Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
#3157861 - 12/15/10 08:55 PM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: flying-hamster]  
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,631
Hackl Offline
Senior Member
Hackl  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,631
Kelowna, BC,Canada
I wonder if we are going to be able to engage the clutches on those inertia starters. That would be cool.

Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#3157962 - 12/15/10 10:54 PM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: flying-hamster]  
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 330
steeldelete Offline
Member
steeldelete  Offline
Member

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 330
Switzerland
It seems to me that it's always Thursday!


cogito, ergo zoom
#3158084 - 12/16/10 01:50 AM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: steeldelete]  
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 681
Blackdog_kt Offline
Member
Blackdog_kt  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 681
Originally Posted By: Desode

If SOW had been release a few years ago and had gone the route that ROF took, then I would have more hope.


Actually my opinion is exactly the opposite biggrin
I much prefer a product where things are more or less a complete package on the first install and content updates come in bulk (eg, an expansion with new maps and some flyables) than one where things are shipped half done to be improved if and when time and funds permit and content updates are done partially and on a user-selected basis (single add-on aircraft that i might or might not buy).

The RoF model's main appeal to me would be the freedom of choice one is afforded in choosing what to pay for, instead of paying for a flyable i might never use. On the other hand, this creates an uneven distribution of content among users and hinders the creation of a common base pack for multiplayer. Yes, i know you don't need to buy a plane to have it show up in the game, but what happens if for example i join a server and see it runs a mission that only features planes i didn't buy? Also, a lot of my fun in IL2 consisted of firing it up to try an unkown plane i had never flown before.

It's things like that which convinced me not to invest time and money in RoF. Facing Fokker DVIIs in my DH2 or seeing planes that keep flying without a wing would totally ruin immersion for me and that's half the game from where i'm standing. The best graphics and FM/DM in the world won't do it for me if it feels like a historically disjointed collection of individual features mixed together.

Of course, opinions vary and nobody's saying that yours is wrong. I just thought i'd give a shot at explaining why what you consider good has equal potential to keep people of different priorities from buying the game. wink


As for the debate on wether any mixture burns when using the inertial starter, it depends on what you are doing with it. If i just say "this plane's got an electric starter" i'm not providing enough information. Is it a direct drive starter, an inertia starter (like the one on the 109s and P-47s) or one that combines both mehods (like the one on the B-17)? I think you guys are both right and wrong at the same time, because you didn't specify the detailed conditions for the startup you are discussing thumbsup

The simple explanation is that there's two distinct stages in the inertia starter's use.

The whinning sound comes from spinning up the inertia starter's flywheel. There's usually a two way switch in the cockpit, labelled like "energize-mesh" or "energize-start". When you push the switch to energize, the flywheel starts to spin up with the help of a motor driven either by an auxiliary power source (eg the mechanic's generator cart) or the aircraft battery. In the 109 it's similar but you have your ground crew to energize the starter by manually winding it up before you connect it to the engine. However, in all of these cases the flywheel is not yet connected to the engine and the engine doesn't turn, so no cylinders are firing. So yes, it is incorrect to have flames at this stage (the "whinning sound" part.)

When the flywheel reaches its full RPM (can be judged by the sound pitch reaching a peak and remaining constant), the pilot moves the switch the other way to engage the starter. What this does is connect the already spinning flywheel to the engine via a clutch. The stored energy transfers over and turns the engine around to start it. Here the engine is turning. In this case, the cylinders will always fire as long as there's fuel in the lines and the magnetos are on, so yes, smoke and flames will appear if the rest of the conditions are met.

This also applies to direct starters or even to small hand started aircraft. If you have the ingition on and fuel mixture in the lines, the engine WILL fire when the prop is rotated, which one comes first is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the pistons are driving the prop or if the prop's rotation is driving the pistons, fuel on + ingition on + turning prop = engine fires. This is exactly why when shutting down most real airplanes you have to turn off both the fuel supply and the ignition, to prevent accidents from accidental engine firing which will turn a prop and chop someone's arm off.

For a better feel of it, watch this:



Prop is stationary during the energize phase.


