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I'm Bob, and I don't want UBI fondling me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

triad773
08-04-2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by knightflyte:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by darelc:
I think BoB is gonna be great.

I am not to sure about how UBI will fondle with it and misrelease http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


I'm Bob, and I don't want UBI fondling me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

joeap
08-04-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
O.M.: Feel of the flying will not change much. We think that in IL-2 physics are close to reality,

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

Bye bye FW190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/353.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

How many planes have you flown? Feel is very subjective, especially in a PC sim with no physical feedback.

Destroyer110
08-04-2006, 07:45 PM
I think UBI/Oleg need to pinpoint what market they are after with SOW? Kids would probably love lots of swapping seats, fire-fights, explosions etc, without the need for much depth while purists would want SOW to be only a WWII flight sim with great depth and a super-uber campaign editor (ok, maybe a bit simplistic)

We know SOW will have realistic graphics with detailed models so it should be a great new experience but I still feel IL-2 strength is in it's quality and depth, and it's audience is the older, purists WWII devotee. Ok these people are far lesser in number but they can pay alot more! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I can see UBI wanting the biggest audience they can get, trying to satisfy both sectors .. hopefully they can do both but I'm worried the game will lose its depth and quality just to broaden it's appeal.

PS, I still think the new game should be called "Invasion Britain" with the box cover picture showing the Queen and Winston Churchill bowing down to Adolph Hitler, sitting on the throne in Buckingham palace.

Von_Rat
08-05-2006, 01:42 AM
cough,,,, didnt britain have a king then, the currant queens father.

Viper2005_
08-05-2006, 01:53 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_George_VI

WWMaxGunz
08-05-2006, 05:37 AM
Originally posted by Destroyer110:
PS, I still think the new game should be called "Invasion Britain" with the box cover picture showing the Queen and Winston Churchill bowing down to Adolph Hitler, sitting on the throne in Buckingham palace.

That would be for CFS or TW... revisionist reality games, users decide the models.

Reality is Hitler kissing Churchill's butt, and then Stalin's butt, and Patton's, then
back to Stalin before taking his lead sleeping pill.

klemlao
08-05-2006, 05:51 AM
There was only one throne Adolph Hitler ever sat on - providing Fatty wasn't already on it.

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

Capt.LoneRanger
08-05-2006, 02:50 PM
crazyivan1970 wrote:


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Trust me, if you try to combine it, you get Flashpoint ***AT BEST***


Trust you.... why?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why? - Easy: Please, name *a single* sim that at least covers 2 of the available branches in a sim-worthy manner?

joeap
08-05-2006, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
crazyivan1970 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Trust me, if you try to combine it, you get Flashpoint ***AT BEST***


Trust you.... why?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Why? - Easy: Please, name *a single* sim that at least covers 2 of the available branches in a sim-worthy manner? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, Silent Hunter III, subs good, ships alright, planes funny. FB merged, planes good, ships simple. Nope neither. Dangerous Waters, subs and ships ok, planes and helicopters can be flown by menu commands http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif By gosh you are right. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

GR142-Pipper
08-06-2006, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I want BoB to be a flight sim only any other aspects such as fps or quasi tank sim will dilute the efforts of a small specialist Flight sim developer.If I wanted to drive around in simplistically modelled tanks Id buy another game. Agreed. It's a universal truism that when companies stray from their expertise, the product always seems to decline. It's a small company and it's critical that they stay focused.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-06-2006, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I guess antill he tries will never find out whether him and his crew is capable of such project or not...which brings us back to big "IF" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Respectfully, I think I'd rather find out if he and his crew are capable of developing much better flight/damage/weapons models in the existing aircraft in THIS game before embarking on a project which is exponentially larger in magnitude. I thought that was what BoB was all about. Is the (strategic) story now changing somewhat?

GR142-Pipper

Capt.LoneRanger
08-06-2006, 01:54 PM
Well, don't get me wrong. I surely would like such a game (It was planned since the first release of Falcon, btw.), but the ideas and hopes posted here are probably far beyond anything that todays computers are capable of coping with, not even to mention the necessary physics, graphics and interface-systems or even gameplay-Problems with vehicles running from 600 to 6 kph on the same battlefield.

Faced with these points in mind, I'd rather like to see am extremely detailed sim, maybe like BlackShark for LOMAC, than having a Flightsim that tries to be something else, too.

heywooood
08-06-2006, 02:06 PM
sounds to me like there will be the option for those who want it - to either fly BoB offline or online as it is now or....online in total war servers complete with players controlling tanks, artillery, ships and airplanes if they so chose.

hmmmm more choices?...oh yes thats something to fear alright, now I understand the panic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The BoB code doesn't need to change or be any different or more complex for that last option - Oleg just has to allow for his program to work with the others in those servers. Or is that a big deal?...

Chuck_Older
08-06-2006, 03:03 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif heywooood~

Oleg's post clearly states that there could be a sim *based* on BoB that will allow tanks, etc to be player controlled, not that BoB would be that sim

"OM: New engine allows to organize combined are for many players. If we get support from the publisher, we are ready to release MMO simulator <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">based on BOB,</span> where not only planes will be controlled by the players, but also tanks, cars, vessels, submarines, basically all elements of warfare that are present in the sim."

Destroyer110
08-06-2006, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Destroyer110:
PS, I still think the new game should be called "Invasion Britain" with the box cover picture showing the Queen and Winston Churchill bowing down to Adolph Hitler, sitting on the throne in Buckingham palace.

