SOLIDKREATE Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Wow so much attention to detail on the Spitfire. The fact that you are verifying it's designs awesome news and a testament to the quality of work you guy put out. It's a real shame all those pilots left a couple of years ago. They sure missed out and I am sure they are kicking themselves now. 3
Voidhunger Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 On a side note, did you managed to close the cockpit with Han in it or did you flew i16 style ? He is bigger than he looks on his avatar Ha
Trooper117 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 They sure missed out and I am sure they are kicking themselves now. Why have they missed out? Are they excluded from buying the game? 4
Blooddawn1942 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I guess somehow a part of them excluded them self out of pure ignorance and false pride. Btw. Can't wait to fly a Spitfire in this sim. I guess they even beat the AccuSim Spitfire, though of course not in terms of system fidelity.
BMA_FlyingShark Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 They sure missed out and I am sure they are kicking themselves now. Nobody is stopping them from coming back. 2
Blitzen Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Ah - a Lufthansa Tante Ju...now if we only had a Moscow airport to land on! Maybe someday we'll have a more complete city to take tourist flights over in this corrugated bird? 1
FuriousMeow Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Why have they missed out? Are they excluded from buying the game? No, they just stomped their feet and acted like children deriding the current state of the game despite it being advertised exactly as it would be.
Roast Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Very welcome, exciting and excellent news again, especially about you guys reworking the whole Spitfire design. And indeed very logical to do so, also because of the changed [added] heavier armament. As always, keep up the good work and I look forward to next week already!
II/JG11_ATLAN_VR Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Many many great steps forward good Works devs
Rjel Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Weeks like this in my gaming experience are few and far between. The big update yesterday and DD today proves to me that I and many, many others made the right choice when we signed on for the early access of BoS sight unseen. I'm glad I had the chance to watch this sim grow and mature. I think it's only just started a very long journey. 1
Trooper117 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 No, they just stomped their feet and acted like children deriding the current state of the game despite it being advertised exactly as it would be. This crap has to stop... even Jason has said with all the changes coming up he hopes it will draw people back into the game. All the stupid fanboi rhetoric will just continue to to annoy people, instead of trying to mend fences... They are not excluded, we should be doing everything to help Jason and the dev's bring these people back and increase sales, not make statements sure to annoy and drive people away... 4
Gunsmith86 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I have the impression that many of these who left because they didn´t like it revisit the game since BoK was presented to us.
Gambit21 Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I have the impression that many of these who left because they didn´t like it revisit the game since BoK was presented to us. Yep I didn't "leave" so to speak, but I was inactive, not flying, not paying much attention to the forums. I hadn't purchased Moscow because I wasn't going to even go that far until I saw a plan beyond the Eastern Front. Once Jason made the announcement I got all caught up.
ZnarF Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Good news! The only potential downside is the use of OpenVR for Oculus....it seems native Oculus SDK provides both less latency and ATW than OpenVR/Vive...these aspect being quite important for an optimal VR experience (like in War Thunder, I feel the Oculus CV1 experience more perfect than in Vive).... Time will tell!
pilotpierre Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 This is far far beyond anything done by previous flight sim developers methinks, and I am talking as far back as Falcon on an Atari 512.
FuriousMeow Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) This crap has to stop... even Jason has said with all the changes coming up he hopes it will draw people back into the game. All the stupid fanboi rhetoric will just continue to to annoy people, instead of trying to mend fences... They are not excluded, we should be doing everything to help Jason and the dev's bring these people back and increase sales, not make statements sure to annoy and drive people away... Has nothing to do with "fanboi rhetoric" and there are no fences to be mended. There were no attacks from a new WW2 startup game/sim, there was nothing that drew the ire of some - it was a new shot of life into a new WW2 game/sim that would take years to become just as developed as 1946 as that took over a decade to come to fruition. I'll leave it at that. Edited October 21, 2016 by FuriousMeow 1
Caudron431 Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Wow! Giant steps!!! Again!!! 1CGS team is pushing the enveloppe, and it's so awesome Thanks, you rule the sim world...