To really know if the video from the mod pack is correct, we would first of all have to know what kind of starter is used in a P-51D. The way they modelled it, it looks like they went with an inertial starter for their mod. As for the entire sequence, there's no fuel burn during the flywheel spin up phase for the reasons described previously in this post, so the flames during that part of the video are indeed wrong.
In any case, IL2 is 10 years old and i don't expect a mod pack to have done research on the type of starter used on every single type in the game. These guys are just providing us with some added enjoyment for free and that's just fine with me. Viewed under this light yes, the effects in the mod pack video are slightly wrong, but they don't really bother me.

As for SoW now, according to an older post by Oleg Maddox we will have the ability to manipulate and operate every single switch in the cockpit (even bomb selection/arming panels), either by assigning it to keyboard and joystick or by clicking on it with the mouse (whichever we prefer) but we will not be getting manual start up sequences.

Start ups will still be automatic, i just hope that they are dynamic and affected by what they have modelled for the engine systems. Eg, even with an auto startup the engine shouldn't always fire after 3 revolutions of the prop when i press the "I" key, but it should be affected by other conditions. We've been led to believe they are already monitored by the game engine ( up to 500 different parameters per aircraft according to Oleg) and they have an impact on the rest of the gameplay anyway, so it makes sense if the game takes them into account during engine starts as well, instead of providing the old "press I, wait for 3-4 turns of the prop and off you go".

In fact, the most important aspect of it all from a tactical standpoint is not to have me click the switches myself (although i would really enjoy fully manual start ups) but to have engines that take a realistic amount of time to start up and reach their operating temperatures depending on ambient atmospheric conditions and other parameters, because that could be incorporated into a lot of small details that enhance overall tactical fun.
For example, i'm playing a dynamic campaign and the mission generator has decided that my squadron is on readiness/alert before the start of the next mission, or that the chain home radars have picked up an incoming raid and my squad knows well ahead of time that we'll be going up to meet them.
It's safe to assume that in this case the mechanics would be periodically starting and shutting down the engines to keep them relatively warm, so that when the order comes to scramble they will start quickly and will not require us to wait for a warm up. I spawn in the mission, press the "I" key and the engine comes to life with minimal fuss.

Let's assume now that for the next mission the dynamic campaign mission generator has decided there's a low level raid incoming, right after my squad has returned to base from the previous sortie and the mechanics are checking up on the planes. Also, due to casualties and repairs in my squad, we have a lower number of total available airframes to work with and at the same time we are situated in a forward airfield and most of the other squads are already occupied, so there's nobody else to send up. In this case, it could very well happen that we are taken by surprise. Spawning into the mission, i start with a cold engine to simulate the fact that i'm using a repaired or replacement aircraft that's straight out of the storage hangar, instead of my personal ride that i flew in the previous mission. I press "I", the engine sputters and coughs, the prop turns a couple of times and comes to a halt. I press "I" again, once more nothing. After 2-3 more tries, it finally comes to life but it's cold and running rough. I wait for the oil to warm up before opening the throttle, for fear of damaging the oil lines if i force cold, high viscosity oil through them or the engine itself from having it operate at high power when the oil is not sufficiently warmed up to properly lubricate it. Finally, when all is running as it should to allow me to firewall the throttle and leap to the air, the droning of Do17s can already be heard in the distance, the airfield flak defenses open up and i can see a few specks diving towards our aircraft, no doubt escorting fighters looking to catch us on the deck and score some easy kills. wink

All in all, i think i'm going to be very pleased with SoW. I'm not expecting a sloppy job but i'm not expecting miracles or perfection either. I'm just expecting a product with a sense of completeness right out of the box, where its individual parts match each other well in their level of quality, with overall good scores in all the main fields (graphics and sound, realism and gameplay) instead of super graphics, mediocre realism and poor gameplay, as well as a solid base to build on for the coming years. So far it seems we'll be getting most of that, so my expectations are already pretty much met.

