PDA

View Full Version : BUILT TO LAST... Oleg Maddox



fuser59
12-09-2004, 06:02 PM
There are a few things in life that have been around for years simply because they were not fundamentally flawed in the scope of their design...

1. The Bible
2. The Pyramids
3. The IL2 Series!

Mr Maddox, IL2FBAEPPF needs a new engine that is reworked for todays computers and your customer's desires.

Instead of going into another venture, and perhaps splitting the community even further, I would recommend that a new engine be designed for the IL2 series. I would like to let you know at this time that if you would recode the sim into a new more capable engine that I would not hesitate 1 bit to dig in my pockets and come up with another $39.99 USA Dollars to help pay for it.

This is ALLREADY the best combat flight sim on the market today. Why would it not be in YOUR BEST INTEREST to keep to your highest standards of creativity by creating a new engine 1st, and then transfer NEW code to the NEW engine keeping what we allready want in the game now and allowing for expansion of TIR's 6DOF and opening it up for more to come in the continuing development of THIS sim. Not BOB or some other new sim, just keep refining THIS one.

I love this sim, and feel a brotherhood with the player's of it. I am simply awed by the marvel of it, and want to NOT see it ended, just fixed (Old engine for new one).

Im no expert with programming. Just a caring customer and patron of your product. I can certainly understand that you have technical challenges ahead of you, but as I stated at the first part of this post... Some things are BUILT TO LAST... Oleg Maddox!

It just needs re-outfitted. Not shelved!

Thank you for your time

VW-IceFire
12-09-2004, 06:10 PM
Battle of Britain. Thats their next big project and its totally reworked. Thats what they have told us...many months ago.

We just have to wait for a while.

Willey
12-09-2004, 06:26 PM
You're speaking of the upcoming BoB title http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

This will be a completely new engine with just some old code pieces taken over from the old Il-2 engine. It will start from scratch and IMHO the BoB is a good place to start it. Oleg wants to build it up then just like the Il-2 series. I really hope that most of the Il-2 engine limitations are history then:

-6DOF
-real engine management (damages, manual SC, (auto) mix levers for all planes etc)
-better sounds (read more different sounds for each engine/plane/gun etc)
-high alt modelling (physics, engines, especially jet engines, IAS control plane stiffness, impact pressure etc)
-better landscapes (especially mountains, valleys, river size, cliffs, a geomod engine for bomb craters)
-loadout options (gun ammo counts, belt mix, racks, bomb sizes and types, rocket rails, different rocket warheads, individual fuel tank fillings etc - drag and drop interface)
-dynamic weather (start in overcast, fly to sunshine and come back to some clouds left)
-really dynamic campaigns (fictional and non-fictional, AotP style squad/plane/pilots/aces system)
-more online modes (DFwO like FBD, Warbirds like Capture the Bases, "multi-mission" coops with landings, refuelling, rearming, maybe new plane in one "sortie" -> Lomac style)
-better radio (more specific radio messages, bomber intercoms with 6-calls from gunner etc)
-and last but not least: The possibility to add further features without having to mess with too much hard coded stuff! Modular program design right from the beginning. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

That what comes to my mind first http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 06:33 PM
First edition of totally new "Re~build" WW2 flight sim is BoB with Battle of France/Poland addon pac.

Oleg:: "return to Easter Front in 7 years"

Popey109
12-09-2004, 08:47 PM
CFS 3 for all its open code can€t use aircraft carriers as more than static objects! Can€t simulate high speed stall or spins even with 1% models, and can€t land AI with out spreading them over a 1\4 mile€¦in peaces! We€ve come a long way baby! From IL 2 to FB+AEP+PF I see a lot of life left in this game engine, witch is why I hope a group of modelers will step up and take on the monumental task of reworking those cockpits that need it€¦even if it takes a year! Even if it€s a paid add-on, this game engine deserves 6dof but only if it€s done right! Like Oleg I don€t want to see open holes in my cockpit

Bearcat99
12-09-2004, 09:27 PM
BoB is what you are asking for. Make no mistake.. when 1C got into flight sims they were thinking long term. BoB will just be the starting point.. my only hope is that the code for this new sim is jealously gaurded like the code for IL2. That is one of the things IMO that make this franchise so strong. It is a blessing and a curse but IMO more of a blessing for us. I would rather have the locked code and the consistancy we have than the open code and the inconsistancy that comes with it. I do believe that with BoB 1C will continue the long term startegy and that the BoB will just be the start. I think BoB will go from west to east... just as IL2 went from east to west.

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 10:15 PM
fusser:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It's like feeling there is nothing in this sim left looking forward to... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "real life" FB modders at the link below don't share your opinion. Neither do I.

~> http://www.netwings.org/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=list&forum=DCForumID43&conf=DCConfID1

...its a slow loading link, but it gets there

I believe all the internet Brownie Point dogfighter Squads know about netwings, not sure though. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Spock~ to All TrekkieIR users

Popey109
12-09-2004, 10:16 PM
I agree Bearcat, BOB will be great, but while I€m speculating here, if the cockpits where edited and Oleg could find time to code it in, how much more would it be to code a couple key presses for (lean left lean right) for those of us who don€t have trk ir? Something I€ve seen asked for many times on these boards. We have so much to gain, with over 200 aircraft, new maps and more planes coming. And don€t forget the work being done by Starshoy and friends for DGen, Lowengrins DCG, Aces Mat program, so much I can€t even list it all. Enough campaigns single mission and skins that no one could fly it all in a life time€¦(I get all tingly just thinking about it)€¦well, 6dof would be the crowning achievement of what€s been the best simulator I€ve ever seen€¦it€s asking a lot and Oleg has already given so much, I wont make a pest of myself. Oleg, if you see this, FB+AEP+PF is an amazing peace of software€¦it is the best http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-09-2004, 10:26 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Popey:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>how much more would it be to code a couple key presses for (lean left lean right) for those of us who don€t have trk ir? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pilot Lean for ALL flight simmers!

Thanks Popey, that would be Awsum, but BoB and Beyond will be the best thing for this. You and I asked for all these cockpits, its too late to change them in a 5 year old flight sim.

I am surprised they have not yet asked for D6FO to be made just for a few "fave" cockpits, or did I miss that?