Adj Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) This update and the future plans of the developers are good news for all those interested WWll flight sims. Edited October 21, 2016 by Adj
zxwings Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) Great news! Allow me to point out something that needs further consideration. Is it valid, when trying to make an accurate comparison, to superpose a blueprint of a machine directly on the machine's real-life photo, particularly when it is a large object? The object in the photo is subject to perspective, but the blueprint of it is not, so these two things are bound to look inconsistent in certain ways. In this case (the first image below), the photographer of the Spitfire photo is near the nose of the aircraft, as is evident if one pays attention to the front wheels, so the rudder will be narrowed in the photograph, just like the passenger cars of the train photo (see below), where the farther the car is, the shorter it looks, despite that fact that the cars are actually identical in length. For a careful verification, a complete 3D model of the aircraft viewed from precisely the same camera position as that in the real-life photo is needed. Edited October 22, 2016 by zxwings
Jason_Williams Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Great news! There is something however that needs further consideration. Is it valid, when trying to make an accurate comparison, to superpose a blueprint of a machine directly on the machine's real-life photo, particularly when it is a large object? The object in the photo is subject to perspective, but the blueprint of it is not, so the these two things are bound to look inconsistent in certain ways. In this case (the first image below), the photographer of the Spitfire photo is near the nose of the aircraft, as is evident if one pays attention to the front wheels, so the rudder will be narrowed in the photograph, just like the passenger cars of the train photo (see below), where the farther the car is, the shorter it looks, despite that fact that the cars are actually identical in length. For a careful verification, a complete 3D model of the aircraft viewed from precisely the same camera position as that in the real-life photo is needed. Han is just explaining why we make the decisions we do and demonstrating that different models produce slightly different results in 3D and we have our own engine and standards. You're reading too much into that image it's much more than that. We catch flak by some users who get mad when we use CLOD based models to save time, so we chose not to save any time and make virtually from scratch due to some variances we spotted. Some get mad when we don't use them. It's a no win situation. Anyways, life goes on. Jason 4
Urra Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Han is just explaining why we make the decisions we do and demonstrating that different models produce slightly different results in 3D and we have our own engine and standards. You're reading too much into that image it's much more than that. We catch flak by some users who get mad when we use CLOD based models to save time, so we chose not to save any time and make virtually from scratch due to some variances we spotted. Some get mad when we don't use them. It's a no win situation. Anyways, life goes on. Jason Some are happy you're working on it.
NumeroX Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 If this is a dream... Kill me so that I never wake up!!!
kissklas Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Most are happy with what you do. The quality is very very good. I mean, if the polycount, shape and topology is good enough as a base, go for it! In the end no one would probably notice if you used Clod models to work from:-)
J2_Trupobaw Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) Ah - a Lufthansa Tante Ju...now if we only had a Moscow airport to land on! Maybe someday we'll have a more complete city to take tourist flights over in this corrugated bird? According to Wiki then - international aeroport in Moscow, Khodynka was just NW from Moscow... on flyable area or just outside the map . Edit- It's just outside flyable area. I've made a landing appproach and was just touching the runway when ATC forced me to abort landing and turn back west. Edited October 21, 2016 by Trupobaw
Lusekofte Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 (edited) Makes me wonder what to upgrade to next. A VR set of a big ass monitor and 4K. Checked out a 4K This question eat me up ..... Real pain in the ass VR or not is the question Nice to see the devotion from dev team, thx for the update Edited October 21, 2016 by 216th_LuseKofte
VBF-12_Stick-95 Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Jason, as they say, there’s never enough time to do it right, but there’s always enough time to do it over. You're doing it right the first time.
Beazil Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 Am I the only one that wants to bomb Thomas the Train from a Stuka with a 1000 lb bomb? I want to see that model in game! :D Another great update. 2
Freycinet Posted October 21, 2016 Posted October 21, 2016 That red and white Tante Ju is beautiful... Thanks for a huge update and dev. diary!
zxwings Posted October 22, 2016 Posted October 22, 2016 Han is just explaining why we make the decisions we do and demonstrating that different models produce slightly different results in 3D and we have our own engine and standards. You're reading too much into that image it's much more than that. We catch flak by some users who get mad when we use CLOD based models to save time, so we chose not to save any time and make virtually from scratch due to some variances we spotted. Some get mad when we don't use them. It's a no win situation. Anyways, life goes on. Jason Ah, as long as that kind of comparison is not involved in judging what is correct and what is wrong, it is perfectly acceptable. So I misinterpreted its use. Thank you for explaining it.
JG4_Sputnik Posted October 22, 2016 Posted October 22, 2016 Call me lazy but I think it would be wiser to leave the spit as it is and put the free ressources into a new plane model of completely new plane. Since the FM is also "only" 95% I think the 3D model could be 95% as well and that's good enough. Nobody will notice the difference, no CLoD player ever noticed anyways.
