PDA

View Full Version : BoB will be the FIRST Air Simulation in HISTORY to propose moving 3 D grass !



The-Rocketeer
02-15-2008, 03:50 AM
This very nice 3D grass will be moving in the wind like in the best ground simulations and will affect landing/taxiing !!!!

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grass.jpg

Found here : Good news from uncle Bob : http://forums-fr.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/426102813/m/1921021916

And here : http://forums-fr.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/9621097274

The grass was the last thing that was missing to make actual air simulations look realistic with their flat ground surfaces covered with weird grass imitating 2D textures.

Movie makers will be now allowed to make some more complex ground scenes (it is not possible in IL2 ...) and it will be a real pleasure to make low passes ;-)

Other very important thing : As ground and air simulations are now quite similar concerning the level of detail in ground objects and landscapes it will be possible to mix them in a single game play.

Imagine an online server where you can play T34 vs Tiger (and why not some Naval stuff) at the same time as aerial missions !!!

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 03:58 AM
What a load of p1sh! All I want is for Oleg to RELEASE the sim. I dont give two hoots about the level of detail of the grass or the highly detailed Opel truck's cab. Its a flight sim ffsk, give me nice aircraft models, detailed FMs and dynamic weather effects - he should worry about this extra stuff when he has a released sim and an established user base.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-15-2008, 03:59 AM
Originally posted by The-Rocketeer:
Imagine an online server where you can play T34 vs Tiger (and why not some Naval stuff) at the same time as aerial missions !!!


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

Wow, you mean like in the Battlefield-Series, Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, etc. ?

Now, seriously, such a system on a simulation basis was planned since Falcon3. It was clear, though, that it wouldn't work. Even disregarding the vastly different speeds and moving-modes from jets to soldiers sneaking from bush to bush, the system to simulate all these would mean a tremendous workload. We get a manable AA, that's great. Everything else I believe when I see it.

And btw: Grass was affecting ground-handling since IL2. You just don't see the actual grass, that's all.

The-Rocketeer
02-15-2008, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What a load of p1sh! All I want is for Oleg to RELEASE the sim. I dont give two hoots about the level of detail of the grass or the highly detailed Opel truck's cab. Its a flight sim ffsk, give me nice aircraft models, detailed FMs and dynamic weather effects - he should worry about this extra stuff when he has a released sim and an established user base.

Man, wake up, we are in the 21 century and flight sims have some eye candy's to propose since a couple of years ..

If you just want a good air-combat-sim with average ground detail, buy IL2-1946 ...

The-Rocketeer
02-15-2008, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Rocketeer:
Imagine an online server where you can play T34 vs Tiger (and why not some Naval stuff) at the same time as aerial missions !!!


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

Wow, you mean like in the Battlefield-Series, Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, etc. ?

Now, seriously, such a system on a simulation basis was planned since Falcon3. It was clear, though, that it wouldn't work. Even disregarding the vastly different speeds and moving-modes from jets to soldiers sneaking from bush to bush, the system to simulate all these would mean a tremendous workload. We get a manable AA, that's great. Everything else I believe when I see it.

And btw: Grass was affecting ground-handling since IL2. You just don't see the actual grass, that's all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It you take prehistorically flight sims like Falcon3 as reference, no wonder that this seems impossible to you ...

Feathered_IV
02-15-2008, 04:20 AM
Sorry, but I can't manage even a minimum of interest. Years of neglected PR have seen to that. You reap what you sow. Hehe geddit? SOW???


Ah, why bother *yawn*

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

Hawgdog
02-15-2008, 04:31 AM
Oh yeah....joy...moving grass....how cool...like moving wheels....yeah...I spend all my time in the grass when I'm flying a flight sim....
Good Lord, this is just utter idiocy..
I cant wait until I see in the chat bar

is it laggy tonight?

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes


No, not on my computer

yeah...WTph...

Hey, could we wait for them to mod the headers turning from shiny steel to blue as the engine warms up and the laquer to rub off the wood handles as we fly the same plane more?

Stary_Wuj
02-15-2008, 04:35 AM
All I nedd is Sturmovik with better smoke effects and damage model, and.....over 30 FPS, not "very nice 3D grass", it is waste of time IMHO.

Best Regards

Stary Wuj

EDIT: I hope graphic engine will be better coded than IL2, should be http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

rnzoli
02-15-2008, 04:39 AM
Grass is useless without a lawn-mower. That object must be in the sim and possible to man. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

And we need charts, detailing how faster the allied grass was growing than the axis grass. In which time of the year. Because it affects ground handling, and as such, too high grass can give you bad landings and crashes. Which impacts your offline and online scores.

Bewolf
02-15-2008, 04:58 AM
Guys..immersion?

again. I M M E R S I O N.

probably one fo the most important and most neglected aspects of a combat flight sim set in an historic ennviironment.

I give **** about holy accurate flight models if the feeling is not one of "beeing there".

Insofer, grass, let's rock.

Gosh, sometimes I think this forum consists of old grey haired men, grumbling about everything "new".

JG53Frankyboy
02-15-2008, 04:59 AM
combat ready !
http://www.oehringen.de/images/752006_225653_Rasenmaeher-web.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG53Frankyboy
02-15-2008, 05:02 AM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
................ Because it affects ground handling, and as such, too high grass can give you bad landings and crashes. Which impacts your .................scores.

totaly true............for my Golf play http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ratsack
02-15-2008, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What a load of p1sh! All I want is for Oleg to RELEASE the sim. I dont give two hoots about the level of detail of the grass or the highly detailed Opel truck's cab. Its a flight sim ffsk, give me nice aircraft models, detailed FMs and dynamic weather effects - he should worry about this extra stuff when he has a released sim and an established user base.

What sim? It's vapour-ware.

Ratsack

mynameisroland
02-15-2008, 05:52 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What a load of p1sh! All I want is for Oleg to RELEASE the sim. I dont give two hoots about the level of detail of the grass or the highly detailed Opel truck's cab. Its a flight sim ffsk, give me nice aircraft models, detailed FMs and dynamic weather effects - he should worry about this extra stuff when he has a released sim and an established user base.

What sim? It's vapour-ware.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

ps werent these pics posted 8 months ago anyway?

The-Rocketeer
02-15-2008, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Guys..immersion?

again. I M M E R S I O N.

probably one fo the most important and most neglected aspects of a combat flight sim set in an historic ennviironment.

I give **** about holy accurate flight models if the feeling is not one of "beeing there".

Insofer, grass, let's rock.

Gosh, sometimes I think this forum consists of old grey haired men, grumbling about everything "new".

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

The online FPS rate is not entirely limited by the level of detail (the detail level is managed on local computers and if you have a problem with that, buy a better graphic card ...) but by the communication speed between servers(mission joiners login that use slow modems, skin download, and all the guys pressing on print screen ...)

