PDA

View Full Version : Will SoW be boring and superficial?



Feathered_IV
05-24-2007, 04:55 AM
The Il-2 series is pretty. I have no doubt that SoW will be very pretty too. The weather will change. The AI will occaisionally sh*t their pants and the FM's will be great.

And we'll all go around, doing the same things as we are doing now. Just in a more detailed environment.

But really, don't you think there should be more to the future of air combat simulations than just dogfights and dropping a stick of bombs? Do you really just want to play the exact same kind of missions all over again for another five years?

What if other mission perameters were coded in? What other options could we get?

Maybe instead you'd like to pilot a Lysander for SOE. Fly over to France at zero altitude in the dead of night. Alone in the dark, you would struggle to find 'that little field' marked on your map and glide into it, engine off so as not to alert the Jerries. Maybe you'd like to see AI ground units smart enough to detect the sound of your engine and converge on the area. Maybe friendly units that would sgnal when you came near.
You would taxi to the appointed spot (the further from the spot - the longer you'd wait), a message on screen would tell you when contact with the friendlies has been made. Then you'd sweat it out waiting until the business is done and you got the all clear to move. Maybe there would be unexpected delays. All the while, the Wehrmacht and Gestapo are closing in. When you finally did get the order to go, you'd still have to get safely out of the rough field, possibly under fire and find your way back home.

Perhaps you'd rather fly a Storch, evacuating wounded from the combat area. Or spotting for the artillery?

What about unarmed photo recon? Actually take real photographs? I remember even the kids game PilotWings on the Nintendo 64 had recce missions where your photos were analysed by some little program, and if they met expectations, you were passed to the next level.

Coastal Command perhaps? Why not have a crew that can actually call out the sightings of distant ships and other objects and give an intelligent description of their range, type and heading? Or nightfighters with AI radar operators that can actually guide you to the kill?

Wouldn't you like to try to fly a danerously overloaded Ju-52 into the icy landing strips of Stalingrad one day? Or a C-47 over the Himalayas?


There has to be more to this genre than, fly to waypoint and shoot stuff down. Or, fly to waypoint and drop some bombs. There has to be. If you can think of other codeable variations, I'd love to hear them. I know oleg and his people read these boards more than they let on. Maybe someone will come up with an idea they can use.

Wolkenbeisser
05-24-2007, 05:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

My words! That's exactly the way to improve imersion and to make Teamplay (maybe the Ju-52 needs escort) more important. I realy hope there will be such things in SOW.

Yellonet
05-24-2007, 05:38 AM
I've had these kinds of ideas before and made suggestions about them too.

What apeals to me most is transporting, going slow and with minimal weapons trying to get that cargo/troops to their location unharmed, missions where you just barely survive are the best http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bearcat99
05-24-2007, 05:42 AM
From what I hear triggers will be n the mission builder.. that alone will add a few things.. and given the creativity of this bunch I am sure it will be somewhat different. I think with manable AA, and with busses and cars running their own subroutines ....... I;ll just wait and see what it is before I even speculate.. but I undersatand your point.

Yellonet
05-24-2007, 05:46 AM
We need transport planes!
C-47 and Ju-52 please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Then toss in some paratroopers and go fly through the german mountains Where Eagles Dare style! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yellonet
05-24-2007, 05:46 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
From what I hear triggers will be n the mission builder.. that alone will add a few things.. and given the creativity of this bunch I am sure it will be somewhat different. I think with manable AA, and with busses and cars running their own subroutines ....... I;ll just wait and see what it is before I even speculate.. but I undersatand your point. Triggers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Friendly_flyer
05-24-2007, 05:48 AM
I'm with you, Featherd. I too would like to be able to fly "those other types" of mission. What about finding downed pilots in the Channel, waiting for the MTB or E-boat to fish him up, or fly patrolls where your job is to ID the enemy and get the heck out of there (in an outdated, slow plane) before you get nailed.

MEGILE
05-24-2007, 05:51 AM
Good point... scenarios are where its at.

Remember DDay on Medal Of Honour? Damn that was intense.

Sims need the same thing

stalkervision
05-24-2007, 05:51 AM
Trigger...
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


http://www.geocities.com/Yosemite/Trails/3539/RoyTrig.jpg

msalama
05-24-2007, 05:52 AM
Great ideas Feathered. I for one have _ALWAYS_ wanted to drive those C-46's and C-47's over the Hump myself!

Yup, more to this than mere bangety-bang IMO too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Philipscdrw
05-24-2007, 05:58 AM
Excellent post. I'm hoping that SoW is going that way already - it's getting the Tiger Moth and the Su-26, non-combat aircraft...

And if it's partially open-architecture with regards to aircraft addons, then there could be community-made Lysanders etc.

I'm really hoping that the sim will allow 3rd-party 'mission control' programs, which can create, load, continuously evaluate, and edit in real time the missions that you fly. It would be a very powerful tool for creating more immersive missions with complex objectives.

I was playing the VVS'46 campaign a while back - you get a mission where you're told 'Don't fly above x meters or you'll be detected on radar'. Of course that limitation only exists in your mind; the Il-2 mission engine can't evaluate your flight on how well you avoided radar! But if a 'mission control' program was watching your flight, it could simulate the enemy radar. In the simplest case you fail the mission if you exceed x meters altitude. But more imaginative scenarios are imaginable: if you exceed x meters then the Mission Control will spawn or launch enemy fighters to intercept you.

Mission Control could also give you objectives for things like Air-Sea Rescue missions - give the player a Supermarine Walrus, put a friendly airman in a life-jacket somewhere in the Channel, remove him when you land near him, give you a message 'he's alive' or 'he's dead' depending on how quickly you find him...

Mission Control would require these things from the SoW engine:

- allow 3rd-party applications to create missions and briefings (which is already possible in Il-2, so it should be no problem),

- monitor what's going on in the mission (like a DeviceLink Plus), including things like the location of certain aircraft or aircraft groups,

- to add things to a mission already in progress (this could be really difficult) or give new objectives/orders to AI vehicles already in mission,

- give messages to the player (I think this is already possible. Teamspeak Overlay puts text over the Il-2 display, so Mission Control could do the same thing. But a way to do it through the game engine would be nice.)

- and get detailed information of the end-state of the mission (for things like campaigns or other 'persistent-world' scenarios)

Philipscdrw
05-24-2007, 06:00 AM
Originally posted by Yellonet:
We need transport planes!
C-47 and Ju-52 please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Then toss in some paratroopers and go fly through the german mountains Where Eagles Dare style! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

How long will it take for the first SoW 'virtual airline' to form? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif FSX you have a challenger!

MEGILE
05-24-2007, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by Yellonet:
We need transport planes!
C-47 and Ju-52 please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Then toss in some paratroopers and go fly through the german mountains Where Eagles Dare style! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


You can do this in WW2OL... and it's pretty damn Sierra Hotel..

All human paratroppers too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
05-24-2007, 06:22 AM
Damn the spammer beat me into saying so.

There's nothing like waiting half an hour on an airfield with your little MP 40 until enough chaps board that Ju 52... finally enough of you have gathered, so 10-15 of you tightly pack that nice Tante Ju... finally you take off... the pilot flies low... you wonder yourself what to do after the jump.. then suddenly the chat bar goes crazy... 'spit' 'EA' 'spit' 'LOL we all gonna die'.

And indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Feathered_IV
05-24-2007, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
....it could simulate the enemy radar...ifyou exceed x meters then the Mission Control will spawn or launch enemy fighters to intercept you.



You have it exactly there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Thats what I've hoped for for ages. Not just the primitive 'AI bump into line of sight and engage' system that is all we have now. Rather the player is intead up against the hive-mind. A central AI that can direct it's assets to meet oncomming threats.

Friendly flyer, that is a brilliant idea too. Proper search & rescue missions with the whole crew on the lookout and able to speak up if they see something.

BC, I know you've been after mission triggers for years now. I was just getting the hang of those in CFS2 FMB when I made the switch to FB. Couldn't believe that something so essential to gameplay got left out http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

I hope the FB-FMB style recon bubble gets a bit of a workout in SoW. In it's simplest sense, that is a trigger. It responds to your presence when you enter it and triggers a response. In this case a text message that an objective has been met. I should be a simple process to design variations on this.
You could have ones that generate a user-made text message in FMB. Accessable through the objects menu. You can type in the space provided whatever you want to see. Select the colour of text etc. Then in-game when you fly through the area you get a message on screen.

You could have a similar one that triggers a .wav sample when you fly through it. You could have a folder full of user-made samples that you could instruct the trigger to generate on command. Everything from ground control, crew intercom or mission instructions.

There must be more that can be done. Have at it chaps http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

MEGILE
05-24-2007, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
'LOL we all gonna die'.

And indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LOL
that's usually me

alert_1
05-24-2007, 06:43 AM
Developing high fidelity WWII flight sim is a daunting task. If I got good and believable FM, DM and smart/more human AI and solid MP, it's all I want for my 39.90..

ojcar1971
05-24-2007, 06:46 AM
Yeah, you are flying in your beloved Lysander, Ju-52 or Dakota and Then comes a Fw-190, La-5 or so, and blow your *** out of the sky.
When you'll shot down the 25th time in ten minutes, you'll return to combat planes. Amen.

Feathered_IV
05-24-2007, 06:50 AM
It's not about winning every time. Not after so many years at this.