That would be for CFS or TW... revisionist reality games, users decide the models.

Reality is Hitler kissing Churchill's butt, and then Stalin's butt, and Patton's, then
back to Stalin before taking his lead sleeping pill. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Yer, but wouldn't it be a great selling point! The King and Whinny groveling at the feet of the Bavarian Boy .. might even get media coverage?


PS, I know hilter wasn't originally from Bavaria .. for all the ..

Viper2005_
08-06-2006, 04:44 PM
Destroyer110, I think that concept is singularly implausible. If there was a really serious risk of a successful German invasion, the Royal Familly would most likely have been evacuated to Canada along with the Governement.

In all probability, had Hitler won the BoB, England would have been run as a separate puppet state, much like Vichy France.

DuxCorvan
08-06-2006, 05:21 PM
I hope Oleg don't embark in a too ambitious project. Having all air war scenarios well represented is a huge challenge itself. Expanding to tanks, ships, etc, seems a bit megalomaniac, given his human and economical resources, IMHO.

Bearcat99
08-06-2006, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Destroyer110:
PS, I still think the new game should be called "Invasion Britain" with the box cover picture showing the Queen and Winston Churchill bowing down to Adolph Hitler, sitting on the throne in Buckingham palace.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
cough,,,, didnt britain have a king then, the currant queens father.

Isn't it supposed to be a state of bliss..... at least thats what I always heard.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Viper2005_
08-06-2006, 09:18 PM
Yes, but of course that's the ultimate in relativism, which seems to be a very unpopular concept around here...

Destroyer110
08-07-2006, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Destroyer110:
PS, I still think the new game should be called "Invasion Britain" with the box cover picture showing the Queen and Winston Churchill bowing down to Adolph Hitler, sitting on the throne in Buckingham palace.


Originally posted by Von_Rat:
cough,,,, didnt britain have a king then, the currant queens father.

Isn't it supposed to be a state of bliss..... at least thats what I always heard.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point being bearcat? ..

The only ignorance I know is the authorities attitude towards childabuse, which allows the sick community to do what they like ..

BTW, How often do you train your boys? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

You can stalk me elsewhere .. over.

KOM.Nausicaa
08-08-2006, 06:21 AM
You are all worrying WAY too much. Also interesting how deeply conservative some of you are. But you have to remind that a company has to expand. A company has to have projects. They can't do always the same thing, new areas have to be explored. If you don't, then the other will, be sure.

Cool down. He said this is another project. They are busy up to their teeth in BoB. When BoB comes out it's a different world. Then this project will be adapted to what is possible then--in the world of computers and in Olegs company. Don't expect any serious work on this before 2008 or even later.

It's not because Oleg shares sometimes his big dreams for the future that we have to fall in panic from our chairs here. He is leading a company, he HAS to have projects for crying out loud.

NAFP_supah
08-10-2006, 12:19 PM
One way to know if BoB is going to be arcade like PF ... if it doesn't even have a functioning tank selector and other basic aircraft systems then's it's pbb not going to be worth your time http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Stuff like functioning primer pumps, that actually serve a purpose besides a gimmick. Or trim that is more then just a cheat when people map it to a slider but actually necesary to operate the plane.

Chuck_Older
08-10-2006, 12:32 PM
Nobody makes you waste your time with this pathetic arcade game, do they?

Come on supah, the sim's not perfect but you don't have to choose an adversarial relationship with that type of baiting

billy885
08-10-2006, 12:36 PM
Well Ivan, you are a better man then I am. I had enough of what you experienced in this thread years ago. Reason I dont post here much any more and dont visit the same thread twice unless it is to help out someone who appreciates it.

NAFP_supah
08-10-2006, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Nobody makes you waste your time with this pathetic arcade game, do they?

Come on supah, the sim's not perfect but you don't have to choose an adversarial relationship with that type of baiting

Dunno, I'd think a working fuel tank selector or primer pump is the least we could ask for in SoW? If you have ever had any kind of flight training you'll know that trimming is the thing you do most when flying. In FB and PF it's an option but not a necesity, I tried landing my cessna once without trimming when I let down the flaps, not a good plan.

triad773
08-10-2006, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by GR142-Pipper:
It's a universal truism that when companies stray from their expertise, the product always seems to decline. It's a small company and it's critical that they stay focused.

GR142-Pipper

When Jane's USAF came out I liked it, but felt that they had the number of planes flyable made for compromises in each scenario: if they had focused on just one or two it may have been better. Still, the fact that they have sooo many flyables here, they are all within a certain quality I find acceptable. I imagine they are using the many lessons from IL-2 to map out BOB SOW more concisely.

Chuck_Older
08-10-2006, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Nobody makes you waste your time with this pathetic arcade game, do they?

Come on supah, the sim's not perfect but you don't have to choose an adversarial relationship with that type of baiting

Dunno, I'd think a working fuel tank selector or primer pump is the least we could ask for in SoW? If you have ever had any kind of flight training you'll know that trimming is the thing you do most when flying. In FB and PF it's an option but not a necesity, I tried landing my cessna once without trimming when I let down the flaps, not a good plan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, you're all over the place with this reply of yours

Firstly, where did I ever say that we shouldn't be selecting fuel tanks? I never mentioned fuel tanks. I said there's no reason to start baiting people with your confrontational replies

Second, whether or not I had flight training and whether or not I know anything about trim has nothing to do with what I commented on. You never mentioned trim in the post I quoted, and I never mentioned trim in the post you quoted, so what's trim got to do with this? Also, who ever said trim wasn't implemented in this sim or that it's implemented correctly, poorly, or otherwise? Trim's not part of the subject at all so why'd you even bring it up?

