PDA

View Full Version : Shockwave productions (Bf109E-3 Engine Start Procedure) and wat a detail



Pages : [1] 2

Sintubin
01-23-2007, 01:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEjHOaIpuYY

Simply JAWBRAKING http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I think oleg is in for a hard time in section of detail

Jesus these guys are good

Hope bob wil be that good

ShaK.
01-23-2007, 02:01 PM
yes!!!
That was Awesome.

I pray SOW:BOB is like that

Sintubin
01-23-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
yes!!!
That was Awesome.

I pray SOW:BOB is like that

Lets pray

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-23-2007, 02:13 PM
I pray SOW:BOB is like that

Afraid not. Oleg has stated already there will be no detail start up procedure or mouse clicked cockpits seen in that video. Stating something in regard to it will only appeal to very few people and the novelty will wear off quickly. I guess he thinks everyone flies online in furball servers.

This is how I remember it when he was asked such questions. Please correct me if Im wrong because I hope that I am.

JG52Karaya-X
01-23-2007, 02:15 PM
It's easy for these guys to portray such a high level of detail, afterall they only model a handful of planes, how many do we have? Next to 200?

Sintubin
01-23-2007, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
It's easy for these guys to portray such a high level of detail, afterall they only model a handful of planes, how many do we have? Next to 200?

quanty is not that inportant for me quality is like this awsome detail plane

Irish_Rogues
01-23-2007, 02:26 PM
All I could think about is sitting there for 5 minutes getting my crate fired up and someone spawning on top of me or getting rammed by someone on the taxiway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-23-2007, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
It's easy for these guys to portray such a high level of detail, afterall they only model a handful of planes, how many do we have? Next to 200?

quanty is not that inportant for me quality is like this awsome detail plane </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then your in the wrong sim to be honest. Get MSFS and buy the Shockwave planes and you will have you wish.

JG52Karaya-X
01-23-2007, 02:37 PM
Anyway as Havok already said Oleg will not implement a realistic startup procedure for every plane because a) that would take too much extra work and b) he said that the majority of players would try it out 1 or 2 times and then start the engine with the classic startup button.

IMHO it would be nice to have but I wont be disappointed if we dont see it. There are more important things.

SeaFireLIV
01-23-2007, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Irish_Rogues:
All I could think about is sitting there for 5 minutes getting my crate fired up and someone spawning on top of me or getting rammed by someone on the taxiway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Actually it doesn`t take long at all. I don`t fly the 109 in BOBwov, but the startup is similar for the Spit and Hurri. It took me about 4 start-ups, but after that I can get the engine running and ready after around 10-20 seconds from memory. Not long or hard to remember.

The truly hard and long prep to egine running sequence is in Falcon4. No matter what you do, it still takes about 15 minutes to get ready.

Choctaw111
01-23-2007, 02:53 PM
Oleg made a comment to the effect of "who would have the time to use the clickable buttons features in the middle of a furball". I for one would not and even though it would be a nice feature I would not have enough time to click those buttons with my mouse on a combat mission. Could Oleg make it so we could choose which way we wanted to push the buttons, either by mapped keys or HOTAS, or clickable ones? Probably but will take to much of his time and resources and for those who just gotta have the clickable buttons may only use them a couple times and get bored of it and go back to the old way.
The future is VR! Wear a kind of glove or something similar that keeps track of your hand movements in 3d space, just like the TrackIR with 6DOF but for your hands and then you could activate the buttons this way.

ploughman
01-23-2007, 02:58 PM
Wow. The 3-d cockpits are really something aren't they? It'd be nice to have a 'real' engine start up option but I do remember Oleg saying something along the lines of he wasn't going there because he didn't think the effort and resources needed would appeal enough to make it worth while. And the cockpits won't be clickable which is fine by me. After all if I ever feel the need I can always buy the product shown.

Jaws2002
01-23-2007, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEjHOaIpuYY

Simply JAWBRAKING http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I think oleg is in for a hard time in section of detail

Jesus these guys are good

Hope bob wil be that good


What an obsolete design. Push knobs, pull levers for half an hour. They should have retired the old crate in 42/43 and replace it with the modern Foke Wulf.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


By the time you'll be done with the take off procedures in your 109/Spitfire i'll be on top of your base already with the Butcer Bird and ready for a vulch fest. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif


Now i'll run for cover. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

slipBall
01-23-2007, 03:36 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif....off-line, that would be great...I would not mind at all....great sound too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 03:49 PM
I put the same details into my P-38 for FS2004. Its all possible, and does not take that much extra time.

The thing is, these features dont mean extrea sales in a combat sim. Combat sims are about combat. On the otherhand, a pure flight sim like FS is all about accuracy. Its a huge selling point that you can fly the aircraft like a real pilot, using all the buttons and switches.

Sintubin
01-23-2007, 04:10 PM
So

Just make it clickable+keybord/hotas

Wats the big deal

I mean

If the host of a server online dont want procedure he just click none procedure start up al is fine no ?

It wwould be a good thing if we have it like this BF109E-3

at least that much detail

make it a option in dificult settings on/of clickable cockpit - on/of for online play as host that simple-problem solved

Gibbage1
01-23-2007, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
So

Wats the big deal


Its extra work for something that WONT sell extra copy's. In order spend money, you need too justify it. Throwing away many man hours implamenting something that wont sell any more copy's then if it was not there is not a wise biz move.

Im sure your still going to buy BoB without clickable cockpits. But you wont buy a 25$ FS2004 P-38 or 109 without.

leitmotiv
01-23-2007, 04:48 PM
I'll wager what may happen is that Maddox will continue to cater to online gamers, and Shockwave is going to go down the line started with their BOB2 combat flight sim of providing detailed, clickable cockpits, etc. Shockwave seems to want to blend the classic MS Flight Simulator with combat. P.S. A child can manage to quick start a clickable cockpit Spitfire I. Once you get the hang of it in BOB2, it really increases the immersion.

F0_Dark_P
01-23-2007, 05:27 PM
DAMN! that was sweet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Sintubin
01-23-2007, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by F0_Dark_P:
DAMN! that was sweet http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

I got that )))

Sintubin
01-23-2007, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
So

Wats the big deal


Its extra work for something that WONT sell extra copy's. In order spend money, you need too justify it. Throwing away many man hours implamenting something that wont sell any more copy's then if it was not there is not a wise biz move.

Im sure your still going to buy BoB without clickable cockpits. But you wont buy a 25$ FS2004 P-38 or 109 without. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who says it wont sell more ?

I think the reverse wil be truth

It wil be more popular

ShaK.
01-23-2007, 05:33 PM
I dont care if the 3d pits are clickable with a mouse pointer. I personally, would not be clicking around with a mouse. I DO CARE that we have the ablity to map ALL features of a real pit with a keyboard or HOTAS. To me the "I" key, is really FREAKIN boring and lacks serious imersion.

ShaK.
01-23-2007, 05:39 PM
Also, I think this is REAL important to the full switch crowd. I dont know about you guys, but with IL2- to me, there is very little difference from no switch, to full switch other than the map and icons. When really, no switch should be like Il2 full switch, and Full switch should be like shockwave's. And by "switch" I mean settings, not acual switches.

slappedsilly
01-23-2007, 06:05 PM
I'll take the detailed cockpit and the sounds. The startup procedures might be ok offline, but I'd be doing that every 4 minutes or so online Shockwave does some things very well, others Oleg just kills them on. I think they would make a great team combined!

TheGozr
01-23-2007, 07:32 PM
Shockwave is the best for now by far. You can choose by making keys into your keyboard or clickable pits. Your choice and it's actually real quick to make the procedure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYrF8eb9eQA

leitmotiv
01-23-2007, 07:42 PM
Agree 100%

zoinks_
01-23-2007, 08:10 PM
i love realistic engine start. i can get my spit running in about 12 - 15 seconds...with my head outside.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/zoinks_/spit.jpg

of course, every pilot knows you can't see the primer from that side!
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/zoinks_/spit2.jpg

TSmoke
01-23-2007, 08:15 PM
Shockwave makes some good stuff and so does Oleg.

I think if you took the sounds from the Shockwave fighters series and Firepower series it would take this sim up a notch. Their aircraft sounds are probably the best in flighr sims.

zoinks_
01-23-2007, 08:25 PM
TSmoke, you forgot the AI. how could you?

leitmotiv
01-23-2007, 09:25 PM
That's right, BOB2's AI can stall!

crazyivan1970
01-23-2007, 11:45 PM
Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
It's easy for these guys to portray such a high level of detail, afterall they only model a handful of planes, how many do we have? Next to 200?

Total is around 300, flyables 250 or something. But that`s not the point. I think we are in the apples and oranges land again. No further comments.

mrsiCkstar
01-24-2007, 12:06 AM
I don't have BoB2 but I have Shockwave's Butcher Bird and the Wings of Power II for FS9... I love them to death... I love the start up procedures, and I absolutely love the sounds of those planes. It's heaven.


The truly hard and long prep to egine running sequence is in Falcon4. No matter what you do, it still takes about 15 minutes to get ready.

absolutely! but most of that time is spent waiting for that one system to spin up to speed... I forgot the name of it it's been so long since I flew F4. But I remember I printed out the start up procedures and it's multiple pages long lmao... gotta love it!

HuninMunin
01-24-2007, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
Also, I think this is REAL important to the full switch crowd. I dont know about you guys, but with IL2- to me, there is very little difference from no switch, to full switch other than the map and icons. When really, no switch should be like Il2 full switch, and Full switch should be like shockwave's. And by "switch" I mean settings, not acual switches.

+1

msalama
01-24-2007, 12:55 AM
OK, so what we need is IL-2 & FS9 cross-bred http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif IL-2's main lack of detail is in systems management, FS9's in propeller flight modelling (prop & gyro effects off) and stalls. So...

hkg36sd
01-24-2007, 01:21 AM
Was kinda ...ehhh, until i heard that DB engine start up and the sound of the prop wash as you peaked out the window had me smiling.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

**sigh** oh to have anything close to those sounds...

Flying_Nutcase
01-24-2007, 01:26 AM
OMG that was impressive. Oh, the soundz. And 3D cockpit. The sounz, the soundz, waaaahhhhh. Cross fingers for SoW.

bazzaah2
01-24-2007, 01:47 AM
Sweet stuff.

Would love Oleg to focus on detail and quality for the plane in the way he is for weather in BOB. Why make those fabulous pits and detailed weather if you're not going to add a bit of extra detail somewhere else?

I reckon he'd broaden the market as a lot of people from FS9/X would start to take notice of the detail plus weather plus better flight model in BOB.

If there were no interest for this level of detail then Shockwave wouldn't be in business.

WTE_Ibis
01-24-2007, 02:16 AM
The sounds are WAY more immersive than a clickable cockpit, soon get very bored with that.
If Oleg spent more time and effort on the sounds the emersion factor would double.
Lawnmower sounds just don't cut it. It's great that it is a great sim but sound is one of our main sensory inputs and it badly needs to be upgraded by a long long way.

ploughman
01-24-2007, 02:29 AM
Could somebody clarify if full engine start ups would be possible in the SoW engine but just not utilised by 1C meaning that a 3rd party could, as some point, create or modify an aircraft to feature it?

Or if it's just not going to be supported by the engine?

SnapdLikeAMutha
01-24-2007, 04:10 AM
No thanks, I'd rather play a 'flight sim' than an 'engine starting sim'

Kwiatos
01-24-2007, 04:29 AM
Other Big adventage BoB2 VoW Shockwave over Oleg FB is FM during take off and landings. In Oleg's game every child and girl could take off and land in Bf109. In Shockwave game i suppose there is not many sim players which could correctly land in Bf109. I have played sims for years but i never had such problem with land like in Bf109 from Shockwave. After some traning i have still problem to make a good landing.

leitmotiv
01-24-2007, 04:29 AM
I think most people on the Maddox forums prefer airborne shooters for online competition, which are not flight sims. BOB2 is the closest thing to an IL-2/FS blend we have now. With 6 DOF, I enjoy using it more than IL-2.

Flight Replicas just made a gorgeous Bf 109K-4 for FSX which I have been using as much as Shockwave's WWII FIGHTERS set. Makes quite a contrast with the Shockwave 109E. Taking off is likely to land you off the runway and in the weeds until you get the hang of it (torque is considerably more powerful than the Maddox K-4). It is a bear to handle. Definitely not for beginners.

http://secure.simmarket.com/product_info.php?products_id=2173

SeaFireLIV
01-24-2007, 04:42 AM
One day, I will have 6DOF, oh yes, one day it will happen...

leitmotiv
01-24-2007, 04:46 AM
It will make your day, believe me, SeaFireLIV. Makes all the dif in the world to be able to really check six---look right and around, left and around, and above your back armor on the Spitfire I.

Deedsundone
01-24-2007, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Other Big adventage BoB2 VoW Shockwave over Oleg FB is FM during take off and landings. In Oleg's game every child and girl could take off and land in Bf109. In Shockwave game i suppose there is not many sim players which could correctly land in Bf109. I have played sims for years but i never had such problem with land like in Bf109 from Shockwave. After some traning i have still problem to make a good landing.

Nah,had no problem to land that 109 in FS9.Maybe Iยดm a darn good pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
01-24-2007, 09:06 AM
I just got BoBII yesterday. I only flew a few minutes but hell, I missed 6DOF so much, when I just played IL2.

slipBall
01-24-2007, 09:31 AM
Landing Shockwave

Landing (5,500 lbs)- 109

Check fuel ON.
Set the prop to about 2400 RPM (11:30 on the pitch clock).
Check the traffic pattern and obtain clearance to land.
Slow down to below 350 kph IAS and lower the landing gear. Retrim as needed.
Lower the flaps to about 20 degrees after slowing to 250 kph IAS. The flaps are manual and will take some time to lower.
The normal speed in the traffic pattern with wheels down is 200 kph IAS.
Lower the flaps to the second position after turning to your final approach.
Fly the final approach at 150 kph IAS , crossing the runway threshold at 145 kph IAS.
Break your glide just above the runway and touch down with the tailwheel a little off the ground at 125 kph IAS.
Lower the tailwheel gently.
Brake as necessary. The brakes can be used more aggressively due to the aft center of gravity.



Engine Starting

Cockpit Check - COMPLETE
Hold brakes.
Turn the battery switch ON.
Recheck fuel supply ON.
Turn the magneto switch on BOTH.
Set fuel cutoff control to ON.
Use manual fuel pump to pressurize the fuel lines.
Prime engine if cold using priming pump (3-4 shots).
Turn master ignition switch ON.
Engage starter switch until the engine starts.
Check engine instruments to confirm oil pressure rises to at least 4 kg/cm2 within 30 seconds.
Fuel pressure should rise to 1-1.8 kg/cm2.
Idle at 700 RPM until the oil temperature reaches 30 degrees C.
Turn ON generator.
Turn ON avionics.
Check all instruments for proper function.
After warm-up, idle at 800 RPM or slightly less



I think that I could live with this even on-line....but only if the great <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">SOUND</span> is there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

domenlovrec
01-24-2007, 09:38 AM
That was hearth breaking. I fell like uber noob, since i press "I" button. This was... tnx for this post!

I've also read interview with Oleg. BOB won't have this feature. At the begining i was ok with that, but now, omg i'm going to miss that feature.

I think engine start procedure can do only good for newcomers. I'm sooo impresed... Oh, and i hope flaps will have more positions, not just combat, take off and landing.

StG2_Schlachter
01-24-2007, 09:59 AM
Oh, the Shockwave Birds. They are lovely, but they have their share of problems, too.

The last point of the landing checklist mentioned about the brakes is not working in the sim.

The Emil will flip over quite easily when you step on the brakes too hard. Even at low speeds.

XyZspineZyX
01-24-2007, 09:59 AM
Oleg has said he'll stay away from clickable cockpits.Apparently, to everyone, that means "no complex engine start"

I have not read anywhere that BoB will only have a one key engine start. I don't know if a complex system will be involved or not as an option, but the words "no clickable cockpit" do not mean "no complex engine start"

I dislike the clickpit. I'd much rather map HOTAS functions and keystrokes

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Flight Replicas just made a gorgeous Bf 109K-4 for FSX which I have been using as much as Shockwave's WWII FIGHTERS set. Makes quite a contrast with the Shockwave 109E. Taking off is likely to land you off the runway and in the weeds until you get the hang of it (torque is considerably more powerful than the Maddox K-4). It is a bear to handle. Definitely not for beginners.

The thing I wonder about though, how much reality, hard facts, reports calculations and formulas are behind the behaviour, or is it just setting the variables so that the plane matches it's historical/allagedly historical behaviour..? I really dislike the latter, you end up with planes that are impossible to stall 'because of the reputation', planes that are impossible to take-off/land 'because of the reputation' etc. It's fun and matches expectations, but then it's just a game and not a simulation.

I really like more the Oleg-way, he understands the forces behind the works, and understands and has access to the wartime reports. It might be even possible say the torque (which I miss, too) issue is not as much aircraft FM related, but for example how tire friction on the grass/runway is modelled, bumps in the landing surface etc.

ShaK.
01-24-2007, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Oleg has said he'll stay away from clickable cockpits.Apparently, to everyone, that means "no complex engine start"

I have not read anywhere that BoB will only have a one key engine start. I don't know if a complex system will be involved or not as an option, but the words "no clickable cockpit" do not mean "no complex engine start"

I dislike the clickpit. I'd much rather map HOTAS functions and keystrokes

I totally agree, but I REALLY want TRUE complex engine managment. Like I said earlier, I dont have to "click it" but I HAVE to be able to map it.

domenlovrec
01-24-2007, 10:07 AM
He also said there will be no complex engine start. He thinks players will use it only few times. So no complex engine start and no clickable cockpit.

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by zoinks_:
i love realistic engine start. i can get my spit running in about 12 - 15 seconds...with my head outside.
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/zoinks_/spit.jpg

of course, every pilot knows you can't see the primer from that side!
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e170/zoinks_/spit2.jpg

I love that stick out your head and let the wind blow your hair stuff... All we need is beach boys now. (OOOPS) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

Seriously, will this be present in Oleg's BoB ?

Kurfurst__
01-24-2007, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by domenlovrec:
He also said there will be no complex engine start. He thinks players will use it only few times. So no complex engine start and no clickable cockpit.


I really agree on this with Oleg, it's a reasonable thing. While it would be fun, it's novelty would wear off very quickly, and would not justify the programming work. I'd believe making certain cocpit areas 'sensitive' to mouse click from all sorts of angles would just give a myriad of problems to solve.. and I'd rather see that work spent on refining the actual engine behaviour instead, ie. currently the engine FM has rather poor overheating model, and is completely ignorant of underboosting and such nicities that would effect you constantly during your flight, not just a few fun startups.

slipBall
01-24-2007, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Oh, the Shockwave Birds. They are lovely, but they have their share of problems, too.

The last point of the landing checklist mentioned about the brakes is not working in the sim.

The Emil will flip over quite easily when you step on the brakes too hard. Even at low speeds.


<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Brake as necessary. The brakes can be used more aggressively due to the aft center of gravity</span>

Only our 109 in game...in the real aircraft, brakes could be used without problems....this was modeled correctly in original game...but sadly was changed in fb



Case: AFDU 28 October 1941: Tactical trials - Me.109F aircraft
4. The controls are well balanced and the aircraft is pleasant to fly, but is not so easy to take off as the Me.109E. The elevator control is fairly heavy but the rudder control is light and is effective even at low speeds, the aircraft being very sensitive to over-correction on the rudder during take-off. The Me.109F is not as easy to land as the Spitfire, although it is a little easier than the Me.109E, due to its slightly better forward view. The speed of appraoch for landing is about 110 m.p.h. and the angle is rather steep, which necessitates a big change of attitude before the final touch down. Although the landing speed is high, the resultant run is short and brakes can be safely applied as soon as the aircraft is on the ground.

StG2_Schlachter
01-24-2007, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Oh, the Shockwave Birds. They are lovely, but they have their share of problems, too.

The last point of the landing checklist mentioned about the brakes is not working in the sim.

The Emil will flip over quite easily when you step on the brakes too hard. Even at low speeds.



Only our 109 in game...in the real aircraft, brakes could be used without problems....this was modeled correctly in original game...but sadly was changed in fb



Case: AFDU 28 October 1941: Tactical trials - Me.109F aircraft
4. The controls are well balanced and the aircraft is pleasant to fly, but is not so easy to take off as the Me.109E. The elevator control is fairly heavy but the rudder control is light and is effective even at low speeds, the aircraft being very sensitive to over-correction on the rudder during take-off. The Me.109F is not as easy to land as the Spitfire, although it is a little easier than the Me.109E, due to its slightly better forward view. The speed of appraoch for landing is about 110 m.p.h. and the angle is rather steep, which necessitates a big change of attitude before the final touch down. Although the landing speed is high, the resultant run is short and brakes can be safely applied as soon as the aircraft is on the ground. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi slipBall,

I was refering to the WoP Bf-109 from Shockwave.
Try it out. Load up the E3 and shove in the throttle on the runway and quickly go back to idle. When the Emil is rolling at 10 kph hit the brakes. It will flip over.

NAFP_supah
01-24-2007, 10:28 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 JG52Karaya-X:
It's easy for these guys to portray such a high level of detail, afterall they only model a handful of planes, how many do we have? Next to 200?

Total is around 300, flyables 250 or something. But that`s not the point. I think we are in the apples and oranges land again. No further comments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So tell me, how many flyables will WoV:BoB have when it comes out? 250? or 5? Saying this is too hard to make is just weak. If you want to go on down the road of Pay To Play Airquake be honest about it and dont pussyfoot around saying you want realisme. If a making a tankselector is too much depth in aircraft systems simulation I shudder to think what depth the rest of the game will have.

joeap
01-24-2007, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I think most people on the Maddox forums prefer airborne shooters for online competition, which are not flight sims.

Disagree, well at least for my part...most of the old hands here are not into airquake.

slipBall
01-24-2007, 10:32 AM
Hi slipBall,

I was refering to the WoP Bf-109 from Shockwave.
Try it out. Load up the E3 and shove in the throttle on the runway and quickly go back to idle. When the Emil is rolling at 10 kph hit the brakes. It will flip over



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif ooop's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

domenlovrec
01-24-2007, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by domenlovrec:
He also said there will be no complex engine start. He thinks players will use it only few times. So no complex engine start and no clickable cockpit.


I really agree on this with Oleg, it's a reasonable thing. While it would be fun, it's novelty would wear off very quickly, and would not justify the programming work. I'd believe making certain cocpit areas 'sensitive' to mouse click from all sorts of angles would just give a myriad of problems to solve.. and I'd rather see that work spent on refining the actual engine behaviour instead, ie. currently the engine FM has rather poor overheating model, and is completely ignorant of underboosting and such nicities that would effect you constantly during your flight, not just a few fun startups. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, clickable cockpit is not very handy. It brings nothing to sim. There can never be enough realism that's way imo complex engine start should be part of BoB. Why would you have all those eyecandy handles and buttons? They are waste of time if they are useless. But hey, it's only my opinion. I gave this youtube link to my friends (they don't play flight sim) and they were impresed. This feature can bring many new players to this genre.

joeap
01-24-2007, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
Flight Replicas just made a gorgeous Bf 109K-4 for FSX which I have been using as much as Shockwave's WWII FIGHTERS set. Makes quite a contrast with the Shockwave 109E. Taking off is likely to land you off the runway and in the weeds until you get the hang of it (torque is considerably more powerful than the Maddox K-4). It is a bear to handle. Definitely not for beginners.

The thing I wonder about though, how much reality, hard facts, reports calculations and formulas are behind the behaviour, or is it just setting the variables so that the plane matches it's historical/allagedly historical behaviour..? I really dislike the latter, you end up with planes that are impossible to stall 'because of the reputation', planes that are impossible to take-off/land 'because of the reputation' etc. It's fun and matches expectations, but then it's just a game and not a simulation.

I really like more the Oleg-way, he understands the forces behind the works, and understands and has access to the wartime reports. It might be even possible say the torque (which I miss, too) issue is not as much aircraft FM related, but for example how tire friction on the grass/runway is modelled, bumps in the landing surface etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I agree with you, been thinking that way too, but didn't know exactly how to say it and was sure it would be taken the wrong way. I also agree with what you said here Kurfurst.