Last edited by Blackdog_kt; 12/16/10 02:14 AM.
#3158216 - 12/16/10 08:43 AM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: flying-hamster]  
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 15
WT_Schmouddle Offline
Junior Member
WT_Schmouddle  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 15
@Blackdog_kt - youre completely right.

Sorry, English is not my native language and I might used a czechism here, as "starter" by us means usualy the ordinary direct drive electric motor.

P-51D has a direct drive electric starter. The video of G4*C shows that clearly. The electric motor is whinnig as the prop moves.
In SAS1946 video, the prop moves from the very begginnig aswell, there is no inertia starter energize part.

Last edited by WT_Schmouddle; 12/16/10 08:47 AM.
#3158233 - 12/16/10 09:38 AM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: Cold_Gambler]  
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 15
WT_Schmouddle Offline
Junior Member
WT_Schmouddle  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 15
Originally Posted By: Cold_Gambler
Wow... it's getting a little nasty in here!

I think it's a little much to say that Oleg sold us the game four times and should have provided us (but failed to) with all the items the mod-makers have.

I've bought plenty of PC games over the last 20 years and Oleg is the only developer who has, from day one and up to today, provided ongoing patches which, in addition to squashing bugs (of course), has given the buyers additional content (planes, maps, etc...) free of charge and addressed the communities comments regarding various FM/DM issues.
He and his team don't make any money by providing these updates unless they get rolled into a product package and sold.

In my view a developer's responsibility is to provide a game that works as it is represented to work at the time of initial release, not a game that meets every consumer's wish list. The original IL-2 worked out of the box (to take but one example: HyperLobby is great, but I started flying on the Ubi servers and they worked fine).

Oleg's responsibility was limited to squashing what few bugs there were. Had he done only that, I don't think we would be in a position to judge him.

To begrudge him for charging for the additional substantive contentis really to say that the 1C team should work in perpetuity for free making new content because we bought the original Il-2 back in 1999. I considered the Pe-2 add-ons to be bad value and did not buy them (though they had way more "value" than any FSX add-on aircraft product selling at $30 or more), but Oleg seems to have realized this and rolled that product into '46 anyway.

Finally, one final word about the mods. I like them and they've added a ton to the sim BUT none of them fixed a problem with the game to begin with- they all add a feature, or tweak existing features. One can understand that Oleg would be pissed that his code got hacked, and it's undeniable that the mods have fragmented the online community.
Having said that, it is clear that Oleg has understood that the mods have provided improvements to the game (in some instances substantial- 3DoF capability, for example) and that SoW:BoB should be structured so as to allow some degree of 3rd party modification in a coherent and managed manner.

And that's all I have to say about that.

C_G


I am trying to keep it civil, really! smile

I am not trying to say Oleg was obliged to give us all the updates for free. I agree with you, the patches were always summed up in a major "addon", like FB, PF or 1946. And I added up, that in our corner of woods we paid full price for each of the addons. So we cannot say, we got all the support for free. (I actually used my frineds in Ukraine to send me Peshkas and Sturmoviks over Manchuria original disks as these were not distributed to Europe)

What I am trying to tell there were more important things to fix in the series than adding up planes that never flew.
You know what? If Oleg had released the IL-2, squashed few bugs here and there, it might have easily end up as the Vietnam rotorcraft sim loosely based on IL*2 enigne, Whirlwind of Vietnam . No dynamic campaign, strange online experience, few planes to fly, strange Russian product with zero support. It would definately not be as popular as it became over the years. And we would say here, that was not done right, was it?

Oleg decided to keep the series alive with patches and later bigger paid addons. And at that point (at least IMO as a customer) he commited himself to improve things. Yet he never entirely suceeded, from gameplay POV at least. Features and lack of them remained the same for 10 years.

Sure what one see as a niche feature, the other see as a big improvement. As a former "serverguru" of WT_Ded, I tend to see Zuti's MDF (=AIs in DF) as a major fix of the game, something what shall be done latest in PF release by the developer. Why?