Lastly, your reply is exactly the thing I'm on about here- you take any comment as a challenge. You don't need to do that supah. There's no need for the chip on your shoulder.

NAFP_supah
08-10-2006, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Nobody makes you waste your time with this pathetic arcade game, do they?

Come on supah, the sim's not perfect but you don't have to choose an adversarial relationship with that type of baiting

Dunno, I'd think a working fuel tank selector or primer pump is the least we could ask for in SoW? If you have ever had any kind of flight training you'll know that trimming is the thing you do most when flying. In FB and PF it's an option but not a necesity, I tried landing my cessna once without trimming when I let down the flaps, not a good plan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, you're all over the place with this reply of yours

Firstly, where did I ever say that we shouldn't be selecting fuel tanks? I never mentioned fuel tanks. I said there's no reason to start baiting people with your confrontational replies

Second, whether or not I had flight training and whether or not I know anything about trim has nothing to do with what I commented on. You never mentioned trim in the post I quoted, and I never mentioned trim in the post you quoted, so what's trim got to do with this? Also, who ever said trim wasn't implemented in this sim or that it's implemented correctly, poorly, or otherwise? Trim's not part of the subject at all so why'd you even bring it up?

Lastly, your reply is exactly the thing I'm on about here- you take any comment as a challenge. You don't need to do that supah. There's no need for the chip on your shoulder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hold on there Freud, I was trying to put across that I was not talking about PF, for me PF is a passed station. I haven't played it in a couple of months, shooting stuff up over the same maps with the same planes that have just half the stuff working lost its appeal to me. Pacific Fighters feels far to restrictive. I hope SoW is different. As for SoW, I was merely voicing my desire for the next sprout from the maddox tree to have atleast the most bare basics of aircraft systems modelled, not directed at you persay. In PF this part has been overlooked. Stuff like Engine and fuel management, trim, procedures and radio's (navigational or not) don't play a part in PF, I think that's all our loss.

crazyivan1970
08-10-2006, 03:48 PM
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 crazyivan1970:
I guess antill he tries will never find out whether him and his crew is capable of such project or not...which brings us back to big "IF" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Respectfully, I think I'd rather find out if he and his crew are capable of developing much better flight/damage/weapons models in the existing aircraft in THIS game before embarking on a project which is exponentially larger in magnitude. I thought that was what BoB was all about. Is the (strategic) story now changing somewhat?

GR142-Pipper </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought Oleg made it pretty clear... BOB and future additions to it is a separate product. Combined sim will happened "IF".........

crazyivan1970
08-10-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by billy885:
Well Ivan, you are a better man then I am. I had enough of what you experienced in this thread years ago. Reason I dont post here much any more and dont visit the same thread twice unless it is to help out someone who appreciates it.

Good to see ya old school http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

msalama
08-10-2006, 03:58 PM
Stuff like Engine and fuel management, trim, procedures and radio's (navigational or not) don't play a part in PF, I think that's all our loss.

Now, without getting drawn into the debate in the slightest, I do have to agree with this. It _IS_ total realism we're after after all, isn't it?

Chuck_Older
08-10-2006, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Nobody makes you waste your time with this pathetic arcade game, do they?

Come on supah, the sim's not perfect but you don't have to choose an adversarial relationship with that type of baiting

Dunno, I'd think a working fuel tank selector or primer pump is the least we could ask for in SoW? If you have ever had any kind of flight training you'll know that trimming is the thing you do most when flying. In FB and PF it's an option but not a necesity, I tried landing my cessna once without trimming when I let down the flaps, not a good plan. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, you're all over the place with this reply of yours

Firstly, where did I ever say that we shouldn't be selecting fuel tanks? I never mentioned fuel tanks. I said there's no reason to start baiting people with your confrontational replies

Second, whether or not I had flight training and whether or not I know anything about trim has nothing to do with what I commented on. You never mentioned trim in the post I quoted, and I never mentioned trim in the post you quoted, so what's trim got to do with this? Also, who ever said trim wasn't implemented in this sim or that it's implemented correctly, poorly, or otherwise? Trim's not part of the subject at all so why'd you even bring it up?

Lastly, your reply is exactly the thing I'm on about here- you take any comment as a challenge. You don't need to do that supah. There's no need for the chip on your shoulder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hold on there Freud, I was trying to put across that I was not talking about PF, for me PF is a passed station. I haven't played it in a couple of months, shooting stuff up over the same maps with the same planes that have just half the stuff working lost its appeal to me. Pacific Fighters feels far to restrictive. I hope SoW is different. As for SoW, I was merely voicing my desire for the next sprout from the maddox tree to have atleast the most bare basics of aircraft systems modelled, not directed at you persay. In PF this part has been overlooked. Stuff like Engine and fuel management, trim, procedures and radio's (navigational or not) don't play a part in PF, I think that's all our loss. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the same time you try to insult me, you still insist on following a line of discussion I never had with you

Freud would call that irrational.