In the future grass will be as common in flight simulation as trees are common in actual flight-simulators. I guess that in the past some IT dinosaurs were concerned about a FPS (like in this post) when they heard that trees will be featured in IL2 and today they wouldn't imagine playing a sim that doesn't include 3D trees.

GIAP.Shura
02-15-2008, 06:36 AM
I agree with Beowulf that eye-candy is very important for immersion. Ground detail is very important for immersion for ground pounders, less so for fighter jocks.

That being said, 3-d grass is good and all but it is pretty unimportant compared to how well trees, houses, roads, telephone wires, bridges, vehicles, artillery units, ships, water, railway tracks, hangers, runways, trenches, damaged ground, soldiers, ammunition dumps, factories, fuel tanks, railway stations, earthworks, sub pens, cranes, docks, desert dunes, mountain cliffs, oases, tanks, monuments, concrete fortifications and of course, tables with chess sets are modelled and textured.

As far as the possibility of the all-encompassing sim is concerned there are several problems.

First, technical. Different sims use different scales. No matter how good the detail of the grass is in BoB it will in no way be as good as in Crysis or even in Far Cry for that matter because the relative importance of such details results in a different allocation of manhours. Having a sim with complicated modelling of machinery, as opposed to the Battlefied series, at various different scale levels in a single game will require a massive amount of processing power, especially in an online environment.

Second, the scale of the development team. The number of man-hours it takes to make a sim of any real complexity is incredible, even for a sim which models just a few machines such as the Silent Hunter series. The size of the development team you would need for an all-encompassing sim would be massive and the co-ordination of that team would be an incredible undertaking in itself.

Third and probably most importantly, marketing and game balance. What market would such a game be aimed at? Would it be profitable? It would have to be MMO of some variety to have the realism sought after and to have any real interest to ground pounders it would require a lot of people messing around at FPS level. Sure there is a large market for FPS games but how happy would these players be at getting obliterated because the fighter pilots on their side are complete imbeciles, or how happy would ground attack pilots be at seeing the ground forces they have just destroyed respawn 500m away? How long will people have to be "dead" before they can take off again? All these sorts of questions would be decided purely on a game balance and marketing level and catering for the interests of different markets would be problematic to say the least.

Will this sort of game ever arise, most likely but I'm not holding my breath for the near future.

Irish_Rogues
02-15-2008, 06:43 AM
Isn't that how WWII Online works?

flyingloon
02-15-2008, 06:49 AM
it'll be nice to look at but ultimately there are things that are, as already stated, more important in a combat flight sim. i don't reckon we will see this 3d grass being used apart fomr in supercomputers for a good few years after release. liek the change in clouds that happened with il2 over the years, or the new view distances. it may well be a feature in SoW, just a dormant one.

Mehring1917
02-15-2008, 07:00 AM
Don't understand how anyone could get obsessive about aircraft skins etc and not be bothered about the environment their planes are flying in. The only reality I don't look for in any war simulation is people getting killed. If realistic grass and tank battles are possible, do it.

zardozid
02-15-2008, 07:12 AM
I assume that 3D grass could be effected by the wind (?)...what I'm driving at is, it would be great to have visual cues to (cross) wind direction (this could aid in landing and taking off). I wonder if wing direction would effect ballistic trajectory? Anyone who knows something about "sniping" knows that wind direction is very important for plotting a shot (could effect your "lead")...knowing wind direction could also help you plot your speed, or fuel consumption (flying into the wind will slow things down a lot...)if your playing a "full switch" game you might need this kind of "eye candy" to give you an edge...

I wonder if tanks and trucks would (could) leave a trail in a grassy field? This could be a great thing for tracking down victims when I'm out "tank busting"...just imagine tracking an army across the barren plains of eastern Europe (some where down the "SoW" line, LOL)...


The one thing people seem to ignore when "complaining" about "the visuals they deem unnecessary" is that all eye candy is always selectable (in every game...always). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

GIAP.Shura
02-15-2008, 07:16 AM
The one thing people seem to ignore when "complaining" about "the visuals they deem unnecessary" is that all eye candy is always selectable (in every game...always).

So far I haven't been able to select the delay in BoB:SoW's release date. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

zardozid
02-15-2008, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Sorry, but I can't manage even a minimum of interest. Years of neglected PR have seen to that. You reap what you sow. Hehe geddit? SOW???


Ah, why bother *yawn*

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


...and yet, their you are...reminding us in every ("BoB SoW" relevant) thread about how uninterested you are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-15-2008, 07:25 AM
Show me an English house with grass that long around it and I'll show you a chav. Very authentic. Looking forward to the Burberry pilot's helmets.

Feathered_IV
02-15-2008, 07:28 AM
Originally posted by zardozid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Sorry, but I can't manage even a minimum of interest. Years of neglected PR have seen to that. You reap what you sow. Hehe geddit? SOW???


Ah, why bother *yawn*

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


...and yet, their you are...reminding us in every ("BoB SoW" relevant) thread about how uninterested you are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's true. I so want to be excited about it. Perhaps I am in a way, but it's more in that abstract way you feel about impossibly distant things like colonisation of Mars, or the Second Coming.

The-Rocketeer
02-15-2008, 07:29 AM
Originally posted by GIAP.Shura:
I agree with Beowulf that eye-candy is very important for immersion. Ground detail is very important for immersion for ground pounders, less so for fighter jocks.

That being said, 3-d grass is good and all but it is pretty unimportant compared to how well trees, houses, roads, telephone wires, bridges, vehicles, artillery units, ships, water, railway tracks, hangers, runways, trenches, damaged ground, soldiers, ammunition dumps, factories, fuel tanks, railway stations, earthworks, sub pens, cranes, docks, desert dunes, mountain cliffs, oases, tanks, monuments, concrete fortifications and of course, tables with chess sets are modelled and textured.

As far as the possibility of the all-encompassing sim is concerned there are several problems.

First, technical. Different sims use different scales. No matter how good the detail of the grass is in BoB it will in no way be as good as in Crysis or even in Far Cry for that matter because the relative importance of such details results in a different allocation of manhours. Having a sim with complicated modelling of machinery, as opposed to the Battlefied series, at various different scale levels in a single game will require a massive amount of processing power, especially in an online environment.

Second, the scale of the development team. The number of man-hours it takes to make a sim of any real complexity is incredible, even for a sim which models just a few machines such as the Silent Hunter series. The size of the development team you would need for an all-encompassing sim would be massive and the co-ordination of that team would be an incredible undertaking in itself.

Third and probably most importantly, marketing and game balance. What market would such a game be aimed at? Would it be profitable? It would have to be MMO of some variety to have the realism sought after and to have any real interest to ground pounders it would require a lot of people messing around at FPS level. Sure there is a large market for FPS games but how happy would these players be at getting obliterated because the fighter pilots on their side are complete imbeciles, or how happy would ground attack pilots be at seeing the ground forces they have just destroyed respawn 500m away? How long will people have to be "dead" before they can take off again? All these sorts of questions would be decided purely on a game balance and marketing level and catering for the interests of different markets would be problematic to say the least.

