Oleg's Storm of War

[Wilcke]

I pulled this from 1C's page and Olegs update forum. Storm of War if and when released is going to set a standard in simming that goes beyond just air combat based online and offline play. I think that Oleg is going to allow us to be infantrymen, tankers, artillerymen, pilots etc....

I quote directly from the man himself:

"Hi,

You may see again some very interesting details.
Modeling of AAA in our new simulator means following (for example):
Say, if the electricity generator of search light will be destroyed, then the search light wouldn’t work… then the effectiveness of anti aircraft guns also wouldn't be good.
We are developing the simulation of ground AAA support in all areas, including radars, High Command, etc. It will work as a system: damage of one will have result in other.
Also would remind that British and German radar systems will have different purpose as it was in reality.

http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_01.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_02.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_03.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_04.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_05.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_06.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_07.jpg
http://files.games.1c.ru/il2pict/vvv-03_08.jpg

PS. The ground surface is viewer’s surface and has nothing common with the ground surface of sim "

I have been a big fan of IL-2 since its initial release many years ago. In the past year I have stopped flying due to lack of interest. I expect that when SOW is release I will be building a new "Super Computer" to run it with all its bells and whistle maxed out!

I do like Olegs work and dedication to this sim.

[LukeFF]

I have no doubt SoW will set the new standard (again) for WWII flight sims. Like you, Wilcke, I've not flown IL-2 much in the last year, but I know that will change as soon as SoW is released.

[Deviance]

Defenatly looking forward to SOW, but for the mean time I'm still satisfied with IL2, but I've only been playing it for a couple months now.

[Observer]

I just hope the campaign in SOW is not as sterile as the one in the IL2 series. Even DCG and/or DGen can't make up for the limitations in the IL2 engine especially WRT to AI interaction and functionality. Oleg may be a great engineer, but the IL2 series does not have a "heart" for those who do not like or prefer online play.

[LukeFF]

I just hope the campaign in SOW is not as sterile as the one in the IL2 series. Even DCG and/or DGen can't make up for the limitations in the IL2 engine especially WRT to AI interaction and functionality. Oleg may be a great engineer, but the IL2 series does not have a "heart" for those who do not like or prefer online play.

+1

Me, I've always been an offline player when it comes to flight sims. I used to be involved in the big online Virtual Eastern Front war, but trying to keep up the time for online sessions just became too much for me. With the mountains of suggestions given on how to improve the offline aspect of IL-2, one would hope the offline campaign in SoW will finally shine. Time will only tell, though.

[tater]

It is so utterly dependent on the quality of the AI programming, though.

In terms of combined arms type games, a little AI mixed with players (online) goes a long way. For infantry, the player as squad or platoon leader. He could switch between AIs like switching gunner spots in il-2, for example, but still order the AI. THAT would be cool. The other suggestions I've made many times is that ship DMs (and AI) need to be far more complicated so that bombing and VT work is not a cartoon.

[Wilcke]

Another update for SOW, this was kindly translated from the Russian by Nephris and posted on the JG1 forum where I borrowed it. This is cut and paste and not my work. Enjoy the new pics and be sure to check out the video of the surf, the Quad cores could be in trouble!

Q: Oleg, thank you for taking the time to answer our questions. I’d like to wish you continuing good luck and may all your dreams come true. Thank you from all the sim fans worldwide for getting us hooked on the virtual and real skies.

A: Thank you! Good luck!

Questions asked by Aleksandr Kazakov (AleX)



http://spread-wings.ru/content/view/156/42/
Make sure to check out all the screenshots, and hit Play on the video down at the bottom of the page!

«Our main goal is to outdo ourselves.»
--Oleg Maddox

Today, Oleg Maddox answered the questions he didn’t have time to answer the last time. He also illustrated his answers with screenshots and a small video.


Q: Oleg, considering that your progress with Battle of Britain is over 60%, as you’ve said, we’re getting the impression that working on BoB is taking too long, for example compared to Il-2. Is that correct?

A: I wouldn’t say that. Il-2 Sturmovik was in development for 4 years before its 2001 release. First we built the engine, then everything else. Then we continued making various improvements and built a new 3D engine (the Perfect mode that shipped with Forgotten Battles was in fact a whole new 3D engine). All this work took another 4 years before Il-2 1946. That’s a total of 8 years, 4 of them spent on updates and expansions.

We initially wanted to make Battle of Britain on the Il-2 engine. However that would be the last thing we could do with it. And then what? The engine was beginning to show its age by that time, despite many revolutionary features which Il-2 brought to the genre in 2001, and which many developers have tried to replicate since. By 2005 we’ve finally realized that we had to build a new engine. First only one person worked on it, then two, all while continuing to work on Il-2 as well. We’ve really switched over to BoB only after all work on Il-2 was completed, i.e. in 2007. So BoB’s only been in development for 2 years now. It isn’t all that much compared to all the goals we’re trying to achieve. The tasks at hand are enormous. We want to outdo ourselves, and of course all those who claim that they’re better than Il-2 (which they finally get to claim years after we’ve stopped all work on the product). So far we haven’t even spent the time on BoB that we spent making the original Il-2.