If you want to make points about PF having something or not having something, you can just make them, supah. You have something to add to the community but most times you post things like "This arcade game lets you use cheats like trim on a slider", which is just a way to try and get people riled

Come on now, enough of this game

joeap
08-11-2006, 03:43 AM
What game did you play supah? Because as far as I'm concerned trim is VERY important in FB/Pf you can't get the nest performance out of planes otherwise, you can't dive bomb accurately unless rudder is trimmed so the ball is in the centre etc. Otherwise agree with your desire for things like more complex engine controls, fuel tank selectors etc.

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Stuff like Engine and fuel management, trim, procedures and radio's (navigational or not) don't play a part in PF, I think that's all our loss.

Now, without getting drawn into the debate in the slightest, I do have to agree with this. It _IS_ total realism we're after after all, isn't it? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total realism is beyond the capability of desktop computers today and for a very long time yet.

Take what you can get and try to remember what was before and other options.

As for engine management we have direct control of major elements if not all. Why no fuel
tank control? Perhaps it would require complete distribution of all masses in the planes
plus the calculations entailed to get COG shifts and all that right which in 2003 was well
beyond even the best PC hardware and that is when FB was released and when BoB was started
to be designed with future hardware in mind.

It's easy to dream. Try writing software to make anything happen some time. That's reality.

WWMaxGunz
08-11-2006, 03:57 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I thought Oleg made it pretty clear... BOB and future additions to it is a separate product. Combined sim will happened "IF".........

How many days now, how many posts by how many members saying this same thing that was in the
original message? How many ******s still don't understand?

heywooood
08-11-2006, 09:02 AM
******s?! here?....

Hmmm...true complex engine management would be nice in BoB..infact - it should be mandatory.

..same as complex airframe management with real airframe damage for making mistakes in flap settings and landing gear or speedbreak deployment and over -g-

It should maybe have scalable impact settings but should not be entirely 'optional' as a minimal concession to 'gamers' but if it were my software...

IMO - if you want anything less you should get an xBox and go on about your business.

Maj_Solo
08-11-2006, 10:57 AM
Engine management comes second to a good accurate FM, View system, AI, DC, and terrain engine. Next I thing engine management comes.

What is the point of engine management when your aircraft don't fly to spec? When things around you look like ****? When the AI can not take orders? etc etc etc etc. Even a decent padlock system that no host need to turn off would be more important than engine management.

It is when the initial fight feels right, and it continues, after that we like engine management, and then it better be realistic. Cause what's the point in flying in your realistic "whatever plane" and your engine unrealistically breaks down.

To put too much into the sim will create a laughable mess.

Get the basics right. Otherwise it is going to be like one of those stews you make where you have put too much of everything into it. Tough to eat.

heywooood
08-11-2006, 11:17 AM
engine start proceedure...press I key...very impressive.

No fuel pump - no tank selector - no battery or master switch....I like the flight model to be as tight to the prototype as possible and the environment of the air is crucial.
But to not have the option of manageing the airframe or the engine is just a big mistake, and the use of simple tables could have been used to model fuel consumtion/CG changes to some degree.

crazyivan1970
08-11-2006, 11:20 AM
keyword is "I like" heywood http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif A while back, same type of request was surfacing from the group of users. On which Oleg replied... preflight procedure to get Mustang in the air is 40 min. Actual startup like 10 min. And spending valuable resources on coding all of this so maybe... once in the blue moon you and 5 other guys will get the full procedure going.... kinda of silly, maybe?

heywooood
08-11-2006, 11:31 AM
did you see where I said "the option..."

What I mean by that is, don't you ever want to just fly the plane you like...say the 109..by the book just once in awhile? Start it the right way - fly it the right way, using ALL of the controls it had? Maybe not in Co-op or online - but just the rest of the time. Then when you select the 'I' key option you know in the back of your mind you could go through the whole proceedure if you wanted to.

I think many people would use the more difficult options if they could...more than you think.

And that 40 mins is COLD start - not preflighted and out on the apron...which should be the default 'start' postition of the plane BTW...not engine OFF on the runway lol - might as well just have the engine already on and skip the ol' 'I' key altogether...no?

klemlao
08-11-2006, 11:57 AM
You know guys, a Real simulator costs $10-$20 million. How far do you want to take this for the occasional 'real' engine management etc. experience. How much time do you want to spend doing start ups or random system failures and how much do you want to pay?

Probably MS FS can give you some of what you want, perhaps Falcon 4.

Some extension of the engine management might be nice, same with airframe damage effect but given that these are infinitesimally variable and we do have some representative modelling I don't think I want a major increase in these things at the expense of time-to-market or major cost to me (software AND hardware).

No one would like these things more than me and as these things gradually improve I will welcome every small step. Along with affordable computing.

As PCs and games move forward we'll gradually move closer to the 'real thing' but don't kid yourself - or expect - that it will ever give you the fully 'real' experience.

Anyway, the biggest obstacle is your wife/partner/bank manager etc. Where in the hell are you going to put, and find the money for, a full size cockpit replica on a full 6 DOF motion system, 360 degree dome visual and all supporting services?