Will this sort of game ever arise, most likely but I'm not holding my breath for the near future.

There is already a sim including ground troops and aerial combat at the same time and all the problems that you are talking about have already been solved in this sim : WWII Online

Check Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_Online

There are some screens available and you'll notice that the graphics are not so bad ...

GIAP.Shura
02-15-2008, 07:49 AM
Yes, I am aware of WW2Online. Tell me this, do you play it? If not why not?

Do you find it's flight models, ballistics and damage models realistic? What about the atmospherics? Tell me, how realistic is the tank modelling? Are the tanks multi-position requiring several crew to operate? Do they have fuel requirements? What about latency issues?

If someone says the graphics are not so bad, it usually means average at best. Can a game with "average" graphics be a large enough commercial success to ensure continued support and improvement. Do the "average" graphics give you the immersion that IL-2 does if flying? Or that CoD4 does if doing infantry stuff?

In my eyes WW2Online is indeed a hint at the sort of game that could be made but I'm not convinced that a fully developed flight sim of IL-2 calibre (talking mainly of flight modelling and complexity here not eye candy) will be part of an FPS MMO in the near future.

The point is that having two games that do different things at an excellent level will always be preferable to having one game which does two things at a good level.

leitmotiv
02-15-2008, 07:51 AM
What's getting lost in the tussle is wind---yes, an excellent flight sim needs wind modeling (why was this never in IL-2?---even a child knows WWII dive bombers dove into the wind, airplanes land into the wind etc.). This is in FSX. It's a no-brainer for the porker BOB. Are we now going to be asked to applaud 1C for basics? Eeeeeeeeeeeee

You mean the Burberry flight helmet I bought ain't authentic, LF? Say it's not so!

Zoom2136
02-15-2008, 08:01 AM
It always make me smile when I hear poeple say that they don't give a d.a.m.m. about the land detail and vehicule detail and that this is a FLIGHT SIM first....

Wake up people... this is a PRODUCT meant to generate an appropriate return on investment to its creator/distributor....

Opening the flight sim arena to a wider client base is a great idea. This is the only way to insure the survival of this genre...

We all agree that flight sims have a VERY limited appeal. Taking the time to open them up to a wider audience is IMHO a very wise business decision.

I hope Oleg takes this route. It would be sad to see this great product die off due to poor sales...

Zoom2136
02-15-2008, 08:13 AM
BTW folks Oleg stated a long time ago that it is HIS intention of using the SOW:BOB engine to create a combined arms sims... AIR, SEA, and LAND...

Low_Flyer_MkIX
02-15-2008, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by Zoom2136:
It always make me smile when I hear poeple say that they don't give a d.a.m.m. about the land detail and vehicule detail and that this is a FLIGHT SIM first....

Wake up people... this is a PRODUCT meant to generate an appropriate return on investment to its creator/distributor....

Opening the flight sim arena to a wider client base is a great idea. This is the only way to insure the survival of this genre...

We all agree that flight sims have a VERY limited appeal. Taking the time to open them up to a wider audience is IMHO a very wise business decision.

I hope Oleg takes this route. It would be sad to see this great product die off due to poor sales...

Poor sales will be guaranteed if nobody has the pc power to wave that grass, bounce the suspension on a vehicle or get get dynamic clouds fluffy = max. Just my 2 BoB's worth.

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2008, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by Hawgdog:
Oh yeah....joy...moving grass....how cool...like moving wheels....yeah

Actually, moving wheels was one of the first little things that made me sit up and take notice...



I`ll admit his excitment about moving grass is a little over the top, but ground detail is important. convincing ground makes flying above feel more real and, yes, immersive. You`ll try to avoid crashing into it more.

It also gives a sense of speed, very important in landings and take offs.

Don`t tell me that in reality can`t see the grass from the cockpit? IL2 also has moving leaves on trees, so why is grass so ridiculous?

All that said, I`m more impressed by the thought of flexible wings and air currents than moving grass, since moving grass will probabaly take a ninja PC to play smoothly.

M_Gunz
02-15-2008, 08:56 AM
I hope it's not something that took a lot of thought and time since I'm looking forward to
model including such things as radiators, oil lines, electric wires, leaked fuel inside the
airframe after tanks hit, etc. Without those I don't care if the grass moves or not.

leitmotiv
02-15-2008, 09:06 AM
I think they would be smart to just get on with it. Publish what they have---have wind modeled---can find its direction by looking at whitecaps, smoke (yep, folks, that's why all WWII RAF airplanes could drop smoke bombs), etc. And have the fur of the squadron dog blow in the wind in patch 23.

leitmotiv
02-15-2008, 09:10 AM
Remember to be wary of those who promise too much:


http://www.wendyswizardofoz.com/wiz_c004.jpg

Bremspropeller
02-15-2008, 09:25 AM
I'd only beeing looking forward to a sim that enables ground-fighting.

Gets you some chices. Wanna be a hot-shot pilot taday? Fine, gonna be a dirt-wrapped infantry-nobody tomorrow...

Would be nice to have a carry-on weapon.
I'd only love to sneak in behind a P-51, oben the canopy and place a 9mm right into his radiator...

These boots are made for walkin...oh yeah http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Immersion ftw! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

leitmotiv
02-15-2008, 10:04 AM
Yeah, I would like a universal system, too. Frankly, I'd rather play as the gunnery officer of RODNEY vs BISMARCK any day than thrash around in virtual airplanes.


http://www.maritimequest.com/warship_directory/great_britain/battleships/rodney/03_hms_rodney.jpg

Daiichidoku
02-15-2008, 10:23 AM
an outrage!

this effort should have gone into making water=5 for FB bois to ooohh and ahhhh at

at least they can apply what theyve learned with grass, and hire out the team to improve the clouds in submarine sims

mynameisroland is 100% correct, lets get the important things in a flight sim PERFECTED first, and beyond reproach, THEN any extras

Bewolf
02-15-2008, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
an outrage!

this effort should have gone into making water=5 for FB bois to ooohh and ahhhh at

at least they can apply what theyve learned with grass, and hire out the team to improve the clouds in submarine sims

mynameisroland is 100% correct, lets get the important things in a flight sim PERFECTED first, and beyond reproach, THEN any extras

Here is the perfect game for you

http://media.gamespy.com/columns/image/article/795/795692/top-10-pc-games-wed-like-to-see-re-mastered-20070611040302934.jpg

Capt.LoneRanger
02-15-2008, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by The-Rocketeer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by The-Rocketeer:
Imagine an online server where you can play T34 vs Tiger (and why not some Naval stuff) at the same time as aerial missions !!!


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

Wow, you mean like in the Battlefield-Series, Operation Flashpoint, Armed Assault, etc. ?