WWMaxGunz
12-09-2004, 10:54 PM
Fuser, if you think going from one engine to another is a simple matter of moving all
the models you like now over then hey, dream on! FB is IL2 engine revamped not all new
and the planes they moved over even after working on still gave troubles on DM issues
that took patches to see all the changes through that we have. How long for the I-16
to get fully detailed DM, which is from internal parts?
Not a simple matter to get it all even without a major redesign, certainly this many
planes you'd be looking past a year easily.

Read back when the BoB project was started... they were leaving out a lot of mistakes
learned of. I can bet that the mistakes went clear to the basics in places, parts of
the models. A new and clean design by experienced team... the work will go quicker
and easier, surely. Why ask them to hold onto and try to get more from something that
is pushed so far and so hard to work with?

VVS-Manuc
12-10-2004, 02:38 AM
the more we wait for BoB the more I doubt that it will be different from IL2/PF. Oleg will not stand commercial pressures which demands a "Johny Joystick Superplane 2-Button Shooter Game". He wants/have to earn money, too. So am not awaiting a serious BoB-flight simulation.

JG54_Arnie
12-10-2004, 03:04 AM
Hows that Manuc? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

By the looks of it Oleg isnt that much into the commercial thinking. He knows its time for a new engine as well, duh!

I hope that Oleg will round up this sweet IL2 game with a sweet last addon which also roots out most nasty bugs and after that will swiftly move on to focussing on Bob, IL2 has been pushed to the limit enough and as the starter of this posts says, its time for a new engine.
Although its a good idea to start this new engine with few flyables at first, but with flyables that have a really good flight and damage model. From a developers point of view I think its not realistic to expect a new engine with all current planes of IL2 in it, it would be too hard to have all planes working properly in a new engine.

In a nutshell: Bob should be a great new engine with few flyables that fly as they should fly.
To Fuser: Does it really matter that much what you fly, when the flight and damagemodel have been worked on to an extend you couldnt dream of when you dream of all current planes in a new engine? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blackjack174
12-10-2004, 03:51 AM
i wouldnt mind if bob had 2 flyable fighters and 2 flyable bombers but modeled in so much detail i need a second keyboard for all the functions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
and as shown in other games:
external and cockpit model is one.
with better scalability than currrent lod system it could surely be fast enough,
this and a really good campaign that once again touch a "red baron 2" level (didnt oleg even mentioned repairs that adversively affect your FM/DM in the next sortie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif ) would make my day and i would only look back to do some mud moving on the eastern front with the (hopefully by then integrated pe2 (keep up the excellent work Agamemnon22 & Co http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif)
i think the "missing not fittable planes´n´stuff" addon with at least 2.04 AEP quality, that would be a good finnish for the series.

KGr.HH-Gotcha
12-10-2004, 04:39 AM
Let the man (Oleg) do his project and I think once BoB hits the shelves you wont regret switching the game.
I'm looking forward to the new physics and more detail of the game. I'm also looking forward to have constant add-ons for every tehatre of war.

IL2 is getting rusty. Although Oleg and his team do a tremendous job to keep the sim alive the paint is flaking but we all LOVE it of course.

When oleg decided to recode the stuff and name it BoB so be it. Can't wait http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat99
12-10-2004, 05:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Popey109:
I agree Bearcat, BOB will be great, but while I€m speculating here, if the cockpits where edited and Oleg could find time to code it in, how much more would it be to code a couple key presses for (lean left lean right) for those of us who don€t have trk ir? Something I€ve seen asked for many times on these boards. We have so much to gain, with over 200 aircraft, new maps and more planes coming. And don€t forget the work being done by Starshoy and friends for DGen, Lowengrins DCG, Aces Mat program, so much I can€t even list it all. Enough campaigns single mission and skins that no one could fly it all in a life time€¦(I get all tingly just thinking about it)€¦well, 6dof would be the crowning achievement of what€s been the best simulator I€ve ever seen€¦it€s asking a lot and Oleg has already given so much, I wont make a pest of myself. Oleg, if you see this, FB+AEP+PF is an amazing peace of software€¦it is the best http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judging from that link supplioed by Lexx... which everyone should actually take the time to go through at least..... the task would be enormous and 1Cs time will be better used in the long run for BoB... not the cockpits here. They would also have to redo the gauges too, keep in mind... Things we take for granted like the damage models (visually) all have to be coded in. Looking at that link has given me a much greater appreciation for the work already put into the sim and my hopes for BoB have gone through te roof.
Also keep in mind that like someone else said... the FB engine is a modified IL2 engine. Not exactly the same but probably optimiazed and stretched to its limit. I can only imagine what BoB will be like if this tweaked 7 year old engine is this good.

Oleg_Maddox
12-10-2004, 05:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fuser59:
There are a few things in life that have been around for years simply because they were not fundamentally flawed in the scope of their design...

1. The Bible
2. The Pyramids
3. The IL2 Series!

Mr Maddox, IL2FBAEPPF needs a new engine that is reworked for todays computers and your customer's desires.

Instead of going into another venture, and perhaps splitting the community even further, I would recommend that a new engine be designed for the IL2 series. I would like to let you know at this time that if you would recode the sim into a new more capable engine that I would not hesitate 1 bit to dig in my pockets and come up with another $39.99 USA Dollars to help pay for it.

This is ALLREADY the best combat flight sim on the market today. Why would it not be in YOUR BEST INTEREST to keep to your highest standards of creativity by creating a new engine 1st, and then transfer NEW code to the NEW engine keeping what we allready want in the game now and allowing for expansion of TIR's 6DOF and opening it up for more to come in the continuing development of THIS sim. Not BOB or some other new sim, just keep refining THIS one.

I love this sim, and feel a brotherhood with the player's of it. I am simply awed by the marvel of it, and want to NOT see it ended, just fixed (Old engine for new one).

Im no expert with programming. Just a caring customer and patron of your product. I can certainly understand that you have technical challenges ahead of you, but as I stated at the first part of this post... Some things are BUILT TO LAST... Oleg Maddox!

It just needs re-outfitted. Not shelved!

Thank you for your time <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the comparison above! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

However I would like to point several things.