Knowing dev engineers I am sure Oleg would love to give you everything you ask for but he, and I, can't wait for or afford it today.

btw, in this 'reality' argument someone mentioned 'Padlock'. Get out of here! Strap on TrackIR and keep yer flaming eyes open.

crazyivan1970
08-11-2006, 12:13 PM
That is exactly i was reffering to heywood mate..."option" - it is a very expencive option if you think about it. Whether it is REALLY needed or not... is another question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

heywooood
08-11-2006, 12:19 PM
so lets just have the motor running then and stop the pretense of 'complex' engine management altogether...All - or nothing.
Focus All BoB programming on FM DM and weapon fidelity and hang the rest...we'll just assume the pilot knows how to start the friggin' thing up...he11 - lets just assume while we're at it that he know how to fly it tooo - that way all we have to do is pull the trigger when the crosshairs are lined up on the target....hey - any good pilot would know when to shoot - lets just - I know - Oleg can save resources by just programming BoB as a series of pretty TRACKS that we can just watch. I bet with all that assumed stuff out of the way he could make BoB look spectacular.

crazyivan1970
08-11-2006, 12:23 PM
Tsk tsk tsk... dont get mad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I am sure that some elements of the CEM will make you happy, dont simplify it to "lets just have the motor running then and stop " but dont expect 15 min warmup either lol.

heywooood
08-11-2006, 12:24 PM
dude - I'm laughing - not steaming...this is fun.

But anyone thinkks the I key is cool all the time is lost.

crazyivan1970
08-11-2006, 12:43 PM
I am 100% with you, just "I" is not good enough.

heywooood
08-11-2006, 01:35 PM
good now its settled - what do you hear from UBI these days about an addon?...anything?..lol

crazyivan1970
08-11-2006, 02:27 PM
Not a thing. Unfortunately. But something is going down a pipe...soon will know. Untill then, lets stay on the subject http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

carguy_
08-11-2006, 02:44 PM
Oh yeah Heywood,that`d be utterly cool.Every plane would have a different procedure,usage regulations.One would have to buy a manual for every plane,and by the time any n00b tries the demo three months after the release,I`d be right there on the "how to land" chaper in the 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-11-2006, 06:06 PM
heywood:
so lets just have the motor running then and stop the pretense of 'complex' engine management altogether...All - or nothing.
Nothing.

First, CEM is usually Porked in combat flight sims, leaving many players to just turn it off knowing it offers no simulation of "reality." I turn it off in FB/PF so I don't need the cyclical radiator display, so I can turn that ugly HUD text off. The cyclical radiator controls are an example of a major mistake in game design. One should be able to set radiator settings with controls that you can follow without needing HUD text.

CEM is a very expensive mistake to develop for a combat flight sim if the AI is not making use of it. Better resources are spent simulating the air warfare environment, or making a dedicated non-combat Pure Flying simulation where CEM would be important (no air warfare simulation involved). One "combat" sim market where detailed CEM might be financially worth the expense to develop is Online Pay-To-Play for hardcore dogfight match players who focus on competitive human-vs-human Dogfight (no AI CEM needed), where the Monthly Fee can help finance CEM development.

"I" is more than StrikeFighters has. You can't even turn engines off in that sim but only cut throttle to a minimum, but it does just fine. Of course, SF like FB/PF also needs major work in air warfare simulation.

NAFP_supah
08-11-2006, 07:18 PM
it's all about scaleability. I know enough to get a airplane running IRL. I could pbb get a spitfire running, I've messed with the realair spit enough. FS9 has the ideal setup. If you want you can mess with all the switches. If you dont feel like that you can press CTRL+E. Do not be afraid to learn from FS9 Oleg.

LEXX_Luthor
08-11-2006, 07:48 PM
You can't create a profitable WW2 combat flight sim by simply focusing on technical features that a tiny number of "real life" private pilots would like to see modelled on their PC to match their peacetime private flying experiences. There are not enough interested private pilots to pay for this at standard PC game prices -- unless the FAA can request and fund the project. Who knows, maybe the Perfect CEM Simulator could be included in Ground School kits of the future. If the sim is mandated by FAA, then there will be much interest generated among civilian pilots indeed!

Its all about developing the much larger air warfare environment far beyond the player's cockpit and engine.

LEXX_Luthor
08-11-2006, 08:02 PM
* Now, for a single plane "study" combat flight sim, the more complex the engine management the better, but even that requires AI to be programmed to make use of at least some of the more obvious CEM features (basic overheating for example). For survey sims that offer most if not all aircraft Flyable, the resources needed to program each very different plane would be better spent on developing an immersive air war modelling.

Aguila_Azteca
08-11-2006, 08:41 PM
as long as they give me the horses and sailors in life boats to shoot at, i am happy

GR142-Pipper
08-11-2006, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I thought Oleg made it pretty clear... BOB and future additions to it is a separate product. Combined sim will happened "IF"......... Ok. Fair enough.

GR142-Pipper

GR142-Pipper
08-11-2006, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
CEM is a very expensive mistake to develop for a combat flight sim if the AI is not making use of it. Better resources are spent simulating the air warfare environment... I agree with this completely. Get the flight/damage/weapons models right and leave these "procedural" issues alone. For those who are interested in the procedures, pre-flights, etc., spend some money and learn to fly REAL airplanes. This is a terrific game. Let it remain just that.

...just my take.