Speaking of other developers, we’ve given one team the entire Il-2 source code a long time ago, and they were supposed to release their sim even before 1946 in order to turn a profit. However they decided instead to make their own engine, etc. It still drags on, so how long has that been in development now? I hope this example makes it clear to everyone that anything not based on an existing engine takes a lot of time.


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?

A: 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.

Of course, to do any of that end users will need to have experience with other 3rd party software, such as 3D modeling suites. There are a lot of people that have the required skills around the world, of course, including right here in this country.

Even just the few details I’ve listed above should give you an idea of all the possibilities we have with BoB. One of the consequences is that a whole industry can pop up around BoB similar to that around Microsoft Flight Simulator, creating add-ons for it, also considering the online fairness with BoB. We can also expect a large number of new aircraft to become available soon after BoB’s release, including Soviet planes. One Russian plane will even ship with BoB, the Su-26. We’ve built it following many requests from pilots around the world. Many in the West are also asking for the Yak-52. You can see how different BoB will be from Il-2 in this respect. In Il-2 we had to develop or insert all new objects ourselves, specifically for the purposes of maintaining cheater-free online gameplay. Remember that we’ve released a huge number of these add-ons for free.


Q: Will there be free expansions for BoB, like there were for Il-2? Or will all expansions be commercial, considering the current state of the economy?

A: We will definitely continue releasing free expansions. However we won’t be able to do as much as before. We’ll adopt more of other people’s work and include them in the standard cheater-free online list. But it’s a bit too early to talk about this. However, we do have one plane already in the works for just such a free expansion.


Q: Let’s go back to BoB maps once again. This is a very exciting topic. How will they be different from Il-2 maps?

A: First of all, they will be more detailed. This means all sorts of small details you will notice in flight, with terrain, buildings, roads, etc. Not exactly on topic of maps, but we’ll also have moving grass. Secondly, we will have dynamic weather. This is actually on topic of maps. Even though the weather is handled by a separate weather module, it’ll be tied into the gameplay maps and affected by topography. Thirdly, we’ll have more detailed coastlines. We’ll now have cliffs, not just flat painted textures, but with real elevation. Next, our roads will have smooth curves of various profiles, which will immediately make the terrain look more realistic. In conjunction with new photorealistic textures, new technologies, new light and shading, all of the above will work together to create something that from the air looks really, really close to reality.


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.

A: 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.


Q: Virtually all flight sim fans graduate to online modes after first flying offline campaigns and earning their triple HSUs or Oak Leaves. This will probably be the case with BoB as well. So, how different will offline campaigns be in BoB compared to Il-2?

A: I’ll answer briefly for now:

1. An entire new dynamic campaign engine, often with unpredictable results and random elements. So far this still needs lots of testing and fine-tuning.

2. Possibility of creating static campaign missions with random branching, if so desired by the end-user.

We’ll leave the second option for end-user add-ons. Creating campaigns like that is more historically realistic. However even the first option will have some user-modifiable options, and it may even permit users to make their own add-ons.


Q: Oleg, what is your favorite plane in Il-2? In BoB?

A: Hard to say. With the huge number of options of Il-2, I did mostly prefer the Bf-109K-4, if it was allowed on a server. Occasionally I liked to boom-n-zoom in Focke-Wulfs and in the I-185, whenever I saw that I was the smartest one in the dogfight and everyone else was circling around down below.
With BoB, I will probably prefer the Spitfire, at least in the beginning before other planes become available. Out of the more exotic, I’ll definitely enjoy the autogyro with its completely unique flying technique. We’ve even involved a real autogyro pilot in our development. And if we do make the second crewman taking potshots at 109s with a rifle, that’ll be very British indeed! By the way, the autogyro will be very difficult to shoot down due to its extreme low speed.


Q: Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions, Oleg! We simply can’t wait for BoB, and look forward for more interviews. Good luck!

A: Thank you![/b]

[Wilcke]

2nd part...

Q: Oleg, considering that your progress with Battle of Britain is over 60%, as you’ve said, we’re getting the impression that working on BoB is taking too long, for example compared to Il-2. Is that correct?

A: I wouldn’t say that. Il-2 Sturmovik was in development for 4 years before its 2001 release. First we built the engine, then everything else. Then we continued making various improvements and built a new 3D engine (the Perfect mode that shipped with Forgotten Battles was in fact a whole new 3D engine). All this work took another 4 years before Il-2 1946. That’s a total of 8 years, 4 of them spent on updates and expansions.