I'd rather see that work spent on refining the actual engine behaviour instead, ie. currently the engine FM has rather poor overheating model, and is completely ignorant of underboosting and such nicities that would effect you constantly during your flight, not just a few fun startups.

Although a key or HOTAS (NOT clickable cockpit that's too awkward) start-up procedure would be welcomed by me.

slipBall
01-24-2007, 10:37 AM
I can do without the clickable...but setting keys, or buttons, for real start up steps...would be great

csThor
01-24-2007, 10:37 AM
It's not a question of "too hard" or "too difficult" - it was explained as a question of development ressources vs actual gains (= increase in sales). I would have liked the complete startup procedure, but I admit I do see Oleg's point. Whether we like it or not we "die-hards" are a minority even in the potential customer group for SoW. For most players a complex startup procedure has far less importance than a decent campaign, a believable AI or even a good GUI.
Shockwave's aircraft cannot be really compared to what Maddox Games plans - detailed systems are their main selling characteristic and they share it with the whole MS Flightsimulator line.

Maddox Games is a small team for the task they've set for themselves. I fear this is one of the compromises we'll have to live with.

joeap
01-24-2007, 10:44 AM
Besides the "start-up/systems" aspect, no one had any comments on Kurfurst's other point?

StG2_Schlachter
01-24-2007, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
It's not a question of "too hard" or "too difficult" - it was explained as a question of development ressources vs actual gains (= increase in sales). I would have liked the complete startup procedure, but I admit I do see Oleg's point. Whether we like it or not we "die-hards" are a minority even in the potential customer group for SoW. For most players a complex startup procedure has far less importance than a decent campaign, a believable AI or even a good GUI.
Shockwave's aircraft cannot be really compared to what Maddox Games plans - detailed systems are their main selling characteristic and they share it with the whole MS Flightsimulator line.

Maddox Games is a small team for the task they've set for themselves. I fear this is one of the compromises we'll have to live with.

That's where the 3rd party teams come into play.
The engine for the SoW series should at least support clickable cockpits and complex starting routines.

domenlovrec
01-24-2007, 10:49 AM
I think "realisic" overheating problem is more "die-hard" stuff then engine star procedure. But don't get me wrong, for me overheating and engine model is very importnat.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 10:50 AM
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 crazyivan1970:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG52Karaya-X:
It's easy for these guys to portray such a high level of detail, afterall they only model a handful of planes, how many do we have? Next to 200?

Total is around 300, flyables 250 or something. But that`s not the point. I think we are in the apples and oranges land again. No further comments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So tell me, how many flyables will WoV:BoB have when it comes out? 250? or 5? Saying this is too hard to make is just weak. If you want to go on down the road of Pay To Play Airquake be honest about it and dont pussyfoot around saying you want realisme. If a making a tankselector is too much depth in aircraft systems simulation I shudder to think what depth the rest of the game will have. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem... i was actually talking about IL-2 series, not sure what triggered you off. But i`ll answer. Goal of SOW is to cover as much as IL-2 covered, if not more. BOB is just a first step and many steps after will follow closely.

I see two problems here:

1) Comparing 7 years old sim with the new one.

2) Comparing sim that is already out with something that still in alpha stages.

Nobody in this thread knows what will be in SOW and how it will look, fly, sound...etc. But making conclusions right and left, like you know something. When time comes - compare.

As far as complexity of FM... harder doesnt mean correct - it was proven 100000 times.

The end.

bazzaah2
01-24-2007, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
It's not a question of "too hard" or "too difficult" - it was explained as a question of development ressources vs actual gains (= increase in sales). I would have liked the complete startup procedure, but I admit I do see Oleg's point. Whether we like it or not we "die-hards" are a minority even in the potential customer group for SoW. For most players a complex startup procedure has far less importance than a decent campaign, a believable AI or even a good GUI.
Shockwave's aircraft cannot be really compared to what Maddox Games plans - detailed systems are their main selling characteristic and they share it with the whole MS Flightsimulator line.

Maddox Games is a small team for the task they've set for themselves. I fear this is one of the compromises we'll have to live with.

makes sense from a perspective of limited resources, but the limited interest? I don't buy that.

The Absolute Realism brand is doing well for Shockwave and I think Oleg could really pull something off in terms of his business development with some real world features from MSFS plus air combat. Get some of the MS punters in - the detail and realism is why I have MSFS9 on my HDD, no reason why it couldn't work the other way round. Sometimes, it's just fun to fly and then I like being able to do the detailed startups and then MS always goes in and not 46, though granted the clickable cockpit is less than ideal - can be a real PITA tbh.

slipBall
01-24-2007, 10:53 AM
The Absolute Realism brand is doing well
Without a doubt....that is why they are huge in the market place...ms that is

StG2_Schlachter
01-24-2007, 10:55 AM
Well Crazy Ivan,

Flight Simulator pre-dates IL-2 as much as 10 years. It's engine was enhanced but it remained the same over the years.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 11:00 AM
I dont count conversion stages http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I am talking about the time when first plane flew in this engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Actually make it 8 years hehe

Mysticpuma2003
01-24-2007, 11:02 AM
Well after watching the video, I'm looking forward to using 6DoF in BoBSoW.

I am not too bothered about the clickable cockpit, but I hope we see that level of detail in Oleg's game.

Wouldn't it be cool if they could damage model the cockpit too, so a bullet could sever the Control stick and leave 3d holes in the dashboard.

Ultimately this looks like a 'proper' flight sim, which relies on just outstanding modeling of a few planes.

Maybe SoW could have a limited plane set to start with, but with this ultra realistic modeling?

On second thoughts, just the quality of cockpits,Engine sounds, damage models for cockpit interiors and 6DoF will keep me more than happy!

Nice video though, lets hope Oleg releases one like that too!

Cheers, MP.

zoinks_
01-24-2007, 11:10 AM
flame wars aside, it is possible to like more than one sim.

i fly both oleg's and shockwave's. they are both very good. as long as you, the player, are enjoying it, you win.



complex engine start is not boring. its almost like a real plane if you can imagine that.

zoinks_
01-24-2007, 11:14 AM
i actually like other games that aren't flight sims, if you can imagine that.

ShaK.
01-24-2007, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by zoinks_:
it is possible to like more than one sim.


wait just a dag-on minute... Thats just pure crazyness http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ugly_Kid
01-24-2007, 11:19 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 JG52Karaya-X:
It's easy for these guys to portray such a high level of detail, afterall they only model a handful of planes, how many do we have? Next to 200?

Total is around 300, flyables 250 or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently some of them sharing FM (late He-162?, Spits, i.e.), clipped wing spits featuring high-alt boosted Merlins, odd combinations of year, armament and performance in other planes, wrong loadouts and the list goes on. 250? I'd rather have 25 less g@y and more historically representative, but that's just me...

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 11:21 AM
I mailed oleg of this vid http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

Lets see wat he has to say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Now i think we could use a poll of this matter here

Because from where i can read it seems the mayority here likes that 3D-pit+detail with or without click able pit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

I for one like the idea of having both click/non click

Lets face it ..when you see this 3D-pit starting up procedure i feel like a rookie compared in Il-2

The only I start key is like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Its realy anoying now for me to now that it can be that great with click's

I realy like the REVI on/of knob for reticle gunsight, love it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

come to think of it

i liked al of it, i saw in this video http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 JG52Karaya-X:
It's easy for these guys to portray such a high level of detail, afterall they only model a handful of planes, how many do we have? Next to 200?

Total is around 300, flyables 250 or something. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently some of them sharing FM (late He-162?, Spits, i.e.), clipped wing spits featuring high-alt boosted Merlins, odd combinations of year, armament and performance in other planes, wrong loadouts and the list goes on. 250? I'd rather have 25 less g@y and more historically representative, but that's just me... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

csThor
01-24-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by bazzaah2:
makes sense from a perspective of limited resources, but the limited interest? I don't buy that.

The Absolute Realism brand is doing well for Shockwave and I think Oleg could really pull something off in terms of his business development with some real world features from MSFS plus air combat. Get some of the MS punters in - the detail and realism is why I have MSFS9 on my HDD, no reason why it couldn't work the other way round. Sometimes, it's just fun to fly and then I like being able to do the detailed startups and then MS always goes in and not 46, though granted the clickable cockpit is less than ideal - can be a real PITA tbh.

Apples vs Oranges, I fear. The whole MS line and its supporting aftermarket share one major selling characteristic - the insane level of system details they model. Shockwave have just chosen to model vintage military aircraft but per se they don't differ that much from other developers who bring out modern civilian planes. Without that level of detail in the aircraft's systems there would be no need to buy such AddOns as from my limited experiences with the MS FS communities "their flying" is much different from "our flying" - not just for the systems modeled. What they do is pretty much procedure simming while we're trying to virtually kill each other. That's a major difference and does attract widely different customers.
Secondly the number of FS customers is much bigger than our little bunch of maniacs here for various reasons - not least because of MS's financial power which translates into shelf presence and media coverage.


Originally posted by Sintubin:
Now i think we could use a poll of this matter here.

Useless. Such a poll would mean squat as a minority of the potential customers is online, present in these boards and even actively participating. It would just show what the people here think, not necessarily what the "potential customer base" wants.

TheGozr
01-24-2007, 12:02 PM
As far as complexity of FM... harder doesnt mean correct - it was proven 100000 times
Agree with this it is for that like on il2 for example it's very hard to see far, to navigate recognize land marks, hard to see the clouds far, it's very hard to see your location when arriving at the end of a map with the repetitive ground textures, it is also very hard to check your six, look aside and up with a locked neck. I have never seen in RL planes move like they do.. to see around them in IL2, You are right, harder is not necessary right.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We have now today PC's that can easly sustain this changes ( considering that i have ~300 fps while playing il2 )

The startup procedure is not all that and a little part of the sim, what's make the sim is the complete engine management in flight with the real world weather physics, what make an Ace is not necessary someone with a greater aim.. what a great shooter would do if he doesn't know his plane engine management. That why in RL the pilot may have better chance with an older plane if he knows his plane well.

I can openly say now that il2 is old and don't satisfy me enough anymore for the purpose of flying, it's a great game and extremely fun with your friends and Squads ( the best so far ), great to fight and practice battles tactics etc... there is no doubt about this. I know how a real plane fly so i need more and i fly Lockon/FC and ofcourse FSX witch both are far superior to il2.
The new 1946 is great but that made me sad about il2 i really think that they could fix many many problems that il2 have and revamp some short sight distances and world goodies, fix and updates models cockpits of planes that we use everyday and you all know the list. This would of rejuvenate the serie with one geant step.
I hope that Oleg will and do think about this for the new BOB and some how satisfy both world. We all want the best it's our global interest.

Alas Mean time you have to fight and fly with a 8 years old made cockpits until end 2007/08.

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 12:05 PM
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 bazzaah2:
makes sense from a perspective of limited resources, but the limited interest? I don't buy that.

The Absolute Realism brand is doing well for Shockwave and I think Oleg could really pull something off in terms of his business development with some real world features from MSFS plus air combat. Get some of the MS punters in - the detail and realism is why I have MSFS9 on my HDD, no reason why it couldn't work the other way round. Sometimes, it's just fun to fly and then I like being able to do the detailed startups and then MS always goes in and not 46, though granted the clickable cockpit is less than ideal - can be a real PITA tbh.

Apples vs Oranges, I fear. The whole MS line and its supporting aftermarket share one major selling characteristic - the insane level of system details they model. Shockwave have just chosen to model vintage military aircraft but per se they don't differ that much from other developers who bring out modern civilian planes. Without that level of detail in the aircraft's systems there would be no need to buy such AddOns as from my limited experiences with the MS FS communities "their flying" is much different from "our flying" - not just for the systems modeled. What they do is pretty much procedure simming while we're trying to virtually kill each other. That's a major difference and does attract widely different customers.
Secondly the number of FS customers is much bigger than our little bunch of maniacs here for various reasons - not least because of MS's financial power which translates into shelf presence and media coverage.


Originally posted by Sintubin:
Now i think we could use a poll of this matter here.

Useless. Such a poll would mean squat as a minority of the potential customers is online, present in these boards and even actively participating. It would just show what the people here think, not necessarily what the "potential customer base" wants. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

potential customer base was not my intention

just wat the guys at this boards think

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As far as complexity of FM... harder doesnt mean correct - it was proven 100000 times
Agree with this it is for that like on il2 for example it's very hard to see far, to navigate recognize land marks, hard to see the clouds far and very hard to see your location when arriving at the end of a map with the repetitive ground textures, it is also very hard to check six, look a side and up with a locked neck. I have never seen in RL planes move like they do to see around them in IL2, You are right harder is not necessary right.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We have now today PC's that can easly sustain this changes ( considering that i have ~300 fps while playing il2 )

The startup procedure is not all that and a little part of the sim, what's make the sim is the complete engine management in flight with the real world weather physics, what make a ace is not necessary someone with a great aim.. what a great shooter would do if he doesn't know is plane engine management. That why in RL you may have better chance with an older plane if the pilot knew is plane well.

I can openly say now that il2 is old and don't satisfy me enough anymore for the purpose of flying, it's a great game and extremely fun with your friends and Squads ( the best so far ), great to fight and practice battles tactics etc... there is no doubt about this. I know how a real plane fly so i needed more and i fly Lockon/FC and ofcourse FSX witch both are far superior to il2.
The new 1946 is great but that made me sad about il2 i really think that they could fix many many problems that il2 have and revamp some short sight distances and world goodies, fix and updates models cockpits of planes that we use everyday and you all know the list. This would of rejuvenate the serie with one geant step.
I hope that Oleg will and do think about this for the new BOB and some how satisfy both world. We all want the best it's our global interest.

Alas Mean time you have to fight and fly with a 8 years old made cockpits until end 2007/08. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

agree

Snootles
01-24-2007, 12:26 PM
I would definitely prefer clickable pits- for me at least, it's a lot easier and more immersive to learn where everything is in the cockpit (especially with mouse-over tips), than to memorize keyboard binds. More real startup procedures (even if they're a little simplified) would also be a great improvement over pressing one "start engine" button.

But I could do without those if BoB at least has the sound right- if BoB uses "canned" synthesized generic sounds, there will be no excuse.

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 12:41 PM
Me thinks in two weeks we now more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

joeap
01-24-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The thing I wonder about though, how much reality, hard facts, reports calculations and formulas are behind the behaviour, or is it just setting the variables so that the plane matches it's historical/allagedly historical behaviour..? I really dislike the latter, you end up with planes that are impossible to stall 'because of the reputation', planes that are impossible to take-off/land 'because of the reputation' etc. It's fun and matches expectations, but then it's just a game and not a simulation.

I really like more the Oleg-way, he understands the forces behind the works, and understands and has access to the wartime reports. It might be even possible say the torque (which I miss, too) issue is not as much aircraft FM related, but for example how tire friction on the grass/runway is modelled, bumps in the landing surface etc.

Last bump for the forum...since no one seemed to react to that.

Chivas
01-24-2007, 01:23 PM
If you like flying by the book with no deviation from flight plan the FS series is the way to go.

If you like flying by the seat of pants down and dirty on the edge of the flight envelope the IL-2 series gives you wings. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Xiolablu3
01-24-2007, 01:26 PM
Looks and sounds very nice, but I would rather Oleg concentrated on adding other stuff to the sim.

If it was a case of 'Do we get the crew working on the P38/FW190 or on clickable cockpits in the 109E3/Spitfire Mk1?' I would have to say get on with the new planes.

More planes = More immersive maps online. One of the great things about having so many planes in IL2 is that you can create great scenarios online. You NEED the FW190 A4/A5/A6/A8 for example, so that you can put them in 1942/43/44 scenarios.

Having only the FW190A4 for example, would be no good for a Focke Wulf in a 1944 scenario. We NEED different versions of the planes.

The startup procedure will be fun a few times, but then its just a chore which must be done ecach time before you get into the game for real.

Lets leave that stuff to Shockwave.

I must agree about the sound, tho. I really think IL2/FB sounds are poor compared to other sims. Sorry but thats the truth.

slipBall
01-24-2007, 01:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The thing I wonder about though, how much reality, hard facts, reports calculations and formulas are behind the behaviour, or is it just setting the variables so that the plane matches it's historical/allagedly historical behaviour..? I really dislike the latter, you end up with planes that are impossible to stall 'because of the reputation', planes that are impossible to take-off/land 'because of the reputation' etc. It's fun and matches expectations, but then it's just a game and not a simulation.

I really like more the Oleg-way, he understands the forces behind the works, and understands and has access to the wartime reports. It might be even possible say the torque (which I miss, too) issue is not as much aircraft FM related, but for example how tire friction on the grass/runway is modelled, bumps in the landing surface etc.


Last bump for the forum...since no one seemed to react to that



I am sure that many know this sim is not perfect as compaired to rl. I am hopeing that SOW will take us to that next level of realizium. I would also like to have the aircraft as real as possible, but we have what we have, and it's too late for fb. I would like very much to compair Shockwaves 109, to our's. I really was impressed by the link, and will purchase this weekend. Below is their claim as to real:


Weights and Loading

The Wings of Power Messerschmitt Bf 109 E-4 is equipped with realistic payload, fuel, and station load positioning. This aircraft carried all of its fuel behind the pilot, to counterbalance the weight of the engine. With a full fuel load and ammunition payloads, the aircraft is well-balanced with a CG of 26.8 percent. With no fuel and all other payloads, the CG is reduced to 18.9 percent, which is a very nose-heavy condition. Removal of the ammunition payloads has little effect, changing the CG to 19 percent. When fully-fueled and loaded, the aircraft is rigged to take off with neutral trim, and if the ammunition weight is removed, a slight nose-down trim of up to 1 degree is desirable but not necessary. The fully-loaded and fueled plane is well-balanced and easy to fly, and even with a low fuel load, adequate trim is available to compensate. There is a 60-lb. weight placed behind the pilot strictly to compensate for the weight of the engine. This should remain in place at all times.

When on the ground the plane is quite tail-heavy and brakes can be use firmly with little danger of "nosing up" or tipping over and striking the propeller. However, this makes turns more difficult. Apply differential braking and power to assist with turning.


General Operational Information and Guidelines
The following information is provided to help pilots become familiar with the Wings of Power series of aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. These aircraft are materially different in terms of the flight modeling than what is commonly available. In fact, what is generally accepted as standard performance or aircraft behavior, in many cases will not apply to these aircraft.



The reason? Wings of Power aircraft were made using a new and ambitious process called, "Absolute Realism."





Absolute Realism
There are several areas where the Wings of Power aircraft depart drastically from the standard fare. Until now, an aircraft was considered to fly accurately if it reproduced a handful of specific performance figures (top speed, max climb rate, stall speeds, etc.) These figures really only represent how an aircraft is performing at a single point in time. Absolute Realism goes beyond these limited numbers and authentically simulates all flight through an almost unlimited amount of conditions. If you take a minute and read this article through you will begin to understand just what a significant advancement Absolute Realism truly is.



Designed by pilots, for pilots



As the pilot in command, you can take a Wings of Power aircraft to any given altitude, choose your own power setting (adjust the throttle and watch the manifold pressure / boost gauge), adjust your prop speed, and witness your aircraft climb and cruise exactly as it did in real life. You will even experience accurate fuel consumption rates. You can plan realistic and even historic flights based on your aircraft weight and calculate cruise speeds, distances traveled, and even authentic figures like "distance-to-altitude" shown in the manuals.



These figures are not just "estimated,", they are finely tuned and put through a rigorous and exhaustive testing process by pilots. Wings of Power aircraft are the only aircraft we know of that are certified to be flown "by the book" using nothing but the original training manual for that particular aircraft. This is why we call it, "Absolute Realism."







Performance charts like the one shown below were created by hand from in-house test pilots verifying they fly accurately throughout all flight regimes.




We encourage people to go out and buy the actual pilot training manuals for these aircraft and use them. When it comes to unique stall characteristics and other aspects not documented in the manuals, we refer to actual pilot flight-test reports and our own pilot interviews. Lastly, only hands-on pilots were involved in creating the way these Wings of Power aircraft fly.



The bottom line is, for the first time ever, you can experience these thoroughbred aircraft today for everything that they truly were, and still are.







Power and Propeller Settings




The flight simulation industry has commonly accepted that the maximum throttle setting (100 percent throttle) should reflect the published takeoff power of piston-engined aircraft. For example, the published takeoff power setting for the B-24D Liberator is 49" of manifold pressure and 2700 RPM. A standard FS2004 model of the B24 would expect the pilot to simply shove the throttles and propeller controls to the stop and head for the wild blue yonder.



Not with Wings of Power.



While you can throw the throttle forward in a Wings of Power aircraft, and it will takeoff, the difference is the Wings of Power aircraft will deliver the power these engines actually produce if you were to just throw the throttle forward. Let us explain:





High performance aircraft require setting both the power and propeller speeds for takeoff, landing, and cruise. Aircraft utilized turbosuperchargers" and normal "superchargers" to increase boost so that very high altitudes could be reached. These boost systems were quite complex and required a lot of attention as well as very specific settings for all flight regimes.



For example, the normal takeoff setting for a B29A was with the turbo boost knob set to 8, which left plenty of headroom for additional boost. While you can throw the throttle all the way forward in Wings of Power with a turbo boost of 10, in reality a real pilot or copilot (or flight engineer) would never under any circumstances shove the throttles all the way to the stop unless war emergency power was required. On takeoff, a pilot "walks" the throttles carefully but briskly forward until the proper takeoff power setting is reached. This setting is read on the manifold pressure gauges.





Read this excerpt from a report issued from Bomber Command:




So as you can see, Wings of Power aircraft accurately model the available power for these aircraft, and not limit you to the lower published maximums for takeoff. If you decide to do a standard takeoff, just like the real pilot, you would raise the throttle slowly while watching your manifold pressure / boost gauge until a specific power setting is achieved. However, as pilot in command, if you want to experience a takeoff with military power, the choice is now yours to make. You can see by the report above, it clearly specifies that if necessary, war emergency power can be obtained (and was) by using full throttle. In some cases, as with the B-17, the propeller governor can also be set to a higher RPM than normal.











Takeoff




The takeoff distances provided in each checklist are precisely what is indicated in the performance tables for that airplane's respective pilot's training manual. However, to achieve these figures, the airplane must be flown exactly according to the procedure in the checklist. Using full throttle, incorrect flap positions, incorrect takeoff weights, erroneous trim settings, or improper liftoff technique will materially affect the takeoff distance.



The distances provided are the distance it takes to clear a 50' obstacle, which is a common pilot training procedure. These can be reduced by about 1/3 by using full war emergency power and up to 1/2 flaps on most airplanes. See the checklist for details.





Climbing




There is far more to climbing than meeting a single rate of climb figure published in a book, or a single time-to-climb figure. The rate of climb for piston aircraft is normally greatest at sea level and falls steadily as the aircraft gains altitude. The weight of the aircraft, the power setting, and the climbing speed are absolutely critical in obtaining proper and accurate climb performance and if any of these parameters change, the time and distance to climb will also change. For most aircraft there are two climb power settings, rated power and desired climbing power. The lower power setting is usually reserved for lower aircraft weights and in some cases is not desirable due to fuel economy or engine cooling reasons. It can easily be seen that a simple figure published in a book cannot begin to accurately indicate an aircraft's actual ability to climb.



The climb is a very critical phase in any flight, and with these complicated aircraft, climbing speed and power settings were very important. Fuel economy, time to climb, range, and engine performance are all affected by the way the aircraft is set up to climb. The Wings of Power aircraft have been designed to climb at exactly the settings in the original aircraft manuals, and match the published climb performance data for each aircraft. This B-17 aircraft was climb-tested to 30,000 feet MSL at the weights, power settings and speeds specified. Even the time and distance to climb match the manual.





Critical Altitude
Turbochargers have a turbine wheel (fan) that spins, forcing more air into the engines. The thinner the air, the less resistance on the turbine, which means it has to spin faster to maintain the same pressure than at a lower altitude. The critical altitude, for turbocharged aircraft, is the altitude at which maximum power can no longer be maintained because the air is so thin, the turbine can't spin fast enough to maintain the desired pressure. From this "critical altitude," the higher the aircraft climbs, the less power it can produce (in reality, above these altitudes the turbine would over-speed if excessive boost was applied). Depending on the type of control system -- electronic or oil type -- the critical altitude falls somewhere between 26,000 and 30,000 feet. For supercharged aircraft, the critical altitude is the altitude beyond which the supercharger can no longer produced the maximum rated manifold pressure.