GR142-Pipper

BM357_Sniper
08-11-2006, 10:02 PM
I, for one, am for a bit more complexity. Without getting too into this, sooner or later Oleg will get some competition and someone WILL make a WWII flight sim that is more "realistic" as quite a few people would like to see. A good example is how, for all you jet jocks out there, LOMAC is about to be eating dust by Fighter Ops. www.fighterops.com (http://www.fighterops.com)

LEXX_Luthor
08-12-2006, 12:53 AM
357::
I, for one, am for a bit more complexity. Without getting too into this, sooner or later Oleg will get some competition and someone WILL make a WWII flight sim that is more "realistic" as quite a few people would like to see.
Quite a very tiny few and the reason is because the only way to get button pushing "complexity" is by sacrificing Flyable aircraft. Thus, no Flyable Fw-190 or Flyable Bf-109. Oleg is smarter than this new "some competition."

In the "FighterOps" equivalent WW2 sim, the only Flyable planes will be P-51Dora and P-47Dora. That is like sims from last century. FighterOps, like Falcon and LOMAC, is very last century. Although they are planning on a "red" releace, very far in the future, and with less..."detail." hehe



A good example is how, for all you jet jocks out there, LOMAC is about to be eating dust by Fighter Ops.
LOMAC will be old history by the time Fighter Ops comes out and by then LOMAC will have moved far into Helicopter simming (which is a huge mistake when LOMAC should be moving back into the Cold War). Anyways, the only thing taking longer than FighterOps is DukeNukem3D and...TargetWare. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TX-EcoDragon
08-12-2006, 01:17 AM
Some awesome news in there! Thanks Ivan and Oleg.


"But we are including SU-26 as a bonus. We are hoping that further development of aerobatics planes will continue and we are planning to support this as much as we can."



:-D


Oleg. . .that's the coolest thing I've heard all year!

NAFP_supah
08-12-2006, 06:06 AM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You can't create a profitable WW2 combat flight sim by simply focusing on technical features that a tiny number of "real life" private pilots would like to see modelled on their PC to match their peacetime private flying experiences. There are not enough interested private pilots to pay for this at standard PC game prices -- unless the FAA can request and fund the project. Who knows, maybe the Perfect CEM Simulator could be included in Ground School kits of the future. If the sim is mandated by FAA, then there will be much interest generated among civilian pilots indeed!

Its all about developing the much larger air warfare environment far beyond the player's cockpit and engine.

You'd be amazed how many private, military and commercial pilot's also enjoy PC flight simulation. Nobody starts flying because someone is twisting his arm, people start flying because they have a love for airplanes and aviation in all its forms. Be that real life or on a PC. I don't think getting the basics right and adding more detail to procedural and basic technical items is that hard and over the top if apparently oleg is modelling air movement in great detail too. What you say about the AI is true, it would be good if they have to stick to the same "rules" engine management wise as the player, though that might be hard to realise atm with current hardware's possiblities and limitations. Saying that this issue should be left alone and just get the flight model right is a bit naff. These issues affect the handling of the plane, and there for the flight model, in a big way. For instance selecting tanks in the Mustang was a big part of using it effectively as a weapon. The pilots always drained the fuselage tank behind the pilot first, with that tank filled it was a very hard plane to handle. With the tank drained pilots described it as a delight to fly. Weight and balance is a big part of how a plane handles and tank management for instance plays a big part in weight and balance. For long range flight , for instance a future pacific addon with say a P-38, mixture control became very important to keep your range. Now the system is quite crude even with CEM on. On the topic of avionics and electrical systems, I for one would love to have radar modelled for say nightfighters and bombers. Other equipment like radio direction finders would be cool to have too. Navigational problems were a big part in the succes or failure of some missions flown during the conflict. Also, if this engine is going to be expanded on for scenarios and planes beyond the Battle of Britain it is important to get the functionality in to it now so it won't have to be added later with associated problems of shoe horning features into a product. At this moment there might not be an interest to do, for instance, a Korean war simulation but who knows what the future brings?

Gitano1979
08-12-2006, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
"But we are including SU-26 as a bonus. We are hoping that further development of aerobatics planes will continue and we are planning to support this as much as we can."


As a WW2 air warfare fan, I'd rather prefer a sim with planes and maps from September 1939 till August 1945, instead of SU-26 and "what if" planes... IMHO this would be THE sim.

DuxCorvan
08-12-2006, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
...something is going down a pipe...soon will know... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ivan, I also have 'something going down the pipe' some hours after each meal.

A clue about what has UBI eaten lately, would be a nice detail. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

carguy_
08-12-2006, 07:19 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Ubi is certainly one of the longer digesting firms.

Chuck_Older
08-12-2006, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
it's all about scaleability. I know enough to get a airplane running IRL. I could pbb get a spitfire running, I've messed with the realair spit enough. FS9 has the ideal setup. If you want you can mess with all the switches. If you dont feel like that you can press CTRL+E. Do not be afraid to learn from FS9 Oleg.

You know, this is a good point. I have started to consider all the pros and cons of the clickable cockpit again, and I'm starting to think that maybe I've been mistaken about clickable cockpits being bad- if there's simply an option that turns clickable cockpits on and off, so that the "CC" (I'm sick of typing clickable cockpit) is the most advanced method of interaction, while perhaps two other modes, something like what we call CEM 'on' and CEM 'off' exist, how could that hurt? You'd still have what we call "CEM", you could turn it off completely, but you could also go through a checklist and have to check mag drop. It's beginning to look like win-win-win to me

heywooood
08-12-2006, 08:42 AM
and just as chuck starts to come around to the idea of *gulp* click-pits - I begin to see LeXX's point.