Missionbug Posted October 22, 2016 Posted October 22, 2016 (edited) Thank you very much guys for all your efforts so far, really appreciated. Han is just explaining why we make the decisions we do and demonstrating that different models produce slightly different results in 3D and we have our own engine and standards. You're reading too much into that image it's much more than that. We catch flak by some users who get mad when we use CLOD based models to save time, so we chose not to save any time and make virtually from scratch due to some variances we spotted. Some get mad when we don't use them. It's a no win situation. Anyways, life goes on. Jason I think all appreciate the efforts that are to be made by the team Jason in regard to the 3D but I have not yet seen a post that is actually critical of the quality of the models used in CLoD be they aircraft or otherwise, that said there might be I just did not see them. As far as I am concerned the team should use whatever resources they have available to them considering your staff is small and under very tight budget constraints, there are many CLoD aircraft that could be utilised in the current Eastern front scenarios even if only as AI to give a broader range of types to increase the immersion and playability of the titles we already have, that way efforts could be put into actually creating what is not available rather than duplicating work already done. Just for the record I would buy CLoD again at the normal full price if it was available to us from 1C/777 in the same way the current titles are without the need to use Steam, oh and with the current enhancements provided by Team Fusion of course. Wishing you all the very best, Pete. Edited October 22, 2016 by Missionbug
[CPT]Pike*HarryM Posted October 22, 2016 Posted October 22, 2016 Spit is a collectors plane, so there would no doubt be some howls of protest if they charge special price for a "recycled" plane.
AztekMercilessFatBoy Posted October 24, 2016 Posted October 24, 2016 what we need a map per year of the war on each front for proper representation of the fronts, and the ability to create proper campaigns, this ones with so little aircraft on the air and units on the ground are boring, also the ability to jump from aircraft to aircraft and between Germans and Russia destroy any chance of immersion you could get. it feel like playing quick mission builder lol. also bring back the time skip, some of us actually have jobs, and having us wasting time till the aircraft get to the action is just plain..... you know what. and also you need to relaunch battle of britain as part of this system, i never bought it, but i will if you integrate it into this sim., i know many would too
Roast Posted October 24, 2016 Posted October 24, 2016 (edited) what we need a map per year of the war on each front for proper representation of the fronts, and the ability to create proper campaigns, this ones with so little aircraft on the air and units on the ground are boring, also the ability to jump from aircraft to aircraft and between Germans and Russia destroy any chance of immersion you could get. it feel like playing quick mission builder lol. also bring back the time skip, some of us actually have jobs, and having us wasting time till the aircraft get to the action is just plain..... you know what. and also you need to relaunch battle of britain as part of this system, i never bought it, but i will if you integrate it into this sim., i know many would too Hmm, most of what you are suggesting is personal taste, but I must admit I agree with you on the 'limited' plane set, which could be a bit larger [but not like the original Maddox IL-2 sim]. I was thinking along the lines of RoF, where additional planes can be bought. No super-planes, just a way to introduce the IAR-80 into the game after all [after the poll], as well as the Henschel 123, i-153, Avia B-534 and CR.42. IL-2 BOS/BOM is great as it is, and the above is just my personal taste, but I think that I am not the only one who would love to see a few more [less regular] planes introduced in an already great sim Edited October 24, 2016 by Roast
ShamrockOneFive Posted October 24, 2016 Posted October 24, 2016 what we need a map per year of the war on each front for proper representation of the fronts, and the ability to create proper campaigns, this ones with so little aircraft on the air and units on the ground are boring, also the ability to jump from aircraft to aircraft and between Germans and Russia destroy any chance of immersion you could get. it feel like playing quick mission builder lol. also bring back the time skip, some of us actually have jobs, and having us wasting time till the aircraft get to the action is just plain..... you know what. and also you need to relaunch battle of britain as part of this system, i never bought it, but i will if you integrate it into this sim., i know many would too They are working towards that. Kuban in 2017, Midway in 2018-19, etc. It does take time for a small dev to work through the content necessary to cover a very expansive scenario. The small number of aircraft is a problem but as you can see in this (and previous dev updates), they are working on making efforts towards improving the AI's CPU hit so that more aircraft and vehicles can be displayed at one time. Which is great. Time skip is back. It now goes to 4X. Though not all CPUs can handle that right now. Battle of Britain isn't on their list but it would be nice. As would Normandy 1944, Okinawa, North Africa, Italy, etc. We've got a long list! :D 1
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now