Tech note:

The turbine wheel speed is determined by the difference in pressure between the exhaust system and the atmosphere, which is controlled by the opening of a relief valve called a wastegate.











Landing and Approach




Most aircraft commonly available for Microsoft Flight Simulator have drastically exaggerated flap and landing gear drag values, including the stock aircraft. Therefore most virtual pilots habitually fly the landing approach far too high and have a much greater rate of descent than is actually specified for a particular aircraft. These very high flap drag values allow pilots to get away with unrealistically steep, high approaches.



This is not the case with Wings of Power aircraft.





This can easily be demonstrated by setting the aircraft up on a simulated final approach at a specified landing weight. For example, according to the manual, the B-17G final approach is to be flown at 120 mph with full flaps, a power setting of 20" of manifold pressure, propellers at high rpm, and a rate of descent of 500 feet per minute. Take your Wings of Power B-17G, at a nominal landing weight of 45,000 pounds, to 5,000 feet and set up an autopilot-controlled descent with full flaps and gear down at the above power settings. You will find that it descends at the specified speed, give or take 1-2 mph. This confirms that the thrust, drag, and weight are in the proper equilibrium as specified. The same is true for all



Wings of Power aircraft, which can be tested in the same way.






The bottom line is that flaps are not airbrakes; these aircraft need to flown at the proper speeds and power settings, or landings are going to be very challenging!









Absolute Realism




To obtain ultimate realism, fly the Wings of Power aircraft by the numbers using the information given in each aircraft's checklist. Even better, go out and buy a copy of the aircraft's actual flight manual and use that to fly the plane. That's what we did. Now that's Absolute Realism.



Now go fly.





Visual Effects and Sound


A host of new visual effects were created to immerse the pilot further into an authentic experience. This includes realistic startup effects and natural engine smoke (hit the "I" key to enable jet engine smoke). Once started, experiment with the throttle in any aircraft and notice the subtle differences of the engine sounds inside and out. When your aircraft is taxiing on a dirt strip, you will see more dust being kicked up by the wheels.

Each aircraft was carefully tuned to perform highly realistic belly landings on both the runways and the dirt. These can be very satisfying and challenging to do in each aircraft.


B17F making a belly landing



A new explosion has been added should you plunge your aircraft into the ground, among other visuals.

Lights are all authentically created, and make these aircraft look outstanding when flying at night.





General Operational Information and Guidelines
The following information is provided to help pilots become familiar with the Wings of Power series of aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. These aircraft are materially different in terms of the flight modeling than what is commonly available. In fact, what is generally accepted as standard performance or aircraft behavior, in many cases will not apply to these aircraft.



The reason? Wings of Power aircraft were made using a new and ambitious process called, "Absolute Realism."





Absolute Realism
There are several areas where the Wings of Power aircraft depart drastically from the standard fare. Until now, an aircraft was considered to fly accurately if it reproduced a handful of specific performance figures (top speed, max climb rate, stall speeds, etc.) These figures really only represent how an aircraft is performing at a single point in time. Absolute Realism goes beyond these limited numbers and authentically simulates all flight through an almost unlimited amount of conditions. If you take a minute and read this article through you will begin to understand just what a significant advancement Absolute Realism truly is.



Designed by pilots, for pilots



As the pilot in command, you can take a Wings of Power aircraft to any given altitude, choose your own power setting (adjust the throttle and watch the manifold pressure / boost gauge), adjust your prop speed, and witness your aircraft climb and cruise exactly as it did in real life. You will even experience accurate fuel consumption rates. You can plan realistic and even historic flights based on your aircraft weight and calculate cruise speeds, distances traveled, and even authentic figures like "distance-to-altitude" shown in the manuals.



These figures are not just "estimated,", they are finely tuned and put through a rigorous and exhaustive testing process by pilots. Wings of Power aircraft are the only aircraft we know of that are certified to be flown "by the book" using nothing but the original training manual for that particular aircraft. This is why we call it, "Absolute Realism."







Performance charts like the one shown below were created by hand from in-house test pilots verifying they fly accurately throughout all flight regimes.




We encourage people to go out and buy the actual pilot training manuals for these aircraft and use them. When it comes to unique stall characteristics and other aspects not documented in the manuals, we refer to actual pilot flight-test reports and our own pilot interviews. Lastly, only hands-on pilots were involved in creating the way these Wings of Power aircraft fly.



The bottom line is, for the first time ever, you can experience these thoroughbred aircraft today for everything that they truly were, and still are.







Power and Propeller Settings




The flight simulation industry has commonly accepted that the maximum throttle setting (100 percent throttle) should reflect the published takeoff power of piston-engined aircraft. For example, the published takeoff power setting for the B-24D Liberator is 49" of manifold pressure and 2700 RPM. A standard FS2004 model of the B24 would expect the pilot to simply shove the throttles and propeller controls to the stop and head for the wild blue yonder.



Not with Wings of Power.



While you can throw the throttle forward in a Wings of Power aircraft, and it will takeoff, the difference is the Wings of Power aircraft will deliver the power these engines actually produce if you were to just throw the throttle forward. Let us explain:





High performance aircraft require setting both the power and propeller speeds for takeoff, landing, and cruise. Aircraft utilized turbosuperchargers" and normal "superchargers" to increase boost so that very high altitudes could be reached. These boost systems were quite complex and required a lot of attention as well as very specific settings for all flight regimes.



For example, the normal takeoff setting for a B29A was with the turbo boost knob set to 8, which left plenty of headroom for additional boost. While you can throw the throttle all the way forward in Wings of Power with a turbo boost of 10, in reality a real pilot or copilot (or flight engineer) would never under any circumstances shove the throttles all the way to the stop unless war emergency power was required. On takeoff, a pilot "walks" the throttles carefully but briskly forward until the proper takeoff power setting is reached. This setting is read on the manifold pressure gauges.





Read this excerpt from a report issued from Bomber Command:




So as you can see, Wings of Power aircraft accurately model the available power for these aircraft, and not limit you to the lower published maximums for takeoff. If you decide to do a standard takeoff, just like the real pilot, you would raise the throttle slowly while watching your manifold pressure / boost gauge until a specific power setting is achieved. However, as pilot in command, if you want to experience a takeoff with military power, the choice is now yours to make. You can see by the report above, it clearly specifies that if necessary, war emergency power can be obtained (and was) by using full throttle. In some cases, as with the B-17, the propeller governor can also be set to a higher RPM than normal.











Takeoff




The takeoff distances provided in each checklist are precisely what is indicated in the performance tables for that airplane's respective pilot's training manual. However, to achieve these figures, the airplane must be flown exactly according to the procedure in the checklist. Using full throttle, incorrect flap positions, incorrect takeoff weights, erroneous trim settings, or improper liftoff technique will materially affect the takeoff distance.



The distances provided are the distance it takes to clear a 50' obstacle, which is a common pilot training procedure. These can be reduced by about 1/3 by using full war emergency power and up to 1/2 flaps on most airplanes. See the checklist for details.





Climbing




There is far more to climbing than meeting a single rate of climb figure published in a book, or a single time-to-climb figure. The rate of climb for piston aircraft is normally greatest at sea level and falls steadily as the aircraft gains altitude. The weight of the aircraft, the power setting, and the climbing speed are absolutely critical in obtaining proper and accurate climb performance and if any of these parameters change, the time and distance to climb will also change. For most aircraft there are two climb power settings, rated power and desired climbing power. The lower power setting is usually reserved for lower aircraft weights and in some cases is not desirable due to fuel economy or engine cooling reasons. It can easily be seen that a simple figure published in a book cannot begin to accurately indicate an aircraft's actual ability to climb.



The climb is a very critical phase in any flight, and with these complicated aircraft, climbing speed and power settings were very important. Fuel economy, time to climb, range, and engine performance are all affected by the way the aircraft is set up to climb. The Wings of Power aircraft have been designed to climb at exactly the settings in the original aircraft manuals, and match the published climb performance data for each aircraft. This B-17 aircraft was climb-tested to 30,000 feet MSL at the weights, power settings and speeds specified. Even the time and distance to climb match the manual.





Critical Altitude
Turbochargers have a turbine wheel (fan) that spins, forcing more air into the engines. The thinner the air, the less resistance on the turbine, which means it has to spin faster to maintain the same pressure than at a lower altitude. The critical altitude, for turbocharged aircraft, is the altitude at which maximum power can no longer be maintained because the air is so thin, the turbine can't spin fast enough to maintain the desired pressure. From this "critical altitude," the higher the aircraft climbs, the less power it can produce (in reality, above these altitudes the turbine would over-speed if excessive boost was applied). Depending on the type of control system -- electronic or oil type -- the critical altitude falls somewhere between 26,000 and 30,000 feet. For supercharged aircraft, the critical altitude is the altitude beyond which the supercharger can no longer produced the maximum rated manifold pressure.



Tech note:

The turbine wheel speed is determined by the difference in pressure between the exhaust system and the atmosphere, which is controlled by the opening of a relief valve called a wastegate.











Landing and Approach




Most aircraft commonly available for Microsoft Flight Simulator have drastically exaggerated flap and landing gear drag values, including the stock aircraft. Therefore most virtual pilots habitually fly the landing approach far too high and have a much greater rate of descent than is actually specified for a particular aircraft. These very high flap drag values allow pilots to get away with unrealistically steep, high approaches.



This is not the case with Wings of Power aircraft.





This can easily be demonstrated by setting the aircraft up on a simulated final approach at a specified landing weight. For example, according to the manual, the B-17G final approach is to be flown at 120 mph with full flaps, a power setting of 20" of manifold pressure, propellers at high rpm, and a rate of descent of 500 feet per minute. Take your Wings of Power B-17G, at a nominal landing weight of 45,000 pounds, to 5,000 feet and set up an autopilot-controlled descent with full flaps and gear down at the above power settings. You will find that it descends at the specified speed, give or take 1-2 mph. This confirms that the thrust, drag, and weight are in the proper equilibrium as specified. The same is true for all



Wings of Power aircraft, which can be tested in the same way.






The bottom line is that flaps are not airbrakes; these aircraft need to flown at the proper speeds and power settings, or landings are going to be very challenging!









Absolute Realism




To obtain ultimate realism, fly the Wings of Power aircraft by the numbers using the information given in each aircraft's checklist. Even better, go out and buy a copy of the aircraft's actual flight manual and use that to fly the plane. That's what we did. Now that's Absolute Realism.



Now go fly.





Visual Effects and Sound


A host of new visual effects were created to immerse the pilot further into an authentic experience. This includes realistic startup effects and natural engine smoke (hit the "I" key to enable jet engine smoke). Once started, experiment with the throttle in any aircraft and notice the subtle differences of the engine sounds inside and out. When your aircraft is taxiing on a dirt strip, you will see more dust being kicked up by the wheels.

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
quote:
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

The thing I wonder about though, how much reality, hard facts, reports calculations and formulas are behind the behaviour, or is it just setting the variables so that the plane matches it's historical/allagedly historical behaviour..? I really dislike the latter, you end up with planes that are impossible to stall 'because of the reputation', planes that are impossible to take-off/land 'because of the reputation' etc. It's fun and matches expectations, but then it's just a game and not a simulation.

I really like more the Oleg-way, he understands the forces behind the works, and understands and has access to the wartime reports. It might be even possible say the torque (which I miss, too) issue is not as much aircraft FM related, but for example how tire friction on the grass/runway is modelled, bumps in the landing surface etc.


Last bump for the forum...since no one seemed to react to that



I am sure that many know this sim is not perfect as compaired to rl. I am hopeing that SOW will take us to that next level of realizium. I would also like to have the aircraft as real as possible, but we have what we have, and it's too late for fb. I would like very much to compair Shockwaves 109, to our's. I really was impressed by the link, and will purchase this weekend. Below is their claim as to real:

General Operational Information and Guidelines
The following information is provided to help pilots become familiar with the Wings of Power series of aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. These aircraft are materially different in terms of the flight modeling than what is commonly available. In fact, what is generally accepted as standard performance or aircraft behavior, in many cases will not apply to these aircraft.



The reason? Wings of Power aircraft were made using a new and ambitious process called, "Absolute Realism."





Absolute Realism
There are several areas where the Wings of Power aircraft depart drastically from the standard fare. Until now, an aircraft was considered to fly accurately if it reproduced a handful of specific performance figures (top speed, max climb rate, stall speeds, etc.) These figures really only represent how an aircraft is performing at a single point in time. Absolute Realism goes beyond these limited numbers and authentically simulates all flight through an almost unlimited amount of conditions. If you take a minute and read this article through you will begin to understand just what a significant advancement Absolute Realism truly is.



Designed by pilots, for pilots



As the pilot in command, you can take a Wings of Power aircraft to any given altitude, choose your own power setting (adjust the throttle and watch the manifold pressure / boost gauge), adjust your prop speed, and witness your aircraft climb and cruise exactly as it did in real life. You will even experience accurate fuel consumption rates. You can plan realistic and even historic flights based on your aircraft weight and calculate cruise speeds, distances traveled, and even authentic figures like "distance-to-altitude" shown in the manuals.



These figures are not just "estimated,", they are finely tuned and put through a rigorous and exhaustive testing process by pilots. Wings of Power aircraft are the only aircraft we know of that are certified to be flown "by the book" using nothing but the original training manual for that particular aircraft. This is why we call it, "Absolute Realism."







Performance charts like the one shown below were created by hand from in-house test pilots verifying they fly accurately throughout all flight regimes.




We encourage people to go out and buy the actual pilot training manuals for these aircraft and use them. When it comes to unique stall characteristics and other aspects not documented in the manuals, we refer to actual pilot flight-test reports and our own pilot interviews. Lastly, only hands-on pilots were involved in creating the way these Wings of Power aircraft fly.



The bottom line is, for the first time ever, you can experience these thoroughbred aircraft today for everything that they truly were, and still are.







Power and Propeller Settings




The flight simulation industry has commonly accepted that the maximum throttle setting (100 percent throttle) should reflect the published takeoff power of piston-engined aircraft. For example, the published takeoff power setting for the B-24D Liberator is 49" of manifold pressure and 2700 RPM. A standard FS2004 model of the B24 would expect the pilot to simply shove the throttles and propeller controls to the stop and head for the wild blue yonder.



Not with Wings of Power.



While you can throw the throttle forward in a Wings of Power aircraft, and it will takeoff, the difference is the Wings of Power aircraft will deliver the power these engines actually produce if you were to just throw the throttle forward. Let us explain:





High performance aircraft require setting both the power and propeller speeds for takeoff, landing, and cruise. Aircraft utilized turbosuperchargers" and normal "superchargers" to increase boost so that very high altitudes could be reached. These boost systems were quite complex and required a lot of attention as well as very specific settings for all flight regimes.



For example, the normal takeoff setting for a B29A was with the turbo boost knob set to 8, which left plenty of headroom for additional boost. While you can throw the throttle all the way forward in Wings of Power with a turbo boost of 10, in reality a real pilot or copilot (or flight engineer) would never under any circumstances shove the throttles all the way to the stop unless war emergency power was required. On takeoff, a pilot "walks" the throttles carefully but briskly forward until the proper takeoff power setting is reached. This setting is read on the manifold pressure gauges.





Read this excerpt from a report issued from Bomber Command:




So as you can see, Wings of Power aircraft accurately model the available power for these aircraft, and not limit you to the lower published maximums for takeoff. If you decide to do a standard takeoff, just like the real pilot, you would raise the throttle slowly while watching your manifold pressure / boost gauge until a specific power setting is achieved. However, as pilot in command, if you want to experience a takeoff with military power, the choice is now yours to make. You can see by the report above, it clearly specifies that if necessary, war emergency power can be obtained (and was) by using full throttle. In some cases, as with the B-17, the propeller governor can also be set to a higher RPM than normal.











Takeoff




The takeoff distances provided in each checklist are precisely what is indicated in the performance tables for that airplane's respective pilot's training manual. However, to achieve these figures, the airplane must be flown exactly according to the procedure in the checklist. Using full throttle, incorrect flap positions, incorrect takeoff weights, erroneous trim settings, or improper liftoff technique will materially affect the takeoff distance.



The distances provided are the distance it takes to clear a 50' obstacle, which is a common pilot training procedure. These can be reduced by about 1/3 by using full war emergency power and up to 1/2 flaps on most airplanes. See the checklist for details.





Climbing




There is far more to climbing than meeting a single rate of climb figure published in a book, or a single time-to-climb figure. The rate of climb for piston aircraft is normally greatest at sea level and falls steadily as the aircraft gains altitude. The weight of the aircraft, the power setting, and the climbing speed are absolutely critical in obtaining proper and accurate climb performance and if any of these parameters change, the time and distance to climb will also change. For most aircraft there are two climb power settings, rated power and desired climbing power. The lower power setting is usually reserved for lower aircraft weights and in some cases is not desirable due to fuel economy or engine cooling reasons. It can easily be seen that a simple figure published in a book cannot begin to accurately indicate an aircraft's actual ability to climb.



The climb is a very critical phase in any flight, and with these complicated aircraft, climbing speed and power settings were very important. Fuel economy, time to climb, range, and engine performance are all affected by the way the aircraft is set up to climb. The Wings of Power aircraft have been designed to climb at exactly the settings in the original aircraft manuals, and match the published climb performance data for each aircraft. This B-17 aircraft was climb-tested to 30,000 feet MSL at the weights, power settings and speeds specified. Even the time and distance to climb match the manual.





Critical Altitude
Turbochargers have a turbine wheel (fan) that spins, forcing more air into the engines. The thinner the air, the less resistance on the turbine, which means it has to spin faster to maintain the same pressure than at a lower altitude. The critical altitude, for turbocharged aircraft, is the altitude at which maximum power can no longer be maintained because the air is so thin, the turbine can't spin fast enough to maintain the desired pressure. From this "critical altitude," the higher the aircraft climbs, the less power it can produce (in reality, above these altitudes the turbine would over-speed if excessive boost was applied). Depending on the type of control system -- electronic or oil type -- the critical altitude falls somewhere between 26,000 and 30,000 feet. For supercharged aircraft, the critical altitude is the altitude beyond which the supercharger can no longer produced the maximum rated manifold pressure.



Tech note:

The turbine wheel speed is determined by the difference in pressure between the exhaust system and the atmosphere, which is controlled by the opening of a relief valve called a wastegate.











Landing and Approach




Most aircraft commonly available for Microsoft Flight Simulator have drastically exaggerated flap and landing gear drag values, including the stock aircraft. Therefore most virtual pilots habitually fly the landing approach far too high and have a much greater rate of descent than is actually specified for a particular aircraft. These very high flap drag values allow pilots to get away with unrealistically steep, high approaches.



This is not the case with Wings of Power aircraft.





This can easily be demonstrated by setting the aircraft up on a simulated final approach at a specified landing weight. For example, according to the manual, the B-17G final approach is to be flown at 120 mph with full flaps, a power setting of 20" of manifold pressure, propellers at high rpm, and a rate of descent of 500 feet per minute. Take your Wings of Power B-17G, at a nominal landing weight of 45,000 pounds, to 5,000 feet and set up an autopilot-controlled descent with full flaps and gear down at the above power settings. You will find that it descends at the specified speed, give or take 1-2 mph. This confirms that the thrust, drag, and weight are in the proper equilibrium as specified. The same is true for all



Wings of Power aircraft, which can be tested in the same way.






The bottom line is that flaps are not airbrakes; these aircraft need to flown at the proper speeds and power settings, or landings are going to be very challenging!









Absolute Realism




To obtain ultimate realism, fly the Wings of Power aircraft by the numbers using the information given in each aircraft's checklist. Even better, go out and buy a copy of the aircraft's actual flight manual and use that to fly the plane. That's what we did. Now that's Absolute Realism.



Now go fly.





Visual Effects and Sound


A host of new visual effects were created to immerse the pilot further into an authentic experience. This includes realistic startup effects and natural engine smoke (hit the "I" key to enable jet engine smoke). Once started, experiment with the throttle in any aircraft and notice the subtle differences of the engine sounds inside and out. When your aircraft is taxiing on a dirt strip, you will see more dust being kicked up by the wheels.

Each aircraft was carefully tuned to perform highly realistic belly landings on both the runways and the dirt. These can be very satisfying and challenging to do in each aircraft.


B17F making a belly landing



A new explosion has been added should you plunge your aircraft into the ground, among other visuals.

Lights are all authentically created, and make these aircraft look outstanding when flying at night.





General Operational Information and Guidelines
The following information is provided to help pilots become familiar with the Wings of Power series of aircraft for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. These aircraft are materially different in terms of the flight modeling than what is commonly available. In fact, what is generally accepted as standard performance or aircraft behavior, in many cases will not apply to these aircraft.



The reason? Wings of Power aircraft were made using a new and ambitious process called, "Absolute Realism."





Absolute Realism
There are several areas where the Wings of Power aircraft depart drastically from the standard fare. Until now, an aircraft was considered to fly accurately if it reproduced a handful of specific performance figures (top speed, max climb rate, stall speeds, etc.) These figures really only represent how an aircraft is performing at a single point in time. Absolute Realism goes beyond these limited numbers and authentically simulates all flight through an almost unlimited amount of conditions. If you take a minute and read this article through you will begin to understand just what a significant advancement Absolute Realism truly is.



Designed by pilots, for pilots



As the pilot in command, you can take a Wings of Power aircraft to any given altitude, choose your own power setting (adjust the throttle and watch the manifold pressure / boost gauge), adjust your prop speed, and witness your aircraft climb and cruise exactly as it did in real life. You will even experience accurate fuel consumption rates. You can plan realistic and even historic flights based on your aircraft weight and calculate cruise speeds, distances traveled, and even authentic figures like "distance-to-altitude" shown in the manuals.



These figures are not just "estimated,", they are finely tuned and put through a rigorous and exhaustive testing process by pilots. Wings of Power aircraft are the only aircraft we know of that are certified to be flown "by the book" using nothing but the original training manual for that particular aircraft. This is why we call it, "Absolute Realism."







Performance charts like the one shown below were created by hand from in-house test pilots verifying they fly accurately throughout all flight regimes.




We encourage people to go out and buy the actual pilot training manuals for these aircraft and use them. When it comes to unique stall characteristics and other aspects not documented in the manuals, we refer to actual pilot flight-test reports and our own pilot interviews. Lastly, only hands-on pilots were involved in creating the way these Wings of Power aircraft fly.



The bottom line is, for the first time ever, you can experience these thoroughbred aircraft today for everything that they truly were, and still are.







Power and Propeller Settings




The flight simulation industry has commonly accepted that the maximum throttle setting (100 percent throttle) should reflect the published takeoff power of piston-engined aircraft. For example, the published takeoff power setting for the B-24D Liberator is 49" of manifold pressure and 2700 RPM. A standard FS2004 model of the B24 would expect the pilot to simply shove the throttles and propeller controls to the stop and head for the wild blue yonder.



Not with Wings of Power.



While you can throw the throttle forward in a Wings of Power aircraft, and it will takeoff, the difference is the Wings of Power aircraft will deliver the power these engines actually produce if you were to just throw the throttle forward. Let us explain:





High performance aircraft require setting both the power and propeller speeds for takeoff, landing, and cruise. Aircraft utilized turbosuperchargers" and normal "superchargers" to increase boost so that very high altitudes could be reached. These boost systems were quite complex and required a lot of attention as well as very specific settings for all flight regimes.



For example, the normal takeoff setting for a B29A was with the turbo boost knob set to 8, which left plenty of headroom for additional boost. While you can throw the throttle all the way forward in Wings of Power with a turbo boost of 10, in reality a real pilot or copilot (or flight engineer) would never under any circumstances shove the throttles all the way to the stop unless war emergency power was required. On takeoff, a pilot "walks" the throttles carefully but briskly forward until the proper takeoff power setting is reached. This setting is read on the manifold pressure gauges.





Read this excerpt from a report issued from Bomber Command:




So as you can see, Wings of Power aircraft accurately model the available power for these aircraft, and not limit you to the lower published maximums for takeoff. If you decide to do a standard takeoff, just like the real pilot, you would raise the throttle slowly while watching your manifold pressure / boost gauge until a specific power setting is achieved. However, as pilot in command, if you want to experience a takeoff with military power, the choice is now yours to make. You can see by the report above, it clearly specifies that if necessary, war emergency power can be obtained (and was) by using full throttle. In some cases, as with the B-17, the propeller governor can also be set to a higher RPM than normal.