Too much code could easily be spent on CEM enhancement I guess, ofcourse, all I need is the option of having a slightly more enhanced engine start proceedure and calibrated cowl flaps and wing flaps...you know - degrees of flap settings instead of 'combat' 'landing' 'takeoff' and cowl flaps and radiators with similar settings that can be operated correctly.

If thats too much to ask even with all the extra power the next-gen pc's will have then...

For the record - I am against going all the way to click-pits. It seems much more intuitive to bind keys to the controls and just reach for those than to try to manoever both the plane and the mouse in combat at the same time.

NAFP_supah
08-12-2006, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
it's all about scaleability. I know enough to get a airplane running IRL. I could pbb get a spitfire running, I've messed with the realair spit enough. FS9 has the ideal setup. If you want you can mess with all the switches. If you dont feel like that you can press CTRL+E. Do not be afraid to learn from FS9 Oleg.

You know, this is a good point. I have started to consider all the pros and cons of the clickable cockpit again, and I'm starting to think that maybe I've been mistaken about clickable cockpits being bad- if there's simply an option that turns clickable cockpits on and off, so that the "CC" (I'm sick of typing clickable cockpit) is the most advanced method of interaction, while perhaps two other modes, something like what we call CEM 'on' and CEM 'off' exist, how could that hurt? You'd still have what we call "CEM", you could turn it off completely, but you could also go through a checklist and have to check mag drop. It's beginning to look like win-win-win to me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly my point. AND it's not black magic ... its very doable to learn this stuff once you decide you want to. Perhaps its an idea to have a key that toggles CC on or off, for instance the tab key. You press it and you can use your mouse to change your view, you press it again and you can use your mouse to select switches. To me this looks like a decent solution.

Chuck_Older
08-12-2006, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
and just as chuck starts to come around to the idea of *gulp* click-pits - I begin to see LeXX's point.

Too much code could easily be spent on CEM enhancement I guess, ofcourse, all I need is the option of having a slightly more enhanced engine start proceedure and calibrated cowl flaps and wing flaps...you know - degrees of flap settings instead of 'combat' 'landing' 'takeoff' and cowl flaps and radiators with similar settings that can be operated correctly.

If thats too much to ask even with all the extra power the next-gen pc's will have then...

For the record - I am against going all the way to click-pits. It seems much more intuitive to bind keys to the controls and just reach for those than to try to manoever both the plane and the mouse in combat at the same time.

That's pretty much my only reservation. There are solutions I think to both instead of mouse, trackball on the control stick where your thumb 'rests', to control the cursor, or a small trackball that mounts whereever you like really, I use my keybaord shelf for my HOTAS and the desk for the keyboard; I imagine most folks do similar. So howsabout a trackball immediately to the left of the keyboard? your left hand goes forward about 6", and bam, you can click the cockpit

On the non-clickable side, how about a master keyboard and a slave keybaord? Game oriented keyboards and auxiliary gamer keyboards already exist, a simple pressure clamp attached to one of these should enable you to afix it the the edge of your desk or your keybaord tray, and viola, there's a galaxy of buttons

The trouble I have with that is you must know where the control is in a lot of cases, plus recall where you bound the controls to the keyboard(s). With a CC, you just have to know where the control is, which brings up some other troubles I admit, but both systems should be possible

NAFP_supah
08-12-2006, 10:11 AM
Again taking from my FS9 experiences, I use key short cuts for common operations but use the VC controlls for less common activities. It saves you from having to remember a lot of key combinations you wont use very often. Again using a tank selector as an example, this would be a control you wont want to use keys for. You will not be using it in combat (ideally) and on the moments you are using it you have time to move the mouse towards it and set it as desired. Same goes for switches of radio's, lights, magneto's, starters and primer pumps etc.

Tater-SW-
08-12-2006, 01:41 PM
Sometimes people claiming to want a "simulation" forget that what is important is the end result.

If a sim has a "click-pit," how does the time it takes the sim pilot to complete the task compare to the time it would take a RL pilot to do the same task in the real cockpit? To properly test, the sim pilot should have to be able to keep his eyes where the RL pilot had his eyes as well. That means if I can click a certain setting in about the same time as a real pilot, but have to take my eyes away from maintaining SA for 2 times as long to do so, the click pit is a BAD simulation. In such a case a simplified control would result in a more accurate simulation.

More difficult to use != more realistic in all cases.

tater

TX-EcoDragon
08-12-2006, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You can't create a profitable WW2 combat flight sim by simply focusing on technical features that a tiny number of "real life" private pilots would like to see modelled on their PC to match their peacetime private flying experiences. There are not enough interested private pilots to pay for this at standard PC game prices --


Right that's why Microsoft€s top selling product of all time could never be a sim that did just that. . oh. . wait. . .never mind.

To be honest most pilots I know of have MSFS and think it's just missing too much fidelity in the FM to actually be "fun" to fly, we use it for more technical things like navigation, instrument procedures, or just general silliness, but not simply FLYING for the sake of flying.

IL-2 on the other hand is perfect for that, what it lacks is all the procedural stuff. I don't mean IFR and ATC stuff. . just the basics like proper CEM and communications etc. A more refind FM would be good too of course.

