Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SvAF/F19_Klunk

Good interview..For newcomers to this engine: RoF.. and "new" IL2

Recommended Posts

For all of you who have never flown in RoF. To get a good impressions about the team's ambitions and perspective,  this interview done byt SIMHQ this past summer tells alot, It's a 3 part interview with Albert Zhiltsov

 

http://www.simhq.com/_air14/air_526a.html

 

He talks a lot about the FM in the platform..very imformative

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Q&A,

 

Did I read this correctly? There are slight random variations between the same airplane every time you take off? Would be cool to have that in BOS. Not a 100% clone of each aircraft but a realistic performance spread, say a few percent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 Thanks for sharing! As said before, I really like the way Jason and 777 Studios keep people informed. It is a lot of information in a well put out style with pics and videos if needed. Not every day or even every week, but regurarly. Posting when there is something to post and keeping the crowd in the knowing. So more than happy to see this style carrying over to BoS as well :)

Edited by Flanker35M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great Q&A,

 

Did I read this correctly? There are slight random variations between the same airplane every time you take off? Would be cool to have that in BOS. Not a 100% clone of each aircraft but a realistic performance spread, say a few percent.

Yes you did. Each plane is a little different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Klunk that was a very good interview..  thanks for the link. I remember seeing that when it first came out and I kind of looked past it. Who knew that that would be where I'd be headed...  What I found particularly impressive was:

 

Jonas: What attracts you to modeling the English Channel / La Manche?

Albert: First of all, the new model of interaction of the seaplane with water. This is a completely new experience in piloting. In the current simulators, this component [landing on water] is made arbitrarily and in fact we do not yet have the answer to the question of "how it was", so I really want to get it

. The map itself will be very different from what we have now ???

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Channel Map] "Of course, this map is [potentially] just perfect for Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt. At least one can dream."

 

 

No it's not.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for the 98% of online players the short distance between Calais and Hawkinge or Manston takes them to long to get some shooting. They even have not time to get higher than 50m or get more fuel than maybe 20%. Well, you can still dump your plane in the channel when out of ammo... 

Edited by PrvtSNAFU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, for the 98% of online players the short distance between Calais and Hawkinge or Manston takes them to long to get some shooting. They even have not time to get higher than 50m or get more fuel than maybe 20%. Well, you can still dump your plane in the channel when out of ammo... 

 

Couldn't disagree more.  98% you say?

 

Nevermind size, the map is 30 years out of date by 1940.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Osprey its from the 20th June 2012.  So its about RoF, not BoS.  However maybe they new something then that we did not.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that Albert is the 'Oleg' of ROF:

 

Albert: I am the author of the project, i.e. I'm the guy who said "let's do it." Since the idea always entails responsibility for its realization, I then got the role as the producer of the project.

 

Will he have the same role in the development of BoS?

 

Interesting quote, as also highlighted by Bearcat:

 

Jonas: Is there any chance of spawning infantry (like in IL-2, and early versions of European Air War and Red Baron II)?

Albert: There is always a chance, but there is no this kind of work in our plans. All the benefits of a more modern hardware, we have spent on exploiting other techniques and features. If you are not careful with such treatment, you will have a project, which states a lot, but very little of this works. As we have seen with some other titles. To write a press release and to write a code for the project are very different tasks.

 

There are alot of suggestions/requests for features that would be great to have, but here the developer is pretty clear that there are limitations regarding what is perceived as possible. Kind of a cautionary sentiment: time to temper expectations.

 

But then there is this, more (conditionally) optimistic one:

 

Do you ever feel that you are competing against yourself? Do you ever feel that you might find it hard to live up to your past accomplishments?

Albert: Yes, every step up the hill is heavier than the previous one, it???

Edited by Walrus1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A very fine interview series.

 

I'm glad that the developers are willing to go into detail about the guts of their engine in interviews. I'm also glad to read that they're not promising the moon with every question. In such a market climate for these types of games, it's good to know your limits and proceed cautiously - but with hope.

 

I'm choosing to be optimistic about the future of flight simming and WWII flight simming in general. There are several very good products available to people as of this time (such as the A2A 'Accusim' series of WWII aircraft, Cliffs of Dover, BoB2 is still being updated and improved) and now we have Battle of Stalingrad to look forward to.

 

I don't think there's really any other way to assume the result of this project other than to look at the care and attention that was paid to Rise of Flight and assume that they'll be using the same level of care and attention with Battle of Stalingrad. No assuming this or that feature is or isn't part of the finished product. They're different products. If Rise of Flight isn't your thing, that's fine, but there's quality there. I'm excited to see how that level of game quality ends up in the new project.

 

Doubters may be pleasantly surprised and boosters may be slightly disappointed, but there's no use being definitive about how you feel about the game until its on your drive or you're reading a review.

Edited by No401Wolverine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess that Albert is the 'Oleg' of ROF:

 

Albert: I am the author of the project, i.e. I'm the guy who said "let's do it." Since the idea always entails responsibility for its realization, I then got the role as the producer of the project.

 

Will he have the same role in the development of BoS?

 

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/rise-of-flight-albert-zhiltsov

 

 

Albert Zhiltsov is a game producer at the neoqb company. Albert has been working in the game development industry since 2004. He became interested in this area as an active member of the fan community of a legendary game ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Channel Map] "Of course, this map is [potentially] just perfect for Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt. At least one can dream."

 

 

No it's not.

Actually it's not bad for the end phase of the Battle of France and opening phases of the Battle of Britain or the "Channel War" where Hurricanes and Spitfires countered the 109s and Stukas attacking shipping in the channel.