Takeoff




The takeoff distances provided in each checklist are precisely what is indicated in the performance tables for that airplane's respective pilot's training manual. However, to achieve these figures, the airplane must be flown exactly according to the procedure in the checklist. Using full throttle, incorrect flap positions, incorrect takeoff weights, erroneous trim settings, or improper liftoff technique will materially affect the takeoff distance.



The distances provided are the distance it takes to clear a 50' obstacle, which is a common pilot training procedure. These can be reduced by about 1/3 by using full war emergency power and up to 1/2 flaps on most airplanes. See the checklist for details.





Climbing




There is far more to climbing than meeting a single rate of climb figure published in a book, or a single time-to-climb figure. The rate of climb for piston aircraft is normally greatest at sea level and falls steadily as the aircraft gains altitude. The weight of the aircraft, the power setting, and the climbing speed are absolutely critical in obtaining proper and accurate climb performance and if any of these parameters change, the time and distance to climb will also change. For most aircraft there are two climb power settings, rated power and desired climbing power. The lower power setting is usually reserved for lower aircraft weights and in some cases is not desirable due to fuel economy or engine cooling reasons. It can easily be seen that a simple figure published in a book cannot begin to accurately indicate an aircraft's actual ability to climb.



The climb is a very critical phase in any flight, and with these complicated aircraft, climbing speed and power settings were very important. Fuel economy, time to climb, range, and engine performance are all affected by the way the aircraft is set up to climb. The Wings of Power aircraft have been designed to climb at exactly the settings in the original aircraft manuals, and match the published climb performance data for each aircraft. This B-17 aircraft was climb-tested to 30,000 feet MSL at the weights, power settings and speeds specified. Even the time and distance to climb match the manual.





Critical Altitude
Turbochargers have a turbine wheel (fan) that spins, forcing more air into the engines. The thinner the air, the less resistance on the turbine, which means it has to spin faster to maintain the same pressure than at a lower altitude. The critical altitude, for turbocharged aircraft, is the altitude at which maximum power can no longer be maintained because the air is so thin, the turbine can't spin fast enough to maintain the desired pressure. From this "critical altitude," the higher the aircraft climbs, the less power it can produce (in reality, above these altitudes the turbine would over-speed if excessive boost was applied). Depending on the type of control system -- electronic or oil type -- the critical altitude falls somewhere between 26,000 and 30,000 feet. For supercharged aircraft, the critical altitude is the altitude beyond which the supercharger can no longer produced the maximum rated manifold pressure.



Tech note:

The turbine wheel speed is determined by the difference in pressure between the exhaust system and the atmosphere, which is controlled by the opening of a relief valve called a wastegate.











Landing and Approach




Most aircraft commonly available for Microsoft Flight Simulator have drastically exaggerated flap and landing gear drag values, including the stock aircraft. Therefore most virtual pilots habitually fly the landing approach far too high and have a much greater rate of descent than is actually specified for a particular aircraft. These very high flap drag values allow pilots to get away with unrealistically steep, high approaches.



This is not the case with Wings of Power aircraft.





This can easily be demonstrated by setting the aircraft up on a simulated final approach at a specified landing weight. For example, according to the manual, the B-17G final approach is to be flown at 120 mph with full flaps, a power setting of 20" of manifold pressure, propellers at high rpm, and a rate of descent of 500 feet per minute. Take your Wings of Power B-17G, at a nominal landing weight of 45,000 pounds, to 5,000 feet and set up an autopilot-controlled descent with full flaps and gear down at the above power settings. You will find that it descends at the specified speed, give or take 1-2 mph. This confirms that the thrust, drag, and weight are in the proper equilibrium as specified. The same is true for all



Wings of Power aircraft, which can be tested in the same way.






The bottom line is that flaps are not airbrakes; these aircraft need to flown at the proper speeds and power settings, or landings are going to be very challenging!









Absolute Realism




To obtain ultimate realism, fly the Wings of Power aircraft by the numbers using the information given in each aircraft's checklist. Even better, go out and buy a copy of the aircraft's actual flight manual and use that to fly the plane. That's what we did. Now that's Absolute Realism.



Now go fly.





Visual Effects and Sound


A host of new visual effects were created to immerse the pilot further into an authentic experience. This includes realistic startup effects and natural engine smoke (hit the "I" key to enable jet engine smoke). Once started, experiment with the throttle in any aircraft and notice the subtle differences of the engine sounds inside and out. When your aircraft is taxiing on a dirt strip, you will see more dust being kicked up by the wheels.
wow http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 02:14 PM
Seems most of the reply's are like--- Love 3D pit

I think i fly sim but when it comes to ACTUALY engine management i get my hands of, i like more JUST SHOOTING ARCADE WHITH FULL POWER AL THE TIME

i amfraid that this is not a combat WW 2 SIM, just a nother forward shooter but in ww2 planes

Now in il-2 its like who shoots best wins

i actualy like to now my plane in engine performance to beat a spit fire in dogfight
only then we can use almost the real performance like we al read how some planes reacted


not like now when i just need a solution shot on him

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-24-2007, 02:21 PM
Whats Shockwave and others charge for one single plane? 25 dollars or so. Gee I wonder how much Oleg could charge for SoW if he went to the lengths that some think he should. You need to utilize some common sense and stop being so selfish as if Oleg or and developer only has to cater to you. Fact of the matter is this is a combat sim line and thats its selling point. Look at all of you who bought it for just that reason.

Oleg could clear this mess up at any point, all he needs to do is reply to the thread.

domenlovrec
01-24-2007, 02:21 PM
Sintubin i'm with you 100%. Even a monkey can press "I" button. Imagine how cool would be to fly Ju88 with all those handles and knobs. Even climbing would be fun.

slipBall
01-24-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Whats Shockwave and others charge for one single plane? 25 dollars or so. Gee I wonder how much Oleg could charge for SoW if he went to the lengths that some think he should. You need to utilize some common sense and stop being so selfish as if Oleg or and developer only has to cater to you. Fact of the matter is this is a combat sim line and thats its selling point. Look at all of you who bought it for just that reason.

Oleg could clear this mess up at any point, all he needs to do is reply to the thread.



$29.99 for 5 fighter's http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif you can find it for $22.00 on the web
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/store/wwiifighters/

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-24-2007, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by domenlovrec:
Sintubin i'm with you 100%. Even a monkey can press "I" button. Imagine how cool would be to fly Ju88 with all those handles and knobs. Even climbing would be fun.

Ahh yes I can hear the screams for help now. The newbs on the runway pleading for someone to please help them start their engine. Seriously I can recall countless times where I or someone else had to talk someone through the simple process of starting a bomber only to become frustrated. Cool idea and all but I want to get my kill on and it will be hard to do so if 80% of the server is still on the gound. LOL! I kid I kid.

But anyway clicking more switches does not make you anymore of a man then pressing I nor will it make you a better virtual pilot. You will still die the same. So if everyone is going to debate it then please stop acting as if one requires some sort of higher intellect then the other. Thats just silly.

Sign a petition and email it Oleg or something. Be constructive not just a whiner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Carry on.

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
Whats Shockwave and others charge for one single plane? 25 dollars or so. Gee I wonder how much Oleg could charge for SoW if he went to the lengths that some think he should. You need to utilize some common sense and stop being so selfish as if Oleg or and developer only has to cater to you. Fact of the matter is this is a combat sim line and thats its selling point. Look at all of you who bought it for just that reason.

Oleg could clear this mess up at any point, all he needs to do is reply to the thread.

I am not selfish or just say wat it is

Il-2 is no sim without complex engine!

BOB:SOW i think must at least have the complex engine function in it --not like now when its just RPM/MIX control

read my post i sayed "i actualy like to now my plane in engine performance to beat a spit fire in dogfight
only then we can use almost the real performance like we al read how some planes reacted "

This is wat the most inportant to a flight/combat SIMULATOR <---- Word simulator is for 100% inportant

Its not that much more time needed to make it for BOB:SOW

Otherwyse BOB:SOW its just a upgrade il-2 arcade shooter in a new dress

Now in il-2 in dogfight its like 90% see who stalls fastes-shoooooot , nothing to do with your setting of engine

Its hard for me to explane it in english al the things i am trying to say

I dont seek any angry with some one

I am not the only who things that way

I think it wil sell more of it has clickable pits + complex engine



H

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by domenlovrec:
Sintubin i'm with you 100%. Even a monkey can press "I" button. Imagine how cool would be to fly Ju88 with all those handles and knobs. Even climbing would be fun.

Ahh yes I can hear the screams for help now. The newbs on the runway pleading for someone to please help them start their engine. Seriously I can recall countless times where I or someone else had to talk someone through the simple process of starting a bomber only to become frustrated. Cool idea and all but I want to get my kill on and it will be hard to do so if 80% of the server is still on the gound. LOL! I kid I kid.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

host server have the option complex engine yes/no like now )))

But with clickable/non clickable pits wil be atraktive to older mature people with money to spend on addons i think

beside it wil ad much more to the BOB:SOW serie

then just pres I and fly

Abbeville-Boy
01-24-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by domenlovrec:
Sintubin i'm with you 100%. Even a monkey can press "I" button. Imagine how cool would be to fly Ju88 with all those handles and knobs. Even climbing would be fun.

Ahh yes I can hear the screams for help now. The newbs on the runway pleading for someone to please help them start their engine. Seriously I can recall countless times where I or someone else had to talk someone through the simple process of starting a bomber only to become frustrated. Cool idea and all but I want to get my kill on and it will be hard to do so if 80% of the server is still on the gound. LOL! I kid I kid.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

host server have the option complex engine yes/no like now )))

But with clickable/non clickable pits wil be atraktive to older mature people with money to spend on addons i think

beside it wil ad much more to the BOB:SOW serie

then just pres I and fly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif we have a few girl-ly men here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Abbeville-Boy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by domenlovrec:
Sintubin i'm with you 100%. Even a monkey can press "I" button. Imagine how cool would be to fly Ju88 with all those handles and knobs. Even climbing would be fun.

Ahh yes I can hear the screams for help now. The newbs on the runway pleading for someone to please help them start their engine. Seriously I can recall countless times where I or someone else had to talk someone through the simple process of starting a bomber only to become frustrated. Cool idea and all but I want to get my kill on and it will be hard to do so if 80% of the server is still on the gound. LOL! I kid I kid.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

host server have the option complex engine yes/no like now )))

But with clickable/non clickable pits wil be atraktive to older mature people with money to spend on addons i think

beside it wil ad much more to the BOB:SOW serie

then just pres I and fly </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif we have a few girl-ly men here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lol

ShaK.
01-24-2007, 03:57 PM
Well it seems the people here, who want arcade shootem ups are getting upset about the DISCUSION of an AIR COMBAT SIMULATION becoming more like a SIMULATION and less like an arcade game. You will could have the option of arcade starts and arcade simple engine managment.

Dont rain on the parade... get better, fly more, then maybe you would like the harder settings. I hear Battlefield 1942 is a great combat flight "sim" for you guys.

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
Well it seems the people here, who want arcade shootem ups are getting upset about the DISCUSION of an AIR COMBAT SIMULATION becoming more like a SIMULATION and less like an arcade game. You will could have the option of arcade starts and arcade simple engine managment.

Dont rain on the parade... get better, fly more, then maybe you would like the harder settings. I hear Battlefield 1942 is a great combat flight "sim" for you guys.

Oh wow.....

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
Well it seems the people here, who want arcade shootem ups are getting upset about the DISCUSION of an AIR COMBAT SIMULATION becoming more like a SIMULATION and less like an arcade game. You will could have the option of arcade starts and arcade simple engine managment.

Dont rain on the parade... get better, fly more, then maybe you would like the harder settings. I hear Battlefield 1942 is a great combat flight "sim" for you guys.


agree

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 04:19 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 ShaK.:
Well it seems the people here, who want arcade shootem ups are getting upset about the DISCUSION of an AIR COMBAT SIMULATION becoming more like a SIMULATION and less like an arcade game. You will could have the option of arcade starts and arcade simple engine managment.

Dont rain on the parade... get better, fly more, then maybe you would like the harder settings. I hear Battlefield 1942 is a great combat flight "sim" for you guys.

Oh wow..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

free speech is gold

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 04:26 PM
Huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

slipBall
01-24-2007, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
Well it seems the people here, who want arcade shootem ups are getting upset about the DISCUSION of an AIR COMBAT SIMULATION becoming more like a SIMULATION and less like an arcade game. You will could have the option of arcade starts and arcade simple engine managment.

Dont rain on the parade... get better, f

ly more, then maybe you would like the harder settings. I hear Battlefield 1942 is a great combat flight "sim" for you guys.


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

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 04:35 PM
This forum never fails to amaze me... remember the progress?

Those who fly open pit are not flight simmers

Those who fly with icons are not flight simmers

Those who has externals are not flight simmers

Those who has map path are not flight simmers....

and on and on and on... and now we come to this...

If if doesnt have a clickable cockpit it is not a flight sim, it`s an arcade shooter game.

If it doesnt have full start up procedure it is not a flight sim, it`s an arcade shooter game

Those who against these two features listed above are arcade crowd and should stay in BF2... while we, the whole 20 of us, the real ones that fly full real will dominated the skies!!

Did i sum it all up?

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Huh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
free speech is gold
=
free thinking
=
we can make discus like this topic

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 04:37 PM
I gotcha http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
This forum never fails to amaze me... remember the progress?

Those who fly open pit are not flight simmers

Those who fly with icons are not flight simmers

Those who has externals are not flight simmers

Those who has map path are not flight simmers....

and on and on and on... and now we come to this...

If if doesnt have a clickable cockpit it is not a flight sim, it`s a game.

If it doesnt have full start up procedure it is not a flight sim

Those who against these two features listed above are arcade crowd and should stay in BF2... while we, the whole 20 of use, the real ones that fly full real will dominated the skies!!

Did i sum it all up?

this is free speech http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

i dont say who is flying/playing like that is no simer

crazyivan1970
01-24-2007, 04:40 PM
Wasnt aimed at you Sin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Sintubin
01-24-2007, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
Wasnt aimed at you Sin. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

K!

Marcel_Albert
01-24-2007, 05:05 PM
Personally , 3 things are really important for BoB :

1) complex engine management in flight and its influences on the flight

2) Realistic sounds

3) Improved AI

It's the only weaknesses of IL-2 , and if we get that , BoB will be a real improvement over IL-2 .


For the clickable cockpits , it looks great , but i'd rather prefer Oleg to work and spend more of his time on complex engine management during the flight, the physics code and wheather influences , real time damage , perturbations , negative torque etc...etc.. all these details that makes you feel you are Really actually flying a WWII Warbird plane and this takes A LOT of work and time for the programmers to get it right and optimized to run perfectly on our home PC , especially since it's a WWII Combat sim (with many many planes supposed to fly at the same time ... ) , well IMHO . http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Kwiatos
01-24-2007, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by Deedsundone:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kwiatos:
Other Big adventage BoB2 VoW Shockwave over Oleg FB is FM during take off and landings. In Oleg's game every child and girl could take off and land in Bf109. In Shockwave game i suppose there is not many sim players which could correctly land in Bf109. I have played sims for years but i never had such problem with land like in Bf109 from Shockwave. After some traning i have still problem to make a good landing.

Nah,had no problem to land that 109 in FS9.Maybe Iยดm a darn good pilot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have also no problem to take off, fly and land in warbirds from Shockwave in FS9 or FX. These is level of Oleg's game(maby little higher).
If you would read more carefully you will see that i wrote about take off and landing in BoB2 Wings of Victory by Shockwave not FS9(FX). In full realism level ladning in Bf109 is really hard work to do. Other hand landing in Spitfire or Hurricane is more easy like should be.
Nobody say me that landing in Bf109 should be as easy like in Oleg's game.

leitmotiv
01-24-2007, 05:39 PM
I think I need to clarify something---I definitely do not think that "hard is better"---that is silly. I do think the Shockwave 109E and the Flight Replicas 109K are extremely good because they better reflect how hard these airplanes were to fly. The Flight Replicas K is a very powerful, relatively unmaneuverable aircraft with extremely nasty traps for its pilot. Compared to it, the Maddox K is benign---this is comparatively speaking---when I started IL-2, I thought all the 109s were tyro-killers, a completely psychotic airplane. As I recall, more 109s were wiped out in takeoff/landing than in combat because of the difficult landing gear on the plane plus a tendency to drop a wing on landing approach. I am not an aerodynamicist---all I can go on is what I have read about the aircraft characteristics. I think Oleg makes compromises to keep IL-2 within the range of interest of a wide number of players, particularly those who like fighting online. This is why he dumped a clickable cockpit (which is silly---those who don't want to use it can just use the engine start key like in FSX). BOB2 has the functioning cockpit and has simplified key controls. It's not an all-or-nothing matter, nor should it be. This may bother some, but I do not think IL-2 has ever been a rigorous sim---look at the silly ships in PAC FIGHTERS! IL-2 is great for brawling and keeping score. I go elsewhere, like to BOB2, for fanatical realism.

Choctaw111
01-24-2007, 06:05 PM
The amount of subsystems you can manage in FS is amazing to say the least. Can you imagine managing all of them while in combat? There are those out there that would say this is realistic and it just might be, but there is only one small problem. The amount of Shift Alt C and Ctrl Shift R buttons for the astronomical amount of controls you have to memorize would be overwhelming in a combat situation. Maybe I am wrong for thinking this way. Maybe you could have the "important" functions hotkeyed for quick and easy access. When it comes right down to it those "real serious" simmers will go out and buy (or make) a true to life 109 pit with all buttons and controls and those who will fly for the Allies will have a Spit or Hurri pit with all working functions. Problem solved...

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-24-2007, 06:09 PM
I fly full switch servers 99% of the time. I would bet those who are screaming for this clickable cockpit stuff rarely do that. Its like those who whine about FMs and fly arcade settings in same plane set servers.

Whining for realistic startup procedures and flying with externals on...lol.

Dont get me wrong because I am kidding you guys a bit and I of course would welcome such features with open arms. Ivan and I as well as some others are trying to convey to you why Oleg is against the idea. This does NOT mean that we are. So keep the topic light.

leitmotiv
01-24-2007, 06:16 PM
In the midst of the fray you ought not to need more than your throttle, trim tabs, and WEP button. Nobody in his right mind is going to be messing around trying to mouse click his trim tabs in a brawl---at least I won't! In FS9/FSX, I use a blend of mouse click or keys depending on the circs. I like the mouse click because it is fun to learn how the cockpits were arranged.

joeap
01-24-2007, 06:21 PM
My last darn post on the topic. I WANT more complex engine management and start-up procedure for SOW-BOB. Yes, click cockpits are nice but not necessary, I want every command key-bindable.

No, I do NOT think the Il-2 series as it stands is an "arcade shooter" (though many do play it as such) and resent being told I play or want it to "remain" as such (not you Sintubin). Yes you can use "historic" tactics to win, not perfectly, oh and other sims can be arcadish or played that way too.

Bearcat99
01-24-2007, 07:51 PM
Oooo yeah.. give me more of that mouse clicking realism.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Clickable pits are a waste of resources if you ask me. A pit that had all of the functions to start your engine as moveable controls that could be assigned to a keystroke.. now that would be a great feature.... but the floating cursor over the pit... no thanks.... If I know 1C, even though they said they wouldnt do it... I bet the CEM including startup will be a bit more detailed than it is now..... I would be surprised if it wasnt.

It cracks me up..... yhow many of the "realism" junkies do you see flying even 2 hour missions. They may be on HL for 2 or more hours but I dont know anyone of those folks tossing around the arcade label who routinely fly "fully realistic" missions...

oh.... Joe said the same thing...LOL

ShaK.
01-24-2007, 08:23 PM
My post was just a little sarcastic, But (go back and read the other posts) that's what happens when threads get out of hand.

This thread started out saying "it would be nice to have more complex engine features in SOW:BOB"

Having a nice feature and YOU choosing NOT to use it is one thing. But just chiming in and saying "No, not going to happen, Its a HUGE waste of time and effort" is kind of, well... ignorant. so that's how I posted.. ignorant, but now we are all "just kidding"

So, again I would not use clickable pits. I would like to have the features map-able. That, I would use.

Any thing that adds to the immersion level is a plus and not a waste of time. If you choose not to use it, that is fine. You might someday want that.

Feathered_IV
01-24-2007, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I fly full switch servers 99% of the time. I would bet those who are screaming for this clickable cockpit stuff rarely do that. Its like those who whine about FMs and fly arcade settings in same plane set servers.



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

leitmotiv
01-24-2007, 09:21 PM
Relax, firebrands. Tossing insults left and right is pathetic. Shockwave will cater to those who want more realism, and Maddox will continue to do as they always have done. Free market---take your pick.

Ugly_Kid
01-24-2007, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
So, again I would not use clickable pits. I would like to have the features map-able. That, I would use.


I think that is the way Falcon 4 worked IRC. Clickable is a nice aid when you don't remember all of the keypresses - I never bothered with radio frequencies and such I always clicked them.

Trim, WEP and controls is not all you'd need in combat. Depending on the engine management of the particular aircraft you'd need to adjust boost, mixture and surprise prop pitch. WEP in most cases has limited use (MW-50 time and intervals between application etc.) Engines get other problems than just "overheat" message than can be removed by opending rad or cutting the throttle. In most of the aircraft of that era you can't slam the throttle lever to 110% - it would overboost the engine so you'd need to manage this and actually follow the manifold pressure reading (which is currently a nice pointer showing this or that in most aircraft).

I think this is what "simmers" are talking about - I know I am. I am not interested in playable 3D models that do not go deeper into the very aircraft and I do not mean deeper with showing 3D skelet of the 3D exterior model. What's the point of having a nice detailed cockpit when 60% of the cauges are bogus and not needed? IL-2 was nice for its time - it still is but the successor should concentrate more on these weaknesses in simming rather than on bringing improved graphics and sh!tload of 3D-playables. That is just my opinion but the expectation of the realism was one of the reasons why I bought IL-2 to begin with. None of the SoW news have sofar triggered me with "must have". Put another crappy copy protection on it and it's going to land to defenate "must not have"-category.

leitmotiv
01-25-2007, 01:43 AM
All true.

leitmotiv
01-25-2007, 01:50 AM
One of the advantages of FS9:

http://library.avsim.net/sendfile.php?Location=AVSIM&Proto=file&ImageID=150967

slipBall
01-25-2007, 03:03 AM
Most here are not seeking "clickable"...we would like more complex...more real to life...add that with a switch, then use it if you want....take a look at the flight sim convention, Oleg was in a corner, the crowd's, the media, are drawn to the more real to life...why not progress, why not have the ability to fly as they did back then...you don't have to use it...it should be there though

mattinen
01-25-2007, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
The sounds are WAY more immersive than a clickable cockpit, soon get very bored with that.
If Oleg spent more time and effort on the sounds the emersion factor would double.
Lawnmower sounds just don't cut it. It's great that it is a great sim but sound is one of our main sensory inputs and it badly needs to be upgraded by a long long way.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
I absolutely agree. If there is one thing I would like to be improved in this sim, it's the sounds. Do you have any idea if the sounds are going to be more realistic in BoB?

mrsiCkstar
01-25-2007, 04:43 AM
why are people talking as if it could only be clickable or mappable? I mean most sims, if not all sims that have clickable, fully functional cockpits also have all the features mappable... so what is this bickering about? you can fight your arse off and then fly home, pan around and click buttons and pull levers to your heart's content...

I fly full switch servers 99.5% of the time and I'd like clickable pits and all the start up procedures...

someone here said something like "yeah full engine start up would be nice for a few times and then it would just be a chore when you want to get up in the air as fast as possible"...

I hope this guy isn't one of those who complain about torque modelling on take offs etc because what's the difference? having to actually concentrate on your take offs would then be a chore too when you just want to get into the game... heck why not get rid of take offs alltogether and just have airstarts too :|

that's not simming...

leitmotiv
01-25-2007, 04:55 AM
Braaaaaaaaaaaa-vo, mrsiCKstar!

BaronUnderpants
01-25-2007, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by domenlovrec:
Sintubin i'm with you 100%. Even a monkey can press "I" button. Imagine how cool would be to fly Ju88 with all those handles and knobs. Even climbing would be fun.