Now, seriously, such a system on a simulation basis was planned since Falcon3. It was clear, though, that it wouldn't work. Even disregarding the vastly different speeds and moving-modes from jets to soldiers sneaking from bush to bush, the system to simulate all these would mean a tremendous workload. We get a manable AA, that's great. Everything else I believe when I see it.

And btw: Grass was affecting ground-handling since IL2. You just don't see the actual grass, that's all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It you take prehistorically flight sims like Falcon3 as reference, no wonder that this seems impossible to you ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to blow your dream-bubbles about SoW.

Falcon4 was planned to be the key to that fully dynamic and interactive warfare system. Prehistoric? Yes, but so far no other game, not even daring to speak of a flightsim has even come close to that.

And if you'd open your eyes and read the threads on this board, you'd know that SoW has to come a long way to get even close to a realistic simulation. THAT will use a vast ammount of resources and I honestly doubt that there will be enough computing power and development manpower left to get a fully interactive battlefield environment based on a simulation-graded game.

R_Target
02-15-2008, 11:12 AM
Bring on the grass.

http://i27.tinypic.com/16kwd8j.jpg

MOH_MADMAN
02-15-2008, 11:24 AM
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y7/sophietebb/title.jpg

DmdSeeker
02-15-2008, 11:25 AM
I hope it isn't a sign of Oleg continuing to add great content which is of it's self only of limited use if the game won't let you access it.

By this I mean the way IL-2 has a fantastic history of added content, as far as I know Maddox has never updated the interface, the multiplayer interface, the QMB, the awfull FMB interface, you can't fly new planes in campaigns or missions by default, etc, etc, etc.


We all know SOW will be a great sim, what will it be like as a game?

bhunter2112
02-15-2008, 11:30 AM
Little detail are nice, grass, vehicles and the like.
I do pray that they have the good sense to focus 90 % of the effort and computing power on the planes and what they are doing.
I personally don't want to drive trains and cars in this game.

Chivas
02-15-2008, 11:42 AM
Obviously some people don't understand the concept that most of these features will be options that can be select or Not selected, depending on your system power. They are designing the SOW engine to entail all the features required to make the sim cinematic. Many of these features will not be selectable or even completed until the computer power is available to run them. They will be implemented as the SOW series progress through the different add-on theaters, just as the IL-2 series developed.

This a huge endeavor. Optimation of the code to make as many of the features possible is Oleg's biggest hurdle and I'm sure the biggest contributer to the delays. Until that time the "I could care less about eye candy and features" crowd can still enjoy the IL-2 series. All the naysayer's, addawarest's and vapourista's will be lined with the rest of us to buy the sim . lol

HayateAce
02-15-2008, 11:47 AM
Where's Ms Kleaneasy when u need her?

Ungrateful gits.

http://i12.tinypic.com/643mte0.jpg

triggerhappyfin
02-15-2008, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
combat ready !
http://www.oehringen.de/images/752006_225653_Rasenmaeher-web.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oh!The Maddox games engine sound development team on picture http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

stalkervision
02-15-2008, 12:04 PM
I just want a frikin ground crew to some how look like they are doing things at the f-rikin airfields! F-the moving grass Oleg! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Chivas
02-15-2008, 12:20 PM
Ground crew is a feature that is being worked on. Will it make the first cut....I would imagine ground crew would be implemented long before moving grass. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Even if moving grass eventually made it as an optional feature.....It would be last one people would select.

OR...it could be enabled only when your lounging on the grass waiting for the scramble, lol.

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2008, 12:35 PM
I hope we get flying birds every now and then.

Really.

They should be in as a nod of respect to the creature that made Man yearn to fly.

jasonbirder
02-15-2008, 02:13 PM
So if i read Olegs development blog correctly...
Gently wafting 3D grass realistically modelled = good use of development time/budget something that will be appreciated by many users all the time...
Realistic start up sequences/fuel management systems/engine management systems = too much time to develop and of limited interest to the average flyer...

This is a flight sim isn't it?

major_setback
02-15-2008, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Low_Flyer_MkIX:
Show me an English house with grass that long around it and I'll show you a chav. Very authentic. Looking forward to the Burberry pilot's helmets.
Yesssssssssssssssssssss!!!
It's so bad!!
..English gardens are usually ALLWAYS well kept!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dustysquareback
02-15-2008, 03:01 PM
All you grass haters will change your tune the first time you do a 350mph beat-up over your buddy taxiing out.

More ground detail = more exciting low level flying.

R_Target
02-15-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by triggerhappyfin:
Oh!The Maddox games engine sound development team on picture http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

http://i27.tinypic.com/2iaa1d3.jpg

I_KG100_Prien
02-15-2008, 03:21 PM
Just what I need.. another feature in a game to disable because it's helping bring my computer to it's knees...

No thanks.

Blood_Splat
02-15-2008, 03:29 PM
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=65447&rendTypeId=4

SeaFireLIV
02-15-2008, 03:38 PM
I can`t tell which is the 109!

Gibbage1
02-15-2008, 03:45 PM
I would rather Oleg concentrate on FM, and DM over flowing blades of grass. If your flying, and looking at grass, there is something VERY wrong, or your about to die.

zardozid
02-15-2008, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
I would rather Oleg concentrate on FM, and DM over flowing blades of grass. If your flying, and looking at grass, there is something VERY wrong, or your about to die.

Oh, ye of little faith...I have no doubt that Oleg knows exactly what he is doing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

thefruitbat
02-15-2008, 04:11 PM
My crstal ball of whines says,

Blue grass is way over modelled, much to tough, Red grass is much weaker, i mean wtf???

zardozid
02-15-2008, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Sorry, but I can't manage even a minimum of interest. Years of neglected PR have seen to that. You reap what you sow. Hehe geddit? SOW???


Ah, why bother *yawn*

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


...and yet, their you are...reminding us in every ("BoB SoW" relevant) thread about how uninterested you are. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's true. I so want to be excited about it. Perhaps I am in a way, but it's more in that abstract way you feel about impossibly distant things like colonisation of Mars, or the Second Coming. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



LOL! Now that you point it out...I "kind of" feel the same way. I expect we will see "SoW" someday...but it is somewhere "out their" waaaaaaay down the line. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

skarden
02-15-2008, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
Obviously some people don't understand the concept that most of these features will be options that can be select or Not selected, depending on your system power. They are designing the SOW engine to entail all the features required to make the sim cinematic. Many of these features will not be selectable or even completed until the computer power is available to run them. They will be implemented as the SOW series progress through the different add-on theaters, just as the IL-2 series developed.

This a huge endeavor. Optimation of the code to make as many of the features possible is Oleg's biggest hurdle and I'm sure the biggest contributer to the delays. Until that time the "I could care less about eye candy and features" crowd can still enjoy the IL-2 series. All the naysayer's, addawarest's and vapourista's will be lined with the rest of us to buy the sim . lol

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

Gibbage1
02-15-2008, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by zardozid:

Oh, ye of little faith...I have no doubt that Oleg knows exactly what he is doing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sorry. The current state of the game after many years of development and refinement has left me a little apprehensive.

MB_Avro_UK
02-15-2008, 04:46 PM
Hi all,

IIRC IL2 was released in 2001 and amazed us all http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif. Even today it's the best WW2 flight sim.

BoB SoW will raise the bar again when it's released maybe at the end of this year.

Let us all say thanks to the team for doing this. Try and be positive.

You don't have to buy the product. But I certainly will.

OK I will need an upgrade to fly on max settings but to me it's a good investment for the next 5 years of flying.

Look to the future of an excellent and ongoing development.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Fiasco1969
02-15-2008, 05:47 PM
Grass? whoopee.

How about some decent multiplayer code? Both in box formats of the multiplayer game types suck.

How about something like cooperative campaigns you can play with your friends ala X-Wing vs Tie Fighter from frickin 1997?

I can't believe how people would be enamored with moving grass for immersion... laughable

Jaws2002
02-15-2008, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by Fiasco1969:
Grass? whoopee.

How about some decent multiplayer code? Both in box formats of the multi player game types suck.

How about something like cooperative campaigns you can play with your friends ala X-Wing vs Tie Fighter from frickin 1997?

I can't believe how people would be enamored with moving grass for immersion... laughable

What's laughable is guys that just whine even if they have no clue what they are talking about.

First how do you know if the things you are talking about are not already included or will not be included?
I think we saw just the tip of the iceberg from this game so far. There's so little info about what is already done. Many things we were complaining about in Il-2 will most likely be fixed/included in BOB.

From what I understand from the few interviews i read, Oleg is really focused to make this game engine as adaptable as possible. He is going to make this game engine able to absorb a lot of new stuff in the future.
People already complain about grass and to be honest this is just the normal evolution of games at the rate computer power is growing. this days.
I still remember when I tried to take off for the first time with the P-39 in that bad weather intercept mission that came with the original demo.
Of course I went off the runway, flipped over and crashed. I was laughing so hard when i saw that bent prop and the plane parts allover the field.
That's what hooked me. A great flight sim that looked great too.
I'm sure the game will be a lot more then just awesome graphics.
Is strange how many people here start to complain that grass(this time) is not important in a flight sim.
Some people complained the same way about the perfect water, some about the beauty of the cockpits, some about the ground detail.

If this things are not important why are only 20-30 people playing Target Rabaul? it has OK flight models but not much else.
Sorry I'd rather have nice grass then water that you can take off and land on.
And let's be honest here. How accurate do you think we can model half century old aircraft that i n most cases know very little about and is not much info left about them.

Even if you model this days cars, with so many on the road and all the info and testing capability available, you'll still find people complaining. Hack go look at some customers reviews. Some love them, some hate them.
You can never please everyone.
How do you thin they can model this mostly extinct aircraft exactly like they were?


Honestly, I'm looking forward to the day I'll crash land my first plane in that nice grass. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

TSmoke
02-15-2008, 08:41 PM
Man can't believe all the hub-bub about moving grass in a flight sim.

Well at least all the really low level fliers will have actual grass to mow, I suppose.

The only grass I'm really concerned about, it comes in little baggies, as for flight sim grass pffffttt.

Codex1971
02-15-2008, 11:24 PM
I'd rather see this in the sim than the grass...

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2008/BNMBC08/

Skoshi Tiger
02-16-2008, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I just want a frikin ground crew to some how look like they are doing things at the f-rikin airfields! F-the moving grass Oleg! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I wonder what sort of damage would occur if you jump the gun and taxi off before the ground crew gets out of the way? Hopefully 'gore' will be selectable in the config file!

JtD
02-16-2008, 01:33 AM
Moving grass, great. Hopefully it comes with cows to eat it.

Fiasco1969
02-16-2008, 01:41 AM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:

What's laughable is guys that just whine even if they have no clue what they are talking about.


*yawn* neither do you. Do you have a sample of the game to play or have seen a demo of it... no.

I've actually met and talked w/ Oleg (at the 2000 GDC in LA), Sylvan (targetware) at the WB 99 con, Dale (HTC), the Warbirds developers, the guys at playnet back when warbirds fractured.

Have you ever personally questioned any sim developers or do you gleen all your expertise from internet articles?

Waving grass isn't gameplay. Il2 is a fine sim for it's time but I'd much rather see discussion and examples of enhanced multiplayer code and server functionality then waving grass.

zardozid
02-16-2008, 02:25 AM
I love how people feel they are loosing something because Oleg is modeling grass...it's really amazing.

It's ether that or they are completely clueless (maybe it's both)...personally I feel the "critical" role this forum provides has not been in such high demand recently, so I don't mind a little "light speculation" on what some of the "new" "SoW" features might mean for "game-play"...I don't think it's worth getting worked up about. "BoB SoW" is a flight combat sim and I'm sure that, thats what we will get...




Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by zardozid:

Oh, ye of little faith...I have no doubt that Oleg knows exactly what he is doing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Sorry. The current state of the game after many years of development and refinement has left me a little apprehensive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Are you saying that you think the game is "no good" after all these years of development?

I would have to disagree...the game is not perfect(agree), but for a game that is 6 or 7 years old its still pretty amazing...I could compare it to any game of the same age and "IL2 1946" would stand the test of time...All of the "IL2 1946" "game features" are just as important today as they where 7 years ago...

GIAP.Shura
02-16-2008, 03:48 AM
I don't think people are losing it, they just don't share the OP's belief that moving 3D grass is the technological breakthrough that will make BoB an awesome combat flight sim.


Waving grass isn't gameplay. Il2 is a fine sim for it's time but I'd much rather see discussion and examples of enhanced multiplayer code and server functionality then waving grass.

Quoted for truth. Taking SH3 as an example, two of the best mods which revolutionise that game are the Grey Wolves Expansion and SH3 Commander. The first certainly has a large eye candy element in it but the real appeal of it is the complete reworking of gameplay and new features. The second has no graphical enhancements to the game at all, it is about giving your commander a much more detailed background and career progression during the war. This gives the game an incredible amount of immersion (pun not intended).

For BoB, I would be incredibly excited if a campaign system like SEOW was announced. SEOW improves multiplayer IL2 immeasurably especially in terms of immersion. However, at the moment it is only something that can really be used by squadrons so a lot of people are unaware of how development of things which are not part of the game engine itself can really improve a flight sim. This counts double for potential customers who are not part of the flight sim community so it is unlikely that development time will be spent on it, as it is unlikely to increase the market reach of the sim, as opposed to screenshots of pretty grass.

jasonbirder
02-16-2008, 06:22 AM
Its not whining...
And as there are many more important features that have been considered too time consuming or complex to model within BOB-SOW
As in realistic Aircraft systems...Start up sequences...Switchable Fuel tanks...Individually modelled CEM...
I would have thought it more than acceptable to say that I feel...realistically modelled 3D grass is simply a waste of time that could have been better spent improving the simulator aspect of the sim!

SeaFireLIV
02-16-2008, 06:54 AM
There are more important stuff than grass, let`s hope Oleg puts the important stuff in. I would love to see an indepth offline Campaign similar to falcon 4. If it was a choice between grass and that, then it would be dynamic campaign every time.

It`s interesting to think that Oblivion had incredible grass and trees eye candy, but it took 50 mods to actually make the game itself any good and until I upgraded, I had grass off most of the time!

Chivas
02-16-2008, 10:35 AM
Moving grass is the only feature that Oleg has found worth doing at this time. He's presently looking for "movers" of said grass for the american market. If all goes well with the first shipment Oleg plans to retire and enjoy the whining coming from the Microsoft combat sim forums. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/touche.gif

JG52Uther
02-16-2008, 10:39 AM
Maybe it can be looked at another way.If 1C are putting that much effort into the grass,I would like to believe the rest of the sim will be up to the highest standards.

zardozid
02-16-2008, 11:32 AM
I like "IL2 1946" and I think Oleg did a pretty good job. I understand that nothings perfect and I could wish for this added feature, or that extra "plane set/map/multi-player(whatever)"...but living (now) in the "real world" the way the game is "now", I like it. I still think it's the best "flight-combat-sim" out their, and assuming we see a "BoB SoW" game from Oleg in the (near?) future I'm sure it will be (even) better.

funkster319
02-16-2008, 06:35 PM
Just release the F'in sim - It's been yrs ! c'mon on - by the time it's release I'll be able to fly in world war3 free of charge With moving grass and full imersion including death! Get a grip release it already!

Skoshi Tiger
02-16-2008, 07:12 PM
From the number of times I colided with other planes taxiing online, I think the waving grass would give me some warning that another plane was running up their engine to start rolling.

Also for Bob, a lot of fighters were dispersed to grass stips. With that came a whole swag of changes to ground hangling, takeoff and landings (compared to concrete)! (I wonder if long/short or wet grass will be moddled in the sim?)

Grass is important for aircraft that are using it.

stalkervision
02-16-2008, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by jasonbirder:
So if i read Olegs development blog correctly...
Gently wafting 3D grass realistically modelled = good use of development time/budget something that will be appreciated by many users all the time...
Realistic start up sequences/fuel management systems/engine management systems = too much time to develop and of limited interest to the average flyer...

This is a flight sim isn't it?

well you know moving grass is very important to most experianced pilots. Many time I have hear airline pilots mention the moving grass before they took off.

maybe it is because it is the only way some can tell the jet turbines are running.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Choctaw111
02-16-2008, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by mynameisroland:
What a load of p1sh! All I want is for Oleg to RELEASE the sim. I dont give two hoots about the level of detail of the grass or the highly detailed Opel truck's cab. Its a flight sim ffsk, give me nice aircraft models, detailed FMs and dynamic weather effects - he should worry about this extra stuff when he has a released sim and an established user base.

You will be VERY pleased with it when Oleg is finished with it, that is for sure.

Choctaw111
02-16-2008, 07:59 PM
One more thing. A few of you have complained that Oleg should spend his time and energy on other more important things than the grass. I doubt that Oleg and team spent weeks getting the grass to look just right, and even if they did, it is something that they felt was important, and NOT at the expense of the FM, DM or other major combat flight sim feature.
No matter how much time and effort they put into EVERY aspect of the sim, there will ALWAYS be those who have something to complain about.

Codex1971
02-16-2008, 09:10 PM
OMG...grass...are you kidding me, we're into the 5th page now about grass in a flight sim... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Like I said, if Oleg wants to make something look pretty I would rather see these in the sim.

CLOUDS

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2008/BNMBC08/cloud3.png

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2006/BNL06/Screenshot-6.png

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2006/BNL06/decompose_btm-0000.png

SMOKE

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2006/ANSN06/anim0767.jpg

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2006/ANSN06/shot06.jpg

TREES

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2001/Mey01/1000Pines.jpg

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2000/MN00/bench.jpg

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2005/GMN05/result1.png

FORESTS

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2004/DN04/a0_RTForest1.jpg

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2004/DN04/RTForest4.jpg

VECTOR TERRAIN GENERATION

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2008/BN08/quadtree.png

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2008/BN08/teaser1.png

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2004/DN04/a2_aperiodic.png

WATER

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2002/HNC02/tempest_03.jpg

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2002/HNC02/tempest_02.jpg

http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Publications/2002/HNC02/calm_00.jpg

jarink
02-16-2008, 09:23 PM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I hope we get flying birds every now and then.

Really.

They should be in as a nod of respect to the creature that made Man yearn to fly.

Only if bird strikes are modeled as well.
http://www.bell47helicopterassociation.org/bird%20strike%202.jpg

Feathered_IV
02-16-2008, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by Choctaw111:
I doubt that Oleg and team spent weeks getting the grass to look just right, and even if they did, it is something that they felt was important, and NOT at the expense of the FM, DM or other major combat flight sim feature....

That would be so funny. BoB releases day:

Oleg: There it is, the finest flight sim ever developed in the history of mankind.!

Dev #1: The finest water!

Dev #2: The finest clouds!

Dev #3: The finest grass!

Dev #4: And the finest flight models!!!

Oleg: Wots that?

Dev #4: The flight models...

Oleg: They were yours were they?

Dev #4: I thought you were doing them.

Oleg: I thought you were...

All: Oh F*ck!!!!

WTE_Ibis
02-17-2008, 12:00 AM
I had some grass once that was very moving,
maybe it was a bad batch.


.

msalama
02-17-2008, 12:03 AM
You know what I want from BoB? Well I'm gonna tell ya right now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

1) AC systems management implemented.

Oleg claims no-one is interested in that. Well I'm sorry, but that's just c**p. If you talk about a simulator, then you better DESIGN a simulator, or call your product a game.

But then there's stuff like this (http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/) coming up too, so Oleg of course does as he sees fit - as do us realism nuts http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

2) Realistic AC ground handling modelled.

TBH these machines of ours are total arcade Klown Kars as regards their ground behaviour. Where the hell is the engine torque when taking off? OK, there's some, but I still challenge anyone to jump into a real high-powered single-engined AC and try to take off by shoving the throttle wide open from a standstill...

3) 1C telling us what sources they base their FMs on.

Now as you know there's been loads and loads of controversy surrounding this topic over the years, and while most of the complaints have been just b1tches whining some of them - both Red and Blue - have also been justified. But then, how can you really prove anything as inaccurate (or otherwise) if you don't know the data the devs base their modelling decisions on? If they keep on hoarding that stuff they can always say that according to THEIR info it's all 100% good - and what the hell are you going to say to THAT because you don't even know the evidence?

OK, rant off for the most part, but as you can see I've come to a conclusion of not buying the bugger if it's going to be an arcade game like its predecessor. Hell, if guys like Ubisoft can come up with a vastly more realistic simulator (http://silent-hunteriii.com/uk/home.php) - apples and oranges as the comparison may be - all by themselves, then Oleg should be capable of that too...

S! all. Kaleun Salamanowski, the commander of U-2 and a former IL-2 VVS pilot, signing off for now.

Loco-S
02-17-2008, 12:07 AM
I want telephone cables, nothing add more to realism than dogfighting at 30 feet when you lose a wing to a telephone pole or the wires between them.

msalama
02-17-2008, 01:55 AM
<EDIT>

OK nevermind. Was OT c**p anyway.

</EDIT>

But in addition to what I wrote above what I'd also like to see is them generally improving on their PR policy - or, rather, formulate and implement such a policy because there's been none so far http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

No but seriously, just saying "you is wrong" every now and then will NOT cut it in the future anymore. Not when the competitors are pretty open and transparent as regards their products these days...

msalama
02-17-2008, 02:06 AM
And oh yeah:

4) Improve the game AI like hell of a _lot_ to say the least. And this is actually coming from someone who's done most of his playing online over the years, BTW http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Chivas
02-17-2008, 02:13 AM
What competitors....Blackshark in a copter sim, and KOTS is a WW1 sim. There are no direct competitors.

Nice pics, but If Oleg is doing a cinematic sim as he suggests the SOW's graphics should be better than most of those pics.

The AI definitely needs work and I see no reason why it won't be.

msalama
02-17-2008, 02:38 AM
Shockwave and 777 Studios spring to mind here, though sims like BoB2 are offline only and Jason Williams et. al. are just starting out. But this status quo won't in all likelihood last, so maybe Oleg should anticipate for the situation changing at some point...

And then there're other simulators than those concentrating on WWII air warfare, where the devs are much more open about their doings - and the decisions _behind_ those doings too. And these I'm sure do actually present a competetive threat to 1C as well, because not every simmer is stuck on WWII, or even on aerial combat per se y'see http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So you have to see the big picture here and not concentrate on WWII prop planes only IMHO.

Gibbage1
02-17-2008, 03:13 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
I want telephone cables, nothing add more to realism than dogfighting at 30 feet when you lose a wing to a telephone pole or the wires between them.

Like this?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture34.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture36.jpg

Pirschjaeger
02-17-2008, 03:13 AM
I didn't bother reading all 5 pages so forgive me if I'm repeating someone else.

I like the idea that Oleg is paying attention to detail. If gameplay is the only thing to be concerned about, get a gameboy. It would be a shame to limit the potential of pc software, especially regarding games/sims.

I like SH4 because of the eye candy. Sure, it takes time to find action and then even the chances of survival are not good, but isn't that what a sim is supposed to be?

BoB is a WW2 Air combat simulator. Therefore, it should simulate WW2 air combat, not just in the air but also on the ground. Planes do land from time to time, don't they?

I want immersion. I don't want a gameboy format.

I'm betting most of those who complain about grass are also using certain software that enhances certain details. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

As long as it is Oleg's attention to detail that is delaying BoB, I can wait.

Fritz

msalama
02-17-2008, 03:21 AM
...but isn't that what a sim is supposed to be?

Exactly, though my personal poison de jour is actually SH3 + GWX 2.0 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Feathered_IV
02-17-2008, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Loco-S:
I want telephone cables, nothing add more to realism than dogfighting at 30 feet when you lose a wing to a telephone pole or the wires between them.

Like this?

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture34.jpg

http://www.gibbageart.com/files/dm/Picture36.jpg </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting captions. I would have thought it a challenge to cover a P-38's windscreen in oil. The engines being on each side and all that.

major_setback
02-17-2008, 08:28 AM
I don't think we can even guess at how good the game will look in the future. Look at some of the best graphics we have now in gaming:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSI9nvIXaF4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsJzaFhs814


Barrels of fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YG5qDeWHNmk&feature=related

Explosions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4knU_qD7r8k&feature=related

Too much detail?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAYg8bzehPQ

Pirschjaeger
02-17-2008, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by Feathered_IV:
Interesting captions. I would have thought it a challenge to cover a P-38's windscreen in oil. The engines being on each side and all that.

He was eating Chinese when he hit some turbulance, hence oil of the windscreen.

jarink
02-17-2008, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by Loco-S:
I want telephone cables, nothing add more to realism than dogfighting at 30 feet when you lose a wing to a telephone pole or the wires between them.

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_jan2004/PlaneOops4.jpg

Chivas
02-17-2008, 10:55 AM
Maybe Shockwave and 777 Studio spring to your mind but you could put all the information released on their projects between the next two lines.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the IC forums and your 1946 DVDs for info on BOB SOW for starters.

mortoma
02-17-2008, 11:03 AM
I have never thought that the eye-candy is important until they get FM, DM and AI much better. What good does is do to have eye-candy if we have sucky FM, DM and AI?? Sometimes I think this forum has too many bubble-gum chewing youngsters, obsessed with eye-candy because of all the console games they have out now. Any old timer knows that FM, DM fidelity and realistic AI is the most important aspect to a simulation. If the settings look like perfectly real photograph/video it is all in vain at this point if the important stuff is arcadey. I say they should work on important stuff first, then and only then should they work on graphics. I hope the young console crowd does not get their way or will have a really superb, nice looking arcade game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tater-SW-
02-17-2008, 11:10 AM
Exactly.

Eye-candy? How about clouds instead.

AI is critical, frankly. Planes that can be bounced, for example.

DM? Radiators would be nice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AKA_TAGERT
02-17-2008, 11:13 AM
I would trade moving grass for just about anything else in a flight sim.. FPS no.. Flight Sim yes

Chivas
02-17-2008, 11:24 AM
I don't get your point. Just because someone points out there may be moving grass displayed in graphics engine doesn't mean that all other features are muted.

We know from screenshots and statements from Oleg that the DM will be greatly enhanced.

We also know from statements that the FM will not require you to relearn how to fly but the FM will be fine tuned. They can't show FM in the screenshots.

We know the AI needs work. We have no reason to believe that the AI won't be improved. The AI also can't be displayed in screenshots.

Not sure why there is all this hand wringing. Oleg is quite aware of the problems in the IL-2 series. THIS IS THE REASON for developing a new ENGINE for his next series, so that the new code is able to address these issues and other features.

slipBall
02-17-2008, 11:36 AM
This is the reason for the grass...MONEY! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


(quote)
SimHQ: We've seen some use of simulation graphics in theatric presentations, such as a recent television documentary on The History Channel dealing with air-to-air combat from World War One to Vietnam. Given the graphics power and detail that SW:BoB obviously will have, is there any potential for the simulation to be used for television or movie entertainment purposes?

Oleg: It is one of our goals. In the new sim the modeling of air battles will be suitable for the direct recording for HDTV and higher. Say if someone makes a film about WWII and plans to make the right looking air battles the use of a new sim series would be probably the most right and cheapest way compared to rendering such scenes in studios where developers usually are far from the knowledge of aerodynamics, etc...

Tater-SW-
02-17-2008, 11:56 AM
Chivas, I can only assume that the SOW team is finite in number. As a result, all work is a "zero sum" game. Meaning that if there are X people capable of working on the 3D grass, and those same people are also the ones who might work on clouds, etc, then the man-hours spent on the grass is at the expense of something else unless the "to do" list is so short they can get all of it done.

Obviously the AI coders are likely a different group of people.

Chivas
02-17-2008, 12:42 PM
You have to give these guys some credit for understanding the priority of clouds over moving grass. They do have one coder assigned with a huge amount of info on clouds and weather especially pertaining to period of the Battle of Britain. I'm sure they don't have one coder with a catologue of books with information on grass types and growing cycles.

Jaws2002
02-17-2008, 12:49 PM
Why don't you guys wait for the game first. Then if there's grass in the sim and some major part of a flight sim missing (like clouds, trees, good FM and DM ) then you have the right to whine. Right now this is just whining for the sake of whining, since we don't know yet what exactly will be in the game and what won't be in.

Jaws2002
02-17-2008, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Fiasco1969:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jaws2002:

What's laughable is guys that just whine even if they have no clue what they are talking about.




I've actually met and talked w/ Oleg (at the 2000 GDC in LA

Waving grass isn't gameplay. Il2 is a fine sim for it's time but I'd much rather see discussion and examples of enhanced multiplayer code and server functionality then waving grass. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, but i'd rather relly on online fresh news (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2429) then what Oleg told you eight years ago when you met him.



*yawn* neither do you. Do you have a sample of the game to play or have seen a demo of it... no.

Maybe you didn't read my post right but i mentioned that we don't know enough to start whining about missing features.

But we know that some of the things you asked in your post will be in game:

How about some decent multiplayer code? Both in box formats of the multi player game types suck.

Oleg already said multiple times that BOB will have a new net code and multiple new online modes. Again, wait to see what's in and then whine for what's not in.

zardozid
02-17-2008, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Chivas:
I don't get your point. Just because someone points out there may be moving grass displayed in graphics engine doesn't mean that all other features are muted.

We know from screenshots and statements from Oleg that the DM will be greatly enhanced.

We also know from statements that the FM will not require you to relearn how to fly but the FM will be fine tuned. They can't show FM in the screenshots.

We know the AI needs work. We have no reason to believe that the AI won't be improved. The AI also can't be displayed in screenshots.

Not sure why there is all this hand wringing. Oleg is quite aware of the problems in the IL-2 series. THIS IS THE REASON for developing a new ENGINE for his next series, so that the new code is able to address these issues and other features.

Their are people who only know how to communicate in terms of "right and wrong"...for them every issue can be broken down into basic elements that can be categorized and labeled in terms of good and bad...it's an over simplified view of the world that is usually spawned from a need to "be right"...

Fiasco1969
02-17-2008, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by Jaws2002:

Sorry, but i'd rather relly on online fresh news (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2429) then what Oleg told you eight years ago when you met him.


There are few answers in that link. Oleg actually directly contradicts himself in some of his answers.

Besides, there were things Oleg said would be in IL2 at the GDC that never saw the light of day.


Maybe you didn't read my post right but i mentioned that we don't know enough to start whining about missing features.

Not whining about missing features. I'm suggesting time creating and CPU time spent rendering "Waving Grass" could have been better spent somewhere else.

Eye candy is not gameplay.

The novelty of a cow on the ground will wear off rather quickly.

Substance over style please!

TheGozr
02-17-2008, 03:18 PM
I like the idea to have detailed grounds as long as the skies are not forgotten but I think Oleg had to rethink everything about BOB due to other great sims.
To me the down side is the scenario era.

msalama
02-17-2008, 10:11 PM
Maybe Shockwave and 777 Studio spring to your mind but you could put all the information released on their projects between the next two lines.

777 Studios have just started out and so far have kept mum about their upcoming release(s), which I think is prudent for a startup. Shockwave, OTOH, is pretty well known for their willingness to communicate openly, and to comment on pretty much whatever it is their clientele throws their way. Their support is also top notch, even with older products.

Contrast all this to 1C's total lack of communication, bar from "you is wrong", and I'm sure you'll notice where it all might very well turn around and bite them in the a**. No?

Not that I'd LIKE any of that, mind you, because warts and all I still think IL-2 is the best CFS out there. It's just that these are times of SW openness and transparency, and if Oleg doesn't mind that it might very well turn against him later on...

Just my take m8, yours is different as we know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

zardozid
02-17-2008, 10:40 PM
The current state of computer game graphics, and what we expect to see in the coming years, pretty much requires Oleg to model the grass...without it the game would look dated and cheap.

A good simulation/game requires a balance of visuals and flight data...anyone who denies the role state of the art graphics play's in the enjoyment of computer game/simulations is just fooling themselfs...

Chivas
02-17-2008, 11:52 PM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe Shockwave and 777 Studio spring to your mind but you could put all the information released on their projects between the next two lines.

777 Studios have just started out and so far have kept mum about their upcoming release(s), which I think is prudent for a startup. Shockwave, OTOH, is pretty well known for their willingness to communicate openly, and to comment on pretty much whatever it is their clientele throws their way. Their support is also top notch, even with older products.

Contrast all this to 1C's total lack of communication, bar from "you is wrong", and I'm sure you'll notice where it all might very well turn around and bite them in the a**. No?

Not that I'd LIKE any of that, mind you, because warts and all I still think IL-2 is the best CFS out there. It's just that these are times of SW openness and transparency, and if Oleg doesn't mind that it might very well turn against him later on...

Just my take m8, yours is different as we know http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shockwave is giving no information on their projects. NaDA...Zip Oleg has been far more open on BOB SOW than Shockwave has been on their future projects. NO CONTEST
The only thing we know is Flying Tigers has been put on hold until they develope another unnamed project. Thats it....

The BDG group is very open with BOB WOV just as Oleg was with the IL-2 Series, but with future projects Oleg has been far more open than Shockwave or 777.

msalama
02-18-2008, 10:56 PM
Well be that as it may you just have to look at their website to notice that their support for _existing_ products (WoP series etc. ) is very good at least.

And with this parting remark I'm done w/ this tug-of-war here - as I am largely w/ IL-2 as well for that matter, having gotten hugely bored with the game in its shallowness and arcadeness lately (and with its quotient of whiney clientele too, TBH). So while you gents continue debating this matter further I'll just fire up SH3 + GWX 2.0 and go on ploughing the North Sea towards my assignated patrol area http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

S! all.