The engine for the IL-2 series was designed many years ago and was developed with the look in future. Its why it is still modern and probably you don't know any other flight sim 3D engine that looks better.
The current 3D engine use all possible modern functions of the hardware. The only issue of this engine (with reference to the great open spaces) the precise of rendering for the coastal lines, rivers, and details around this.
But it was limited by the features of hardware. It was and is compromise between good visuals and FPS. Some kind of optimizations. So you get good looking surfaces and impossibility to get realistically looking rocks on the coastal linees or the width of the rivers for example. This is due to precise and size of squares of the 3D net that used for the rendering of surfaces.

So really the 3D graphics engine is still modern.... To make it better looking in all the details of rendering means use of only more power hardware. And this engine we can use for more than 2 years ahead more really.... Just adding there more complex calculations from time to time (or uncheking in code some not used yet functions due to current power of PC on the market)

If to speak about the sim as the whole system - it is a great compromise between hundreds features that completely contradict each other by using of processor or video card. Say we may make better llokin buildings on the ground with more complex damage model of them, but then you will be not able to fly over the small city for example. We may make more complex AI for the ground units (tanks, cars, etc), but then again we will have dropping very much FPS.
Hope you understand what I mean. The main thing that IL-2 series has a lot of optimizations in the code for all the details and use compromissed solutions for each part where it is only possible.


So... We started long time ago in parallel work with the Il-2 series the new 3D engine... This one will looks way better in terms that I told above... and even more... Weather conditions will be way more different....
Of course all detalisations of the 3D models will be increased in all areas... From the planes itself to the damage model implementation and precise of calculations.
It is really huge work... that needs several years that to get the highest possible level and as well should have the adbvatage that to use it again for several years ahead that to produce new series of the sims, where the first one will be BoB. And when will be released BoB the minimal stating system for the good gameplay I'm sure will be the system that now is used for the perfect settigns of graphics in the PF sim with the smooth gameplay... Its a law - you wan't better - you need better hardware even with the full optimizations of the code in every part.

That to understand what we are doing for the next series of the sim is enough to look for these screen shots:

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/CR-42_damage4.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0040.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/ScShot010.jpg


And then to understand that modernization of IL-2 series with all the content isn't possible to go by this way. Should be simply new things at all that to be ahead of all others.....

Also that to finish all we like to get for the next - we need income... This means sales of PF and even gold pack of Il-2+AEP

We plan again to set new world standards in sim development.... Simply. You may trust or may not. But the same I told when we were working over initial Il-2...

JG54_Arnie
12-10-2004, 06:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
So really the 3D graphics engine is still modern.... To make it better looking in all the details of rendering means use of only more power hardware. And this engine we can use for more than 2 years ahead more really.... Just adding there more complex calculations from time to time (or uncheking in code some not used yet functions due to current power of PC on the market) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, interesting to hear! Sounds really good, something we users easily overlook, or never get to know is the actual way in which a game is designed. Thanks for this look into how IL2 looks from your point of view! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So there is still some future for the IL2 engine actually. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
Also that to finish all we like to get for the next - we need income... This means sales of PF and even gold pack of Il-2+AEP <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, do you have any updates about actual sales yet Oleg? Maybe its something we would never get to hear, but I sure hope you're getting enough to go by, hopefully more.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
We plan again to set new world standards in sim development.... Simply. You may trust or may not. But the same I told when we were working over initial Il-2... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Good luck in building it all Oleg, all the feedback we get is also much appreciated! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AWL_Frog
12-10-2004, 07:29 AM
Some time ago there was a rumour that new clouds are in the making.

Any news on that?

Hey, even just a complete overcast with the existing clouds would be absolutely great!

Bearcat99
12-10-2004, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AWL_Frog:
Some time ago there was a rumour that new clouds are in the making.

Any news on that?

Hey, even just a complete overcast with the existing clouds would be absolutely great! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg Maddox wrote:
So... We started long time ago in parallel work with the Il-2 series the new 3D engine... This one will looks way better in terms that I told above... and even more... Weather conditions will be way more different....

Sounds good to me..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
12-10-2004, 07:57 AM
oooooooh, I like those screenies!!! I'm looking forward to this!!

Mid to late 2006 you reckon??? Right where's me penny jar, gonna need to start saving for the hardware to run this thing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Tooz_69GIAP
12-10-2004, 08:01 AM
Just one question, are we gonna see the pilot in the cockpit of our aircraft?? You know, like legs, and stuff, and will we see his face in the mirror, or at least the top of his head???

leadbaloon
12-10-2004, 08:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
We plan again to set new world standards in sim development.... Simply. You may trust or may not. But the same I told when we were working over initial Il-2... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I trust every word you say. The new screenshots look fantastic and the future seems bright from where I'm sitting.

BerkshireHunt
12-10-2004, 08:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
So really the 3D graphics engine is still modern.... To make it better looking in all the details of rendering means use of only more power hardware. And this engine we can use for more than 2 years ahead more really.... Just adding there more complex calculations from time to time (or uncheking in code some not used yet functions due to current power of PC on the market) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, interesting to hear! Sounds really good, something we users easily overlook, or never get to know is the actual way in which a game is designed. Thanks for this look into how IL2 looks from your point of view! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So there is still some future for the IL2 engine actually. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[QUOTE]

I remember Oleg saying about three years ago that the existing engine has the capacity to render grass- it's just turned off in code (hence the 'billiard table' surfaces). Ever since then I've been kind of expecting it to be enabled one day by a small patch. Maybe next year?

VVS-Manuc
12-10-2004, 08:33 AM
I want to believe!

If BoB turns out to be a real simulation (even with some compromises, ok) , it will be nice and I will be one of the first who buy it. But if you consider how many "best of all" PC-games are released with nice looking screenshots and after installation it turns out to be unplayable rubbish some sceptic attitude should be allowed.

VVS-Manuc
12-10-2004, 08:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BerkshireHunt:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JG54_Arnie:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
So really the 3D graphics engine is still modern.... To make it better looking in all the details of rendering means use of only more power hardware. And this engine we can use for more than 2 years ahead more really.... Just adding there more complex calculations from time to time (or uncheking in code some not used yet functions due to current power of PC on the market) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, interesting to hear! Sounds really good, something we users easily overlook, or never get to know is the actual way in which a game is designed. Thanks for this look into how IL2 looks from your point of view! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif So there is still some future for the IL2 engine actually. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

I remember Oleg saying about three years ago that the existing engine has the capacity to render grass- it's just turned off in code (hence the 'billiard table' surfaces). Ever since then I've been kind of expecting it to be enabled one day by a small patch. Maybe next year? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
do you really need grass in a flight sim? Do you fly so low? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Oleg_Maddox
12-10-2004, 08:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:do you really need grass in a flight sim? Do you fly so low? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He need, becasue with expansion of BoB probably he want to control the car... Or land in the grass to get the differences between the different surfaces for the ttake off or landing...