Even a monkey can use so called "complex engine startup" after doing it for the 50:th time....then it will only be a bother EVERY time u want to take of online.

And all thoose neat cliceble swiches and nobs...where are u gonna put thoose so u can use them in flight......put them where they dont interfear with the 50-100 assigned keys we have allredy i mean?

But wait, if u have to assign them to your keyboard to be able to use them in flight...how does that make it differant from what we have now...eccept demanding oleg comitting countless manhours on a novelty that wont be used ( clickeble cockpit ).....since u need to assign them to the keyboard anyways.

Unless u fly in combat with your left, manage the throttle with your teeth and use the mouse to click thoose neat swiches and nobs....oh wait, if u use your teeth to controle the throttle the TIR wont work...dam.

Stop comparing MFS and IL2 ( BoB )...its 2 differant games intirely. Even if u all dont think so.

ShaK.
01-25-2007, 07:08 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif NOT

EDITED-
Done with thread.

Oleg Should not even make SOW:BOB. It would be a complete waste of time and effort. IL2 is PERFECT and absolutly CAN NOT be improved, PERIOD

BaronUnderpants
01-25-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
....then it will only be a bother EVERY time u want to take of online.

NO - You will be the one it bothers. Everyone else who does not wish to use the features would just use simplified engine management.



Stop comparing MFS and IL2 ( BoB )...its 2 differant games intirely. Even if u all dont think so.

First of all you have 3 games listed there. IL2 is not BOB.
Second, I dont think any one here has acually compaired them, Most where just saying how some of the features of one would be great in the other. But for whatever reason YOU feel its a total waste of time and effort. I guess it just reminds me of a great man who once said
"Have you tried BF1942? Its a great "sim" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


U would do much better if u didnt assume everyone that doesnt agree with u is stupid.

Do i even have to say that i know IL2 and BoB is not the same game...seriously, do i?

As for the rest of your childish respons....i wont even bother with it since u havent got a clue as to where i fly and what settings i prefere.

slipBall
01-25-2007, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
....then it will only be a bother EVERY time u want to take of online.

NO - You will be the one it bothers. Everyone else who does not wish to use the features would just use simplified engine management.



Stop comparing MFS and IL2 ( BoB )...its 2 differant games intirely. Even if u all dont think so.

First of all you have 3 games listed there. IL2 is not BOB.
Second, I dont think any one here has acually compaired them, Most where just saying how some of the features of one would be great in the other. But for whatever reason YOU feel its a total waste of time and effort. I guess it just reminds me of a great man who once said
"Have you tried BF1942? Its a great "sim" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif


Even a monkey can use so called "complex engine startup" after doing it for the 50:th time....then it will only be a bother EVERY time u want to take of online


All that is needed is a switch...imagine a on-line server that is full real in SOW....or a off-line mission....it should be as it was...I think we should have a choice. FB has alot of life left in it...Oleg should take his time and do SOW the right way. I would gladly pay more money for the effort

ShaK.
01-25-2007, 07:26 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

As for the rest of your childish respons....i wont even bother with it since u havent got a clue as to where i fly and what settings i prefere.

I NEVER said ANYthing about the way you fly, nor did I say anything about my flying. I MOST LIKELY would NOT use full switch. BUT I would like the features to be there for when the time comes that I do. I do like to fly full switch now becuase there is LITTLE difference between the two in IL2. I also like limited Icons which in not full switch. but there is a button I can flip to change that option. Just like it SHOULD be.

As SlipBall and MOST others here have said, there SHOULD be the choice. I am getting mad because I dont understand YOUR mentallity of "well its not I want so its a waste of time and effort" I dont like clickable pits, but I would just turn the option off, not say its a waste of time and effort. Some day I might want a clickable pit, who knows.

BaronUnderpants
01-25-2007, 07:33 AM
Well......BoB isnt suppose to be a FLIGHT sim...its suppose to be COMBAT sim.

Big differance.

And in the end it all comes down to playebility.....developers might not find it reasoneble to put down alot of work on something that wont give them a return.

Much like countless AC`s never beeing used in IL2...but was a "must" at the time, because a sellect few demanded it.

I for one would rather see more work done in DM, effects, sound and so on.

ShaK.
01-25-2007, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
Well......BoB isnt suppose to be a FLIGHT sim...its suppose to be COMBAT sim.

Big differance.



Disagree, Its a Flight Combat sim.
There is a big difference.

Haigotron
01-25-2007, 07:46 AM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Oleg made a comment to the effect of "who would have the time to use the clickable buttons features in the middle of a furball". I for one would not and even though it would be a nice feature I would not have enough time to click those buttons with my mouse on a combat mission. Could Oleg make it so we could choose which way we wanted to push the buttons, either by mapped keys or HOTAS, or clickable ones? Probably but will take to much of his time and resources and for those who just gotta have the clickable buttons may only use them a couple times and get bored of it and go back to the old way.
The future is VR! Wear a kind of glove or something similar that keeps track of your hand movements in 3d space, just like the TrackIR with 6DOF but for your hands and then you could activate the buttons this way.

or...just have a clickable interface when on the ground or taxiing, once you take off, you use your buttons/HOTAS

that way, on the ground you can start up by using the mouse, but once in the air, use the traditional way

also, I wouldnt mind having it in offline, maybe make it a difficulty option?

slipBall
01-25-2007, 08:28 AM
This is a example of the press that Shockwave received. Why?, because of the realism. Improve the sounds, add the realism of engine man, and SOW will be rated 110%


Reviewer: PC Gaming World Magazine
Rating: 95% - Editor's Choice


"Shockwave's Bf 109 and Spitfire cockpits are the best of any aircraft [in] any flight simulation around - worth every cent."
"If you really want to get a feeling for what it was like to climb in the cockpit and soar into the skies with one of these WWII legends, this is as good as it gets."



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer: PC Pilot Magazine
Rating: 100%







"Let's take a closer look at what you get for your money. The version I have comes on a single CD-ROM and also includes a set of full-colour fold-out sheets. Measuring 42cm across by 35cm in depth, these large paper 'fold-outs' contain pilot's notes for each of the five included aircraft and are designed to help you get the most out of each one. Dominating the central panel of each fold-out is a large screenshot of the cockpit pertaining to each aircraft...If that was not enough, an additional sheet includes comparative data between the aircraft which is presented in pictoral graphs. It illustrates how each aircraft compares in terms of top speed, maximum range, engine horsepower, power-to-weight ratio, combat weight as well as maximum rate of climb. Fans of WWII fighter aircraft will find this kind of information not only fascinating, but educational...Shockwave is to be applauded for including this information in this innovative and handy format and other developers should be encouraged to follow suit."



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer: Game Vortex
Rating: 98%

Full Review: http://www.gamevortex.com/gamevortex/soft_rev.php/3148

"As with Shockwave's last effort, planes are accurately modeled down to the last rivet. Everything is highly detailed and amazingly clear. This attention to detail carries over to the sound department. Engine noises are true-to-life and come through at full force."



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer: PC GAMES
Rating: 92%
Full Review: http://pcgames.gwn.com/reviews/gamereview.php/id/980/p/1/

"In recent years, one company, Shockwave Productions, has ascended rapidly to elite status to Flight Simulator enthusiasts with the release in 2004 of the stunning Wings of Power I: WWII Heavy Bombers and Jets. WOPI was one of the most commercially successful and highest rated add-ons in the history of the Flight Simulator franchise. Not content to rest on its laurels, Shockwave is back with Wings of Power II: World War II Fighters - Special Edition (WOPII)."

"Beginning with the amazing Firepower add-on for MS Combat Flight Simulator 3, Wings of Power: Heavy Bombers and Jets, a few detailed single WWII aircraft add-ons, and now Wings of Power II: WWII Fighters Special Edition, Shockwave has established itself as the boldest and probably the best developer of payware add-ons for one of PC gaming's all-time greatest franchises.
If you're a real enthusiast of MS Flight Simulator 2004, you've got to get this one."

Highs
Outstanding flight models, graphics, and sound. 3D virtual cockpits are to die for. FSX compatible.

Lows
None that I can confirm at this point.

Final Verdict
Utterly convincing simulations of five unique and wildly popular WWII fighter planes for the best civilian flight simulator of all time.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer: SIMHQ
Full Review: http://www.simhq.com/_air7/air_243a.html

"The attention to detail and level of modeling is simply jaw dropping.

Zooming in on various areas of the cockpit show nice crisp textures and, most importantly, easily readable lettering on the various switches and dials, allowing you to explore and find the multitude of controls you'll need to operate the aircraft properly.

Flying the P-51 I felt a bit like I had the tiger by the tail while the P-47 is just pure butter to fly.

There is plenty more to share about these fine aircraft, but suffice it to say that Shockwave has produced one of the finest collections of add-on aircraft for Flight Simulator 2004 that have ever been put together."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer: Computer Pilot Magazine
October 2006 Issue
Rating: This magazine does not give ratings on reviews

Closing Statement:
"If you enjoy very realistic and beautiful flight sim aircraft, this add-on is for you. Shockwave has definitely come through with yet another great product."


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer: AVSIM
http://www.avsim.com/pages/1006/WWII/WWII.htm
Rating: This site does not give ratings on reviews

This product should be on every one's hard drive.

It is truly amazing that any one developer would release 5 different aircraft of this caliber in one inexpensive package.

Sitting in the virtual cockpit of any of the 5 aircraft will give you such a feeling of being there, it is unreal.

The sounds in this add-on are some of the best I have ever heard for WW2 aircraft

Flying each of the aircraft is a challenge. I found that each plane has its own little quirks and it takes some getting used to! You can't just point your plane down the runway and expect to takeoff. You will need to make use of your rudders to compensate for the torque of the powerful engines as most of the planes have a real desire to pull to the left when you are attempting a takeoff roll.

If you have an interest in vintage aircraft or a desire to try something a little less conventional than that of modern aviation, this product has it all and let me tell you; Shockwave Productions has a customer for life!


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reviewer: PC Gamer

Rating: 88% - "Excellent"

"Each of the game's five flyable planes – the P-47D-20, P-51D Mustang, Mk IA Spitfire, A6M5 Zero, and Messerschmitt Bf109 features down-to-the-rivet authenticity."

"Be forewarned, though: After just one hour behind the stick of Shockwave's dreamy P-51 Mustang, you might never want to fly a Cessna again."

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
I fly full switch servers 99% of the time. I would bet those who are screaming for this clickable cockpit stuff rarely do that. Its like those who whine about FMs and fly arcade settings in same plane set servers.

Whining for realistic startup procedures and flying with externals on...lol.

Dont get me wrong because I am kidding you guys a bit and I of course would welcome such features with open arms. Ivan and I as well as some others are trying to convey to you why Oleg is against the idea. This does NOT mean that we are. So keep the topic light.

Uhmm check my stats at some full real servers+online wars liek AW-VOW-Il2war

come back then ,and say i dont fly full real or i am external style pilot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

name

I/JG53_Friedric

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ShaK.:
So, again I would not use clickable pits. I would like to have the features map-able. That, I would use.


I think that is the way Falcon 4 worked IRC. Clickable is a nice aid when you don't remember all of the keypresses - I never bothered with radio frequencies and such I always clicked them.

Trim, WEP and controls is not all you'd need in combat. Depending on the engine management of the particular aircraft you'd need to adjust boost, mixture and surprise prop pitch. WEP in most cases has limited use (MW-50 time and intervals between application etc.) Engines get other problems than just "overheat" message than can be removed by opending rad or cutting the throttle. In most of the aircraft of that era you can't slam the throttle lever to 110% - it would overboost the engine so you'd need to manage this and actually follow the manifold pressure reading (which is currently a nice pointer showing this or that in most aircraft).

I think this is what "simmers" are talking about - I know I am. I am not interested in playable 3D models that do not go deeper into the very aircraft and I do not mean deeper with showing 3D skelet of the 3D exterior model. What's the point of having a nice detailed cockpit when 60% of the cauges are bogus and not needed? IL-2 was nice for its time - it still is but the successor should concentrate more on these weaknesses in simming rather than on bringing improved graphics and sh!tload of 3D-playables. That is just my opinion but the expectation of the realism was one of the reasons why I bought IL-2 to begin with. None of the SoW news have sofar triggered me with "must have". Put another crappy copy protection on it and it's going to land to defenate "must not have"-category. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

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

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Most here are not seeking "clickable"...we would like more complex...more real to life...add that with a switch, then use it if you want....take a look at the flight sim convention, Oleg was in a corner, the crowd's, the media, are drawn to the more real to life...why not progress, why not have the ability to fly as they did back then...you don't have to use it...it should be there though

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

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by mrsiCkstar:
why are people talking as if it could only be clickable or mappable? I mean most sims, if not all sims that have clickable, fully functional cockpits also have all the features mappable... so what is this bickering about? you can fight your arse off and then fly home, pan around and click buttons and pull levers to your heart's content...

I fly full switch servers 99.5% of the time and I'd like clickable pits and all the start up procedures...

someone here said something like "yeah full engine start up would be nice for a few times and then it would just be a chore when you want to get up in the air as fast as possible"...

I hope this guy isn't one of those who complain about torque modelling on take offs etc because what's the difference? having to actually concentrate on your take offs would then be a chore too when you just want to get into the game... heck why not get rid of take offs alltogether and just have airstarts too :|

that's not simming...

agree

We can make al happy in BOB:SOW like this

complex engine ( i mean complex )

Clickable pits

Mapping keys

Full hotas

Like Falcon4.0 allied force they have it al 3

and it works perfectly as combat sim

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by mattinen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
The sounds are WAY more immersive than a clickable cockpit, soon get very bored with that.
If Oleg spent more time and effort on the sounds the emersion factor would double.
Lawnmower sounds just don't cut it. It's great that it is a great sim but sound is one of our main sensory inputs and it badly needs to be upgraded by a long long way.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
I absolutely agree. If there is one thing I would like to be improved in this sim, it's the sounds. Do you have any idea if the sounds are going to be more realistic in BoB? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

see again the word "realistic"

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ShaK.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:
....then it will only be a bother EVERY time u want to take of online.

NO - You will be the one it bothers. Everyone else who does not wish to use the features would just use simplified engine management.



Stop comparing MFS and IL2 ( BoB )...its 2 differant games intirely. Even if u all dont think so.

First of all you have 3 games listed there. IL2 is not BOB.
Second, I dont think any one here has acually compaired them, Most where just saying how some of the features of one would be great in the other. But for whatever reason YOU feel its a total waste of time and effort. I guess it just reminds me of a great man who once said
"Have you tried BF1942? Its a great "sim" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif


Even a monkey can use so called "complex engine startup" after doing it for the 50:th time....then it will only be a bother EVERY time u want to take of online


All that is needed is a switch...imagine a on-line server that is full real in SOW....or a off-line mission....it should be as it was...I think we should have a choice. FB has alot of life left in it...Oleg should take his time and do SOW the right way. I would gladly pay more money for the effort </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by ShaK.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BaronUnderpants:

As for the rest of your childish respons....i wont even bother with it since u havent got a clue as to where i fly and what settings i prefere.

I NEVER said ANYthing about the way you fly, nor did I say anything about my flying. I MOST LIKELY would NOT use full switch. BUT I would like the features to be there for when the time comes that I do. I do like to fly full switch now becuase there is LITTLE difference between the two in IL2. I also like limited Icons which in not full switch. but there is a button I can flip to change that option. Just like it SHOULD be.

As SlipBall and MOST others here have said, there SHOULD be the choice. I am getting mad because I dont understand YOUR mentallity of "well its not I want so its a waste of time and effort" I dont like clickable pits, but I would just turn the option off, not say its a waste of time and effort. Some day I might want a clickable pit, who knows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Haigotron:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Choctaw111:
Oleg made a comment to the effect of "who would have the time to use the clickable buttons features in the middle of a furball". I for one would not and even though it would be a nice feature I would not have enough time to click those buttons with my mouse on a combat mission. Could Oleg make it so we could choose which way we wanted to push the buttons, either by mapped keys or HOTAS, or clickable ones? Probably but will take to much of his time and resources and for those who just gotta have the clickable buttons may only use them a couple times and get bored of it and go back to the old way.
The future is VR! Wear a kind of glove or something similar that keeps track of your hand movements in 3d space, just like the TrackIR with 6DOF but for your hands and then you could activate the buttons this way.

or...just have a clickable interface when on the ground or taxiing, once you take off, you use your buttons/HOTAS

that way, on the ground you can start up by using the mouse, but once in the air, use the traditional way

also, I wouldnt mind having it in offline, maybe make it a difficulty option? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that is wat i want to

Just let it be there

it wil gif BOB:SOW that much more

We costumers can make the point to use it yes or not

I mean waiting for like 6 and a half year to fly same like Il-2 with no interakt with your pit 'with mouse for me ' http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

just to sit again in nice pit to start with I key again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Ruy Horta
01-25-2007, 12:22 PM
This alone is enough for my purhcase.

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Ruy Horta:
This alone is enough for my purhcase.

wat is alone enough for you to purhcase ?

TheGozr
01-25-2007, 12:52 PM
Guys all sims have good stuffs to try and fly with .

http://www.gozr.net/iocl/images/fsx/109d13.jpg

zoinks_
01-25-2007, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
Guys all sims have good stuffs to try and fly with .
i like your attitude.

i can't wait for "The Flying Tigers".
http://shockwaveproductions.com/

edit: wait, i have to wait. got no choice. what a silly expression "i can't wait"

slipBall
01-25-2007, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by zoinks_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGozr:
Guys all sims have good stuffs to try and fly with .
i like your attitude.

i can't wait for "The Flying Tigers".
http://shockwaveproductions.com/

edit: wait, i have to wait. got no choice. what a silly expression "i can't wait" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



i can't wait for "The Flying Tigers".


Should be real good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif...will it have on-line play? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zoinks_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGozr:
Guys all sims have good stuffs to try and fly with .
i like your attitude.

i can't wait for "The Flying Tigers".
http://shockwaveproductions.com/

edit: wait, i have to wait. got no choice. what a silly expression "i can't wait" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



i can't wait for "The Flying Tigers".


Should be real good http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif...will it have on-line play? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think yes

Sintubin
01-25-2007, 04:23 PM
Last Bump http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

TX-EcoDragon
01-26-2007, 12:54 AM
+1 for clickable pits in BOB

I don't mind being amongst the minority in that stance. . .flight sim users are a minority in the first place. Judging the value of something by how many people will appreciate it might make financial sense, but it doesn't mean that's the best way.

major_setback
01-26-2007, 01:43 AM
I wonder how many would actually fly full real if cickable cockpits were implemented?
Surely those that frown on the 'cockpit-off' servers, and look down on users not using CEM can't complain when they are offered even more realism.


I would love to have the opportunity to chose how I fly: complex or simple. Just like you can in FSX or FS2004.
Some days you just want to immerse yourself in the flight experience, it's as simple as that.

If SoW eventually allows us to fly many aircraft types it might be asking too much of us to master every aircraft in the game, so I'd like to have the possibility to fly using a simlified startup (like we do today).

If SoW is trying to attract commercial 3rd party developers, it might be wise for the developers to implement clickable cockpits. FSX has that possibility, and that is the company they will be competing against.

Flying_Nutcase
01-26-2007, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Most here are not seeking "clickable"...we would like more complex...more real to life...add that with a switch, then use it if you want....take a look at the flight sim convention, Oleg was in a corner, the crowd's, the media, are drawn to the more real to life...why not progress, why not have the ability to fly as they did back then...you don't have to use it...it should be there though

I couldn't agree more. There would be few people perhaps who would go through the full routine everytime they flew, but when in the mood for a fully immersive campaign, printed map etc, going through the full procedure (with those soundz!) would be something else.

Then again there's the limited resources and zero-sum game issue, so wo-da-ya-do?

I know SOW won't have full procedure, I just hope that Oleg finds a good compromise that will keep us all happy to some degree.

Pinker15
01-26-2007, 02:37 AM
Here U have something more guys.

http://www.threegreen.de/content/en/index.php

http://www.threegreen.de/images/upload/30_7_2005-09-01.jpg

http://www.threegreen.de/images/upload/25_1_2005-10-25.jpg

mattinen
01-26-2007, 02:52 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattinen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Ibis:
The sounds are WAY more immersive than a clickable cockpit, soon get very bored with that.
If Oleg spent more time and effort on the sounds the emersion factor would double.
Lawnmower sounds just don't cut it. It's great that it is a great sim but sound is one of our main sensory inputs and it badly needs to be upgraded by a long long way.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif
I absolutely agree. If there is one thing I would like to be improved in this sim, it's the sounds. Do you have any idea if the sounds are going to be more realistic in BoB? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

see again the word "realistic" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Sintubin
01-26-2007, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by major_setback:
I wonder how many would actually fly full real if cickable cockpits were implemented?
Surely those that frown on the 'cockpit-off' servers, and look down on users not using CEM can't complain when they are offered even more realism.


I would love to have the opportunity to chose how I fly: complex or simple. Just like you can in FSX or FS2004.
Some days you just want to immerse yourself in the flight experience, it's as simple as that.

If SoW eventually allows us to fly many aircraft types it might be asking too much of us to master every aircraft in the game, so I'd like to have the possibility to fly using a simlified startup (like we do today).

If SoW is trying to attract commercial 3rd party developers, it might be wise for the developers to implement clickable cockpits. FSX has that possibility, and that is the company they will be competing against.

yes thats the key of microsoft flight simulator for many years story

Sintubin
01-26-2007, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
+1 for clickable pits in BOB

I don't mind being amongst the minority in that stance. . .flight sim users are a minority in the first place. Judging the value of something by how many people will appreciate it might make financial sense, but it doesn't mean that's the best way.

Multiply settings

Clickable

Keyboard

hotas

BrotherVoodoo
01-26-2007, 02:13 PM
That engine sounds awesome!!! I for one would definatly vote for a clickable cockpit...

Abbeville-Boy
01-26-2007, 02:39 PM
i hope we have that sound and clicks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

domenlovrec
01-26-2007, 03:28 PM
The sound of FW190:

FW190 (http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/wingsofpower/fw190/movies/fw190_movie_1.zip)

The sound when engine starts and then at full throttle is amazing.

Sintubin
01-26-2007, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by domenlovrec:
The sound of FW190:

FW190 (http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/wingsofpower/fw190/movies/fw190_movie_1.zip)

The sound when engine starts and then at full throttle is amazing.

wowow thx

Sintubin
01-26-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Abbeville-Boy:
i hope we have that sound and clicks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Horay http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

Sintubin
01-26-2007, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by BrotherVoodoo:
That engine sounds awesome!!! I for one would definatly vote for a clickable cockpit...

horay too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

p-11.cAce
01-26-2007, 06:13 PM
I have the shockwave 109 (though only running msfs9 still) and I love the clickable cockpit and the sounds! I do miss being able to "play" in the pit when taking off and landing - though I hope to have my simpit up and running by the time SoW comes out so it won't matter either way. I definatly think "complex engine managment" should include proper start up and shut down procedures http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Genie-
01-27-2007, 01:50 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
Its extra work for something that WONT sell extra copy's. In order spend money, you need too justify it. Throwing away many man hours implamenting something that wont sell any more copy's then if it was not there is not a wise biz move.

Im sure your still going to buy BoB without clickable cockpits. But you wont buy a 25$ FS2004 P-38 or 109 without.

yeah but in this case Ill spend money on both instead I could pay few buck more to oleg.

Becasue in BoB you can shoot http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif and it would be nice to have those kind of procedures.

Because real fight was not yanking the stick but all kind of other hard work in cockpit to make things right.

And it is easily configurable in game settings to choose what kind of game you want to play.

Markku38
01-27-2007, 09:16 AM
I don't mind if we got "clickable cockpit" but how about new simmers - even now they ask where is gun sight etc. etc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Well, I remember when start flying IL-2 and wonder where is Bf-109 gunsight... then found answer in here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

slipBall
01-27-2007, 10:27 AM
It would be really cool to have failed start-ups, due to pilot error...say flooded engine, or only useing the primer bulb twice, would cause a brief start, then the engine die's...or a cold engine on a winter map http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

XyZspineZyX
01-27-2007, 10:38 AM
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Can't be too late to get Oleg the knowledge we want complex start up!</span>

Let's not just moan and groan, let's DO something! remember that PF was never supposed to be an add-on, and we got that changed. Step-up-to-the-plate time, folks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

slipBall
01-27-2007, 10:46 AM
e-mail campaign, and multiple threads... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
01-27-2007, 10:52 AM
E-mail campaign, not a bad start

Multiple threads don't mean anything more than fart gas leaking out of an out-house

slipBall
01-27-2007, 10:58 AM
lol...would you happen to have a e-mail address http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif

XyZspineZyX
01-27-2007, 11:02 AM
several now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Want one?

slipBall
01-27-2007, 11:13 AM
And how!...and give me the red-hot-line e-mail...and post one here too for others to pester him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chivas
01-27-2007, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Can't be too late to get Oleg the knowledge we want complex start up!</span>

Let's not just moan and groan, let's DO something! remember that PF was never supposed to be an add-on, and we got that changed. Step-up-to-the-plate time, folks! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ahhh...Pacific Fighters...the reason we aren't currently flying SOW BOB. The MED add-on would probably have been just a few months away.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Sintubin
01-27-2007, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
And how!...and give me the red-hot-line e-mail...and post one here too for others to pester him http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Good idea http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

zoinks_
01-27-2007, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
It would be really cool to have failed start-ups, due to pilot error...say flooded engine, or only useing the primer bulb twice, would cause a brief start, then the engine die's...or a cold engine on a winter map http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
this is exactly how BOB2 works now...as well as proper throttle management.

slipBall
01-27-2007, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by zoinks_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
It would be really cool to have failed start-ups, due to pilot error...say flooded engine, or only useing the primer bulb twice, would cause a brief start, then the engine die's...or a cold engine on a winter map http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
this is exactly how BOB2 works now. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Lets just say that il2 is a 10...how would you rate bob2 as compaired

zoinks_
01-27-2007, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
Lets just say that il2 is a 10...how would you rate bob2 as compaired

i don't want to start a war here. in fairness i only got BOB2 3 weeks ago so i'll try and be honest. both have their strengths.

IL2:
- online play
- many flyable planes
- carriers
- better exterior plane graphics (great user made skins)
- better clouds

BOB2:
- better AI by far
- better fm (i've only flown spitfire and hurricane)
- 6dof
- better visually for spotting aircraft (i seem to be one of the few having trouble seeing planes without icons in IL2)
- no uber AI gunners
- feels like a war
- better game manual by far
- better sounds

IL2 = 9/10
BOB2 = 9/10


this is my opinion so far. since i fly offline, i find BOB2 more appealing.

edit: sounds. i'm sure there's lots of things i missed for both titles.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-27-2007, 03:23 PM
If shockwave made a combat sim with the planes in the Wings of Power II it would be remarkable. And if it were multiplay...ooh man! Heck if BoB 2 WoV had multiplay I might even think Oleg would have been in some trouble.

The Flying Tigers should be awesome. And I was reading their forums and they are well aware what multiplay will bring. So we shall see.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-27-2007, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by zoinks_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by slipBall:
Lets just say that il2 is a 10...how would you rate bob2 as compaired

i don't want to start a war here. in fairness i only got BOB2 3 weeks ago so i'll try and be honest. both have their strengths.

IL2:
- online play
- many flyable planes
- carriers
- better exterior plane graphics (great user made skins)
- better clouds

BOB2:
- better AI by far
- better fm (i've only flown spitfire and hurricane)
- 6dof
- better visually for spotting aircraft (i seem to be one of the few having trouble seeing planes without icons in IL2)
- no uber AI gunners
- feels like a war
- better game manual by far

IL2 = 9/10
BOB2 = 9/10


this is my opinion so far. since i fly offline, i find BOB2 more appealing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Id say that is a pretty fair assessment. I think over all IL-2 is a smoother game with all around better graphics.

NonWonderDog
01-27-2007, 03:30 PM
So, what do you guys mean when you say "full engine start procedure" anyway?

Should we have to hand check the control surfaces, sump the fuel tanks, check the oil, insert a percussion starter (or even drive up in the starter truck and connect the jumper cables), or start the oil heater 20 minutes before takeoff?

Or do you just want to have to press CTRL+SHIFT+O to open the oil switchcock, press CTRL+SHIFT+F to open the fuel switchcock, press CTRL+SHIFT+M three times to set the magneto switch to "both," set 100% mixture, 100% prop pitch, and 30% throttle, press CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+P three times to prime the engine, and push and hold CTRL+ALT+I for four seconds to start the engine? Because "that's how they did it in real life"?

I don't understand any of you. A realistic engine start procedure is never going to happen on a computer no matter what you do. Pilots don't have to look at lists of key commands, nor do they click on things with a mouse. Pilots don't just teleport into a cockpit eager to push seven or eight key combinations, all the while deriding those who think they can start an engine just by pushing two key combinations.


My position is as follows: unless a switch has a legitimate fully simulated effect on the aircraft, it should not exist. If I have to push a switch during startup, it BETTER have a fully simulated effect once I'm in the air. If I turn off the master electrics switch, something better happen. If I turn off the oil pump, something better happen. Switches should not exist for the sole purpose of extending the startup sequence (as in BOB2).

Furthermore, if a switch has no function except to turn things off for overnight storage (such as IL2's magneto switch), it doesn't belong in a combat sim! Why is it less realistic to teleport into the cockpit with the master switches *on*, than it is to teleport into the cockpit with the master switches *off*? If there's no reason to ever turn the master electrics switch off in the air (and there isn't), tell me why should it be in the sim?

I just don't understand why anyone would think a piece of code that says "If Not (Primed 3 Times) Then (Don't Start Engine)" makes a simulation more realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif The sim isn't ever going to run full combustion simulations in the background for every cylinder of every engine, so why?


I only flew BOB2 once, long ago, but from what I saw then I couldn't believe how anyone could laud the flight model. Landing a Spitfire was almost impossible. Even with the flaps down, the gear down, the prop full fine, the canopy open, and the throttle at idle, the thing had a better glide ratio than a sailplane once it got into ground effect. If you could manage to force it down, it would bounce 100 feet up into the air as soon as the wheels hit the grass unless you pulled the flaps up at that exact moment. It was absolutely nonsense, through and through. I did like the torque effects on takeoff, but the landing overrode all of that.

TheGozr
01-27-2007, 03:59 PM
Anyone with Footages? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

zoinks_
01-27-2007, 04:03 PM
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dzruy5qe3V4

just takes practice. imagine that.

turn off magnetos or fuel **** in flight and see what happens. not everything is modeled, but just like all technology, give it time.

TheGozr
01-27-2007, 04:16 PM
in this video teh guy is using a bubble fish eye max fov witch is very annoying the best to my test is 90 fov initial view from the pit the result is same as il2.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-27-2007, 04:24 PM
I only flew BOB2 once, long ago, but from what I saw then I couldn't believe how anyone could laud the flight model.

With the latest patch its a different sim. You should really give it another shot to be fair. Games especially sims will always need patches to bring this up to par.

slipBall
01-27-2007, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
So, what do you guys mean when you say "full engine start procedure" anyway?

Should we have to hand check the control surfaces, sump the fuel tanks, check the oil, insert a percussion starter (or even drive up in the starter truck and connect the jumper cables), or start the oil heater 20 minutes before takeoff?

Or do you just want to have to press CTRL+SHIFT+O to open the oil switchcock, press CTRL+SHIFT+F to open the fuel switchcock, press CTRL+SHIFT+M three times to set the magneto switch to "both," set 100% mixture, 100% prop pitch, and 30% throttle, press CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+P three times to prime the engine, and push and hold CTRL+ALT+I for four seconds to start the engine? Because "that's how they did it in real life"?

I don't understand any of you. A realistic engine start procedure is never going to happen on a computer no matter what you do. Pilots don't have to look at lists of key commands, nor do they click on things with a mouse. Pilots don't just teleport into a cockpit eager to push seven or eight key combinations, all the while deriding those who think they can start an engine just by pushing two key combinations.


My position is as follows: unless a switch has a legitimate fully simulated effect on the aircraft, it should not exist. If I have to push a switch during startup, it BETTER have a fully simulated effect once I'm in the air. If I turn off the master electrics switch, something better happen. If I turn off the oil pump, something better happen. Switches should not exist for the sole purpose of extending the startup sequence (as in BOB2).

Furthermore, if a switch has no function except to turn things off for overnight storage (such as IL2's magneto switch), it doesn't belong in a combat sim! Why is it less realistic to teleport into the cockpit with the master switches *on*, than it is to teleport into the cockpit with the master switches *off*? If there's no reason to ever turn the master electrics switch off in the air (and there isn't), tell me why should it be in the sim?

I just don't understand why anyone would think a piece of code that says "If Not (Primed 3 Times) Then (Don't Start Engine)" makes a simulation more realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif The sim isn't ever going to run full combustion simulations in the background for every cylinder of every engine, so why?


I only flew BOB2 once, long ago, but from what I saw then I couldn't believe how anyone could laud the flight model. Landing a Spitfire was almost impossible. Even with the flaps down, the gear down, the prop full fine, the canopy open, and the throttle at idle, the thing had a better glide ratio than a sailplane once it got into ground effect. If you could manage to force it down, it would bounce 100 feet up into the air as soon as the wheels hit the grass unless you pulled the flaps up at that exact moment. It was absolutely nonsense, through and through. I did like the torque effects on takeoff, but the landing overrode all of that.


Worldwide, the flight sim community is fairly large. The vast majority of those pilots are seaking realism. I think that Oleg has to offer as much realism as the competition, in order to compete in the market place....On-line the server would decide full switch or not...off-line, we would...I think it would be great to have a choice, for what ever mood you happen to be in, on that day. What will happen when Flying tigers is released, it may draw alot of us away

TheGozr
01-27-2007, 05:05 PM
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6990

Debate Open~.

WB_Outlaw
01-27-2007, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
http://www.shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6990

Debate Open~.

Just checked out the above link and I love spitfireace's comment that, for him, some of BOB2s strong points as opposed to IL-2 are that it's "...based on a real battle..." and "...flown over real terrain...". What a rocket scientist!

--Outlaw.

leitmotiv
01-27-2007, 09:44 PM
I enjoy BOB2 much more than IL-2, but I have no interest at all in online play. BOB2 was done by people who really know the period---and it shows---even the make up of a 1940 Channel convoy looks right. The Maddox BOB ought to put them way in the lead, but I understand Shockwave has a BOB III planned. If Shockwave is going to go head to head with Maddox with BOBs, this is going to be really interesting. Maddox has had the WWII flight sim market all to themselves for almost six years. Competition will sharpen up the products, and that will be good.

Blood_Splat
01-27-2007, 11:07 PM
I never get sick of firing up the engine of the wimpy Cessna in msf 9 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TheGozr
01-27-2007, 11:14 PM
Leitmotiv, I'm the opposite, I think BOB2 have a lot of potential, there is not a doubt about this. To me i play Only ONLINE and i think this is the biggest draw back of BOB2.. I think that flying Online make a very strong community, competitions, battles etc like Lockon,Il2 and now FSX.
Bob2 have a problem to me on the look it's if it has noise imagery something unclear about it as well as a poor land design and something unclear about the clouds as well but this will be better in time. A huge advantage of Bob2 over il2 is the track ir "6DOF" witch is a Must have for a simulation.

I think many of us are waiting to see what Bob2 will do next and it's good.. , I'm very glad to see some competition coming up at the horizon finally.

I think the day that they will open it for the Online play, they will have as well a huge community to fallow them, me included also this community could certainly work with Bob2's dev like Oleg's il2.

Bob's team shouldn't try to outpass Il2 but they should focus on doing better than Oleg's new coming "BOB" and I think with what i see and fly from Shockwave's FSX models it will be good for all of us. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

p-11.cAce
01-28-2007, 12:21 AM
I always do the full start procedure when I fly Falcon 4.0AF - and yes it takes 6+ minutes (mostly waiting for the INS to stabalize. I enjoy it, even if it is just hitting a bunch of keys in the right sequence. Half the fun was learning the sequence and doing it without the (sweet) checklists I made (yeah they are laminated - you got a problem with that?!). I understand what NonWonderDog is saying but I completly disagree - this whole sim is a GAME, and somepeople (like me) get off on aspects of operating a plane in sim other than firing guns and dropping bombs (though both are great fun).
According to your argument we might as well just quit the whole thing - pulling that trigger switch on your joystick is no more realistic than my wanting to have to switch on the fuel pumps and spin up the starter in the right order. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

Chivas
01-28-2007, 12:41 AM
I've never heard that Shockwave was going to do a BOB 111, although they will be continually improving WOV. I know they were planning to do a Flying Tigers scenario using their existing BOB engine. I was surprised they would use this engine because it isn't completely stable. The engine seems to really like the new dual core cpus which should improve things for them, and they also have some very dedicated souls making WOV the best it can be.

BOB WOV is a decent off-line combat flight sim. Its FM is similiar to FB but the damage model needs alot of work. The sounds are ok, maybe not too realistic at times, but can make a sim more immersive for some. The AI still twitches and disappears at times. The cockpits are very nice. The graphics are ok but not as good as the FB series. WOV graphics have given some of the WOW moments that I still get from time to time with FB.

I'd give BOB WOV a 6.5/10 and FB series 8.5/10. BOB SOW will be 15/10. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . I don't believe that Shockwave can match Olegs new series using the BOB Rowan engine. I hope they prove me wrong as there is nothing wrong with having more than one great combat flight sim.

mrsiCkstar
01-28-2007, 12:47 AM
good post p-11... I completely agree. I don't get NonWonderDog's point at all... nothing on a computer will ever be 100% like it was or is in real life so we might as well quit simming all together? Hell it's not like you're really flying in the air... so why try to make accurate flight models?

if the player has to follow a correct procedure on the ground to start up and get up in the air or there will be consequenses like systems failing and engines malfunctioning, of course it's going to me more realistic than just turning the key.

igitur70
01-28-2007, 03:20 AM
I agree with p-11 too. We all perfectly know we aren't flying a real plane, and THAT'S WHY we wish it to be simulated as completly as possible. This is how it could be done the best (in my opinion) :
1- clickies wouldn't be so convenient while fighting, but they could be present as an option.
2- assigned keys : no matter how unreal it is, for it's the sequence that counts.
3- but the major point would be : to have a pilot in the cockpit, whose arms, hands, legs and bust would replicate the whole sequence in a fast and precise gesture. Coupled with the 6DOF and the stress of scrambling...

Then finally why should it be done ?
1- just for the pleasure.
2- because not one single plane had a magic start-up button.

slipBall
01-28-2007, 04:44 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
If shockwave made a combat sim with the planes in the Wings of Power II it would be remarkable. And if it were multiplay...ooh man!


That would be something special!...maybe someone in Shockwave dev will comment on any possibility of this, or long term plan's, that they might have http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Sintubin
01-28-2007, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NonWonderDog:
So, what do you guys mean when you say "full engine start procedure" anyway?

Should we have to hand check the control surfaces, sump the fuel tanks, check the oil, insert a percussion starter (or even drive up in the starter truck and connect the jumper cables), or start the oil heater 20 minutes before takeoff?

Or do you just want to have to press CTRL+SHIFT+O to open the oil switchcock, press CTRL+SHIFT+F to open the fuel switchcock, press CTRL+SHIFT+M three times to set the magneto switch to "both," set 100% mixture, 100% prop pitch, and 30% throttle, press CTRL+SHIFT+ALT+P three times to prime the engine, and push and hold CTRL+ALT+I for four seconds to start the engine? Because "that's how they did it in real life"?

I don't understand any of you. A realistic engine start procedure is never going to happen on a computer no matter what you do. Pilots don't have to look at lists of key commands, nor do they click on things with a mouse. Pilots don't just teleport into a cockpit eager to push seven or eight key combinations, all the while deriding those who think they can start an engine just by pushing two key combinations.


My position is as follows: unless a switch has a legitimate fully simulated effect on the aircraft, it should not exist. If I have to push a switch during startup, it BETTER have a fully simulated effect once I'm in the air. If I turn off the master electrics switch, something better happen. If I turn off the oil pump, something better happen. Switches should not exist for the sole purpose of extending the startup sequence (as in BOB2).

Furthermore, if a switch has no function except to turn things off for overnight storage (such as IL2's magneto switch), it doesn't belong in a combat sim! Why is it less realistic to teleport into the cockpit with the master switches *on*, than it is to teleport into the cockpit with the master switches *off*? If there's no reason to ever turn the master electrics switch off in the air (and there isn't), tell me why should it be in the sim?

I just don't understand why anyone would think a piece of code that says "If Not (Primed 3 Times) Then (Don't Start Engine)" makes a simulation more realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif The sim isn't ever going to run full combustion simulations in the background for every cylinder of every engine, so why?


I only flew BOB2 once, long ago, but from what I saw then I couldn't believe how anyone could laud the flight model. Landing a Spitfire was almost impossible. Even with the flaps down, the gear down, the prop full fine, the canopy open, and the throttle at idle, the thing had a better glide ratio than a sailplane once it got into ground effect. If you could manage to force it down, it would bounce 100 feet up into the air as soon as the wheels hit the grass unless you pulled the flaps up at that exact moment. It was absolutely nonsense, through and through. I did like the torque effects on takeoff, but the landing overrode all of that.


Worldwide, the flight sim community is fairly large. The vast majority of those pilots are seaking realism. I think that Oleg has to offer as much realism as the competition, in order to compete in the market place....On-line the server would decide full switch or not...off-line, we would...I think it would be great to have a choice, for what ever mood you happen to be in, on that day. What will happen when Flying tigers is released, it may draw alot of us away </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

SeaVee
01-28-2007, 05:30 AM
Originally posted by Chivas:
I've never heard that Shockwave was going to do a BOB 111, although they will be continually improving WOV. I know they were planning to do a Flying Tigers scenario using their existing BOB engine. I was surprised they would use this engine because it isn't completely stable. The engine seems to really like the new dual core cpus which should improve things for them, and they also have some very dedicated souls making WOV the best it can be.

BOB WOV is a decent off-line combat flight sim. Its FM is similiar to FB but the damage model needs alot of work. The sounds are ok, maybe not too realistic at times, but can make a sim more immersive for some. The AI still twitches and disappears at times. The cockpits are very nice. The graphics are ok but not as good as the FB series. WOV graphics have given some of the WOW moments that I still get from time to time with FB.

I'd give BOB WOV a 6.5/10 and FB series 8.5/10. BOB SOW will be 15/10. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif . I don't believe that Shockwave can match Olegs new series using the BOB Rowan engine. I hope they prove me wrong as there is nothing wrong with having more than one great combat flight sim.

Hi CHivas, the bugginess with the underlying engine has been very substantially improved in the 2.05 patch and the few remaining issues continue to be fixed on 2.06 (even the need for the DEP exclusion will be done with).

I think you are mistaken about the underlying engine being able to compete with other combat flight sims. It was written by what at the time was one of the premier flight sim developers (Rowan Software) and has incredible features to it that were years ahead of its time. Due to the bugs on initial release it could make one conclude the engine is crude or obsolete but that was not the case. What happened was that Rowan and Empire Interactive went under before it could be fully refined but the core engine was very sound and very far sighted. For example, the terrain is done the same way FSX's is done now!! The existing terrain textures are still not up to snuff though and are being improved significantly and even now there are some new great terrain mods (I'm playing with FSX modded textures for example). There is some incredible code to allow for literally hundreds of planes simultaneously in the air without the game being a slide show. The engine is even multithreaded - an incredible feat given that it was first written years before the new dual core CPUs. There is alot more....

Flying Tigers will have a HUGE and ongoing positive impact on BoB2. Much of what is being put into FT will also be in BoB2 and there is some amazing stuff already being tested in the FT dev forums.

I'll say it again, both BoB2 and IL2 are great games, each with many positive points and each with some remaining blemishes.

Kwiatos
01-28-2007, 05:47 AM
My 2 cents in IL2 and BoB2 WOV comparison:

Il2:
- MULTIPLAYER
- more flyable planes
- better graphic with much better fps
- better coulds
- better DM

VOW:
- better some aspects of FM expecially take off, landings, engine managment (Bf109 landing is needed a lot of skill)
- SP campain ( i'm playing multiplayer so i dont care too much for campain)
- better AI
- better AI gunners (not snipers)
- better sounds

slipBall
01-28-2007, 07:39 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
If shockwave made a combat sim with the planes in the Wings of Power II it would be remarkable. And if it were multiplay...ooh man!


I just asked this question on their forum...the reply was...it is their goal

msalama
01-28-2007, 09:44 AM
VOW: better some aspects of FM expecially take off, landings, engine managment (Bf109 landing is needed a lot of skill)

Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that, or at least the v2.05 Spit isn't that demanding. The torque, f.ex., feels about the same than in IL-2, and I had no difficulties in taking off and landing the bugger the 1st time I tried.

The undercarriage is seemingly modelled a bit springier than ours, but I still managed to land with a couple of small bumps only. Also I never noticed _any_ need whatsoever for trimming my rudder regardless of the power settings I used, which to me feels a bit arcadish! So maybe the rumours of Bob II's vastly superior flight modelling are after all a bit exaggerated? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SeaVee
01-28-2007, 10:15 AM
msalama,

Do you have in the flight model the following sttings?

- Realistic FM
- Manual engine management
- Wind Effects ON
- Wind Gusts = ON
- Torque/Slipstreaming = ON

XyZspineZyX
01-28-2007, 10:18 AM
Hey Seavee, could you post some screen shots of your BOBII setup? I'd like to see those FSX modded textures in there.

msalama
01-28-2007, 10:19 AM
Do you have in the flight model the following settings?

Yup, all at maximum difficulty, natch. And all those new spin modelling entries in the config file, too...

TheGozr
01-28-2007, 11:18 AM
And all those new spin modelling entries in the config file,
Witch are ?
thx

slipBall
01-28-2007, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And all those new spin modelling entries in the config file,
Witch are ?
thx </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Advancement and Improvement of the AI
Summary
With v2.05, it is now more critical than ever to keep your head up and out of the cockpit, just like a real fighter pilot. You need to constantly think of your energy state (and the enemy's). Energy can be saved or spent in two ways – speed and altitude. The more you are aware of this, the better a combat pilot you will become, and the more battles you will survive. You will also start to develop natural good habits. For example, if you are ever in a high-speed cruise, just staying level, pull your nose up and start putting some "energy in the bank." When your speedometer goes up, that is energy. When your altitude meter goes up, that is energy. You can trade altitude for speed, and vise versa. When in doubt, build your energy (and look behind you). Check your six very often. The majority of pilots killed in battle never knew what hit them. Air combat is really a game of ambushing your opponent. Hit him fast, hard, and escape. Stay in control of the battle. Don't ever forget the old saying, "Speed is Life."

Technical Explanation
The AI in BOBII 2.05 are more aggressive, they will come directly after you, and they will not run and hide. In summary they will fight. The AI behavior in 2.05 has changed (I hope for the better) and you may notice a difference. Buddye has tried to fixed all the disengage bugs (a disengage bug was where the AI would just fly around and not fight). The AI will now stay engaged on a specific target. An AI may for many reasons become disengaged but he will reengage a new target (closest target) after taking a small break to fly closer to the "fur ball" action (regroup to keep the group fairly close). In addition, the AI is more aggressive and they will go after their target faster and more directly.

This new behavior will not result in a fight to the death, however. The AI will break off and stop fighting when the "Go Home" criteria are satisfied. For an individual AI the go home criteria are (1) no ammo, (2) significant damage, (3) low fuel (has enough to return home plus a 10 minute reserve), and (4) a random skill level modifier where the lower skill levels go home faster (you can control the skill level with your selection in the IA missions). The group will go home when a certain percentage of the group that is left (not killed) meets the go home criteria.

One result of these changes is that the IA fights last longer. One of our Beta Testers (unnamed) complained that the fights were at times too long and he was tired after 5 minutes (OK he is a senior Bob'er). To satisfy this complaint (total respect for seniors), a new Bdg.txt parameter was added called "Longer_IA_Fights" so you can choose. This has no impact on the campaign. If you choose Longer_IA_Fights=NO then the fight will continue until the 10 minute reserve fuel is used (about 10 minutes in combat). If you choose Longer_IA_Fights=YES then the fight will continue until the "Go Home" criteria are satisified.

One additional thing you will need to watch out for in Version 2.05, is that you will always need to watch your six as you can be assured that you will always have at least one enemy AI targeting you for a kill. Buddye added this when he fixed the disengage bugs.

Engage Improvements
The new Bdg.txt parameter, AI_Always_Sees_Enemy=ON, was added. The AI will be able to see through areas he usually can not see (behind, below, into the sun, etc.). These are different depending on A/C type. This can be a help with the AI being able to see the enemy while engaging and we see no harm running BOBII with it set to yes.

A new Bdg.txt parameter, Wingmen_Always_Sees_Enemy=ON was added. The wingmen will be able to see - when the bandits (R-3-1) command is issued - without the player's A/C having to be headed toward the target within the 30 degrees cone (+or- 15 degrees of the enemy target) as was the case with previous game versions. We see no harm running with it set to yes but it is not necessary to turn on this bgd.txt command if the players A/C is headed to + or - 15 degrees of the target when making the R-3-1 command.

A new R-3-5 radio command was coded so that if your wingmen do not engage the enemy targets, it can be used. The procedure is simple: Just padlock your enemy target, issue the R-3-5, listen to Red2 tell you he is attacking your target, and watch your fight attack the enemy fight. The help command name is not the best name and we will try to figure out how to change it to "Attack" or Attack My Target" in future game revisions.


A Spin is a beautiful thing
What's new?
For those who favour BoB II's flying more than its campaign element, the improved modeling of stalls and spins is perhaps the most exciting new development in patch 2.05. Push your aircraft too close to its absolute limits and you'll see just what we mean. BOB v2.05 speaks to the pilot who wants a more realistic experience and who is ready to step up to the challenge of handling accelerated, high-speed stalls and spins, just like the real pilots who flew these aircraft did. Stalls and spins by both player and AI-flown aircraft are modeled with impressive realism, adding immensely to the immersiveness of the BoB II experience. Spins by the AI are particularly effective, evoking the image of violent evasive action yet merging seamlessly into the next maneuver; you'll even see the occasional miscue - an inadvertent spin at low level into the deck.

Spin behavior of player and AI-flown aircraft is individually adjustable by the BoB II player – an easy-to-use feature thought to be a first in PC flight simulations. More on this later, but first, a short primer for those unfamiliar with stalls and spins. Note that much of this material is also covered in greater detail in Ch 5 of your Operations Manual, and Ch 6 of the Patch 2.04 Manual.


What is a stall?
In order for a wing to produce efficient lift, the air must flow completely around the leading (front) edge of the wing, following under and over the contours of the wing. The wing must pass through the air in a forward moving, low "Angle of Attack" (AoA). At too large an angle of attack (steep, slow climb where the air is actually hitting the underside of the wing), the air cannot contour over the wing. When this happens, the normal smooth flow of air turns into circular, turbulent motions, and the wing is in a "stall."


What does this mean to you?
When a wing is in a stalled condition, it produces much less lift and considerably more drag. Although we often refer to stall speeds, angle of attack (AoA, the angle of the wing cross section relative to the local airflow) is actually the key factor. As the stall AoA is approached, most aircraft will begin to shake and rattle, signaling the pilot that stall is imminent. These buffet cues have been considerably improved for 2.05 – look, listen and feel for them. With the new Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf109 Flight Models (FMs), light buffet begins about three degrees before the stall AoA is reached.

Different aircraft types have different stall behavior. Some are forgiving at the stall; the nose will slowly drop, and if you return the stick to neutral you can easily regain control once sufficient airspeed is available. Other aircraft will snap into a dangerous spin; once the spin is established, a crash is inevitable unless prompt and correct recovery action is taken.

Spins result from the wings stalling asymmetrically (one wing stalls more than the other); in the case of the single-engined fighters in BoB II, this asymmetry leads to a rapid rolling departure and a spin to the left or right. It is important to remember that wing stalls are AoA dependent and are not exclusively a low speed issue. Careless or abrupt pulls on the stick can trigger wing stall and spins at moderate to high speeds, particularly if applied in concert with rudder or aileron inputs, which can lead to asymmetry in the wing AoAs.

To recover from an established upright spin in BoB II, reduce throttle to idle, centralize the control column and apply and hold full rudder in the opposite direction to the spin (e.g. left rudder in the case of a clockwise spin). In rare cases, you may need to apply and hold some forward stick, to un-stall the wings. Once the rotation stops, centralize the rudder, gently pull out of the dive and add power.


The "Accelerated Stall"
Like many flight simmers, you may have developed the old, "yank and bank" approach to flying. With BOB v2.05 virtual pilots will undoubtedly notice something new happening in their airplane (usually at the worst time too). Many people think an aircraft only stalls when it is moving too slowly to keep flying. This is only one type of stall. The "Accelerated Stall" is a stall that the pilot can force upon his plane, even at high speeds. It is an "induced" stall. Read on for a brief article explaining what accelerated stalls are:



Typically, stalls in civilian aircraft occur when an airplane loses too much airspeed to create a sufficient amount of lift. A typical stall exercise would be to put your aircraft into a climb, cut the throttle, and try and maintain the climb as long as possible. You will have to gradually pull back harder on the stick to maintain your climb pitch, and as speed decreases, the angle of attack increases. At some point, the angle of attack will become so great, that the wing will stall (the nose will drop).

Below are some graphical representations of a wing traveling though the air in various conditions:

Level flight – a wing creating moderate lift
Air vortices (lines) stay close to the wing.



Climb - Wing creating significant lift force
Air vortices still close to the wing.


Stall
The angle of attack has become too large. The boundary layer vortices have separated from the top surface of the wing, and the incoming flow no longer bends completely around the leading edge. The wing is stalled, not only creating little lift, but significant drag.



An accelerated stall is one that is "forced" to occur, not due to lack of airspeed, but by forcing the wing into a high enough angle of attack and therefore, forces it to stall.

When you pull back on the stick, you are literally using leverage to push your tail down, which forces the main wing into a higher angle of attack, and increased lift. However, there is a limit to how much "force" you can place on a wing before it "gives up" or stalls. If you pull your stick back hard and far enough to pass through the wing's critical angle of attack, regardless of the speed, you can "force" the main wing into an "accelerated stall." In a sense you "break" the wing's ability to provide lift as long as you continue to provide sufficient force to keep the wing in an excessive angle of attack or "accelerated stall" condition (some describe this as a "snap").




Spin Settings Available in Patch 2.05
Continuing with the spirit of always trying to give our customers the option to choose what works best for them, patch 2.05 allows players to individually adjust the propensity to spin of both player and AI-flown aircraft - independently. The key parameters and switches are found in the bdg text file in the main BoB II directory. This file can be opened and edited using Notepad. Here is a brief explanation of the pertinent lines in the bdg file:

Note: spins are only available if the "Realistic" FM has been selected on BoB II's Options >> Sim menu.

For various skill levels, these three adjustable parameters define the AI pilot's reaction time to a spin condition, i.e. the elapsed time between departure from controlled flight and recovery inputs being made. Units are hundredths of a second. The higher the skill level of the AI, the quicker the response. Increasing the value of these variables will result in longer spins for AI-flown aircraft.

Do_You_Want_AI_AC_To_Spin=OFF Set to "ON" to enable AI aircraft spins. Selecting "OFF" will preclude AI spins while preserving your AI_Spin_AOA_Control setting.


Tweaker's Guide to Determining Preferred Spin Parameter Settings
The default values for the primary spin parameters (the AoA and rotational velocity thresholds) are intentionally conservative. While you will likely encounter more stalls and spins, some prefer an even more aggressive (or more realistic) flying experience.

Having spent a great many hours developing and testing FMs and the new spin feature, we'd suggest you use this approach to finding the player spin settings which strike the best balance between realism and personal taste.

1. Decide which aircraft will be your primary mount. This will give you a basic notion of the spin behaviour you're aiming for. The Spitfire had powerful elevators and light control forces at moderately high speeds and would spin readily if mishandled. The Bf109 apparently was much more forgiving in that regard and seldom spun. We suspect the Hurricane was somewhere between these two with regard to its tendency to spin.

2. Set the AoA spin parameter first. The lower you set this parameter, within the permissible range, the more prone your aircraft will be to spinning. Recalling what was said earlier about stalls and spins, begin with a setting 0 to 1.5 degrees less than the stall AoA of your aircraft (note: the stock Rowan FMs all stall at 15 degrees AoA, the new Hurricane FM at 16.5 degrees and the new Spitfire and Bf109 FMs at 17.5 degrees). Using a setting close to the stall AoA ensures you will normally have a buffet warning before the onset of a stall/spin. Note that for the three re-worked FMs, light buffet begins 2 to 3 degrees before the stall AoA and heavy buffet approximately 1 to 1.5 degrees before the stall AoA is reached.

3. Don't go flying yet, set the rotational velocity parameter first. Again, the lower the number within the permitted range, the easier your aircraft will spin. We recommend you start small, say 6.000, flight test and adjust to taste. An Instant Action 1v1 mission works well for this. Keep Step 1 in mind at this point. In the case of a Spitfire or Hurricane, you're looking for a setting that permits you to extract strong turn performance, but punishes careless aircraft handling with a spin. Finding the best setting for you will be a trial and error process and is largely subjective. Make changes in 1 degree per second increments initially, and reduce the size of the changes as you zero in on the target. As you become more acclimatized to the spin feature, you will likely find yourself revisiting and reducing this parameter.

4. Now that both parameters have an initial setting, do a solo flight test to confirm that your AoA setting at step 2 provides an adequate buffet warning as you approach the onset of a spin. A smoothly tightening constant altitude turn begun at perhaps 10,000 feet and 275 mph should let you assess this. An overly aggressive or abrupt pull on the stick may send you immediately into a spin before the buffet can be felt – the key here is smoothness. Increase the AoA spin parameter if you are convinced that the buffet warning is coming too late; decrease it if you like living dangerously! Small incremental changes, say 0.100 degree each, are recommended at this stage.

5. Finally, if you've made any changes to the AoA parameter at Step 4, do another IA 1v1 test hop to confirm you're still happy with the settings. Adjust the rotational velocity parameter once more, if needed, again in small stages.

6. You're done. Make note of your spin setting preferences for that aircraft type, for future reference. If you decide to fly another type, you will most likely want to repeat Steps 1 to 5 to establish different spin settings for your new mount.

Note that all of this is very much a matter of personal preference and what suits your flying style. Don't agonize over it unduly. Blue Six: "I fly the Spitfire most often, and find that an AoA setting of 16.000 and a rotational velocity setting of 4.25 feel about right to me; with these numbers the FM has some teeth and keeps me on my toes." These settings aren't for everyone, but that's the beauty of this feature, you can adjust to taste.

Setting the two primary spin parameters for the AI-flown aircraft needn't be done quite so systematically. As a starting point, we suggest you plug in the same values you've developed for your own aircraft. Observe the resulting AI behaviour in the sim, flying for both sides (we suggest this because the AI spin parameters in the bdg file are applied to all AI aircraft, both friendly and enemy). If you'd like to see more AI spins, gradually reduce one or both of the primary AI spin parameters until you achieve the effect you're looking for. Begin by reducing only the rotational velocity parameter, so as not to unduly hamper the turn performance of the AI aircraft – the AI is programmed to occasionally pull right to the stall AoA limit, and if you set an excessively low AoA threshold, you will see more AI spins than you'd like. For AI spins of longer duration, increase the reaction times discussed earlier.

That's it. Take some time to explore the possibilities offered by this exciting new feature and to tailor the spin settings in the BDG file exactly to your tastes. You will be amazed at the results.

buddye1
01-28-2007, 12:19 PM
I think this is only my second post on the IL2 forum so I am sorry for the poor format.

I believe that Flight Sim games are like people all different with specific strengths and weaknesses. I also think that we have room on our hard drives for different Sims just like we have room in our lives for different friends.

My intent in posting here is to answer some questions and not debate the strengths and weaknesses of our products. I have the greatest respect for your IL2 products.

Hi Guys, I am a coder who works on BoBII. I am also involved with the planning and strategy but I am not the boss. So what I tell you does not come from the decision maker.

We are currently working on beta testing Air Battles. It is a budget game built on the BoBII engine for Novice players (and not for current owners of BOBII). We are also working on Flying Tigers which we have announced and it is also based on the BOB engine.

We will also continue to work on BOBII and we are in development on 2.06 update and we will continue our outstanding support of our BOBII customers.

Our strategy is simple. We plan to use the BoBII engine until it run out of legs which we do not see happening as yet. We also plan to make all the new game features (if appropriate) available to our BOBII customers and this process is already under way. We plan to continue our focus on historical accuracy, level of detail, quality, and realism which may include integration of our new A/C into our new games.

We will implement multiplayer. It is just a question of when is the best time for us. We are of course considering FT and if we decide to do it we will announce it to you.

I want to thank you guys for the many excellent comments on our work and your interest in our products. I also enjoy IL2 products and I am looking forward to the new BOB.

msalama
01-28-2007, 01:11 PM
Witch are? thx

As SlipBall posted the shortish http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif readme already, I'll chip in with the bdg.txt (that's the main config file) entries:

Novice_AI_Airspeed_Fraction = 0.000 #Set to a fraction you want to reduce AI's speed (EX. 0.50)
Wind_Effects_Fraction = 0.250 #Set to 1.00 for full wind effects
Player_Spin_AOA_Control = 16.000 #Player,set to 0.0 Means no spins for Player, 17.5 Degrees Rowan Default (Limited to 12.0)
Player_Spin_Rotational_Velocity_Control = 4.250 #Player 14.325 degrees per second Rowan Default(PLAYER) (Limited to 3.5)
AI_Spin_AOA_Control = 16.000 #AI. set to 0.0 Means no spins for AI, 17.5 Degrees Rowan Default(AI) (Limited to 12.0)
AI_Spin_Rotational_Velocity_Control = 4.250 #AI, 14.325 degrees per second Rowan Default(AI) (Limited to 3.5)
Spin_AISkill_LessOrEqual_Regular = 200 #In Cseconds (100xSec),the Delay before AI Spin Recovery for Novice,Poor, and Regular)
Spin_AISkill_Equal_Veteran = 150 #In Cseconds (100xSec),the Delay before AI Spin Recovery for Veteran)
Spin_AISkill_GreaterOrEqual_Ace = 100 #In Cseconds (100xSec),the Delay before AI Spin Recovery for Ace and Hero)

HTH http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

msalama
01-28-2007, 01:19 PM
I'm playing with FSX modded textures for example.

Sounds interesting http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Are those publicly available?

SeaVee
01-28-2007, 02:03 PM
Sorry guys, the FSX terrain textures are NOT publicly available. To do that I'd be violating M$ copyright stuff and I just won;t do that.

However since I bought and own FSX myself, (with technical assistance from a friend who knows alot more about BoB terrain modding than I do) I took the liberty of modding a few of the FSX files for my own personal use. Modding a few files from my own copy of FSX for my own personal use I think is OK.

The best I might be able to do try to sort a list of the FSX files which were modded and which BOB2 files they replaced. It was quite a job though and I did not keep a working list so it won't be easy to.

Maybe I'll record a little free-flight video clip so you can see what is possible with the terrain. There will likely be some big additional terrains for BoB2 soon because more people are working on terrain mods now that a previous technical obstacle (fartiles) has been resolved.

In the meantime here are some of the other existing terrain mods:

http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6671

http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6713

http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6623

http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6740

On page 2 of this terrain thread are some FSX mod pics (don't bother asking him, he won't share them either for the same reason): http://shockwaveproductions.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6691

Guys, I know this is your IL2 forum and the mods here have been gracious enough to let this run for a while. I'd prefer to ask/answer some of this BoB2 specific stuff over at Shockwave or SimHQ though as its not nice to wear out a welcome.

I'd also like to say its been refreshing to read basically quite civil posts between these two communities.

I know that Shockwave absolutely will not allow posts or threads to run that are overtly nastily and needlessly bashing of other developer's games (general comparison/questions like this thread yes, but unwarranted bashing gets banned right away - I agree with that policy too). I've never understood why some folks get so caught up in "their" preferred game (be it a flight game, FPS shooter, whatever) that they are incapable of recognizing any merit in anything else. Its sort of like if I had a BMW I'd certainly like it but that doesn't mean that I'd think a Mercedes is garbage because its clearly not. Same with quality games from different companies.

JamesFielding
01-28-2007, 02:11 PM
Eek, im sure this has been done to death already, but in a combat sim, the flight model (and lets be honest, I havent flown a sim that models buffet, stalls, spins, torque and all that bollocks more accurately than Olegs) and immersion factors such as eye candy (tracer streams etc) and sound are far more important than than going through a start up procedure accurately. If I want to piss around with buttons I'll go down the road to the airfield.

I dont want the most tedious aspect of real flying (ie, going through checklists, when all you wanna do is turn the key, ram the throttle open and to hell with everything else and the consequences) making the transition to my sim, because I want to be able to pick it up and play, not check the bloody T's and P's before abusing my throttle.

Phew, glad thats off my chest. Buy FSX and that addon, or alternately go and learn to fly for real if you like clicking buttons and fiddling with knobs.

Sintubin
01-28-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by buddye1:
I think this is only my second post on the IL2 forum so I am sorry for the poor format.

I believe that Flight Sim games are like people all different with specific strengths and weaknesses. I also think that we have room on our hard drives for different Sims just like we have room in our lives for different friends.

My intent in posting here is to answer some questions and not debate the strengths and weaknesses of our products. I have the greatest respect for your IL2 products.

Hi Guys, I am a coder who works on BoBII. I am also involved with the planning and strategy but I am not the boss. So what I tell you does not come from the decision maker.

We are currently working on beta testing Air Battles. It is a budget game built on the BoBII engine for Novice players (and not for current owners of BOBII). We are also working on Flying Tigers which we have announced and it is also based on the BOB engine.

We will also continue to work on BOBII and we are in development on 2.06 update and we will continue our outstanding support of our BOBII customers.

Our strategy is simple. We plan to use the BoBII engine until it run out of legs which we do not see happening as yet. We also plan to make all the new game features (if appropriate) available to our BOBII customers and this process is already under way. We plan to continue our focus on historical accuracy, level of detail, quality, and realism which may include integration of our new A/C into our new games.

We will implement multiplayer. It is just a question of when is the best time for us. We are of course considering FT and if we decide to do it we will announce it to you.

I want to thank you guys for the many excellent comments on our work and your interest in our products. I also enjoy IL2 products and I am looking forward to the new BOB.


We are of course considering FT and if we decide to do it we will announce it to you.


Wat is FT ?

Abbeville-Boy
01-28-2007, 02:38 PM
have you never tried to throw a difficulty switch?


Comparison of crania, sapiens (left) and neanderthalensis (right)

http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l68/Abbeville-Boy/180px-Neandertal_vs_Sapiens.jpg




Originally posted by JamesFielding:
Eek, im sure this has been done to death already, but in a combat sim, the flight model (and lets be honest, I havent flown a sim that models buffet, stalls, spins, torque and all that bollocks more accurately than Olegs) and immersion factors such as eye candy (tracer streams etc) and sound are far more important than than going through a start up procedure accurately. If I want to piss around with buttons I'll go down the road to the airfield.

I dont want the most tedious aspect of real flying (ie, going through checklists, when all you wanna do is turn the key, ram the throttle open and to hell with everything else and the consequences) making the transition to my sim, because I want to be able to pick it up and play, not check the bloody T's and P's before abusing my throttle.

Phew, glad thats off my chest. Buy FSX and that addon, or alternately go and learn to fly for real if you like clicking buttons and fiddling with knobs.

zoinks_
01-28-2007, 02:50 PM
FT = Flying Tigers

JamesFielding
01-28-2007, 02:57 PM
"have you never tried to throw a difficulty switch?"

Well, I play IL2+All the rest on full realism (although I usually use simple engine management and padlock on for offline play). I just wouldnt want it anymore 'complicated', I forget to twiddle with my radiator settings as it is!

Actually, I'll take back part of what I said, SW:BOB wouldnt be worse off for full realism, as long as you can turn all that off, and revert back to pressing 'I' to start your engine. I grudgingly suppose that if theyre gone to such pains to accurately reconstruct the cockpits, airframe etc, thay may as well make it all work properly.

I just wouldnt want it getting to the stage where you NEED a map in your hand and have to know how to calculate max drift on the fly in your head to even find where the action is.

zoinks_
01-28-2007, 03:01 PM
you can actually start with the engine already running if you like.

JamesFielding
01-28-2007, 03:07 PM
Weeee.....eeeell, I must confess to liking the sound of the engine turning over , the puff of the exhausts, and then the mighty roar of my trusty war horse bursting into life.....even if all I've done is......... pressed 'I'.

I guess moral of the story is each to his own, so I'll keep quiet in future!

joeap
01-28-2007, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by JamesFielding:
Weeee.....eeeell, I must confess to liking the sound of the engine turning over , the puff of the exhausts, and then the mighty roar of my trusty war horse bursting into life.....even if all I've done is......... pressed 'I'.

I guess moral of the story is each to his own, so I'll keep quiet in future!

Don't keep quiet you have as much right to your opinion as anyone else. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Come on guys. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Abbeville-Boy
01-28-2007, 03:55 PM
ok im sorry jamesfielding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif




Originally posted by joeap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JamesFielding:
Weeee.....eeeell, I must confess to liking the sound of the engine turning over , the puff of the exhausts, and then the mighty roar of my trusty war horse bursting into life.....even if all I've done is......... pressed 'I'.

I guess moral of the story is each to his own, so I'll keep quiet in future!

Don't keep quiet you have as much right to your opinion as anyone else. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif Come on guys. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sintubin
01-28-2007, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TheGozr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And all those new spin modelling entries in the config file,
Witch are ?
thx </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Here http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Advancement and Improvement of the AI
Summary
With v2.05, it is now more critical than ever to keep your head up and out of the cockpit, just like a real fighter pilot. You need to constantly think of your energy state (and the enemy's). Energy can be saved or spent in two ways – speed and altitude. The more you are aware of this, the better a combat pilot you will become, and the more battles you will survive. You will also start to develop natural good habits. For example, if you are ever in a high-speed cruise, just staying level, pull your nose up and start putting some "energy in the bank." When your speedometer goes up, that is energy. When your altitude meter goes up, that is energy. You can trade altitude for speed, and vise versa. When in doubt, build your energy (and look behind you). Check your six very often. The majority of pilots killed in battle never knew what hit them. Air combat is really a game of ambushing your opponent. Hit him fast, hard, and escape. Stay in control of the battle. Don't ever forget the old saying, "Speed is Life."

Technical Explanation
The AI in BOBII 2.05 are more aggressive, they will come directly after you, and they will not run and hide. In summary they will fight. The AI behavior in 2.05 has changed (I hope for the better) and you may notice a difference. Buddye has tried to fixed all the disengage bugs (a disengage bug was where the AI would just fly around and not fight). The AI will now stay engaged on a specific target. An AI may for many reasons become disengaged but he will reengage a new target (closest target) after taking a small break to fly closer to the "fur ball" action (regroup to keep the group fairly close). In addition, the AI is more aggressive and they will go after their target faster and more directly.

This new behavior will not result in a fight to the death, however. The AI will break off and stop fighting when the "Go Home" criteria are satisfied. For an individual AI the go home criteria are (1) no ammo, (2) significant damage, (3) low fuel (has enough to return home plus a 10 minute reserve), and (4) a random skill level modifier where the lower skill levels go home faster (you can control the skill level with your selection in the IA missions). The group will go home when a certain percentage of the group that is left (not killed) meets the go home criteria.

One result of these changes is that the IA fights last longer. One of our Beta Testers (unnamed) complained that the fights were at times too long and he was tired after 5 minutes (OK he is a senior Bob'er). To satisfy this complaint (total respect for seniors), a new Bdg.txt parameter was added called "Longer_IA_Fights" so you can choose. This has no impact on the campaign. If you choose Longer_IA_Fights=NO then the fight will continue until the 10 minute reserve fuel is used (about 10 minutes in combat). If you choose Longer_IA_Fights=YES then the fight will continue until the "Go Home" criteria are satisified.

One additional thing you will need to watch out for in Version 2.05, is that you will always need to watch your six as you can be assured that you will always have at least one enemy AI targeting you for a kill. Buddye added this when he fixed the disengage bugs.

