Oleg said alot of things back in the day Chivas, alot has changed since then. I bet he didn't say "by the way im bailing out of all this on day 1 of release"

You can take all of that with a pinch of very Russian salt.

This pertinent fact about the "Destroyed ground objects have inertia" was in the first post in the latest update thread.

I agree some people could be concerned that the ground vehicle detail could take away from the air combat detail. Personally I don't see it as a concern.

Oleg has hinted a few times on the direction he wants to take his new game engine. Heres a post from kendo65 where he post a translated Oleg interview.


Originally Posted by kendo65
Regarding the debate on controllable tanks, AA, etc, I came across a pdf file I'd saved with an interview with Oleg from Feb 2009. It's an English translation of an interview originally posted on a Russian site - spread-wings.ru (?). English translation is by Luthier

http://spread-wings.ru/content/view/154/1/

Although obviously out of date there is some interesting talk about the goals they had in mind back then about SOW/COD future development. I can't post the pdf as it's 2.66MB (don't know if the pdf is still available online?), but here are some interesting excerpts (my highlights in bold)

Q: You’ve stated many times in previous interviews that BoB will be drastically different from the
Il-2 series. What do you mean by that?

Oleg: Not a very easy question to answer, but I’ll try to respond the best I can without divulging some secret information.

1. The engine and the system we’re developing is built from the ground up to allow future expansions. Each new product can be stand-alone, or it can plug in with the others starting with BoB, following the success of Pacific Fighters which proved that this model can be viable.

2. We’re developing a system that is more than just a flight sim, but can be a sub sim, PT boat sim, tank sim, helicopter sim, etc. By the way, we just might have a flyable autogyro in BoB.

3. We’re also writing a completely new, drastically improved online code with multiple modes and features. It can even support a server-based MMO with a monthly fee. This of course won’t happen with BoB itself, but is possible on its engine, possibly made by other teams that further develop into this direction.

4. Quality level for ground and air objects is ages beyond what was one with Il-2. I don’t think that such a huge leap will be possible after BoB; the only changes that can happen is increase in polycount or texture size, or more detailed interior details. Even Il-2 was often used as a reference by other developers, and BoB will even have uses for movies.

5. We’re working on an add-on and expansion module that will not affect the online playing field. After BoB is released we plan to publish a set of tools that will allow end-users to:
* Create new planes;
* Create new vehicles, tanks, ships, etc;
* Create new static objects, such as building, bridges, equipment, etc;
* Create new maps, with limits on total size. We’ll leave large maps for ourselves, for our own new sims.


Q: And now Oleg, please go into more details on your thoughts of the future of Storm of War
compared to Il-2, given the potential you’ve built into the engine from the start.

Oleg: Considering what I’ve said already, and given an initial commercial success of BoB, here’s what I see:

1. Some number of developers internationally that worked with MSFS, and probably a large part of them too, will convert to our side. This is especially to be expected considering the recent closing of Aces studio. So these add-on developers might just start making add-ons for Storm of War. I think this might even include jets, including modern ones. At the very least I would expect someone to do Vietnam, not to mention WWI. This
should happen too. Generally WWI aircraft are easier to model and program, since they don’t have such complex aerodynamics, no retractable landing gear, propeller pitch, and other advanced devices. There’s also no radio, which means there’s no need to develop and record radio chatter.

2. Korea, in conjunction with RRG. Its development is now in background mode. Their
team is now working with us finishing up planes for BoB, and also modeling ships.

3. Africa, Malta, USSR. These are most appealing choices for us. Even though we know for sure that the Pacific is the most interesting subject matter for the international market, besides Battle of Britain that is. Generally the Eastern Front is a bit easier for us to do since we have loads more data on it, and there’s less variety of vehicles and aircraft to model than all the other fronts.

4. Continuing combat around the English Channel, which will largely be made via expansions since we’ll already have the main map.

5. Cooperation with other teams to create other games (perhaps by selling the engine). For example, an MMO with controllable soldiers and submarines etc. Or even a space sim around planet surfaces with somewhat realistic physics.

6. Console variants with simplified features.

Instead I think that the larger proportion of those daft enough to dip their toes in the toxic swamps of Cliffs of Dover forums are holding their breath for the major update that we all hope will set this game on the road to success. Anything that is perceived (rightly or wrongly) to derail or delay that is an instant target for hostility.

Okay Icarus, but we will hold you to it. If we find out you are flying this sim post patch, we'll have to report you

Or do you mean given up on speculating ?

You do realize this is no longer Oleg's company, run by Oleg, or headed by Oleg right? This new bunch does not have the track record earned by Oleg in my book.

Now they are nearly 1 year in, and still no look at FMs, AI, CTD, stupid DM (1 wing flying), but instead we get screens of IL-2s, and crewable tanks...

Chivas is like the last guy arguing the earth is still flat....

Well...party time tomorrow, pictures of a IL2, can hardly wait.