Questionable isn't it?

Oleg_Maddox
12-10-2004, 08:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
I want to believe!

If BoB turns out to be a real simulation (even with some compromises, ok) , it will be nice and I will be one of the first who buy it. But if you consider how many "best of all" PC-games are released with nice looking screenshots and after installation it turns out to be unplayable rubbish some sceptic attitude should be allowed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you dislike IL-2 series in terms of simulation, you better take another one.
I don't think than Il-2 series, even PF with some bugs was unplayable. Instead, I think we always delever what we really promise.

Of course we may make the BoB only around flayble Spitfire and to make this plane for so high level of modeling that there will be modelled even each screw.... But then you will need to forget about any other new/old features, advanced AI and other planes precise modeling.

Again, if you think that Il-2 series finally is Arcade, then please ask on the forums the real pilots that use this sim instead of all others for some trainigs. Yes not all is absolutely real - for this see above and also be ready to buy not the PC...but several Silicon Graphics for example.
Take in the account for future that if someone model some effects by pressing triggers code in FM, then this one has almost nothing with thr real physics of the flight.
And if someone tell you that in roll on 450 km/h is present visible inertion, then our sim is really not for you...

Oleg_Maddox
12-10-2004, 09:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tooz_69GIAP:
Just one question, are we gonna see the pilot in the cockpit of our aircraft?? You know, like legs, and stuff, and will we see his face in the mirror, or at least the top of his head??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably no. Becasue I don't like to make it bad, but I have no forces to make it very good for each bomber with so many animated work separatelly for each model... I will leave it for the creators of shooters, when the work for which we spend most time is absent...

goshikisen
12-10-2004, 09:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/CR-42_damage4.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/grab0040.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/ScShot010.jpg


And then to understand that modernization of IL-2 series with all the content isn't possible to go by this way. Should be simply new things at all that to be ahead of all others.....

Also that to finish all we like to get for the next - we need income... This means sales of PF and even gold pack of Il-2+AEP

We plan again to set new world standards in sim development.... Simply. You may trust or may not. But the same I told when we were working over initial Il-2... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That cockpit shot and the Panzer I. look absolutely amazing. They've presold me on BoB... but then I was presold the day it was announced.

Goshiksien

clint-ruin
12-10-2004, 09:58 AM
Re: retrofitting engines generally. It has been done many many times with many many games. You may want to take a look at Tenebrae Quake [Doom3-style engine on quake data] or Freespace 2 OSP [DX8 remake of what was basically a DX5 game] to see the results of a couple of such projects that have had a great deal of work done on them to bring them up to speed.

All done by third parties with some minimal [if any] assistance from the original coders - just access to the source and the data files.

You could try asking Oleg to see if he would like to pay some coder a large sum and a long time to make the data formats between BOB and PF compatible, but they may just be too different to cooperate with each other. Very likely they aren't able to work together, given the age of the Il2. Interaction between BOB data elements and PF elements would also be a fast road to unpleasantness too. Maybe if there was enough support for a huge frontpage poll on the site about it - then it might be worth it for them to consider. Importing old low-poly planes from a 2001 game into your new title doesn't set the pages of PC Gamer or whoever alight with good looking eyecandy.

You could try asking Oleg to release the source to PF to allow 3rd party people [along the lines of Tenebrae and FS2OSP] to do a low-level rewrite of the entire engine in their free time. Not something Oleg is massively interested in from his previous responses to the question. Even John Carmack delays the release of his source for a couple of years at least after the last licensees game has shipped - you'd be waiting til about 2007 for PFs :>

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 10:11 AM
BoB and Beyond is the Future of WW2 flight simming, a new World Olegarchy after the Defeat and Surrender of Microsoft 4SCF.


You will still have Windows, you will lose nothing.

Tooz_69GIAP
12-10-2004, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:do you really need grass in a flight sim? Do you fly so low? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He need, becasue with expansion of BoB probably he want to control the car... Or land in the grass to get the differences between the different surfaces for the ttake off or landing...

Questionable isn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoah, hold on, does this mean that we are gonna be able to fly a plane, land, get into, say, a tank, and go blow stuff up, then get out of the tank, and get back into a plane and go blow more stuff up??

So, in effect, we are gonna be able to have a full on war with ground forces and air forces working and manned by humans cooperating to obliterate the enemy???

If so, then everybody move over, coz I'm first in line!!!!!!

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 11:17 AM
Ya, I noticed that too.

If we can walk on the ground, we could sim Escape and Evasion when shot down over enemy lines. Don't know how that can be put into campaign and BoB equivalent of mission "eventlog" file, but they will if they can.

Ever notice Oleg's best revelations come when he responds to the Trolls? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

VVS-Manuc
12-10-2004, 11:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VVS-Manuc:
I want to believe!

If BoB turns out to be a real simulation (even with some compromises, ok) , it will be nice and I will be one of the first who buy it. But if you consider how many "best of all" PC-games are released with nice looking screenshots and after installation it turns out to be unplayable rubbish some sceptic attitude should be allowed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you dislike IL-2 series in terms of simulation, you better take another one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who said something about IL-2 here? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't think than Il-2 series, even PF with some bugs was unplayable. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

again: Who said something about IL-2 here? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Instead, I think we always delever what we really promise.
Of course we may make the BoB only around flayble Spitfire and to make this plane for so high level of modeling that there will be modelled even each screw.... But then you will need to forget about any other new/old features, advanced AI and other planes precise modeling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More planes are always welcome, if they are good modelled http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Again, if you think that Il-2 series finally is Arcade, then please ask on the forums the real pilots that use this sim instead of all others for some trainigs. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Did I say that IL-2 is arcade? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes not all is absolutely real - for this see above and also be ready to buy not the PC...but several Silicon Graphics for example.
Take in the account for future that if someone model some effects by pressing triggers code in FM, then this one has almost nothing with thr real physics of the flight.
And if someone tell you that in roll on 450 km/h is present visible inertion, then our sim is really not for you... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

do you know whether I have a pilot's licence or not? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bananimal65
12-10-2004, 12:32 PM
I'm looking forward to the new sim as well. I must admit that when I initially purchased FB I played it for 40 hours and shelved it due to the akward viewing controls. Specifically the inability of the end user to map the zoom and pan controls. After purchasing a TrackIR that changed for me and I have been enjoying this sim immensly.