 

Some of the map would have to be changed to appear as 1940 rather than 1916/1918 but it's not like Dunkirk is going anywhere :)

 

It'd also be a good small scale dogfight map with a fairly short distance over the channel between France and England for a shoot em up somewhere in between. Could be useful. For a bigger scale Battle of Britain we'd of course need more of France to include the Luftwaffe bases and much more of England to include London and a bit north. But I suspect everyone knows that.

 

Anyways the interview is very interesting and gives me a lot of faith and hope in this new IL-2 project. I'm hoping to not be disappointed but it's way too soon to know and I feel positive right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Albert has been working in the game development industry since 2004. He became interested in this area as an active member of the fan community of a legendary game ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of trust in this man :).

 

Also in the other team members of former 777.......

 

I know Han is an excellent project leader, with his head in the right place and capable to motivate a team and he knows his priorities. With the open beta team, he takes his time to communicate and reply to every issue raised.

 

An. Petrovich I have a huge amount of respect for...and he is more than qualified to be in charge of flight models. The resulkt will be unique, in a good way :)

 

As for the former 1C guys, I don't want to start the discussion again..but personally I think CloD has failed commercially because of a lot of bad design decisions that were over ambitious and took away the product's future. But CloD knows a lot of great technical achievements and awesome 2D and 3D work. So if the technical guys from 1C are part of this merger, that will add a lot of quality to the team.

 

It would be good to get to know some of them as they are all unfamiliar names to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 But CloD knows a lot of great technical achievements and awesome 2D and 3D work. So if the technical guys from 1C are part of this merger, that will add a lot of quality to the team.

 

 

 

Yes indeed, hopefully this new sim will be able to use some of the best from both teams!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I look at what he said in that interview about the RoF business model I can not help but wonder if all the "free stuff" that we all myself included took for granted in IL2 contributed to the demise of CoD because they ran out of resources. The product had so much potential and yet it had problems before it was launched.. that was why it took so long. I have no idea what we will get with this sim (BoS) .. I just want a sim that is technically "modern" as far as all the things that make me want to do this thing we do in the first place..  I still fly IL2 because it is good.. still.. but it is old. I hope that RoF has a CEM model that is at the very least a notch or two above IL2s..it doesn't have to be as fully realized as CoDs.. That would be nice mind you .. but for me and maybe it is because CoD had so many issues .. I still compare what I want in a WWII sim to IL2. I is is dated yes.. but it is for me the measuring stick that I use. I don't want a FMB that is more cumbersome than the one in IL2 .. I want one that is at least as cumbersome .. especially if it is more powerful but I would prefer one that is easier and more powerful. I want a sim that has the potential to be able to cross into those other theaters on a regular interval so that in 4-6 years I will have the Med, and carriers, and Cats .. and Zekes.. and Spits etc.. I know that CoD does so many things very well but it had so many issues, and still does, that even the folks who designed it walked away from it.. So for me it is a moot point as far as placing any hopes or dreams in in any way shape or form. For me. I hoped and dreamed for that sim from 2006 to 2011.. Now it looks like there is something that can potentially take me to that next level of WWII simming above IL2 because everything that I have flown from BoBII to WT has not .. DCS as great as that Mustang is.. it isn't a WWII sim so.. meh.. The thing that makes BoS so potentially great to me is that it seems the Devs have a plan.. and they have some proven stuff out there.. So I am psyched and looking forward to 2014..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems the Devs have a plan.. and they have some proven stuff out there.

 

This

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that CoD does so many things very well but it had so many issues, and still does, that even the folks who designed it walked away from it..

 

Curious: are you saying the game developers, i.e. Oleg, then Luthier, left CoD out of frustration?

 

My impression based on reading what I have read in the CoD and this forum was that it was corporate decision makers who lost faith in the development team, cancelled the sequel, and turned the project over to 777.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Channel Map] "Of course, this map is [potentially] just perfect for Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt. At least one can dream."

 

 

No it's not.

 

Potentially - existing in possibility, capable of development into actuality

 

I think that the current map could be re-developed into a WWII Channel map.  Why not?  WWI and the Battle of Britain were a short 22 years apart.  Sure, remove the front line, add onto cities, replace and remove aerodromes, update harbors.  The landscape never changed.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't disagree more.  98% you say?

 

Nevermind size, the map is 30 years out of date by 1940.

 

Well, that was at least my online - experience on public CloD Servers like ATAG or REPKA and what mostly put me off CloD. The enviroment didn?

Edited by PrvtSNAFU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious: are you saying the game developers, i.e. Oleg, then Luthier, left CoD out of frustration?

 

My impression based on reading what I have read in the CoD and this forum was that it was corporate decision makers who lost faith in the development team, cancelled the sequel, and turned the project over to 777.

No I don't know why they left. I am just figuring that if CoD had been released in working order they would still be around and we might not be here now. If the product had been making money there would have been no need for them to leave. I also don't know who the initiator of this joint venture was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially - existing in possibility, capable of development into actuality

 

I think that the current map could be re-developed into a WWII Channel map. Why not? WWI and the Battle of Britain were a short 22 years apart. Sure, remove the front line, add onto cities, replace and remove aerodromes, update harbors. The landscape never changed.

Actually, it probably wont be long before someone exports it from RoF and imports it into BoS. Someone from the community, I mean :). Dont need 1CGS for that! Only to make the 109s, Heinkels, Spits and Hurricanes.. Edited by hq_Jorri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also like what Albert says about a simulator as a sort of education and dealing with history. Exactely my thoughts (CsThor, where are you ;) ).

It?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[Channel Map] "Of course, this map is [potentially] just perfect for Spitfire vs. Messerschmitt. At least one can dream."

 

 

No it's not.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...