PF brought us Pacific Theather. That means carriers. And we happily bought the product for about 30EUR (that was about 1/15 of avg. monthly salary here at that time) Yeah, there were nice planes and nice maps, that's for sure. But what we got in terms of gameplay, how did the series improve?
We got online still separated to COOP and DF, with its own known limitations. No join-in-progress in COOP and no AI in DF. So in order to let people JIP, we got static carriers in DF, being unable to take-off with usual loadouts. No moving carriers, no catapults, just the deck. Like Eugen Ely in 1920's.

The developer was unable (or unwilling) to do the carrier ops, a core Pacific Theather business properly, or, close to properly. Fail? I really think so.
Yet the thing could have been done, as Zuti showed us, (modder's "workaround" is usualy called a "clever solution" if devised by the developer) yet developer prefered otherwise. That I see as a developer's failure to craft the product right. Is that correct?

Instead of changing the game so it would actually function as expected (in case of PF carrier ops, we cannot say desired) gameplay fix, we got more planes and maps (and yes, we bought them again with 1946)

But anway, Oleg, no matter how many errors and key features missing, had brought the simming back into almost mainstream and let us have 10 years of entertainment. That's his credit and I do not miss those ~200EUR I spent on IL*2 game purchases.
I just wish he does not omit key features and does question his own former decision. That's about it.

His position with SOW will be more challenging, compared to IL*2. The Sturmovik came to hungry market, there was almost no competition. Now, with various high-quality sims out there, his position will be much more difficult. I can just say he and his team cannot afford repeating same mistakes again.

#3158258 - 12/16/10 11:19 AM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: WT_Schmouddle]  
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,812
JAMF Offline
Frugalite & P-38 fan
JAMF  Offline
Frugalite & P-38 fan
Senior Member

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,812
The Netherlands
Originally Posted By: WT_Schmouddle
The developer was unable (or unwilling) to do the carrier ops, a core Pacific Theather business properly, or, close to properly. Fail? I really think so.
Yet the thing could have been done, as Zuti showed us, (modder's "workaround" is usualy called a "clever solution" if devised by the developer) yet developer prefered otherwise. That I see as a developer's failure to craft the product right. Is that correct?
If you're pointing to Mr. Shevchenko, when you say developer, it's fair.

If you would want to lay blame on Mr. Maddox, you're wrong. He had to step in to save the PF project and make sure it got out the door on time.

That mess (and WoP) is likely one reason why Mr. Maddox will want to keep overall control of any project in the future.

In IL2:1946 case, we can be glad it's become modifiable and modders have taken up the challenge to develop their desired mods, to fill gaps left open or fix some mistakes and what not. Kudos to them! cheers thumbsup

#3158335 - 12/16/10 02:02 PM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: JAMF]  
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 15
WT_Schmouddle Offline
Junior Member
WT_Schmouddle  Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 15
I say developer. As customer, I really do not care what names are there as long as there is one company selling me parts of IL*2 product line.
Mr. Oleg Maddox is in charge of the developer company, 1C Maddox Games, right?

So Oleg personally stepped in, saved PF project and made sure it got outta door on time. But what did Maddox Games to fix gaps in "saved" PF project?
They added some maps and planes and then added 1946 what-if scenario, leaving the unfinised carrier ops as they were originally released in PF.

#3158370 - 12/16/10 02:42 PM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: flying-hamster]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Dart Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Dart  Offline
Measured in Llamathrusts
Lifer

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 24,712
Alabaster, AL USA
I think the biggest problem with the IL-2 series was a complete failure to anticipate its potential for success.

The fundamental engine was based around it being a study sim with exactly one flyable - the IL-2. Then they decided to make the 109 flyable. And then the [etc., etc.], each time stretching the code to do things that were never imagined it to do when they laid it out.

That's the whole point of the Storm of War engine - to avoid having to stretch and stretch, with changes in one part of the code having unforseen consequences later on. Things, IIRC, are very modular, with the terrain being its own module, FM being its own module, etc. And no dumb (in hindsight) mistakes like putting a model's shadow deep in the starting code (I still frown at the 109 shadow).


The opinions of this poster are largely based on facts and portray a possible version of the actual events.

More dumb stuff at http://www.darts-page.com

From Laser:
"The forum is the place where combat (real time) flight simulator fans come to play turn based strategy combat."
#3158395 - 12/16/10 03:19 PM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: flying-hamster]  
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,562
Cold_Gambler Offline
Member
Cold_Gambler  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,562
Schmoudle,

I understand your position better now; thanks for taking the time for a considerate reply. Incidentally, the "it's getting nasty" comment wasn't targeted specifically at you, though I thought you were going overboard in your comments.

In the end, I think Dart is correct in stating that Oleg did not anticipate that IL-2 would be as successful and long-lived as it has been.
Fortunately he clearly has stated that the new SoW engine is designed in anticipation of a series-long life and is coded to allow features that will be possible with future technology but not possible with today's. And, as I noted earlier, he has also indicated that a structure to allow approved 3rd party mods will exist.

Cheers smile
C_G


looks very modernishy-phoney-windows eighty-tabletty like

Asus P8P67 Pro Rev. 3.0 // i5 2500k @4.3 GHz with Noctua NH-D14 // nvidia gtx 780 // 8 GB DDR3 1600 //Win7 home 64 bit //450 GB VelociRaptor //Recon3D Champion
#3158475 - 12/16/10 05:36 PM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: flying-hamster]  
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,631
Hackl Offline
Senior Member
Hackl  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,631
Kelowna, BC,Canada
Mentioning the 109s and their inertia starters, in modern times they have seemed to devised some sort of kit with an electric motor to turn the fly wheel up to speed before engaging the clutch. If it was kept stock a mechanic would spin it manually as he is with the G 2 Black 6 but not not the G 10 Black 2. I can't see Oleg going threw all the trouble of putting a mechanic on the wing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_TETqe1Cg


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnpC_BcK7xY

#3158643 - 12/16/10 08:58 PM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: Dart]  
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,812
JAMF Offline
Frugalite & P-38 fan
JAMF  Offline
Frugalite & P-38 fan
Senior Member

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,812
The Netherlands
Originally Posted By: Dart
The fundamental engine was based around it being a study sim with exactly one flyable - the IL-2. Then they decided to make the 109 flyable. And then the [etc., etc.]...
Wasn't the P-39 in the game earlier than the Bf109? It was in the demo?

#3158775 - 12/16/10 11:49 PM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: JAMF]  
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,631
Hackl Offline
Senior Member
Hackl  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,631
Kelowna, BC,Canada
Originally Posted By: JAMF
Originally Posted By: Dart
The fundamental engine was based around it being a study sim with exactly one flyable - the IL-2. Then they decided to make the 109 flyable. And then the [etc., etc.]...
Wasn't the P-39 in the game earlier than the Bf109? It was in the demo?


The P-39, Bf 109G2 and the Sturmovik all together in the first demo

Last edited by Hackl; 12/16/10 11:52 PM.
#3158885 - 12/17/10 02:22 AM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: flying-hamster]  
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 839
IV/JG7trumps Offline
Member
IV/JG7trumps  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 839
Perth australia
from what i remember the FW190 was a bonus aircraft, and the I-16 was in the first patch.

craig


The problem with the World is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
#3158988 - 12/17/10 06:43 AM Re: 10/12/10 sow update [Re: flying-hamster]  
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,631
Hackl Offline
Senior Member
Hackl  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,631
Kelowna, BC,Canada
That was Demo # 2 I think

Last edited by Hackl; 12/17/10 06:44 AM.
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
CD WOFF
by Britisheh. 03/28/24 08:05 PM
Carnival Cruise Ship Fire....... Again
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:58 PM
Baltimore Bridge Collapse
by F4UDash4. 03/26/24 05:51 PM
The Oldest WWII Veterans
by F4UDash4. 03/24/24 09:21 PM
They got fired after this.
by Wigean. 03/20/24 08:19 PM
Grown ups joke time
by NoFlyBoy. 03/18/24 10:34 PM
Anyone Heard from Nimits?
by F4UDash4. 03/18/24 10:01 PM
RIP Gemini/Apollo astronaut Tom Stafford
by semmern. 03/18/24 02:14 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0