There are several things I would like to see implimented in the new sim. One would be a first person perspective much like FPS where you could walk out to the flightline and inspect your plane before climbing into the cockpit and firing the plane up. This would be a great way to enhance the virtual enourmity of these aircraft. As of now the PF engine doesn't allow the camera to drop below ten feet or so. I guess this is to avoid terrain clipping. Imagine bailing out of your aircraft and landing in that nicely rendered grass and foliage and having to find a hiding spot or fight you way out of being captured. I know it's a lot to ask but boy would it be a great feature that would take immersion to the next level.

Another thing I think would be great would be having the pilot animated in such a way as to represent the true location and body position respective to the 6DOF impimentation. With all of the online flying and squads out there I think it would be really cool to look at your wingman and see him looking around scanning and so forth.

Chivas
12-10-2004, 12:35 PM
I have no doubt that once I've flown Oleg's BOB that IL-2/FB/AEP/PF will just be 4 or 5 years of great memories. I just hope that Oleg can find the resources to get BOB done.

Recon_609IAP
12-10-2004, 01:29 PM
If in parallel, and the date of mid to late 2006, I assume maybe you will stay in parallel and still release more for IL2? Perhaps another addon (Med please) to help get more sales from the current engine to finance BoB?

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 01:46 PM
Recon, see IanBoy's map threads at sinhq. The sinhq posters noticed that IanBoys said all THE MEDS map areas are "reserved" by Oleg. This means, The Meds after BoB. This is what the "Beyond" means in BoB and Beyond.

Now, you should know what the meaning of mean means.

Recon_609IAP
12-10-2004, 02:30 PM
ok , sounds good.

One feature I'd like to see in BoB: moving ground objects in a dogfight rather than just static

TangmerePhilipp
12-10-2004, 03:11 PM
Oleg, these shots look fantastic!

I would reconsider however the addition of pilots in the aircraft since they will pose no practical problem with 6DOF+Track IR. And if someone doesn't want them, he can just switch them off like mirrors!

They are an incredible boost for immersion for us that like to stay in cockpit! (and we will with those amazingly detailed pits!)

CHDT
12-10-2004, 03:33 PM
I would like too to see my legs and my hands in the cockpit (it will probably be the case for LO in the future). Especially with some texture baking (like in Zbrush) for the body to save polys,but with a high definition in the final.

An empty cockpit makes me think I'm a ghost http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TangmerePhilipp
12-10-2004, 05:09 PM
And I wouldn't need all the animations either (flipping switches etc. I really wouldn't mind-just my hands on the stick, feet on the pedals and that's it! (obviously they'd have to move with them but that's not THAT heavy for our systems)

LEXX_Luthor
12-10-2004, 07:10 PM
The human element sits in the flight simmer chair.

For pilot walk around, you only need a hand grafic to pop up and display the chain gun. Otherwise, you don't need pilot grafic. This is proven in that human behavior does not see its own body unless looking for it. Human eye is naturally trained to ignore the human body.

Waste of programming effort.

Its funny though, the 95% offline simmers cry for *real* flight sim programming like AI blinded by the sun, and internet dogfighter Squads who you would expect to know something about bouncing from the sun (but they don't) cry for hand held chain gun grafix. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-11-2004, 12:46 AM
fuser:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> You land your plane behind enemy lines, sneak into town, steal a car, and make a run for friendly lines, while enemy planes try to attack you from the air.
:
:
Waste of programming effort ??? I think not! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
They already make games like that.


Real flight simmers just want AI to see the sun, and not see through clouds, and to lose vision at night. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CHDT
12-11-2004, 01:55 AM
It's simple. After having flown Lock-On, an empty cockpit just looks fake! Btw, the Lock-On developer already said he planned to make an "hand on the stick" for a future release.

It's the same thing with car sims: those without visible hands look strange.

CHDT
12-11-2004, 01:57 AM
Btw, I only wish visible legs and hands in the cockpit, not a complete FPS http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JaBo_HH-BlackSheep
12-11-2004, 03:58 AM
i can life verry well without pilot in the cockpit, right now everyone is complaining about certain instruments not working or blocked by something so you can't see them.

what do you think is this with a 3D Pilot in the chair?
most of the instruments would be blocked, and a lot of the beauty of the cockpits would be dissapear behind the leggs and arms of the pilot... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anyway verry nice screenshot oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
can we have that grass?
something like LOD0 (rendered) when we are at 40m (and lower altitude) visible for some 300m?
it would add a nice tuch for "Perfekt", or even excellent because it would definatly make the terrain look more nature, real (not only plain green http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)

however nice work http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
looking forward to BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

TangmerePhilipp
12-11-2004, 07:04 AM
Dear Lexx, I am sorry if I offended your definition of "real flight simmers", but in all honesty, I think you're mistaking your own opinions as those of the majority. Notice I am not saying mine *is* the majority opinion, so I am making a suggestion on a personal basis.

I am an aviation enthusiast, private pilot, and hardcore simmer, and wouldn't mind seeing Pilot Graphics, AI visibility code issues, and a true Fighter Command modelling tackled all at once in BoB. What gets priority is the developers job, not mine.

Back to the issue though. It is exactly because we indirectly look at the hand and legs of the virtual pilot that it is not important for all the detailed animations. However we spend 99%-100% (depending) of our time in cockpit so percentage wise, it has a pretty large portion of the "immersion pie".

Even that split second that you look down and yank the stick around is important since when you add all these split seconds together, they form a very immersive experience in the end.

I believe it requires minimum resources and boosts immersion SIGNIFICANTLY.;-)

knightflyte
12-11-2004, 07:05 AM
Fuser wrote"

I ADMIT that I dont understand "the engine of the sim". I'm just trying to imagine that if they can take an old movie for example (that everyone enjoyed) and remake it with special effects and graphics and all of todays great movie stuff, and then resell the same movie again on DVD and everyone buys it, then why would'nt Oleg and crew basically do the same thing with IL2FBAEPPF??? Is'nt it worth it? When you have processors out there now that are in a totally different class than they were 5 years ago?