So, I disagree with you. . .if IL-2 had more to offer in the realistic procedures side of things then there would be far more pilots using it. There is no marketing to us, no way for us to hear about some eastern front war video game, and that is why I didn't even hear anything about this sim initially. . .and when I did I paid little attention. I just didn't expect that much from a combat game, but I was wrong. How can anyone pretend to know what the demand is like without using any actual method to determine what it is?? The demographic that this would appeal to isn't currently buying video games. . . generally all they have on their machines is MSFS, if that. THey also would pay a heck of a lot more than the 39 bucks that UBI stupidly sells this sim for. IT makes it look like baragin basement junk. Peopel I know go buy that silly FS "PRO" package that was $85.00 just to get a Mooney Bravo and an IFR panel. . .the 49.99 just wasn't as cool. Stupid yes, but that's how it is.

I've demonstrated the formation flying videos of my team at chapter meetings for the Northern California Aerobatic club and most all the members were amazed at what a GOOD sim can do, and wanted a copy right away. . .the biggest complaints I heard were when I said stuff like "well, you just press the "I" key" or "no, you have to count the clicks of the radiator key or turn on a text hud since you have no indication in the cockpit of radiator settings."

blindpugh
08-12-2006, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I want BoB to be a flight sim only any other aspects such as fps or quasi tank sim will dilute the efforts of a small specialist Flight sim developer.If I wanted to drive around in simplistically modelled tanks Id buy another game. too rite m8!!!

TX-EcoDragon
08-12-2006, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by Gitano1979:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
"But we are including SU-26 as a bonus. We are hoping that further development of aerobatics planes will continue and we are planning to support this as much as we can."


As a WW2 air warfare fan, I'd rather prefer a sim with planes and maps from September 1939 till August 1945, instead of SU-26 and "what if" planes... IMHO this would be THE sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a fan of awesome flight sims, I'd prefer if this be THE sim.

TX-EcoDragon
08-12-2006, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NAFP_supah:
it's all about scaleability. I know enough to get a airplane running IRL. I could pbb get a spitfire running, I've messed with the realair spit enough. FS9 has the ideal setup. If you want you can mess with all the switches. If you dont feel like that you can press CTRL+E. Do not be afraid to learn from FS9 Oleg.

You know, this is a good point. I have started to consider all the pros and cons of the clickable cockpit again, and I'm starting to think that maybe I've been mistaken about clickable cockpits being bad- if there's simply an option that turns clickable cockpits on and off, so that the "CC" (I'm sick of typing clickable cockpit) is the most advanced method of interaction, while perhaps two other modes, something like what we call CEM 'on' and CEM 'off' exist, how could that hurt? You'd still have what we call "CEM", you could turn it off completely, but you could also go through a checklist and have to check mag drop. It's beginning to look like win-win-win to me </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I used the clickable pits in the Janes sims (F-15 and 18) and when LOMAC came out simply couldn't stomach going to the keyboard. For me, there is no other way. Particularly witht he advent of things like TrackIR that make a realistic head turn and switch flip a simpe affair. MSFS in the 6DOF mode with clickable pits adds an immense boost to the immersion.

Sure it needs to be done well, none of those sims with clickable pits FORCE you to use the feature, you can still use the keyboard for all of it too if you so desire. This helps with respect to the issue that many times a pilot won't actually look at what they are moving.

Chuck_Older
08-12-2006, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Sometimes people claiming to want a "simulation" forget that what is important is the end result.

If a sim has a "click-pit," how does the time it takes the sim pilot to complete the task compare to the time it would take a RL pilot to do the same task in the real cockpit? To properly test, the sim pilot should have to be able to keep his eyes where the RL pilot had his eyes as well. That means if I can click a certain setting in about the same time as a real pilot, but have to take my eyes away from maintaining SA for 2 times as long to do so, the click pit is a BAD simulation. In such a case a simplified control would result in a more accurate simulation.

More difficult to use != more realistic in all cases.

tater

But the idea is to not make it more complex. Supah has suggested a very workable hybrid between keyninding and click coclipts, and I think this works fine:

"I use key short cuts for common operations but use the VC controlls for less common activities. It saves you from having to remember a lot of key combinations you wont use very often. Again using a tank selector as an example, this would be a control you wont want to use keys for. You will not be using it in combat (ideally) and on the moments you are using it you have time to move the mouse towards it and set it as desired. Same goes for switches of radio's, lights, magneto's, starters and primer pumps etc."

This does not equal unnecessary complexity for the sake of "added realism" (which is not something I'm a proponent of, by the way), it adds more complexity of controls for the controls you personally want to complicate

*If* you need to sacrifice SA for 2X as long...I can't see how this example does that. Example: I want to charge my guns...well this is something I do before combat ideally, but maybe I will forget..so It's a keystroke, let's say I use "G". I'm not losing SA for any time at all...the "F" key has a small tab on it's bottom edge, you can find the "F" by feel (try it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) and the G is immediately to the right

Well also, anything I can bind a key for I can put on my HOTAS, and I don't even use all it's features. Every important function I may lose SA over...I just bind to the HOTAS anyway. But if I pop a breaker in my radio, I can use the click-pit- if I want to, and only if I want to. if I want to turn on mags, I can do it via click pit- if I choose to

In the past, I'd considered either all click pit or all keystroke. You don't have to do it that way. imagine our 'controls' section, and right under the "HOTAS" entries, you have "Virtual Cockpit"- you select the functions you want the click pit to respond to, and you assign keystrokes (HOTAS or keyboard actually) to the rest. Easy, and no SA loss http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif