Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

39 Excellent

1 Follower

About 4Shades

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

309 profile views
  1. Not exactly the same, but similar context using the old IL-2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZKv0Sv91Sg
  2. OT WARNING SEOW had its origins in RAF74 Virtual Squadron around 2003. After a couple of years SEOW established its own identity and became more widely used in the IL-2 community. This was in the pre-modded days of IL-2. Then the first unauthorised mod of IL-2 came along (the "sound mod"). Subsequently several different mod packs became popular, and 242 Squadron decided to compile their own mod pack, called "History Sound Effects", or HSFX for short, focusing on realism and historical pilot immersion. The 242Sqn guys also liked SEOW-style campaigning and developed several code extensions for HSFX to add value to persistent campaigning. The SEOW team heard about this and in the 7 years since there has been continuous cross-fertilisation of ideas and functionality between HSFX and SEOW, and even some feedback into Team Daidalos. HSFX brands itself as SEOW-compliant, and SEOW has a number of optional extensions that rely on specialised HSFX code features. But SEOW and HSFX can operate perfectly well independently of each other. Cheers, 4S
  3. And I believe that the Storm of War team is building a persistent campaign system as an add-on for CLOD...
  4. Mechy was probably referring to SEOW which is still alive and working with IL-2 1946. This is not a game mod. Rather it is an add-on that provides a detailed campaign system around a series of sequential (in time) coops that involve air, sea and ground actions generated by human orders. It presently supports over 90 IL-2 1946 maps. As an aside, the new development in SEOW now is focusing on adding Arma2 (Iron Front) into SEOW, so campaign missions can be played either in IL-2 (as a pilot) or in Iron Front (as a soldier) or both games, allowing players a greater range of sim experience as the campaign progresses. Cheers, 4Shades
  5. I remember asking Oleg for something similar about 10 years ago. He agreed and it was put into the IL-2 campaign debrief window, along with geographic location of air kills etc. It is still a good idea to have a feature like this, and something that the developers here should certainly consider. Just for interest, have a look at the SEOW post-mission stats page for an individual pilot, e.g.: http://seowhq.net/MP4public/Statistics/WesternCarolines/USN_4Shades.html for a simple illustration. It would be good to have something similarly detailed for BOS. Cheers, 4S
  6. Sounds just like the original IL-2 (TD is now adding bombardier support). Funny how the "new" IL-2 is slowly re-discovering the old IL-2.
  7. Sounds just like the IL-2 discussions from 12 years ago. People complaining that dogfight servers are cheezy!!!
  8. "midcore" LOL Let's create a ratings table: lowcore WT, Crimson Skies, ... midcore BOS, IL-2, ROF, ... highcore DCS, Falcon4, CloD? I can just see it now, forums full of "core" wars!!
  9. Sternjaeger is correct, all these things (realism settings like engine failures, gun jams, nav lights/flares etc etc) can be optional so why the disagreements? It is like people get threatened by new ideas. That's not good for a community of an in-development sim.
  10. That is a non sequitur. What I am saying is that if a system can support public servers AND customizable private servers, then that provides maximum choice for the community. And who said anything about locking people out? (you did) Is your solution to take people interested in high realism and FORCE them to play low realism public servers? What purpose would that serve? You would just lose those people from the public servers, as happened in IL-2, or from the game community, as happened in ROF etc etc. It seems that you are struggling with the concept of a rich and varied sim community. Innovation in the IL-2 world did not come from the permanent boredom of furballs (e.g. Spits v 109s etc), it came from people prepared to think outside the box and embrace diversity. What I have seen in IL-2 is that some people who love endless big furballs on public servers seem to want to lock everyone else into doing just that and only that. There is no need to compel ALL players into ONE style of online play. The challenge for the BOS developers is to come up with a rich and attractive experience for players that can generate a revenue stream in the long term.
  11. Amazing thread, for a few reasons. First that someone would suggest an in-cockpit improvement without ever having played the game! Second that people react with hostility when they are given perfectly reasonable answers to their questions! Third that some people would spend heaps of cash on a hot-rod gaming rig to fly flight sims and NOT have TrackIR! And in response to Extreme_one's comment about online flying, I agree, but if you are selective about who you fly with then online flying is the only way to go. The problem is that public servers are not where you normally find high-immersion and realistic sim experiences, so you need a game/sim that allows you to customize your own online experience to suit your needs. Good to see that the BOS community is keeping the UbiZoo experience alive!
  12. Yes, but those games are cheezy rubbish.
  13. Tiger, those COD videos show a much more polished sound model. Well done! Sound would be really hard to model because it is so dependent on physics. Cheers, 4S
  14. The Tiger sounds are good, and it is clear what he is trying to do with them, but the sound model in the first video is still nowhere near realistic.It is just better in several respects than the stock sound model of IL-2. My immediate objections to the sound model above are: 1. The unrealistic sound (level and quality) of the clattering undercarriage on taxying 2. The same sample for successive fly-pasts 3. The unrealistic fall-off with distance on the fly-past Note I am not trying to start a flame war about the various sound mods in IL-2. The point I am trying to make is that a modern sim ought to be developing a sound engine that produces sounds according to aircraft/engine type and state, climate conditions (temperature, humidity etc), the relative position/speed of the observer (fall-off, Doppler effect), etc etc. That's what Oleg's team tried to do a decade ago. Cheers, 4S
  15. OT, sorry, but am I the only person who loves FuriousMeow's avatar pic?
  • Create New...