If I understand you ... you're saying a past movie could be recreated or produced with todays technology.
Let's say the Star Wars Trilogy that was re released about 5 to 7 years ago. Or, one of my favorite movies as a child was the original King Kong. Phillip Jackson (Lord of the Rings) is remaking it for next year.

Both of these examples mean a fresh start on EVERY aspect of the movie. Everything from cameras, to computer aided design and animation to film stock, actors, editing, represents an EXPENSIVE undertaking. Even a gamble as far as Star Wars is concerned as that was just enhanced version of star Wars, and pushed very heavily by a marketing campaign. (That could have failed, tho I doubt it based on the SW popularity)


Most movies sell on DVD for an average price of $19.99 US. Multiply that by how many folks will buy the Spiderman II DVD just this week and thats when you make money. Everybody wants Spiderman.

A sim like IL2/BOB will sell for 2 or 3 times as much but will sell MANY MANY MANY times less than a Blockbuster DVD.


I highly doubt the profit ratio for a game/sim is anywhere NEAR what the profit ratio for a DVD movie is.

Todays IL2 looks GREAT. I'm happy. If Oleg decides to continue with BOB then I will be a HAPPIER man.

It's just not economically or logistically feasable to "recreate' IL2.

TangmerePhilipp
12-11-2004, 08:33 AM
Remember that DVDs achieve sales because the product has a budget derived from a business plan that relies on movie tickets to generate sales. If the market were DVD only and not theaters, than film quality would definately be less.

Anyway, we need a fresh start. BoB is the PERFECT setting for that!

buz13
12-11-2004, 12:01 PM
Well if we need a system that can play PF on perfect to run BoB smoothly then the longer the development time for BoB the cheaper such a system will be.....and even more powerful systems will be cheaper.....I'm thinking of all the money I'll save by waiting. In the meantime I hope Oleg will continue to develop and release new IL2 series addons that I can purchase to add more $$$$ to the BoB development....How about an addon of a bunch of flyable multi-engine bombers???? Who would buy that? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Popey109
12-11-2004, 12:32 PM
I don€t think Oleg needs to rewrite FB+PF, in many ways our hardware is just now catching up! Not bad for an old game engine. If 3€d party modelers could be persuaded to edit the cockpits and Oleg spent two months adding 6dof€¦AND key€s for lean left lean right so everybody could take advantage, (not just peeps with trk ir) throw in a map or two maybe a bomber! Who here wouldn€t buy that?...even if it came out side by side with BOB€¦ http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-11-2004, 06:28 PM
TangmerePhilipp:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dear Lexx, I am sorry if I offended your definition of "real flight simmers", but in all honesty, I think you're mistaking your own opinions as those of the majority. Notice I am not saying mine *is* the majority opinion, so I am making a suggestion on a personal basis.

I am an aviation enthusiast, private pilot, and hardcore simmer, and wouldn't mind seeing Pilot Graphics, AI visibility code issues, and a true Fighter Command modelling tackled all at once in BoB. What gets priority is the developers job, not mine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My post makes fun of the humour idea of ground based FPS shooter flight sim suggested above.

"private pilots" Pay Attention please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

(and thanks Fuser good joke)

Tang, you may wish to make posts about AI seeing the sun, and even AI taking advantage of the sun (more difficult to program I would imagine). If we get to see your pilot leggs and AI still can't see the sun.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Pilot LeGG

LEXX_Luthor
12-11-2004, 06:41 PM
Popey:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>adding 6dof€¦AND key€s for lean left lean right so everybody could take advantage, (not just peeps with trk ir) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

mmm, mmmm, I guess I...um...would buy both too if I didn't need TrekkieIR. Oleg did say 7 years until Easter Front again. Of course I can't wait THAT long.

leadbaloon
12-11-2004, 07:07 PM
I'd rather not see arms and legs in there. It'd feel like there was someone else in "my" cockpit.

And if I saw a brown paper bag with "Oleg Maddox presents..." written on it I'd buy it 'cause you can be sure that whatever is in it is going to be quality. You just have to worry about the implications for your hardware later...

Also, I like the grass. I do fly that low, and quite often. Though, actually, the technical term might be crashing.

LEXX_Luthor
12-11-2004, 07:12 PM
Maybe all the 6FOD posters here will be willing to do the cockpit re~modding, for all planes and currently modded crew stations.

That I could go buy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

LEXX_Luthor
12-11-2004, 10:39 PM
But would you re~mod the cockpits and crew stations? The real modders, many of them, will be busy with BoB.

LEXX_Luthor
12-12-2004, 06:48 AM
They may or may not enjoy it. They may want to move on to creating new things rather than updating old things. Don't make up stuff you don't know is true to justify your internet webboard posted desires. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Now if you want to send in your money now, then they could hire artists to do the remods. If not, and you want the cockpits re~modded, you do it. (and we thank you, btw)

Philipscdrw
12-12-2004, 08:57 AM
6DOF will not be implemented in Il-2. It's only been stated a thousand times, the modelling effort is better spent implementing new aircraft to the current standards or working on BoB.

Popey109
12-12-2004, 11:12 AM
I€m not shire you€d need to remodel the gunner positions would you? Seems they already move in 6dof but the eye point is fixed, it may be just limit movement in those positions? I don€t know, I€m not a modeler, I don€t even have trkir. But I see the beauty of it and can see how much more immersive this would be in FB+PF. So Hey! I€m just offering another point of view€¦get it€¦point of view€¦I just slay me!... Come on guys! Lighten up€¦FB+PF with or without 6dof is still better than anything else on the market. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BM357_TinMan
12-13-2004, 07:03 AM
BoB-

*Hope it is coded for 64 bit to take advantage of the newer technology that I HOPE will become more and more prevelant over the life of the BoB sim

*Hope that 1c Maddox expandes their new endevour over its life to include the wide variety of TO's and plane sets as they did FB

*Hope it is more "simmy" ie, better weather, better slip slide modeling, better CEM, switchable tanks and CG given proper emphasis, etc (the human in the cockpit is unnecessary at best and in the way at worst)

-FBPFAEP
*I would be happy, for the most part, to pay one more time for this game if the last bit of bugs were cleaned up and 6dof were added, then 1c Maddox turned their attention completely to BoB

BM357_TinMan
12-13-2004, 08:02 AM
btw fuse -ot

I just received shipping confirm on my Vector Expansion http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Can't wait to try it out in FS2K4

Let me see, Finals are finished on Thursday...
I should receive my vector expansion on Thursday...

Have to go to K.C. to celebrate 11 years of marriage with my wife of Friday...Come back on Sunday....got VFG meeting sunday...back to work on Monday...

Ahh man, R/L is always getting in the way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Anyway, you and I will have to set aside some time to do some FS2k4 with Vector expansion sometime soon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
12-13-2004, 09:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fuser59:
Dont you understand that there are PLENTY of good programmers out there who are looking for work such as the work provided by 1c ??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its down to money and schedules. Right now 1C is concentrating on sorting PF out and then BoB. These things are planned over years and changing schedules is not easy when your talking about big money projects planned in advance. Belive me, I work in this field and changing designs or direction at the end of a project is akin to shooting yourself in the foot in the long term, especially in terms of QA assurance. It screws your next projects time wise.

This new feature looks great but the cost of hiring all the programmers and 3D modellers needed would be almost like making a new game...so they go with the cost effective option and make a new game.

Aaron_GT
12-13-2004, 09:45 AM
Oleg,

A couple of years ago someone posted a link (I probably have it in my bookmarks somewhere) on a innovative scenery mesh system that promised very good results. The initial versions appeared to be open source (it was originally designed by a PhD student in the USA I think). It might be worth a look for BoB.

Also Target For Tonight (nightbomber.com) seems to have ground to a halt but there may be viable 3D models that people there might consider contributing to BoB. (e.g. Lancaster, Stirling, etc).

Aaron_GT
12-13-2004, 09:53 AM
"Belive me, I work in this field and changing designs or direction at the end of a project is akin to shooting yourself in the foot in the long term, especially in terms of QA assurance. It screws your next projects time wise."

It depends, I suppose, if you subscribe to the traditional planning methods or extreme programming. However XP's record of delivering working products is patchy and it also tends to require that product versions be shipped unfinished at first and shipped often and might not be a viable model for development for BoB. So that leaves the traditional method of requirements capture, specification, coding, testing and iterative coding and testing thereafter. And as you say, it is not easy to change half way through especially with something the complexity of BoB.

With BoB you have a physics engine, complex data structures, a graphics engine, weather engine, AI, etc., and a complex series of compromises on the CPU or GPU resources that can be allocated to each to get the best balance of fidelity between each of them. (If they did not have to compete for resources on a single PC it would probably make life a lot easier). It's a complex set up.

Adding more team members is a case of diminishing return as you end up with additional communication overhead unless you can specify things very cleanly initially and have a modular system with very well defined interactions and few dependencies. I would imagine that Oleg is trying to arrange things to be specified in this way so that it is easier to bring in extra effort onto some areas if required, but that specification alone is going to be no mean feat.

Some small operations do manage some quite impressive results. Targetware is a small team in terms of the programming effort as is X-Plane. But Targetware lags behind IL2 in terms of graphic fidelity and completeness and X-Plane has been in development for over 10 years, and Oleg's team isn't that big, so the end result is impressive.

Of course the more the better from my perspective! :-)

carguy_
12-13-2004, 11:51 AM
LOL you guys cry for a new 3d graphics and I won`t be able to run on max for another 2 years on this game LOL

I know it will take some years for BoB to give me the opporunity to fly whichever Me109 I like,I just hope Oleg will take a look at evolution of IL2 aircraft set and pick those mandatory in a western front sim.

I`m pretty sure FBAEPPF merge will be better for me than BoB because I doubt I won`t get bored with BoB being a MAJOR GRAPHIC SUPER GAME you all want.There is another factor.It will take a long time for me to fly against so many types of enemy flying cannon fodder:P47,P39,Yak,Corsair...too long to say it all.

I wouldn`t mind the merge to be worked opon for maybe 2 more years,then again I guess it can stay like it is for now(except for the bad dots).

I just hope there will be ppl online to fly with/against.The excellence of FBAEPPF merge will surpass BoB for a long time IMO.

Bananimal65
12-13-2004, 10:01 PM
My initial comments about including a true pilot entity was directed toward BoB.

Think of it this way. When your mission starts you start in a briefing room with other 3D Pilots. You get your mission, got to the flight ready room and gear up. Then walk or be driven out to your bird while the ground crew is prepping your aircraft and removing the chocks.

You walk around your aircraft and inspect it. Then all of a sudeden the air raid siren goes off. Your airbase is under attack. You climb into your bird and fire her up, taxi out to the runway and get airborne.

Although it may not be necessary it will certainly add to the realism. Right now when my plane gets shot down it's just that. My PLANE has bee shot down or damaged. I feel no connection that I am a virtual pilot in the game but just the driver of multiple aircraft within the sim.

Been doing this a long time and have been waiting for a feature like this. I'm not looking for a FPS type intergration into the sim but more emphasis on the pilot character would take BoB to the next level. this is JMO.

LEXX_Luthor
12-13-2004, 11:23 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif After you watch yourself in 3D once or twice, you press ESCAPE button to skip the pilot video. Its a Waste of Programming unless the game has no content and needs all the Pilot Video and 3D Debriefing Room it can get. This could explain why past flight sims relied on pilot videos as the most immersive part of their gaming.


What would be ~nice~ is a map of your assigned mission with waypoints, objectives, and related friendly flights in the area as well as some degree of information on expected enemy aircraft and flak, but not including "unexpected" surprises--enemy or even friendly. Sometimes friendly flights showed up to help others under attack. The briefing map you should be able to print within the game before your flight and keep the printed map in your chair as you fly the mission, write notes on it in pencil or pen just like real life.



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

fuser, if you want to talk, we can talk. But please don't make claims here about what the modders do or don't enjoy. We shall cover this again if you wish. One thing you may consider is they don't have TIME to remod the cockpits for 6FOD, let alone lack of money, because of work needed done on finishing what is already planned for FB/PF and starting on BoB and Battle of Poland/France addon pac for BoB (already announced).


fuser:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
There is no reason why "I" should have to be the modder since I'm not trained in the field of programming; however, I feel confident that those that work with 1c would certainly do it for a fee. I would even BET that they would enjoy the challenges of it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

crazyivan1970
12-13-2004, 11:58 PM
I am starting to wonder how many more threads will slip into that 6dof direction... God i miss FW190 view posts and 50 cal spread one... Opps.. did i say out out loud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GAU-8
12-14-2004, 02:59 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif BAM! here, have a smiley..on me.


youve been BAM!ed by

"the cannon man"

Chivas
12-15-2004, 01:34 AM
I'd like to see Oleg complete this patch then forget about IL-2/FB/PF. IL-2's come along way baby, but its time for Oleg to move on to a bigger and better BOB and Beyond.

While Oleg concentrates on BOB there is more than enough content in IL-2/FB/PF to keep us busy for another year and two weeks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I know most of us arn't happy unless we have something to whine about so carry on, nobody listens to us anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Thanks Oleg you've made alot of Combat Flight Simmers very happy. Hope to see more of your quality work.

Chivas

AndyJoyhill
12-15-2004, 09:15 AM
Speaking of Bob... Maybe Oleg should come up with a different name? Rowan already named their game BoB and if Oleg's BoB gets as much updates as Il-2 did you'll one day be flying "Battle of Britain: Pacific Conflict", "Battle of Britain: Tobruk to El-Alamein" and "Battle of Britain: Winter and Continuation Wars". Sounds a little weird to me.

Gibbage1
12-15-2004, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I am starting to wonder how many more threads will slip into that 6dof direction... God i miss FW190 view posts and 50 cal spread one... Opps.. did i say out out loud http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your wish is my command! <Insert evil grin>

This is all very cool. But with standards this high, I doubt we will see as much 3rd party modeling done in BoB as we did in IL2-PF.

Popey109
12-15-2004, 06:08 PM
Gibbeg how many variants of the PBY are you doing? I don€t have the specks but remember reading about a field mode with four 0.50€s added to the nose, and one with 20 mils. I think it was called the black cats squadron but don€t hold me to it. I flew one in CFS2 some years ago, was great fun strafing ships http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif and when are you going too start editing cockpits for 6dof http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif J\K

WWMaxGunz
12-16-2004, 03:22 AM
Fuser. Start and end you show how little you know.

Expect BoB to have **many** times overall the detail and fidelity per model.
And then you want more models as well?

Please wake up, faster CPU's do not make the development time shorter for this,
every part has to be crafted, made to work, checked and corrected more than you
would believe (go betatest something, beta is easy compared to making it and I
can tell you now you will get sick of it before long) before release. Even if
you have done all you can to be right as possible, even if you feel that the sim
has come as close as possible, there will be clowns who know little or nothing
who will put your work down or outright trash it, you, your fellow workers and
your country as well when they don't get what they imagined -- and imagination
is even cheaper than hollywood film or comic books.

Perhaps in time the next sim will have many player planes even if only one or a
few available at once. But in time only if the high quality is to stand. Not the
first release. That is from people who know what is capable of being from practice
as in professional working with the machines. Maybe it would be wiser to take their
word for it or at least respect what is written. Total reality is NOWHERE NEAR on
PC's so the sim maker chooses a point of how close (nowhere what many people think)
and works from there how wide the field can be, as in how many flyable planes, etc.

And then you come along with more, more, more?
Man, give it a rest.

carguy_
12-16-2004, 05:17 AM
I certanly hope the FW190 forward view will be remade via realistic requirements.

Aaron_GT
12-16-2004, 06:54 AM
" and becomming more powerful thus allowing programmers to deliver "MORE AND MORE GOOD STUFF!" "

It might be worth looking at the informative article in last week's Economist magazine on the issues with handling complex software projects. Whilst improved CPU performance offers the ability for PCs to handle additional features as WWMazGunz pointed out this has little bearing on the ability to code these features. More complex features often require more complex coding and thus take longer. There is a critical issue with tools and methologies for software production that are becoming more problematic as projects become larger and more complex.

The areas where technology advances may help Oleg are:

1. Improved digital cameras for capturing original images for translation into the game

2. The introduction of 3D cameras (minolta springs to mind) and reconstruction tools that can produce 3D models directly from a photo snap. This could, in theory, reduce the requirement for modellers to create original models in 3DS Max, etc. Refinement (reduction of poly count would still be required). The cameras are not cheap, though (1000+ for one that could do things like digitise parts of a cockpit) and stitching together multiple captures to form a whole cockpit would be complex and require a lot of computing power.

3. Improved CPU power to do things like modelling of aerodynamics from which simpler models could be generated.

However I doubt Oleg has the time to invest in these speculative technologies. They might be useful for the sim AFTER BoB, though.

WWMaxGunz
12-16-2004, 08:03 AM
The point is give it a rest, willya?

I didn't beta this sim. I am a customer who is overall happy enough to trust
Oleg and Team to make another at least as good as IL2. I expect it to look
and act better. I do not expect for piles of flyables in the first release.
I also understand business and programming from the been there, done it end.

How about if you want something radically different than planned then do it
yourself? More this, more that, more everything, all better... go for it.
Just close yer eyes and wave yer wand or maybe you've got the jack to work
on an everything, lots and better by miles product for years while paying a
team to get it done the entire time since you won't be selling anything till
it's just way beyond IL2/FB/AEP/PF is now? Do you know how long the original
IL2 took to bring to market? Remember how many flyables it had? That's at
the detail level of then which is well less than now.

BM357_Raven
12-16-2004, 08:54 PM
Hey Fuser, what's up? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Heya fellas S~ Everyone.

What have I been missing? Anything juicy? hehe

From what I've scrolled through (the bits and pieces), it looks to me like things have gotten a little hot in here. Is it hot in here?

Forums in general can do that to a group of people. Sharing ideas can be a downward spiral to warfare sometimes..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Maybe fellas can take a step back from this post and either bring it back into a discussion format or just take another two steps back and stay there..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WWMaxGunz
12-17-2004, 02:22 AM
As far as I have seen they want not just programmer but also aero engineer or that
kind of HIGHLY qualified persons. The reasons are many.

Willey
12-18-2004, 05:37 PM
Bump http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

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