Daiichidoku
05-24-2007, 06:58 AM
whats SoW?

lol

when im not in my Spad flying KotS, ill be sure to kill T34s in my tiger (T34s vs Tigers)

if i need that wwii release...ill come back to FB'

unless anyone is willing to spot me a new nice new comp, or 1500.00$

lowfighter
05-24-2007, 07:13 AM
I would like to see a certain degree of randomness in AI fighter behaviour. Like a rookie also doing sometimes smart things or a veteran also doing sometimes mistakes. Basically to have AI more unpredictable...

igitur70
05-24-2007, 07:33 AM
Maybe the best and simplest way to vary the missions would be to control a character before controlling a plane. You should be able to leave your plane and meet some people on the ground (french resistants, at night, on a lost french field for example). That would allow incredible scenarios, imo, especially for the online play. If you add an ingame radio, as some have suggested on this forum, you could try and get back some efficient info about ennemy's positions, etc.. The whole thing in a large-scaled online war taking place in a huge and single map. Some kind of basic interaction with the environment would add a lot as well : some buildings you could enter in, for de/briefing, or a secret rendez-vous in the occupied France. Using a pistol in case of danger, etc..
I remember that Oleg planned to develop his sim to implement other kind of action : subsim, vehicle, tank, ships, ... Why not adding some bodies first? You could choose to play as a paratrooper, ...or to carry them in your plane.
IMHO, the best future for the SOW project is to become a global WWII sim instead of just a flight sim. But I realize it's too early for my computer http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

ploughman
05-24-2007, 07:38 AM
Ah, a sort of Grand Theft Auto meets World War II? Pop the Gestapo goon, acquire some cheese and wine, Lysander back to blighty for kippers and a cup o' tea.

ojcar1971
05-24-2007, 07:38 AM
Come on, boys! It's a war! Death is inmersive!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Feathered_IV
05-24-2007, 07:54 AM
Just for the record, I think manable AAA and other stuff like that is ****. The first thing people will whine for is auto aim.

The only external action I really want is enough room for a pre-flight walkaround, a post-flight inspection of the damage. Or if I'm not so lucky, a first person bail out with a fade-to-black and the sound of the air going out of my lungs when I hit the sod.

BF2 has not been on my hard drive for years. I hope I never see it's like again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
05-24-2007, 08:06 AM
I've advocated the idea of other types of missions and aircraft inthe past, such as transport planes, and the like.

But I've got one word for you guys: SEAPLANES!!

Yup, I wanna jump into a Sunderland Flying Boat, or even better, a Heinkel He-115!! Mine laying missions, and SAR missions over the Channel, and all that stuff!!

But definately, we need other types of mission parameters that we can achieve, as has been described in this thread, like picking up downed pilots, delivering cargo safely, or dropping troops/operatives into enemy occupied territory, etc. Otherwise it will just be another bunch of years doing nothing but blowing stuff up and shooting things down.

And yeah, what about an airline? BOAC flew Mossies in and out of Sweden with diplomatic pouches and interned aircrew, etc!!

But seaplanes people, seaplanes!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

carguy_
05-24-2007, 08:07 AM
If I understand correctly , some people would like to do something else than flying in DF servers.You know flying scenarios and stuff.

Online wars have some.There is a special group of folks taking unarmed planes flying over a city to drop some stuff,sometimes just to recon the city or other areas.
These kind of scenarios have always been flown by people who wished for sometihng more.

AW war for example is more to it than just shooting stuff.If your buddy falls behind the lines,you can go get him if you want.You can even choose a completely different target than in the briefing.

If the environment was something more complicated,then we`d have much of the virtual reality already.

Too bad we can`t do it like this.There would be a map where all the different sorties were being run at real time.So when you`re flying escort with yer buddies to bomb a city,somewhere out there are the other groups fighting on the same map at the same time.This way through TS you could call reinforcements,reserves,even acumulate much bigger formations.

Currently we`re definitely missing the numbers.
60 planes of Typhoon/Spitfire mix against an acumulated group of 48 FW190 is nothing like we have now.

The numbers being the easiest way to enhance the immersion.But how are we going to get over 200 people in one server?Every mission needs to be a participation in a massive event taking place on one map.To achieve this we need at least like 8000 people in HL at a time,taking into account that the majority still flies DF servers.


It is quite obvious that folks want another genre of WWII OL and I think it is still far faaar away.Because in the end we are all simulating a war and to do it right,humans must man everything.

Ever wonder why isn`t the Battlefield series even least complicated as IL2?

I_KG100_Prien
05-24-2007, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Just for the record, I think manable AAA and other stuff like that is ****. The first thing people will whine for is auto aim.

The only external action I really want is enough room for a pre-flight walkaround, a post-flight inspection of the damage. Or if I'm not so lucky, a first person bail out with a fade-to-black and the sound of the air going out of my lungs when I hit the sod.

BF2 has not been on my hard drive for years. I hope I never see it's like again. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Megile and Kurfurst already mentioned it, but WW2OL, despite it's aged graphics is a good game once you figure it out. Admittedly, the aircraft Flight and Damage models aren't the greatest it's still fun. Doing paratroop missions are a blast, and Kurfy hit the nail on the head.. "Ok guys, 30 seconds..." then PWAP PWAP PWAP!... The JU52 is going down in flames and those who didn't die are now floating down scattered and alone.

I've been hoping that someday the graphics would get modernized, the FM/DM's for aircraft improved. Then it would go from a good to great game... Well that and if they'd put in more opportunities for open field battles, rather than all the objectives being towns.. Perhaps have to secure a whole region for example.

Ah, well..

I hope BOB:SOW delivers, and I also hope that there is more for the folks who like to fly bombers etc... Instead of it being the constant frag fest with the skies being full of wannabe Super-Aces.

I think it would be neat if bomber-jocks could lead a flight of AI aircraft, so at least they could have cover from other bombers rather than hoping that some nice guy will give 'em an escort.

We shall see...

leitmotiv
05-24-2007, 08:31 AM
I concur with F_IV's menu 100%. May even get me to play online. I have never been a huge fan of fighter v. fighter brawls or ground attack (now flying a Kate at the YORKTOWN is something else). I am quietly hoping BOB really will have a Beau for radar hunts of German night bombers over the UK, and I'm really hoping I can try to plant a stick of 250kg bombs on King's Cross Station in a night He 111, or dodge flak over Berlin in the Wellington. As for an SOE Lysander, you bet! Hunting over the Atlantic in a Wimpey with radar and depth charges for a U-boat, you bet---all these ideas look good.

Philipscdrw
05-24-2007, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
I've advocated the idea of other types of missions and aircraft inthe past, such as transport planes, and the like.

But I've got one word for you guys: SEAPLANES!!

Yup, I wanna jump into a Sunderland Flying Boat, or even better, a Heinkel He-115!! Mine laying missions, and SAR missions over the Channel, and all that stuff!!

But definately, we need other types of mission parameters that we can achieve, as has been described in this thread, like picking up downed pilots, delivering cargo safely, or dropping troops/operatives into enemy occupied territory, etc. Otherwise it will just be another bunch of years doing nothing but blowing stuff up and shooting things down.

And yeah, what about an airline? BOAC flew Mossies in and out of Sweden with diplomatic pouches and interned aircrew, etc!!

But seaplanes people, seaplanes!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif
Oh God yes.

Morteiin
05-24-2007, 08:44 AM
I agree with the original post. Some really good ideas in this thread too.

Picking up on a couple of them, if the terrain and plane types allowed, I'd like to be able land and pick up a downed comrade then take off again during a mission. Or, when a person lands after bailing, have enemy soldiers or vehicles spawn to capture them. These enemies could then be strafed, allowing the downed pilot to escape, or not.

I'd also like to be able to go into an external view after landing and have the game circle around my plane showing and describing to me any damage inflicted on it by the enemy or through my own mismanagement of it. This could be tied in with how re-flyable the plane is in the next mission and related to the use of expendable resources, ie some stuff might not get fixed before you have to fly again.

Just dreaming I guess, but the original point remains, it would be good if there were more to the next series than the current one, more than what we've been informed of so far.

Les.

ploughman
05-24-2007, 08:46 AM
Big thumbs up for SAR missions, there's a Walrus (non-flyable at the moment, more's the pity) and that Heinkel floaty thing. As for King's Cross, I'll be your wing man for that mission Leit, place needs sorting out and, if we miss, there's a fair chance either St. Pancras'd get it or the gasometers that used to be just behind it (I hope they model gasometer explosions correctly).

MEGILE
05-24-2007, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Just for the record, I think manable AAA and other stuff like that is ****. The first thing people will whine for is auto aim.



Manable AAA is surprisingly effective in WW2OL...

AAA vs. Plane in a head on strafe.. I give it 50:50 chance each way.

Blood_Splat
05-24-2007, 09:12 AM
I agree 100% feathered. I think it would even draw in the hardcore civilian flight simmers.

JG52Uther
05-24-2007, 10:00 AM
I fly transport missions a lot in online wars,dodging fighters,so it is available now.I agree 100% with the OP.
JU52's into Stalingrad! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Friendly_flyer
05-24-2007, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
You could have a similar one that triggers a .wav sample when you fly through it. You could have a folder full of user-made samples that you could instruct the trigger to generate on command. Everything from ground control, crew intercom or mission instructions.

Yes! You fly in circles at the flack steadily puts more holes in your plane, dodging fighters until your co-pilot (with his anoyingly slow camera) says "That's it, let's get out of here!".

major_setback
05-24-2007, 10:55 AM
Scenario: The Jerry swine have shot down one of our planes. You ring International Air Sea rescue, Doug and Tracy will spring into action and come and get him. You have to ward off enemy intervention.

Alternatively: A Few of the RAF lads managed to damage a He111 which then ditched in the soup. You are on patrol when you spot a German seaplane bearing a red cross picking up the seamen from the downed plane. What happens next is up to you!



http://www.rafmuseum.org.uk/milestones-of-flight/images/1941/p1175.jpg

I am the Walrus! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Old_Canuck
05-24-2007, 01:38 PM
For offline flying, scenarios and scenery is where it's at. Some of the more recent campaigns are making the old engine look new again. One example is the Spitn' Fire campaign. Imaginative scenery and gameplay made the first few missions very immersive. Must get offline again and try a few more. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hoatee
05-24-2007, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
It is quite obvious that folks want another genre of WWII OL

Agreed as far as I am concerned.

Kurfurst__
05-24-2007, 01:53 PM
Isn't it planned to have mannable AAA guns, human crewed tanks and such on SOW - I guess in a much simplified way, but still there? I recall seeing a Bofors from the gunner's seat.

That would certainly open up a lot of new options, little ground wars can be fought between two airfields and such.. some online missions of Il-2 also try this, but frankly the engine and the very simple ground AI is not up to this...

It would certainly be enough to add some variety... say, Channel Dash or something. And if you want more, there's WW2OL. Never expect the same thing from what is primarly an offline flight sim...

LOL... having some sick idea based on this... 2 vs. 1 player scenario... 'Rommel's Kubelwagen vs. a pair Spitfires'. Mission Goal : Reach the city bristling with Flak in one piece, hehe... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

leitmotiv
05-24-2007, 07:04 PM
Ploughman, King's Cross locale is a Heinkel's wet dream. 10 May 1941 the bistids knocked out all the major stations. If they had kept it up for a couple weeks instead of being sent East, it would have been nasty.

Copperhead310th
05-24-2007, 07:25 PM
"Will SoW be boring and superficial?"

Well....it's like this. you're going to gte two flavors:
Vanilla & Chocolate (Spitfires & 109's) woot! i'm excited! are you excited?! yaaaaa!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

that's all good if actually LIKE Vannilla or Chocalte. but what if like me...you prefer say butter peacan or black Wallnut? Well..your f8cked. that's what. Sorry i'm being so pecimistic. but i'm sick to death of Spitefires and 109's. Jesus, mary & freaking joseph Already. (sigh)

EiZ0N
05-24-2007, 07:27 PM
What do you propose Cooperhead?

What should the new sim be, and what aircraft should it have?

Who should it cater to?

Philipscdrw
05-24-2007, 07:40 PM
OK Copperhead, you're flying the Blenheims then.
edit: or teaching tyro pilots in the Tiger Moth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Copperhead310th
05-24-2007, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
What do you propose Cooperhead?

What should the new sim be, and what aircraft should it have?

Who should it cater to?

Well for Starters BoB has been over done.IMO but i guess from a historical outlook it is technically the start of the airwar. that i understand.and i know it's Olegs intent to cover the entire war this time from start to finnish.
but to answer your questions....there should be the proper historical lend lease aircraft in the sim. there were P-40's in Eangland near the end. There were also wildcats that were bering evaluated for purchase by the Royal Navy and RAF.
Basically i want to know if ere ever gonna get back to the pacific and DO IT F*CKING RIGHT this time.
Well there BE P-39's 38's, 40's, 47's 51's In SoW. Will the copywright infringment prevent there from being USAAF aircraft in the sim?

i mean can we get away from nthe same old same old here? sh*t.
P-61 Blackwidow, a typhoon, hs-129, something new differant. damn not just the same old thing i've been playing for the last 5 years.
now i do realize that your neew here so i'll try and be cordail about this. you havnt been here long enough to get boared out of your skull with the same old same old.

thats one of the things that's keept me envolved in this sim as much as i have.
becuase i know that oleg, in allk his generousity will eventually relaese a patch with something new about every 6-8 months or so.

luftluuver
05-24-2007, 09:55 PM
I thought P-51s and P-47s were vanilla and chocolate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Copperhead310th
05-24-2007, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
I thought P-51s and P-47s were vanilla and chocolate. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

No they're Rocky Road in 1946. lol
VERY ROCKY

leitmotiv
05-25-2007, 12:07 AM
I'll be happy because BOB will have a sooper dooper 110 and a sooper dooper Ju 88A-1 and a sooper dooper Wellington IA. Later I'll get to all the usual suspects. The idea of screaming down on a line of mega-detailed hangars in a mega-detailed 88A-1 excites the heck out of me. IL-2's 88 just whetted my appetite.

Deadmeat313
05-25-2007, 01:21 AM
Copperhead, I know how you feel. You want to fly US planes and the initial installment of SOW has very little likelihood of showing any of those. As for myself, despite being British I like Forgotten Battles mainly for its Eastern Front stuff. I just love flying IL-2s on close ground support missions, or my trusty I-16 type 24 on topcover.

The US planes will come my friend, and when they do I will certainly take a spin in the odd P-51 etc. For now, come SOW:BOB I'll most likely content myself with joining the Luftwaffe and flying He-111s over London. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Oh, and PS: while there isn't much to go on yet, the footage they showed on the IL-46 bonus DVD of the cargo ship being hit gives me a warm fuzzy feeling when I think what the Pacific episode of SOW might look like. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


T.

carguy_
05-25-2007, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
but i'm sick to death of Spitefires and 109's. Jesus, mary & freaking joseph Already. (sigh)


But you`re a southerner,remember?

Life`s brutal Yankeeeees!Maybe it`s time you should convince Bill to take his head out his a**.

Get your own Oleg! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Friendly_flyer
05-25-2007, 03:47 AM
Vanilla & Chocolate (Spitfires & 109's) woot! i'm excited! are you excited?! yaaaaa!


You forgot we're going to get the sligtly burnt rubber like tast of Hurricanes too, not to mention a whole range of very salty bombers.

WTE_Googly
05-25-2007, 03:52 AM
I would love SoW to go into Bomber Command and Night Fighters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

WOLFMondo
05-25-2007, 03:53 AM
I guess its still not clear to some BoB is the first instalment in the Storm of War series.

I_KG100_Prien
05-25-2007, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I'll be happy because BOB will have a sooper dooper 110 and a sooper dooper Ju 88A-1 and a sooper dooper Wellington IA. Later I'll get to all the usual suspects. The idea of screaming down on a line of mega-detailed hangars in a mega-detailed 88A-1 excites the heck out of me. IL-2's 88 just whetted my appetite.

Preach on, brother.. AMEN.

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


Wish I could find a JU-88 for FSX.. I'd be a super happy camper... Guess for now I have to be content with my B-17/24/29 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
05-25-2007, 06:38 AM
I just love flying IL-2s on close ground support missions, or my trusty I-16 type 24 on topcover.

+978623876234 & a bit. What I like to do most as well. The Sturmovik, humble as it may be, was my first love in this sim and I'm still very attached to it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Thus I'm really looking forward for the new series to hit the Ostfront again, but meanwhile more than content w/ flying Hurris, Spits and Emils for a change http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But yeah, let's still hope they get the US stuff right this time!

EiZ0N
05-25-2007, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by Copperhead310th:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
What do you propose Cooperhead?

What should the new sim be, and what aircraft should it have?

Who should it cater to?

Well for Starters BoB has been over done.IMO but i guess from a historical outlook it is technically the start of the airwar. that i understand.and i know it's Olegs intent to cover the entire war this time from start to finnish.
but to answer your questions....there should be the proper historical lend lease aircraft in the sim. there were P-40's in Eangland near the end. There were also wildcats that were bering evaluated for purchase by the Royal Navy and RAF.
Basically i want to know if ere ever gonna get back to the pacific and DO IT F*CKING RIGHT this time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't think there were any P-40s in 'Eangland' During BOB?

Not everyone's favourite theatre is the Pacific you know...there are other people in the world. You're basically complaining because the first instalment of the SOW series won't have YOUR favourite planes in.


i mean can we get away from nthe same old same old here? sh*t.
...you havnt been here long enough to get boared out of your skull with the same old same old.
Haven't I? I've been playing this game since the original IL2 Sturmovik, getting on for 6 years.

Did I complain when IL2 Sturmovik didn't have my favourite planes? No, I didn't really care, it was a good game.

Point is, not everybody likes the same planes or theatre that you do. I'm glad the setting for the first game is BOB, as in my eyes BOB has not been done properly yet.

JG52MadAdler
05-25-2007, 07:01 AM
Its going to be great to have triggers at last. Jane's WWII fighter had them
back in the day.

If Way point 5 reached awake "AAA"
Else Awake fight White "1"
and say "Watch for fighters"

Somthing like that.
You can get very creative with triggers calling in sub triggers and so on.

This way a coop mission works a little different
each time.

Cant wait

jermin122
05-25-2007, 07:29 AM
What I want is:
1. A air combat commanding system which works just like the film BoB showed.
2. Big enough maps, so there will be more than 10 different missions (both day ones and night ones, all kinds of missions, not only destroy and escort) on a single map and make jettison tanks no more useless.
3. Enough airplanes in a single server to make the primary combat unit consists of 4 planes or even 8 planes. If one squad is in trouble, the ground control will ask the nearest free squad to help.
4. With above 3 changes applied, 1 map cycle of a server will probably take several days untill all the missions are completed or that territory is ocuppied.

All in all, what I want is a REAL Battle of Britain.

Wolkenbeisser
05-25-2007, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by ojcar1971:
Yeah, you are flying in your beloved Lysander, Ju-52 or Dakota and Then comes a Fw-190, La-5 or so, and blow your *** out of the sky.
When you'll shot down the 25th time in ten minutes, you'll return to combat planes. Amen.


...ever heard of teamwork? If the situation for the JU-52 is that dangerous (maybe because it can't hyde in the dark/clouds), you just order an escort and you have a perfect teamplay. JU-52 needs to land at it's destination to win the mission and fighters must support JU-52, otherwise JU-52 won't reach it's goal...

much more interesting in my eyes than 1 vs 1 dogfights.

Wolkenbeisser
05-25-2007, 08:21 AM
btw... in our LAN-Squadron (the famous, outstanding JAGDGESCHWADER ALBATROSS http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif), we already fly (coop-) missions in IL-2 that are a little bit like our wishes for SOW. They need much of teamwork, and are not boring 1 vs 1 dogfights.

Yesterday I finished a (relatively) simple coop-mission. Missiondescription goes something like this:

"Our Squadron lacks of transport planes, so we filled the bellies ot two B-25J with support-goods for the infantery (ammunition, Food, etc.). Because of weight reasons there is no possibility to arm the defensive guns of the bombers. That means, we need escort. Wait after takeoff until your escort is here. Then fly to the airfield in sector XY and land there".

Missions like this are very interesting for our LAN-squadron, because the players that fly the B-25's realy want to reach the airfiels (they even sit together before the mission starts to make a flight-plan, that is not too dangerous!). And the players, that escort the bombers also discuss their tactics, because the max. possible playable fighters is muuuuch lower than the (expected) AI-bandits in the air.

It is always interesting to watch if the whole JAGDGESCHWADER ALBATROSS does good or not (after the mission, everybody opens a beer and we watch the *.ntrk on the beamer http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif). Difficulty is adjustable by the missionbuilder - me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, and I know the pilots (we are only 10), so I know how to make missions that makes the pilots sweat, but willing to fullfill the mission.

...god, I love that game (for years now!)

Deadmeat313
05-25-2007, 08:31 AM
Actually, while I agree with the OP that some depth to the game will give it greater life, I'll be perfectly happy for a while with the sheer novelty of being able to bomb London.

Wait until the view beneath your He-111 looks identical to that of the splash screen of Eastenders, then shout "Bombs away!!"* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

I'd like specialist missions, but only as an addition to a solid framework of serious "bomb dropping on military targets" type stuff.

(*PS: As an afterthought. Can anybody tell me what the German equivalent phrase is to "bombs away"? I want to shout in the correct language.)

(PPS: I DO have a German phrase book at home, but I really doubt this exact phrase will be included for some reason. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif )


T.

luftluuver
05-25-2007, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
(*PS: As an afterthought. Can anybody tell me what the German equivalent phrase is to "bombs away"? I want to shout in the correct language.)T.
Not sure how to spell the word but I think it sounds like loose or loss.

Wolkenbeisser
05-25-2007, 08:47 AM
Bomben los!

...but actualy you say...

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

Wolkenbeisser
05-25-2007, 08:51 AM
you can also say...

- Die Babies sind weg!
- Das Altmetall ist entsorgt!
- nimm das, Du *Á"£hund!
- Eier gelegt!
- Die Post ist unterwegs!

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

MORK_SwEEp
05-25-2007, 08:56 AM
Does anyone have any updates as to when SOW will be released? I have pre-ordered from Play and they have slipped the release date back to the end of Aug... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I still find it puzzling that there has been no box art yet released or sneak peaks, (apart from the 1946 DVD), or screenies...

It all seems deathly quiet considering the size of the community and the usual openess of Oleg and his team....

Perhaps I am not looking in the right places...

EiZ0N
05-25-2007, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Wolkenbeisser:
you can also say...

- Die Babies sind weg!
- Das Altmetall ist entsorgt!
- nimm das, Du *Á"£hund!
- Eier gelegt!
- Die Post ist unterwegs!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
I'm going to have a shot at this

-The babies are away?
-It'd be pretty much a guess
-Take that, you dogs??
-no idea..
-The post is on it's way!

Deutsche is an awesome language http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wolkenbeisser
05-25-2007, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
...I'm going to have a shot at this

-The babies are away?
-It'd be pretty much a guess
-Take that, you dogs??
-no idea..
-The post is on it's way!

Deutsche is an awesome language http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

almost:

- the baies are away
- the junk/old metal is... hmmm (don't know what "entsorgt" means in english --> It's what you do, when you bring the pet-bottles to the collecting station... hope you understand)
- Take that, you dogs?? --> right
- eggs are laid
- The post (or mail) is on it's way

well done EiZ0N http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Deadmeat313
05-25-2007, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Wolkenbeisser:
Bomben los!

...but actualy you say...

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

I really should have known that, having been up over Stalingrad a couple of times in Heinkels. Not to mention the fact that the captain shouts "LOOSS!" when they fire a torpedo in Das Boot.

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


T.

carguy_
05-25-2007, 10:54 AM
Mwahahah....kinda like 109 pilots when spotting Spitties....

Also,LOS GEHTS!

Deadmeat313
05-25-2007, 10:57 AM
Originally posted by Wolkenbeisser:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
...I'm going to have a shot at this

-The babies are away?
-It'd be pretty much a guess
-Take that, you dogs??
-no idea..
-The post is on it's way!

Deutsche is an awesome language http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

almost:

- the baies are away
- the junk/old metal is... hmmm (don't know what "entsorgt" means in english --> It's what you do, when you bring the pet-bottles to the collecting station... hope you understand)
- Take that, you dogs?? --> right
- eggs are laid
- The post (or mail) is on it's way

well done EiZ0N http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"The scrapmetail is deposited" maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


T.

Friendly_flyer
05-25-2007, 01:17 PM
In a way this is not so much a matter of flyable planes as a bit of inventiveness of the mission makers. Campaigns like Extreme One/Pyomandos BoB, the Castaway campaign, Wilde Sau and the Fleet Air Arm shows what can be done with a bit of imagination. Like Wolkenbeisser wrote, co-ops can be even more rewarding!

Kurfurst__
05-25-2007, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Wolkenbeisser:
you can also say...

- Die Babies sind weg!
- Das Altmetall ist entsorgt!
- nimm das, Du *Á"£hund!
- Eier gelegt!
- Die Post ist unterwegs!

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

I'd love such slang present in SOWBOB... I recall the original Il-2s LW radio chat, it was quite steril and boring, mirror translations of English terms... then some 3rd party, 'Mea****er' and his staff came along and di d it right ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'd love to have 'proper' Italian radio, too = non-stop chatter in the radio, everybody speaking at the same time in the radio, 3 minute conversations about his feet being cold, and all that extremely loudly. etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EiZ0N
05-25-2007, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Wolkenbeisser:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EiZ0N:
...I'm going to have a shot at this

-The babies are away?
-It'd be pretty much a guess
-Take that, you dogs??
-no idea..
-The post is on it's way!

Deutsche is an awesome language http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

almost:

- the baies are away
- the junk/old metal is... hmmm (don't know what "entsorgt" means in english --> It's what you do, when you bring the pet-bottles to the collecting station... hope you understand)
- Take that, you dogs?? --> right
- eggs are laid
- The post (or mail) is on it's way

well done EiZ0N http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"The scrapmetail is deposited" maybe? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hehe. 'Old metal' I thought 'Alt' or 'Alter' seemed familiar, I recall now a song called Alter Mann which I knew to mean old man.

I piece my German together from vague memories of school, and the "neue deutsche harte" music genre which I quite like http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

I agree with deadmeat, that the word "deposited" would primarily be used for putting bottles in a 'bottle bank' (collecting station). Deposited means to literally put something somewhere.

Philipscdrw
05-25-2007, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:

I'd love to have 'proper' Italian radio, too = non-stop chatter in the radio, everybody speaking at the same time in the radio, 3 minute conversations about his feet being cold, and all that extremely loudly. etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
I've had TS conversations like that - although generally the feet would be cold because the other guy's on the ground in Sweden...

Tooz_69GIAP
05-26-2007, 04:44 AM
Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
Wait until the view beneath your He-111 looks identical to that of the splash screen of Eastenders, then shout "Bombs away!!"* http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



Oh how right you are!!! I can hear the theme tune going in my head, and I'm having images of me in a Heinkel screaming obsenities as I smash the Queen Vic or the Laundrette, or summit!!!

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 08:48 AM
Maybe instead you'd like to pilot a Lysander for SOE. Fly over to France at zero altitude in the dead of night.

The whole issue of the look and feel of things at night would need to be addressed first. Thinks like colour balances, night adaptation and the limited contrast levels available on PC monitors.

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 08:49 AM
Actually, while I agree with the OP that some depth to the game will give it greater life, I'll be perfectly happy for a while with the sheer novelty of being able to bomb London.

Maybe SoW could then be combined with a special edition of SimCity allowing us to see if we can not make a mess of the rebuilding of London and Coventry.

JG53Frankyboy
05-26-2007, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
........I'd love to have 'proper' Italian radio, too = non-stop chatter in the radio, everybody speaking at the same time in the radio, 3 minute conversations about his feet being cold, and all that extremely loudly. etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

i doubt that much italien fighters had radios on board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - at that time

Kurfurst__
05-26-2007, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
i doubt that much italien fighters had radios on board http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif - at that time

Uhm... errr... I meant bombers then!

A 4 hour bomber sortie... a dozen bombers, each with 5 Mediterrano on board... no that's no radio chatter, that's a mobile jamming station. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Aaron_GT
05-26-2007, 09:05 AM
there were P-40's in Eangland near the end.

The first P40s as Tomahawk Is were delivered in September 1940 but were deemed unsuitable for combat (e.g. no armour). Even if they had been deemed combat-worthy it would have taken weeks or months to work up to service status on a new type, so they would have missed the Battle of Britain. I think it was the Tomahawk II that was the first to see service under the RAF in 1941. I am not sure even if the Mohawk would have been available for Battle of Britain service.

Those Tomahawk Is would have been to supplement the FAF's other Curtiss Hawks (equivalent to P-36s). Plenty of those should SoW add a Battle of France chapter.

Frequent_Flyer
05-26-2007, 11:51 AM
Getting back to the original question. SOWBOB's amount of detail on the ground objects ie.trains, various military and even buses their must be a reason beyond aestetic.

I'm hoping if you have to take to your parachute during a campaigne. You have to make your way back to base on the ground almost like a first person shooter, avoiding capture. Getting plucked out of the water by a english fishing boat,strafed by an enemy fighter that witnessed the rescue. If you make it to port, you still have to make it to your airfield.

If your shot down over France you need to hijack a german jeep, bicycle etc. to get to a prearranged pick-up area etc. If you don't make it your campaign ends.

Copperhead310th
05-26-2007, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Getting back to the original question. SOWBOB's amount of detail on the ground objects ie.trains, various military and even buses their must be a reason beyond aestetic.

I'm hoping if you have to take to your parachute during a campaigne. You have to make your way back to base on the ground almost like a first person shooter, avoiding capture. Getting plucked out of the water by a english fishing boat,strafed by an enemy fighter that witnessed the rescue. If you make it to port, you still have to make it to your airfield.

If your shot down over France you need to hijack a german jeep, bicycle etc. to get to a prearranged pick-up area etc. If you don't make it your campaign ends.
from what i gather that could be a possiblity. Watchingthe video with Oleg in it i distinctly remember either him of luthier saying something about control of ground vehikcles. flakk. aa. tanks ect. so it could happen if that is indeeed the way thier planing on going.

Gitano1979
05-26-2007, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by WTE_Googly:
I would love SoW to go into Bomber Command and Night Fighters http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

+1, nightfighters are awesome. I hope also airborne radar and jamming devices would be added in the SOW series....

Feathered_IV
05-26-2007, 09:17 PM
I don't know about the whole first-person escape and evasion adventure stuff. How many days would the mission need to go for, if you had to trudge a hundered miles or more back to your own lines? Not even a quick save function to help you along http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

leitmotiv
05-26-2007, 09:22 PM
Night bombers, night fighters, and Piccadilly Commandos for the X-rated version.

MrMojok
05-26-2007, 09:31 PM
After having your mount ventilated by a member of JG26, you could parachute into occupied France, narrowly escape patrolling German troops, but then find a French Resistance group(if you made the right moves during the E&E portion).

They'd hide you in a cellar under a farmhouse, while they worked out how to get you back to England. 1C can use something similar to the stealth aspects of the "Splinter Cell" games for this, where if you crouch in shadow and don't move you won't likely be seen. Unfortunately, you'd have to spend several months doing this.

Finally, you'd be spirited in the dead of night to the coast, riding in the trunk of a farmer's jalopy, covered in bags of manure and flour. Then, you'd ride across the channel in a leaky fishing boat. Maybe you'd make it, maybe, not.

If you do, rejoining your squadron, you'd find half the pilots you know previously are dead or POW.

heywooood
05-26-2007, 10:47 PM
all that stuff about manning AA guns and such just seems like so much gaffff.

To add imersive elements is to make the pilots' interaction with the sim closer to real..not farther away.

What aviator flew a mission, got shot down, bailed out, landed in a cornfield, ran over to the AA gun that got him and manned it for awhile?

Give me an atmospheric GUI, give me a populated RAF or Luftwaffe airbase with lorries and fuel trucks rolling around purposefully, mechanics working on fighterplanes and occasionally shouting over the din and bustle of a busy field...give me decent comms with accurate language and terminology as well as period slang in all the right places.
Give me a ground environment below me, be it battlefield or township with proper traffic and movement...with buildings and vehicles to the same scale as the planes...
Give me a sky full of planes, both friend and foe, flailing about in every direction...snatching bursts of fire at each other with only spurious chance of identification...and waves and waves of bombers in the midst of it...all over with as quick as it had begun.

If it looks pretty - and it should - that will be good.
If it has most of these elements - that will be good.

But some carp about manning tanks and guns and whatnot smacks of gimmickery where substance in the main is lacking.

Aaron_GT
05-27-2007, 01:55 AM
Is the scale of current buildings off?

A typical single family house of the 1930s would be between 20x20 feet and 25x25 feet,, so smaller than the wingspan of a Spitfire, which seems to be what you have if you trundle a Spitfire up to one. Is there something else that is off with regard to scaling.


What BoB:SoW needs in my opinion is weather, better view distances and effects, and appropriate contrasts for low light conditions.

Feathered_IV
05-27-2007, 03:30 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
all that stuff about manning AA guns and such just seems like so much gaffff.

I agree. The whole MoH, fight your way back to friendly lines thing is a sickening prospect for a next-gen flight sim. Medikits behind the farm houses? No effing way!

Sure, I think first person bail outs are essential. While the ability to at least have a pre/post flight walkaround the aircraft would be very nice too. Anything else though is pure rubbish.

luftluuver
05-27-2007, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
Give me an atmospheric GUI, give me a populated RAF or Luftwaffe airbase with lorries and fuel trucks rolling around purposefully, mechanics working on fighterplanes and occasionally shouting over the din and bustle of a busy field...give me decent comms with accurate language and terminology as well as period slang in all the right places.
Give me a ground environment below me, be it battlefield or township with proper traffic and movement...with buildings and vehicles to the same scale as the planes...
Give me a sky full of planes, both friend and foe, flailing about in every direction...snatching bursts of fire at each other with only spurious chance of identification...and waves and waves of bombers in the midst of it...all over with as quick as it had begun.

But some carp about manning tanks and guns and whatnot smacks of gimmickery where substance in the main is lacking.


+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Will add, instead of spending time on code for the 'gaffff', spend it on the FMing.

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
all that stuff about manning AA guns and such just seems like so much gaffff.


Agree 100%. It's novelty, it's game console sugar-coated puffs of fluff


Originally posted by heywooood:
To add imersive elements is to make the pilots' interaction with the sim closer to real..not farther away.


Exactly!!! Heywoood for Secretary of Not Losing Focus of the Goal of Combat Flight Simming!


Originally posted by heywooood:
What aviator flew a mission, got shot down, bailed out, landed in a cornfield, ran over to the AA gun that got him and manned it for awhile?


Precisely none! Again, immersion is ruined for people thatw ant a combat flight sim. The argument has been raised that "this is good it gets more people interested, let them have fun"

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Not that the expense of my sim experience! They dont have the right to ruin my immersion because they "want to have fun, too".</span> There are plenty of games that hit the 'high spots' of WWII. let the gamers that like that BUY those games, and let the people who want a detailed combat flight sim be ABLE to have one! Watering down our combat flight sims will do WHAT for the shrinking flight sim market? Reduce it further you say? Of course it will. How can making a pop-bubblegum cotton candy experience strengthen the flight sim market? It can't, it does the opposite! The flight sim should not have as a Feature the ability to do things that pilots never did. It should Feature things that pilots DID. If anyone disagrees with that, you are not playing the right game, stop playing flight sims because you DON'T like them



Originally posted by heywooood:
Give me an atmospheric GUI, give me a populated RAF or Luftwaffe airbase with lorries and fuel trucks rolling around purposefully, mechanics working on fighterplanes and occasionally shouting over the din and bustle of a busy field...give me decent comms with accurate language and terminology as well as period slang in all the right places.
Give me a ground environment below me, be it battlefield or township with proper traffic and movement...with buildings and vehicles to the same scale as the planes...
Give me a sky full of planes, both friend and foe, flailing about in every direction...snatching bursts of fire at each other with only spurious chance of identification...and waves and waves of bombers in the midst of it...all over with as quick as it had begun.


You're describing a combat flight sim, sounds like to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Originally posted by heywooood:
If it looks pretty - and it should - that will be good.
If it has most of these elements - that will be good.

But some carp about manning tanks and guns and whatnot smacks of gimmickery where substance in the main is lacking.

A gimmick is what it is. If, and it's a big IF, players who are going to man AA guns are somehow tied to that activity, then fine.

bailing out of your plane, and then taking over enemy AA and using it is NOT acceptable to me. It's unrealistic, it's Action Movie BS, and it hurts flight simming. Yes people it does.

If you think that allowing this behavior gets more players interested in flight sims, then WAKE THE F UP

Heywoood-

I cannot agree more with your post. Hopefully the intelligent and rational read it, and understand it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Give me an atmospheric GUI, give me a populated RAF or Luftwaffe airbase with lorries and fuel trucks rolling around purposefully, mechanics working on fighterplanes and occasionally shouting over the din and bustle of a busy field...give me decent comms with accurate language and terminology as well as period slang in all the right places.
Give me a ground environment below me, be it battlefield or township with proper traffic and movement...with buildings and vehicles to the same scale as the planes...
Give me a sky full of planes, both friend and foe, flailing about in every direction...snatching bursts of fire at each other with only spurious chance of identification...and waves and waves of bombers in the midst of it...all over with as quick as it had begun.

But some carp about manning tanks and guns and whatnot smacks of gimmickery where substance in the main is lacking.


+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Will add, instead of spending time on code for the 'gaffff', spend it on the FMing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES!

I often do not see eye-to-eye with you, but the essence of your comment is undeniably true

MEGILE
05-27-2007, 07:47 AM
Not that it will make much difference to your opinions I'm sure..

I would assume.. you won't just bail out of your plane, run over to a bofors, jump on and start firing.

Like most sims.. you will probably have to select the type of vehicle in the menu and be tied to that for the duration of your stay.

The idea of manning AAA will be fun for .0005 seconds...
There is no point if maddox is going to sloppily implement ground manned vehicles, if he doesn't go the whole way and create an entire ground simulator.
The concept works in WW2OL because of that reason.

Keep it in the air Oleg

Frequent_Flyer
05-27-2007, 08:21 AM
After I bail, and a little box appears on my screen, " You were captured, OK ". No its not OK.I just spent 30 mins. trying to kill or be killed.So I just wave the white flag and break out the wine and cheese?

In the PTO USA submarines and Catalina's picked up downed flyers. When I'm floating in my raft I want to fire off a flare and have a Catalina of Kingfish appear, brave the straffing Japanese fighters. Conversaly, I want to be able to flame the Japanese Emily that is trying to rescue the enemy pilot I just downed.

Or why can't we land in a field and pick up a downed commrad as was done on occasion.

As the original question stated, forming up, going to the target,dropping ordance, and flying home is getting old after five years.

I want to hit the ground, pull out my map, small firearm and try my skill at getting back. Flying my next mission-transfered to another theater as is was done.

EiZ0N
05-27-2007, 08:26 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I want to hit the ground, pull out my map, small firearm and try my skill at getting back. Flying my next mission-transfered to another theater as is was done.
That is far too ambitious, and it will not happen any time soon.

leitmotiv
05-27-2007, 08:26 AM
Agree with F_IV about the pre-flights, and add---there ought to be random failures a la FS9/X---will give you something to do in your pre-flight, and will definitely keep the sim from being a tedious routine of a daily grind of predictable dogfights or ground attacks. Would tend to attract your eyes to your instruments and make your ears keen. Add to that the odd gull-through-the-Blenheim's-windscreen while slapping along above the waves, and you will have a variety of termination prospects suitable enough to keep your blood pressure high while playing this item.

Frequent_Flyer
05-27-2007, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by EiZ0N:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I want to hit the ground, pull out my map, small firearm and try my skill at getting back. Flying my next mission-transfered to another theater as is was done.
That is far too ambitious, and it will not happen any time soon. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Take a look at the flight sims like " Aces of the Pacific" vs. IL2. Some may have thought IL2 was "far too ambitious",. We are all greatfull Oleg did'nt.

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
After I bail, and a little box appears on my screen, " You were captured, OK ". No its not OK. In the PTO USA submarines and Catalina's picked up downed flyers. When I'm floating in my raft I want to fire off a flare and have a Catalina of Kingfish appear, brave the straffing Japanese fighters.

Well, some of this happened in real life of course. But you are using this sim's scenario to assume that SoW:BoB's will be the same. In all likelihood, it's much easier, effective, and to the point to use a percentage chance to predict the fate of the downed flyer, depending upon where he bailed outr, and what firendly units can be expected to pick him up. You're describing a situation here in which you are tiring of the Combat Flight Sim, and want something different now. You want SoW:BoB to be the type of game you, personally want, right now, not for it to be a top-notch combat flight sim. I'm sorry, but you're not being objective at all


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Conversaly, I want to be able to flame the Japanese Emily that is trying to rescue the enemy pilot I just downed.


Well, why not? This is simply a function of a Combat Flight Sim being more detailed- which we all demand of SoW:BoB


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
Or why can't we land in a field and pick up a downed commrad as was done on occasion.

Well again, why not? Some tricky sticky wickets here of course, like the player's veiw is not impeded by the downed pilot sitting on his lap, or the fact that only one oxygen mask is available for two people, but something could be worked out. Again, this is just teh result of more detail in the realm of Pilot Ops. This is focus on the whole point of Combat Flight Simming- the rea;lm of what pilots really did


Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
As the original question stated, forming up, going to the target,dropping ordance, and flying home is getting old after five years.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You're bored...well that's OK, but please stop suggesting that the type of game *I* like needs to be twisted to feature things that solve *your* boredom. Go play a different game. They exist. operation Flashpoint has great WWII mods, and you can do most of what you're asking for with custom AI scripts

Don't ruin MY good time because you're bored, please. Keep the sim a combat flight sim, and go find a game that itnerests you if the combat flight sim doesn't



Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I want to hit the ground, pull out my map, small firearm and try my skill at getting back. Flying my next mission-transfered to another theater as is was done.


A few points:

1) that's unrealistic in almost every case. You know it to be true. the sim will not emulate indigenous peoples hiding you, the underground movements, the tense moments of walking past a Japanese patrol while wearing a local farmer's straw hat pulled down low, etc

You're describing a movie plot. You're bored of the combat flight sim. Please recognise this. It's OK, you're not a heathen. just find a game you want to play for a while, do not ruin the combat flight aspects of my combat flight sim. And you know these thigns will take away from that aspect. You know it. This isn;t a "whole World Simulator", it's a combat flight sim. yes, i want all these little nuances (but I want a patrol to gun me down 99.99% of the time as I charge them with my .45...let's be honest here). You're making a wish-list for your ideal fantasy sim. We know it will not happen in BoB. Come on now, you just need to find a game you want to play that allows you these things. Try WWIIOL. Actually, that games a good example of what "combat flight simming" will become if we move the focus away from the *point* of combat flight simming. Combat flight sims should focus on Combat in the Air. Not making your way through enemy infested jungles with your native guide. We don't have the power to blend the two generes yet. if you do, you get WWIIOL. If that's your thing, play it! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Don;t make Sow:BoB into WWIIOL. The flight simmers like flights sims


2) You already do get transferred to a new campaign location, in this sim, in both dynamic, and if the builder makes it that way, staic campaigns.

Example: I started in the Crimea in '41. By '45, I was flying over Berlin. This has been around since FB hit the shelves 5 years ago. What are you talking about? You don't go to a new front in DGEN?? Wha???

harryklein66
05-27-2007, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by Megile:The idea of manning AAA will be fun for .0005 seconds...


I think it will be more than that.
It's a good way to deal with vulcher/spawn camper online.
Or imagine, in coop, if you get shot down, you could man the AAA and have something to do, instead of waiting 30 min the end of the mission, smoking cigarettes.

Deadmeat313
05-27-2007, 08:59 AM
If you bail out over England from a Luftwaffe plane in BoB, there is really bugger all chance you are going to make it back across the channel to friendly territory. Oleg can save a lot of processor/development time by simply replacing all this post bail-out FPS stuff with a nice big picture of "Pilot Standing With Hands In The Air, Facing An Irate Shotgun-Wielding Farmer". YOU HAVE BEEN CAPTURED.

If an RAF pilot is shot down over England, he should be shown EXACTLY THE SAME PICTURE. Those farmers were a suspicious bunch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif


T.

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 08:59 AM
Look at it this way:

We are all auto-racing simmers instead of flight simmers, OK?

here's the scenario:

A bunch of people are bored. They think there needs to be more than "hitting the gas and shifting gears and passing cars" in the next auto racing sim that their favorite sim maker is developing. Hell, some races, you just turn left four tiems, and that's one lap. that's pretty superficial and boring, right?

Do you feel that since sometimes, real race drivers get into fistfights, that the new auto racing sim under deveoplment needs to feature a simulation of brawling? Why?

Can't you see that this is an example of those players wanting to play other types of games, but not realising it? Why should the people who still love the auto-racing genre have to put up with the simulation of brawling in their next sim?

One of the biggest problems with this whole thread is the term "Superficial"

What is so Superficial about actually doing what pilots really did? If you want to talk "Superficial", let's water down the idea of combat flight sims until the very idea of simulating a plane accurately really is "Superficial", and then we will all know what the word means

More immersion. Not less. Let's stay on track folks

Deadmeat313
05-27-2007, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Look at it this way:

We are all auto-racing simmers instead of flight simmers, OK?

here's the scenario:

A bunch of people are bored. They think there needs to be more than "hitting the gas and shifting gears and passing cars" in the next auto racing sim that their favorite sim maker is developing. Hell, some races, you just turn left four tiems, and that's one lap. that's pretty superficial and boring, right?

Do you feel that since sometimes, real race drivers get into fistfights, that the new auto racing sim under deveoplment needs to feature a simulation of brawling? Why?

Can't you see that this is an example of those players wanting to play other types of games, but not realising it? Why should the people who still love the auto-racing genre have to put up with the simulation of brawling in their next sim?

One of the biggest problems with this whole thread is the term "Superficial"

What is so Superficial about actually doing what pilots really did? If you want to talk "Superficial", let's water down the idea of combat flight sims until the very idea of simulating a plane accurately really is "Superficial", and then we will all know what the word means

More immersion. Not less. Let's stay on track folks

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif I reckon it'd be far more immersive if one of your squadron-mates was a complete cad and kept trying to steal your WAAF girlfriend. When you're up in the air he can be constantly making snide comments on r/t like "You were never good enough for her, Higgins. Soon she'll realise that it's ME she really loves."

Then if he gets more kills than you, you lose your girlfriend and maybe even get cashiered as "lacking in moral fibre". Oh, the shame!


T.

Deadmeat313
05-27-2007, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by harryklein66:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:The idea of manning AAA will be fun for .0005 seconds...


I think it will be more than that.
It's a good way to deal with vulcher/spawn camper online.
Or imagine, in coop, if you get shot down, you could man the AAA and have something to do, instead of waiting 30 min the end of the mission, smoking cigarettes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see mannable AAA as a good thing for when I am hopelessly hung over and just need to sit there and ponk explosive shells into the sky.


T.

triad773
05-27-2007, 09:26 AM
Have read most of the posts and think it would be a very fine line indeed- having the ability to dodge/avoid capture would be a nice challenge for some, but for others it may serve as the extra bit that might turn them off to the game. Perhaps have that portion be an option to be turned on or off? In that way, the online servers would be set to have 'Ground immersion feature' enabled, or not depending on the preference of the operators/hosts.

Just a thought. But from a purely practical stance, I could see where if the Ground Immersion Feature were added to the detriment of other more basic sim functions, I'd certainly do without it, as I have seen others post similar sentiment.

Triad

Morteiin
05-27-2007, 09:32 AM
My memory may be faulty, but I'm sure Oleg said in an interview that some (ie airfield) AA guns may be player operational, but I don't recall anything about vehicles. IIRC he also said he liked the idea of an all-round combat sim but that it's not something that would happen in the short or medium term. In my opinion that's the sort of project that should be developed by a third party as an optional integrated add-on.

I don't think there's any danger of Oleg suddenly losing the plot and self-sabotaging the work they've done so far in advancing the combat flight sim genre. But then that may just be wishful thinking on my part, as I too would hate to see limited resources channelled away from developing the combat FLIGHT sim aspects of the series.

I'm also of the opinion that they've already decided what features will be in SOW:BOB and are now just trying to make them all work properly. Unless they have some well kept secrets up their sleeves, we've already been told what will be in the new game. However, if you look how far 'Il-2 Sturmovik' changed as it was expanded along the way, it may well be possible for some of the features suggested here to be included in the series at some later date, code, money and time allowing.

I'm sure there's next to nothing we can dream up to include in the game that Oleg and his crew haven't also thought of. The only thing we, as the customers, may be able to influence is which of the the many possibilities are chosen by them to implement, by voicing our opinions here and elsewhere, while remaining understanding of the limits the developers have to work within, and appreciative of what they do manage to give us and have already given us.

Les.

Deadmeat313
05-27-2007, 09:40 AM
The DVD showed the mannable AA gun. I don't think we're going to be jumping into trucks and driving around though.


T.

leitmotiv
05-27-2007, 10:27 AM
Let's hope it doesn't de-evolve into a shooter. Tearing along in jeeps while trying to evade Germans is already well handled in any number of shooters already.

If 1C produces a middle-brow shooter for middle-aged gents, it will be a pity.

Aaron_GT
05-27-2007, 11:22 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
I think the important factor of nutrition is being neglected. You should be able to select what sort of breakfast your pilot is going to have. You don't want to have mid morning tummy rumbles while flying out to bomb Blighty due to selecting the wrong combination of carbohydrates, fats, and protein.

Frequent_Flyer
05-27-2007, 11:24 AM
I think some here are missing the spirit of the original question. One man's meat may be anothers poison. What I enjoy or find mundane about this sim is my experience.

The thread I thought was a opportunity and a vehicle to open discussion. I certainly could not care less if it is improbable some of the posters ideas, myself included, will be represented in SOWBOB.

When its all said and done SOWBOB is a business proposition. If it is to suceed it has to reach a larger audience than the traditional flight sim historically has.

So there is merit to this thread beyond calculating weather an idea can be executed in SOWBOB or if it is acceptable to the unadulterate " purist".

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I think some here are missing the spirit of the original question. One man's meat may be anothers poison. What I enjoy or find mundane about this sim is my experience.

The thread I thought was a opportunity and a vehicle to open discussion. I certainly could not care less if it is improbable some of the posters ideas, myself included, will be represented in SOWBOB.

When its all said and done SOWBOB is a business proposition. If it is to suceed it has to reach a larger audience than the traditional flight sim historically has.

So there is merit to this thread beyond calculating weather an idea can be executed in SOWBOB or if it is acceptable to the unadulterate " purist".

I think you missed most of my post, in which i agree with some of your points

Your point, howver, about one man's meat being another man's posion, is advice you should perhaps heed. if this game isn't "doing it" for you, you really should play another

I think you need to re-read the OP's post about the reason he made the thread

Frequent_Flyer
05-27-2007, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Frequent_Flyer:
I think some here are missing the spirit of the original question. One man's meat may be anothers poison. What I enjoy or find mundane about this sim is my experience.

The thread I thought was a opportunity and a vehicle to open discussion. I certainly could not care less if it is improbable some of the posters ideas, myself included, will be represented in SOWBOB.

When its all said and done SOWBOB is a business proposition. If it is to suceed it has to reach a larger audience than the traditional flight sim historically has.

So there is merit to this thread beyond calculating weather an idea can be executed in SOWBOB or if it is acceptable to the unadulterate " purist".

I think you missed most of my post, in which i agree with some of your points

Your point, howver, about one man's meat being another man's posion, is advice you should perhaps heed. if this game isn't "doing it" for you, you really should play another

I think you need to re-read the OP's post about the reason he made the thread </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I have your permission to try another? You have to lighten up. This should be fun, not persuasive.

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 11:41 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


learn to read. You know what I meant, and I don't appreciate the effort on your part to start a fight with me

if this sim isn;t your cup of tea, move on. That's what I said. Don't like it? report me to a moderator

Frequent_Flyer
05-27-2007, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


learn to read. You know what I meant, and I don't appreciate the effort on your part to start a fight with me

if this sim isn;t your cup of tea, move on. That's what I said. Don't like it? report me to a moderator Start a fight with you? What the hell are you talking about?

XyZspineZyX
05-27-2007, 11:56 AM
Nice edit of your post.

I'm done

Tooz_69GIAP
05-28-2007, 01:22 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:

Your point, howver, about one man's meat being another man's posion, is advice you should perhaps heed. if this game isn't "doing it" for you, you really should play another

Eh, just a wee point: I was under the impression that we weren't talking about this game, but the upcoming Storm of War series? We don't know what will finally be available in this series, all we have are a few snippets of info from interviews and the DVD that cam with 1946, as well as the video interview with Oleg and Ilya at Birmingham.

But anyway, cid, you need to relax a bit man, you get way too uptight about this stuff. I agree with many of your points of how the basic core of a flight sim should be solely concerned with the flight aspects, such as dynamics, damage models, mechanics, and all that stuff. But that is not to say you can't enhance the entire experience with other aspects, or gameplay options.

If these things that you are protesting against like manable vehicles, or AAA or something do become a reality in SOW, it may be that these can be controllable server side options where you can have a switch to toggle the ability to have vehicles or AAA or not, just like you can have externals, or not currently. In that scenario, you have both what you want, and what others want, and everyone is happy. You just don't have to play in those servers which offer certain settings.

But still, none of us will know what the score will be until Oleg starts with these updates he mentioned he would begin in June(?), and even then, we wont know anything for sure until the game is released!

But I digress, did I mention we should have SEAPLANES?!?!?!?! Seaplanes, people, are the way of the future! Come on, say it with me folks, Seaplanes are good, seaplanes are great, we all want seaplanes, coz seaplanes are good!!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Heinkel_He115.jpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/images/2005/04/05/sunderland_flying_boat_470x252.jpg

http://www.stinsonflyer.com/consolac/pby-1.jpg
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/wwii/photos/gallery_005/Arado%20Ar%20196A%20from%20AKG%20131%20in%20Norway %201942.jpg

Seaplanes Rock!!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

Hoatee
05-28-2007, 04:40 AM
Seaplanes (flyable mind you) should have been made for Silent Hunter.

csThor
05-28-2007, 09:54 AM
People clamoring for cross-genre features in sims have obviously lost even the tiniest connection to the business realities of the gaming industry. Maddox Games is not Micro$oft in regards to manpower, money and marketshare. They will be stretched to incorporate even ten percent of the reasonable wishes listed in the wishlist thread in the ORR. To hope for some FPS elements beyond the mannable AAA stuff (which I find horrendously vain BTW) is to ignore what is the core of a combat flight sim and the limits of Maddox Games's abilities.

Oh and what heywood said.

XyZspineZyX
05-28-2007, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:

Your point, howver, about one man's meat being another man's posion, is advice you should perhaps heed. if this game isn't "doing it" for you, you really should play another

Eh, just a wee point: I was under the impression that we weren't talking about this game, but the upcoming Storm of War series? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tooz-


He mentioned the way it works, right now, when he bails out over enemy territory and is captured, and I addressed that point. I think you just missed that part

Xiolablu3
05-28-2007, 11:29 AM
I certainly dont wan the flight sim part of the game watered down so that drivable vehicles can be added,. But of course any added content would be great.

If Oleg kept the Flight sim part at a very high standard like IL2, and then drafted in new people to do the vehicles, then yes, that could work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The WW2 flight sim MUST come first however. I think we all want more accurate flight models with ROC's etc matching data as closely as possible.

Obviously there are different opinions on turn times, different tests for all planes, different thoughts on combat ability of planes. However I trust Oleg to sort this out in a realistic representation of WW2 fighter combat.

I cannot see SOW:BOB being 'boring and superficial' if it has even IL2's standards. It would still be a fatastic game if it was 'IL2 does BOB', but I am sure it will be much more than that.

Frequent_Flyer
05-28-2007, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by csThor:
People clamoring for cross-genre features in sims have obviously lost even the tiniest connection to the business realities of the gaming industry. Maddox Games is not Micro$oft in regards to manpower, money and marketshare. They will be stretched to incorporate even ten percent of the reasonable wishes listed in the wishlist thread in the ORR. To hope for some FPS elements beyond the mannable AAA stuff (which I find horrendously vain BTW) is to ignore what is the core of a combat flight sim and the limits of Maddox Games's abilities.

Oh and what heywood said. I don't know what Maddox Game's limitations are. However, the programing physics for a flight sim are more complex than that of a ground orientated sim. What reason do you suppose there will be " manable AA " in SOWBOB?

I think you are going to see ground warfare and airwarfare integrated in a single sim from Maddox games.Before the SOW series is finnished. This will capture a larger customer base. It will increase the immersion factor. If Oleg requires the same near perfection on the 'ground 'as in the air he could pull it off beautifully.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2007, 11:39 AM
I am sure there was a shot in MysticPumas video of Oleg at the UK flight sim convention where you could see what looked like Oleg manning an AAA gun on the screen.

I could be wrong tho.

csThor
05-28-2007, 11:43 AM
This will capture a larger customer base. It will increase the immersion factor. If Oleg requires the same near perfection on the 'ground 'as in the air he could pull it off beautifully.

As of now that is simply speculation. Or wishful thinking. The fact stands - Maddox Games is a rather small development team and flight simulations are indeed "tough buggers". There is a very real reason for all games offering cross-genre features to have seriously dumbed down aspects - mostly of the flight engine (OFP, WW2 Online etc).

And as for the larger customer base - I can happily live without masses of shooter kiddies who can't be @rsed to learn to fly without the arcade settings enabled. The Il-2 community does already have its fair share of "Air Quakers" who thrive on mindless "Take-Off - Furball - Die - Repeat" ********s without any regard to the historical background. Thanks, I'll pass.

Frequent_Flyer
05-28-2007, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by csThor:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This will capture a larger customer base. It will increase the immersion factor. If Oleg requires the same near perfection on the 'ground 'as in the air he could pull it off beautifully.

As of now that is simply speculation. Or wishful thinking. The fact stands - Maddox Games is a rather small development team and flight simulations are indeed "tough buggers". There is a very real reason for all games offering cross-genre features to have seriously dumbed down aspects - mostly of the flight engine (OFP, WW2 Online etc).

And as for the larger customer base - I can happily live without masses of shooter kiddies who can't be @rsed to learn to fly without the arcade settings enabled. The Il-2 community does already have its fair share of "Air Quakers" who thrive on mindless "Take-Off - Furball - Die - Repeat" ********s without any regard to the historical background. Thanks, I'll pass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> However, greater detail and realism on the 'ground' will enhance the historical aspect of the flight sim. If both are intagrated you will have historically accurate ground targets from the vehicles to the layout of the cities and towns etc. By extension more accurate damage models for soft skin and armoured targets. As well as bridges, dams and whatever else that can be attacked etc.

Xiolablu3
05-28-2007, 12:23 PM
Yes it would be great to add more stuff, but its a massive task to get a basic map and obects in a flight sim into memory without a lot of disc caching and file swapping, never mind adding drivable vehicles and FPS elements. The view distances and maps are HUGE compared to other games.

However it would be great to have a first person shooter style 'pilot' who could run and jump into a plane on the runway. Also it would leave the door open for modders to add FPS elements and hand held weapons to the game as computers get more powerful.

Frequent_Flyer
05-28-2007, 05:03 PM
I can happily live without masses of shooter kiddies Think of them as an infusion of working capital.

Their interest subsides after a couple of months, and their on to the next one.

Feathered_IV
05-29-2007, 02:52 AM
How's this for a possible take on the whole first-person bail out thing? Trying to be practical and without too much fantasy stuff:

You are mixing it up with a load of cabbage crates over dear old Blighty. Suddenly you are hit and need to bail.

Close the throttle, then go through the all-new SoW bail out proceedure (ctrl-E has gone the way of the dodo). You key in the commands for jettison canopy, unplug radio, unplug oxygen, harness release etc. and the final 'get the hell out' button. Maybe you fumble it. People often do. It's complicated and there isn't much time. Lets say you manage it this time though.

Now the real problem with fp bailing is how does Oleg seamlessly code the transition from inside the detailed 3D cockpit to a sudden transition to the very different 3D world outside?

I'm thinking that once you complete the bail out proceedure, your pilot's view should be automatically clamped and pan to the left (or whatever) to the point where you are looking outside the 3D 'pit. Pointing your nose in the direction you will go. Then you get the initial fp outside view, which is the earthandskyearthandsky perspective as you tumble away from your aircraft.

This type of view would again be clamped, until your view was righted as you straighten out into free fall. You can look around a bit now, and choose the moment when you pull the rip-cord.
once the chute opens and you are dangling there, you can happily float down. Your field of view will allow you to look up to the point where you can see a healthy portion of the silk canopy above. If you look down or left and right, your field of view is restricted just enough that your arms and legs will not be in sight (you couldn't see them when you took off - It'd be a continuity error to suddenly grow them now).

As you touch down, you artfully sidestep the whole stupid Medal of Honour fps thing by having the screen fade to black as you hit. With the sound of the thud and crumple (or splash) and the message box saying whatever.

The game could take into account the position of friendly and hostile units and calculate your outcome. The message box may tell you that you avoided capture for three weeks before you went in the bag. Maybe you came down in friendly territory and shagged the farmers daughter. Or you drowned in the briny etc. etc.

Phew! Still reading? Wocher reckon then?

Philipscdrw
05-29-2007, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
How's this for a possible take on the whole first-person bail out thing? Trying to be practical and without too much fantasy stuff:*snip*
^^ Wot he said.

Frequent_Flyer, a detailed ground environment is nice, but a detailed ground environment for aircraft is still not detailed enough for pedestrians. It's a waste of resources (development time, computer memory, graphics rendering) putting, i.e., 3d doorways on the shops of Dover High Street when that doesn't make an appreciable difference to the view from a moving aircraft, but that sort of detail (and much more) is essential for a ground-based sim. But completely wasted on an aircraft-based sim.

Except in the airfield environment, where you ARE close enough and slow enough to see the detail of the buildings.

Moving ground vehicles, on the other hand, ARE noticable from aircraft. I often mistake vans on the A350 for other gliders when I see them out the corner of my eye... don't think I've ever done it the other way around though...

1st-person bailout, fading to black with a message on landing - that is the ideal way to do it I think. Or maybe an option to stay on the ground as a static camera and watch the fight continue - that would be great for coops...

leitmotiv
05-29-2007, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
How's this for a possible take on the whole first-person bail out thing? Trying to be practical and without too much fantasy stuff:

You are mixing it up with a load of cabbage crates over dear old Blighty. Suddenly you are hit and need to bail.

Close the throttle, then go through the all-new SoW bail out proceedure (ctrl-E has gone the way of the dodo). You key in the commands for jettison canopy, unplug radio, unplug oxygen, harness release etc. and the final 'get the hell out' button. Maybe you fumble it. People often do. It's complicated and there isn't much time. Lets say you manage it this time though.

Now the real problem with fp bailing is how does Oleg seamlessly code the transition from inside the detailed 3D cockpit to a sudden transition to the very different 3D world outside?

I'm thinking that once you complete the bail out proceedure, your pilot's view should be automatically clamped and pan to the left (or whatever) to the point where you are looking outside the 3D 'pit. Pointing your nose in the direction you will go. Then you get the initial fp outside view, which is the earthandskyearthandsky perspective as you tumble away from your aircraft.

This type of view would again be clamped, until your view was righted as you straighten out into free fall. You can look around a bit now, and choose the moment when you pull the rip-cord.
once the chute opens and you are dangling there, you can happily float down. Your field of view will allow you to look up to the point where you can see a healthy portion of the silk canopy above. If you look down or left and right, your field of view is restricted just enough that your arms and legs will not be in sight (you couldn't see them when you took off - It'd be a continuity error to suddenly grow them now).

As you touch down, you artfully sidestep the whole stupid Medal of Honour fps thing by having the screen fade to black as you hit. With the sound of the thud and crumple (or splash) and the message box saying whatever.

The game could take into account the position of friendly and hostile units and calculate your outcome. The message box may tell you that you avoided capture for three weeks before you went in the bag. Maybe you came down in friendly territory and shagged the farmers daughter. Or you drowned in the briny etc. etc.

Phew! Still reading? Wocher reckon then?

Looks good to me. I'd like the detailed landing: agghhh---farmer's dung heap, big tree, sprained ankle, broke leg, fell on face in mud, fell on Gretchen/Gwen, fell on Rupert---yagghhhhhhh, etc.

LEXX_Luthor
05-29-2007, 03:24 PM
FF::
However, if it is true than there is an incredible amount of detail wasted on the doubledeker buses, passenger trains,buildigs and even the military vehicles I've seen screen shots of from SOWBOB......unless there could be another reason for the extreme amount of detail.
I fear Oleg wants BoB And Beyond to become Media Content Creation Tool -- I assume for things like creating content for the 24hour Dogfight Channel, you know all the grafix showing Zeros blowing up and MiG-19s crashing on the ground on top of the camera view, ground shaking like earthquake (I turned the thing off there). Oleg wants to break into Hollywood.

The individual gameplay customer (as opposed to the TV studios) pays the price in fewer immersive air war simulation features than would otherwise be available.

Frequent_Flyer
05-29-2007, 03:32 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
[
Frequent_Flyer, a detailed ground environment is nice, but a detailed ground environment for aircraft is still not detailed enough for pedestrians. It's a waste of resources (development time, computer memory, graphics rendering) putting, i.e., 3d doorways on the shops of Dover High Street when that doesn't make an appreciable difference to the view from a moving aircraft, but that sort of detail (and much more) is essential for a ground-based sim. But completely wasted on an aircraft-based sim.


I am not programmer. I could not say with any degree of accuracy one way or the other if the above is valid.

If it is accurate, an incredible amount of detail modeling of the doubledecker buses,passenger trains and the military assets was wasted.
Unless there is another reason for this level of detail on ground objects.

This is based upon the extreme amount of detail evinced in the early screen shots of SOWBOB.

Frequent_Flyer
05-29-2007, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
FF:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">However, if it is true than there is an incredible amount of detail wasted on the doubledeker buses, passenger trains,buildigs and even the military vehicles I've seen screen shots of from SOWBOB......unless there could be another reason for the extreme amount of detail.
I fear Oleg wants BoB And Beyond to become Media Content Creation Tool -- I assume for things like creating content for the 24hour Dogfight Channel, you know all the grafix showing Zeros blowing up and MiG-19s crashing on the ground on top of the camera view, ground shaking like earthquake (I turned the thing off there). Oleg wants to break into Hollywood.

The individual gameplay customer (as opposed to the TV studios) pays the price in fewer immersive air war simulation features than would otherwise be available. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think his business plan is to sell the engine of SOWBOB for commercial use. Wheather it be for 'simulated documentarys' BBC/ Hollywood. Or dare I say an integrated (air and ground warfare) sim.

leitmotiv
05-29-2007, 03:43 PM
This is the way the the last two big players in the flight sim market are going, 1C and Microsoft, and even the not so big like Gennadich: the players want more and more detail, and more verisimilitude, thus, double-decker buses, und so weiter. Since the TOTAL WAR people started joint projects with The History Channel, this kind of technology exploitation will become routine. With a huge contract with a studio, 1C would have the cash to do some pretty amazing stuff. The risk is that they could turn into Disneyland.

jasonbirder
05-29-2007, 03:46 PM
Any time spent putting in silly features like manable AAA guns or user controlable ground vehicles etc etc is time wasted that could be spent creating a better Combat Flight Simulator...

Frequent_Flyer
05-29-2007, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
This is the way the the last two big players in the flight sim market are going, 1C and Microsoft, and even the not so big like Gennadich: the players want more and more detail, and more verisimilitude, thus, double-decker buses, und so weiter. Since the TOTAL WAR people started joint projects with The History Channel, this kind of technology exploitation will become routine. With a huge contract with a studio, 1C would have the cash to do some pretty amazing stuff. The risk is that they could turn into Disneyland.

I think he would keep them seperate. That is , he will use the increased capital and improved developmental techniques gained to benefit his avaition sims.

I don't picture Oleg dying as the starving artist. This was the logical progression.

neural_dream
05-30-2007, 05:01 AM
lol. It's quite obvious that half the population of IL2 want it to become like wwiionline. Too bad they are not aware of its existence. You guys are funny.

slappedsilly
05-30-2007, 10:48 AM
If its marketing is any indication....