Engage Improvements
The new Bdg.txt parameter, AI_Always_Sees_Enemy=ON, was added. The AI will be able to see through areas he usually can not see (behind, below, into the sun, etc.). These are different depending on A/C type. This can be a help with the AI being able to see the enemy while engaging and we see no harm running BOBII with it set to yes.

A new Bdg.txt parameter, Wingmen_Always_Sees_Enemy=ON was added. The wingmen will be able to see - when the bandits (R-3-1) command is issued - without the player's A/C having to be headed toward the target within the 30 degrees cone (+or- 15 degrees of the enemy target) as was the case with previous game versions. We see no harm running with it set to yes but it is not necessary to turn on this bgd.txt command if the players A/C is headed to + or - 15 degrees of the target when making the R-3-1 command.

A new R-3-5 radio command was coded so that if your wingmen do not engage the enemy targets, it can be used. The procedure is simple: Just padlock your enemy target, issue the R-3-5, listen to Red2 tell you he is attacking your target, and watch your fight attack the enemy fight. The help command name is not the best name and we will try to figure out how to change it to "Attack" or Attack My Target" in future game revisions.


A Spin is a beautiful thing
What's new?
For those who favour BoB II's flying more than its campaign element, the improved modeling of stalls and spins is perhaps the most exciting new development in patch 2.05. Push your aircraft too close to its absolute limits and you'll see just what we mean. BOB v2.05 speaks to the pilot who wants a more realistic experience and who is ready to step up to the challenge of handling accelerated, high-speed stalls and spins, just like the real pilots who flew these aircraft did. Stalls and spins by both player and AI-flown aircraft are modeled with impressive realism, adding immensely to the immersiveness of the BoB II experience. Spins by the AI are particularly effective, evoking the image of violent evasive action yet merging seamlessly into the next maneuver; you'll even see the occasional miscue - an inadvertent spin at low level into the deck.

Spin behavior of player and AI-flown aircraft is individually adjustable by the BoB II player – an easy-to-use feature thought to be a first in PC flight simulations. More on this later, but first, a short primer for those unfamiliar with stalls and spins. Note that much of this material is also covered in greater detail in Ch 5 of your Operations Manual, and Ch 6 of the Patch 2.04 Manual.


What is a stall?
In order for a wing to produce efficient lift, the air must flow completely around the leading (front) edge of the wing, following under and over the contours of the wing. The wing must pass through the air in a forward moving, low "Angle of Attack" (AoA). At too large an angle of attack (steep, slow climb where the air is actually hitting the underside of the wing), the air cannot contour over the wing. When this happens, the normal smooth flow of air turns into circular, turbulent motions, and the wing is in a "stall."


What does this mean to you?
When a wing is in a stalled condition, it produces much less lift and considerably more drag. Although we often refer to stall speeds, angle of attack (AoA, the angle of the wing cross section relative to the local airflow) is actually the key factor. As the stall AoA is approached, most aircraft will begin to shake and rattle, signaling the pilot that stall is imminent. These buffet cues have been considerably improved for 2.05 – look, listen and feel for them. With the new Spitfire, Hurricane and Bf109 Flight Models (FMs), light buffet begins about three degrees before the stall AoA is reached.

Different aircraft types have different stall behavior. Some are forgiving at the stall; the nose will slowly drop, and if you return the stick to neutral you can easily regain control once sufficient airspeed is available. Other aircraft will snap into a dangerous spin; once the spin is established, a crash is inevitable unless prompt and correct recovery action is taken.

Spins result from the wings stalling asymmetrically (one wing stalls more than the other); in the case of the single-engined fighters in BoB II, this asymmetry leads to a rapid rolling departure and a spin to the left or right. It is important to remember that wing stalls are AoA dependent and are not exclusively a low speed issue. Careless or abrupt pulls on the stick can trigger wing stall and spins at moderate to high speeds, particularly if applied in concert with rudder or aileron inputs, which can lead to asymmetry in the wing AoAs.

To recover from an established upright spin in BoB II, reduce throttle to idle, centralize the control column and apply and hold full rudder in the opposite direction to the spin (e.g. left rudder in the case of a clockwise spin). In rare cases, you may need to apply and hold some forward stick, to un-stall the wings. Once the rotation stops, centralize the rudder, gently pull out of the dive and add power.


The "Accelerated Stall"
Like many flight simmers, you may have developed the old, "yank and bank" approach to flying. With BOB v2.05 virtual pilots will undoubtedly notice something new happening in their airplane (usually at the worst time too). Many people think an aircraft only stalls when it is moving too slowly to keep flying. This is only one type of stall. The "Accelerated Stall" is a stall that the pilot can force upon his plane, even at high speeds. It is an "induced" stall. Read on for a brief article explaining what accelerated stalls are:



Typically, stalls in civilian aircraft occur when an airplane loses too much airspeed to create a sufficient amount of lift. A typical stall exercise would be to put your aircraft into a climb, cut the throttle, and try and maintain the climb as long as possible. You will have to gradually pull back harder on the stick to maintain your climb pitch, and as speed decreases, the angle of attack increases. At some point, the angle of attack will become so great, that the wing will stall (the nose will drop).

Below are some graphical representations of a wing traveling though the air in various conditions:

Level flight – a wing creating moderate lift
Air vortices (lines) stay close to the wing.



Climb - Wing creating significant lift force
Air vortices still close to the wing.


Stall
The angle of attack has become too large. The boundary layer vortices have separated from the top surface of the wing, and the incoming flow no longer bends completely around the leading edge. The wing is stalled, not only creating little lift, but significant drag.



An accelerated stall is one that is "forced" to occur, not due to lack of airspeed, but by forcing the wing into a high enough angle of attack and therefore, forces it to stall.

When you pull back on the stick, you are literally using leverage to push your tail down, which forces the main wing into a higher angle of attack, and increased lift. However, there is a limit to how much "force" you can place on a wing before it "gives up" or stalls. If you pull your stick back hard and far enough to pass through the wing's critical angle of attack, regardless of the speed, you can "force" the main wing into an "accelerated stall." In a sense you "break" the wing's ability to provide lift as long as you continue to provide sufficient force to keep the wing in an excessive angle of attack or "accelerated stall" condition (some describe this as a "snap").




Spin Settings Available in Patch 2.05
Continuing with the spirit of always trying to give our customers the option to choose what works best for them, patch 2.05 allows players to individually adjust the propensity to spin of both player and AI-flown aircraft - independently. The key parameters and switches are found in the bdg text file in the main BoB II directory. This file can be opened and edited using Notepad. Here is a brief explanation of the pertinent lines in the bdg file:

Note: spins are only available if the "Realistic" FM has been selected on BoB II's Options >> Sim menu.

For various skill levels, these three adjustable parameters define the AI pilot's reaction time to a spin condition, i.e. the elapsed time between departure from controlled flight and recovery inputs being made. Units are hundredths of a second. The higher the skill level of the AI, the quicker the response. Increasing the value of these variables will result in longer spins for AI-flown aircraft.

Do_You_Want_AI_AC_To_Spin=OFF Set to "ON" to enable AI aircraft spins. Selecting "OFF" will preclude AI spins while preserving your AI_Spin_AOA_Control setting.


Tweaker's Guide to Determining Preferred Spin Parameter Settings
The default values for the primary spin parameters (the AoA and rotational velocity thresholds) are intentionally conservative. While you will likely encounter more stalls and spins, some prefer an even more aggressive (or more realistic) flying experience.

Having spent a great many hours developing and testing FMs and the new spin feature, we'd suggest you use this approach to finding the player spin settings which strike the best balance between realism and personal taste.

1. Decide which aircraft will be your primary mount. This will give you a basic notion of the spin behaviour you're aiming for. The Spitfire had powerful elevators and light control forces at moderately high speeds and would spin readily if mishandled. The Bf109 apparently was much more forgiving in that regard and seldom spun. We suspect the Hurricane was somewhere between these two with regard to its tendency to spin.

2. Set the AoA spin parameter first. The lower you set this parameter, within the permissible range, the more prone your aircraft will be to spinning. Recalling what was said earlier about stalls and spins, begin with a setting 0 to 1.5 degrees less than the stall AoA of your aircraft (note: the stock Rowan FMs all stall at 15 degrees AoA, the new Hurricane FM at 16.5 degrees and the new Spitfire and Bf109 FMs at 17.5 degrees). Using a setting close to the stall AoA ensures you will normally have a buffet warning before the onset of a stall/spin. Note that for the three re-worked FMs, light buffet begins 2 to 3 degrees before the stall AoA and heavy buffet approximately 1 to 1.5 degrees before the stall AoA is reached.

3. Don't go flying yet, set the rotational velocity parameter first. Again, the lower the number within the permitted range, the easier your aircraft will spin. We recommend you start small, say 6.000, flight test and adjust to taste. An Instant Action 1v1 mission works well for this. Keep Step 1 in mind at this point. In the case of a Spitfire or Hurricane, you're looking for a setting that permits you to extract strong turn performance, but punishes careless aircraft handling with a spin. Finding the best setting for you will be a trial and error process and is largely subjective. Make changes in 1 degree per second increments initially, and reduce the size of the changes as you zero in on the target. As you become more acclimatized to the spin feature, you will likely find yourself revisiting and reducing this parameter.

4. Now that both parameters have an initial setting, do a solo flight test to confirm that your AoA setting at step 2 provides an adequate buffet warning as you approach the onset of a spin. A smoothly tightening constant altitude turn begun at perhaps 10,000 feet and 275 mph should let you assess this. An overly aggressive or abrupt pull on the stick may send you immediately into a spin before the buffet can be felt – the key here is smoothness. Increase the AoA spin parameter if you are convinced that the buffet warning is coming too late; decrease it if you like living dangerously! Small incremental changes, say 0.100 degree each, are recommended at this stage.

5. Finally, if you've made any changes to the AoA parameter at Step 4, do another IA 1v1 test hop to confirm you're still happy with the settings. Adjust the rotational velocity parameter once more, if needed, again in small stages.

6. You're done. Make note of your spin setting preferences for that aircraft type, for future reference. If you decide to fly another type, you will most likely want to repeat Steps 1 to 5 to establish different spin settings for your new mount.

Note that all of this is very much a matter of personal preference and what suits your flying style. Don't agonize over it unduly. Blue Six: "I fly the Spitfire most often, and find that an AoA setting of 16.000 and a rotational velocity setting of 4.25 feel about right to me; with these numbers the FM has some teeth and keeps me on my toes." These settings aren't for everyone, but that's the beauty of this feature, you can adjust to taste.

Setting the two primary spin parameters for the AI-flown aircraft needn't be done quite so systematically. As a starting point, we suggest you plug in the same values you've developed for your own aircraft. Observe the resulting AI behaviour in the sim, flying for both sides (we suggest this because the AI spin parameters in the bdg file are applied to all AI aircraft, both friendly and enemy). If you'd like to see more AI spins, gradually reduce one or both of the primary AI spin parameters until you achieve the effect you're looking for. Begin by reducing only the rotational velocity parameter, so as not to unduly hamper the turn performance of the AI aircraft – the AI is programmed to occasionally pull right to the stall AoA limit, and if you set an excessively low AoA threshold, you will see more AI spins than you'd like. For AI spins of longer duration, increase the reaction times discussed earlier.

That's it. Take some time to explore the possibilities offered by this exciting new feature and to tailor the spin settings in the BDG file exactly to your tastes. You will be amazed at the results. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Long list you got there mate

is this from BOB WOV ?

jermin122
01-28-2007, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I think most people on the Maddox forums prefer airborne shooters for online competition, which are not flight sims. BOB2 is the closest thing to an IL-2/FS blend we have now. With 6 DOF, I enjoy using it more than IL-2.


agree 100%! Just see the servers most played in on HyperLobby.

joeap
01-29-2007, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by jermin122:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I think most people on the Maddox forums prefer airborne shooters for online competition, which are not flight sims. BOB2 is the closest thing to an IL-2/FS blend we have now. With 6 DOF, I enjoy using it more than IL-2.


agree 100%! Just see the servers most played in on HyperLobby. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gad disagree 100%, can't speak for Hyperlobby (though I expect that statement is pretty unscientific) I disregard weasel words like "most" anyway. That certainly is not my take, or my preference. I think both BoB2 and Il2 are sims, or can be played arcade.

leitmotiv
01-29-2007, 08:49 AM
I do not think it is a stretch to suggest many online players could care less about the "sim" aspect of IL-2. They are enjoying it as a competitive game. My only interest in this matter is that I think this results in a different design philosophy from that of BOB2.

SeaFireLIV
01-29-2007, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I do not think it is a stretch to suggest many online players could care less about the "sim" aspect of IL-2. They are enjoying it as a competitive game. My only interest in this matter is that I think this results in a different design philosophy from that of BOB2.


Yes, there are 2 obvious camps: those who see a good offline dynamic campaign for what it is and those who say a game`s ruined because they can`t play online.

To me, it seems somewhat short-sighted to rate a game solely on how good it is online. Often online you cannot get the realistic immersion of a well done offline game. You CAN get good immersion online, but it`s not as common or as accessible as it may appear.

BOBwov manages this offline immersion because it wants to make up for lack of humans (it has too) wheras IL2 doesn`t worry so much because (it always seems) that most online complaints focus around online FMs\Dms and historical performance. Even now, the impression I get from Oleg is he wants more in online and less offline, even after the overwhelming support for a dynamic offline campaign. Though I may be wrong.

This is why I keep both WOV and IL2 on my HD.

leitmotiv
01-29-2007, 11:31 AM
My thoughts exactly, SeaFireLIV---now don tin hats and get ready for the avalanche of indignation!

To me the irony is that, supposedly, the dominant customers for IL-2 are the offliners---so why is it that the onliners drive the design? I suspect part of it is due to the onliners dominance of the forums. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Chivas
01-29-2007, 12:39 PM
I think the huge off-line community is a myth. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif An off-line game will become boring within a year, and people move on to a new experience. You can see some of this in the forums of off-line games, they are dead. You will see some activity in forums of games that can be modded, but again there are only about 20 modders sharing each others new improvement. I'm sure CFS3 was one of the highest selling combat flight but I'd guess that there are less than 2% still flying it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

OK prove me wrong. I want all 20 of you off-liners to sign below. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

slipBall
01-29-2007, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
I think the huge off-line community is a myth. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif An off-line game will become boring within a year, and people move on to a new experience. You can see some of this in the forums of off-line games, they are dead. You will see some activity in forums of games that can be modded, but again there are only about 20 modders sharing each others new improvement. I'm sure CFS3 was one of the highest selling combat flight but I'd guess that there are less than 2% still flying it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

OK prove me wrong. I want all 20 of you off-liners to sign below. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The reason nobody fly's cfs is because it was lacking. When I first installed the game, I felt that I was ripped off, I never flew it again. The <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">future</span> of sims is realism, with switches to customize to your own likeing. I wish Oleg would reconize this, and put in every bell, and whistel he can. Or at least make it possible to be added down the road. People that are attracted to sims, want just that, a simulation of a real life situation.


p.s. I am a off-liner mostly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

TheGozr
01-29-2007, 01:22 PM
Agree Chivas/slipBall
Also i remember with CFS3 i felt sooo insulted I almost through it out the window.. but after it became a test base for track ir 6DOF that all.
Now it remind me that i need to remoove it from my HD.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

joeap
01-29-2007, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
I think the huge off-line community is a myth. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif An off-line game will become boring within a year, and people move on to a new experience. You can see some of this in the forums of off-line games, they are dead. You will see some activity in forums of games that can be modded, but again there are only about 20 modders sharing each others new improvement. I'm sure CFS3 was one of the highest selling combat flight but I'd guess that there are less than 2% still flying it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

OK prove me wrong. I want all 20 of you off-liners to sign below. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well here is one mostly offliner. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif You really think you can get an accurate count of offliners/onliners ? Look at all the static campaigns made, and STILL being made for Il-2 ... and check out the download stats.

leitmotiv
01-29-2007, 05:54 PM
I have the feeling Maddox is trying to compromise. They are going realistic as possible in appearance but leaving out the operational cockpit detail. Without a doubt they are going to blow minds with the damage detailing. By allowing anybody to produce objects for BOB, it will be flooded with terrific designs like FS9/X. The joke is that Shockwave may be making models for BOB just as they do for FS9/X now! KNIGHTS OF THE SKY is going to have intensive engine control detail, and it may be the real prototype for the sim of the future because of the vast amount of detail in it. Third Wire bet that people will go for dumbed down models for their WWI "sim" FIRST EAGLES. By 2008 we should be able to see which direction the combat flight sim is going to take. IL-2 is dead except for competitive play. For offline I find it boring compared to BOB2 and FSX.

p-11.cAce
01-29-2007, 06:21 PM
I'm another offliner - probably 85%+ if not more of my IL2 time (figure 5-8 hours a week for the last year with occasional 10+ hour weeks when I get the chance, 3-5 hours a week for the two years prior to that) are spent offline. Why? Well I like the many great campaigns, I really enjoy the FMB, and I feel more immersed when offline than online. I think the huge off-line community represents the silent majority - not a myth, be sure!

SeaFireLIV
01-29-2007, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I suspect part of it is due to the onliners dominance of the forums. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

This is precisely what I think`s going on to a pretty big degree. Offliner`s simply don`t go online as much as onliner`s for the simple reason they`re offliners. Even Oleg once said that Offliner`s are the biggest consumers of the sim. On a another different game but related point, the Developer`s of NeverWinterNights 2 also posted that the majority of their customers are offliners, yet most complaints they see are all to do with online from the minority onliners! But their online\offline figures prove this (basically see how many products actually end up on an online NWN server compared to actual products sold).

Why do you think I post on issues such as AI so much? Simply because the offliners who should don`t in their true numbers. So we get a misrepresentation of the true wants of the sim.

Anyway, that`s what I think.

Blood_Splat
01-29-2007, 10:29 PM
Offliner here. I think playing online at least for now sucks. You take off 10 seconds later you're shot down lol. People racing across the taxi and crashing into you. I want to fight a war and make an impact little or big.

leitmotiv
01-29-2007, 10:45 PM
Since I'm in good company here, I've got to say I agree with p-11.cAce 1000%---all the stuff that goes on online I find an immersion killer---9/10ths of my enjoyment of IL-2 is getting sucked into the other world of this simulator. If I had to hear people barking insults at each other, bragging, and all the stuff that goes with online, I'd be right back in the day-to-day. I get all the competition I need in the real world, and in trying to beat the AI in IL-2. I don't need the personality stuff. Offline I'm concentrating 100% on the job, and able to lose myself for awhile, and absolutely focused on something out of this world. Brawling with a bunch of people is what we all do every day.

I think many offliners are intimidated by the "male/female proving ground" posture assumed by the online happy warriors which assumes online is the only way to use this sim. Nonsense.

Maybe an offline thread would be a good thing to get going so that the offliners have their own sounding board.

msalama
01-29-2007, 11:47 PM
Well I've mostly flown online lately, but I'm seriously considering going back to offline only because I just can't stand the f**king whining, Red or Blue. It's always a case of their crate / armament being seriously porked and the opponent's being unhistorically good, whereas they themselves are of course NEVER to blame no matter what... too much for an adult to take, I'm telling ya http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

MrMojok
01-30-2007, 01:22 AM
90% offline here.

igitur70
01-30-2007, 02:05 AM
One more offliner here. But I think I would enjoy a well-structured online campain in a dead is dead mode. You must then survive the missions if you want to keep your score and your rank. It would force many onliners to adopt a team-focused (??) behaviour.

Rammjaeger
01-30-2007, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by Sintubin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEjHOaIpuYY

Simply JAWBRAKING http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

I think oleg is in for a hard time in section of detail

Jesus these guys are good

Hope bob wil be that good

Is this video from FSX? All those features - clickable cockpit, realistic cockpit visibility - are VERY impressive. However, I can imagine a clickable cockpit would be kind of problematic during combat for many people. But I guess all that can be balanced by realistic AI.

For example: if it takes 4 seconds for an experienced human player to set throttle to 100% and supercharger to stage 2 then this should take 4 seconds for an AI plane with skill set to 'veteran' as well. Not to mention that AI should have exactly the same cockpit visibility, propensity to black out etc.

mrsiCkstar
01-30-2007, 03:56 AM
you can bind the commands for all the management to your hotas if you want... a clickable cockpit is just a result of all of those systems that have been modelled and are user operable... you can always bind whatever key or button you want for engine priming, but you can always also click the primer in the pit as well...

it's not one or the other... clickable cockpits will never be problematic during combat because nobody would have to use them in combat unless they wanted to.

zoinks_
01-30-2007, 05:13 AM
yep. i use the clickable pit for startup but from that point on its all hotas.

leitmotiv
01-30-2007, 06:24 AM
Exactly. The clickable cockpit is a great way to start the flight and learn the airplane (with a clickable cockpit you learn what the pilots talked about when they complained of poorly designed cockpit layouts---when you are struggling to click a control nearly benind your back you get the meaning). If you are fighting, you won't be clicking and nobody would blame you. Someday, maybe, we will be able to tap the screen with a device to throw switches, move throttles, etc---bring it on!

Nimits
01-30-2007, 12:11 PM
Offliner here as well. I've flown Forgotten Battles online a total of twice. Online Dogfight servers seemed to have as much to do with realistic aerial combat as Battlefield 2 has to do with modern combined arms tactics. I understand some of the online wars are better in this respect, but I generally do not have the time available to dedicate to that sort of thing on a consistant basis. Offline, I can have a relatively realistic aerial contest anytime I want.

And I for one, would definately use a realistic engine start procedure. I always used that option in CFS2, BoB:WoV, and F4AF. Systems knowledge is one of the real keys to success in aerial combat along with tactics and maneuvers.

ReligiousZealot
01-30-2007, 02:19 PM
I generally prefer to lurk on these forums, but this thread really caught my eye. If featured a very cool video, and it got me thinking. I'd have to say, I would indeed cast my vote for clickable cockpits, but I wouldn't be that disappointed if the feature was left out for BoB. I guess you could say I straddle the fence on this issue, but I do have an idea.

What I would suggest as alternative for BoB - in the case we don't get complex engine start up procedures via clickable cockpits - is the same period of time for the startup. The way I view it is this, let's say we still have "I" bound for start enginge. Instead of simply firing up the engine upon the press of the button, we would see the various activities required to start said engine happen in front of our eyes, the controls/switches pushed and or moved, so on and so forth. I think despite us being unable to necessarily do all the functions to start the engine, it would be pleasing to the realism fans (myself included) if we saw the actions happen on-screen and it took the historic amount of time for the engine to come to life.

I rarely find much time these days to hop online and fly with the fellow onliners (college, work...social life, you get the idea), when I do hop on I don't much care for the engine start up process. Punch I, slap the throttle to full and away you go is pretty much what occurs. With twin engine craft, select engine 1, press I, select engine 2 press I. There's no need for you to bother waiting to see if the engine starts properly or even go through the possibly time consuming process of starting each engine.

Perhaps I am alone in this desire, but I wouldn't mind sitting idle for 10-20 seconds either waiting for the animation of the start up to complete, or the actual doing of the required activities, just to get the engine to spool up and allow me to taxi to the runway. Nor would I be bothered if I got vulched while waiting for my engine to turn over - I probably shouldn't have gotten shot down in the first place and there should be adequate air cover over the base I'd like to think.

Well that's my take on it, either way still gonna buy BoB and great vid - it's convinced me that I should probably purchase myself a copy of Shockwave's Wings of Power add-on to enjoy in FSX.

SeaFireLIV
01-30-2007, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:

Maybe an offline thread would be a good thing to get going so that the offliners have their own sounding board.

I seem to be responding to just your posts, leitmotiv, but your views agree with mine a lot. An `offliner` thread would be good. Though this one seems to be turning into one.

Nice to hear you offliners speaking up a little too. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

slipBall
01-30-2007, 02:30 PM
A stickey off-line thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif...I like the idea

joeap
01-30-2007, 03:00 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
A stickey off-line thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif...I like the idea

Me too. Hey I had a thought, one thing I do like in these complex MSFS addon start up procedures is the fact that if you skip a step or forget something, the motor won't start. Even simple things like not selecting a fuel tank. What I want for BoB-SoW are consequences of (mis)management, not only for start-up but during flight too. I want to risk real penalties if I push or go past the envelope.

Sintubin
01-30-2007, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by slipBall:
A stickey off-line thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif...I like the idea

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