We initially wanted to make Battle of Britain on the Il-2 engine. However that would be the last thing we could do with it. And then what? The engine was beginning to show its age by that time, despite many revolutionary features which Il-2 brought to the genre in 2001, and which many developers have tried to replicate since. By 2005 we’ve finally realized that we had to build a new engine. First only one person worked on it, then two, all while continuing to work on Il-2 as well. We’ve really switched over to BoB only after all work on Il-2 was completed, i.e. in 2007. So BoB’s only been in development for 2 years now. It isn’t all that much compared to all the goals we’re trying to achieve. The tasks at hand are enormous. We want to outdo ourselves, and of course all those who claim that they’re better than Il-2 (which they finally get to claim years after we’ve stopped all work on the product). So far we haven’t even spent the time on BoB that we spent making the original Il-2.

Speaking of other developers, we’ve given one team the entire Il-2 source code a long time ago, and they were supposed to release their sim even before 1946 in order to turn a profit. However they decided instead to make their own engine, etc. It still drags on, so how long has that been in development now? I hope this example makes it clear to everyone that anything not based on an existing engine takes a lot of time.


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?

A: 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.

Of course, to do any of that end users will need to have experience with other 3rd party software, such as 3D modeling suites. There are a lot of people that have the required skills around the world, of course, including right here in this country.

Even just the few details I’ve listed above should give you an idea of all the possibilities we have with BoB. One of the consequences is that a whole industry can pop up around BoB similar to that around Microsoft Flight Simulator, creating add-ons for it, also considering the online fairness with BoB. We can also expect a large number of new aircraft to become available soon after BoB’s release, including Soviet planes. One Russian plane will even ship with BoB, the Su-26. We’ve built it following many requests from pilots around the world. Many in the West are also asking for the Yak-52. You can see how different BoB will be from Il-2 in this respect. In Il-2 we had to develop or insert all new objects ourselves, specifically for the purposes of maintaining cheater-free online gameplay. Remember that we’ve released a huge number of these add-ons for free.


Q: Will there be free expansions for BoB, like there were for Il-2? Or will all expansions be commercial, considering the current state of the economy?

A: We will definitely continue releasing free expansions. However we won’t be able to do as much as before. We’ll adopt more of other people’s work and include them in the standard cheater-free online list. But it’s a bit too early to talk about this. However, we do have one plane already in the works for just such a free expansion.


Q: Let’s go back to BoB maps once again. This is a very exciting topic. How will they be different from Il-2 maps?

A: First of all, they will be more detailed. This means all sorts of small details you will notice in flight, with terrain, buildings, roads, etc. Not exactly on topic of maps, but we’ll also have moving grass. Secondly, we will have dynamic weather. This is actually on topic of maps. Even though the weather is handled by a separate weather module, it’ll be tied into the gameplay maps and affected by topography. Thirdly, we’ll have more detailed coastlines. We’ll now have cliffs, not just flat painted textures, but with real elevation. Next, our roads will have smooth curves of various profiles, which will immediately make the terrain look more realistic. In conjunction with new photorealistic textures, new technologies, new light and shading, all of the above will work together to create something that from the air looks really, really close to reality.


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.

A: 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.


Q: Virtually all flight sim fans graduate to online modes after first flying offline campaigns and earning their triple HSUs or Oak Leaves. This will probably be the case with BoB as well. So, how different will offline campaigns be in BoB compared to Il-2?

A: I’ll answer briefly for now:

1. An entire new dynamic campaign engine, often with unpredictable results and random elements. So far this still needs lots of testing and fine-tuning.

2. Possibility of creating static campaign missions with random branching, if so desired by the end-user.

We’ll leave the second option for end-user add-ons. Creating campaigns like that is more historically realistic. However even the first option will have some user-modifiable options, and it may even permit users to make their own add-ons.


Q: Oleg, what is your favorite plane in Il-2? In BoB?

A: Hard to say. With the huge number of options of Il-2, I did mostly prefer the Bf-109K-4, if it was allowed on a server. Occasionally I liked to boom-n-zoom in Focke-Wulfs and in the I-185, whenever I saw that I was the smartest one in the dogfight and everyone else was circling around down below.
With BoB, I will probably prefer the Spitfire, at least in the beginning before other planes become available. Out of the more exotic, I’ll definitely enjoy the autogyro with its completely unique flying technique. We’ve even involved a real autogyro pilot in our development. And if we do make the second crewman taking potshots at 109s with a rifle, that’ll be very British indeed! By the way, the autogyro will be very difficult to shoot down due to its extreme low speed.


Q: Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions, Oleg! We simply can’t wait for BoB, and look forward for more interviews. Good luck!

A: Thank you!

[Wilcke]

Oleg and Ilya have given SimHQ a pretty in depth Q&A on the latest status of SOW:BOB.

Here is the link! Enjoy! Looks like release is set for 2nd or 3rd Quarter 2010. So hold onto your rigs and plan a rebuild for spring of 2010.

http://www.simhq.com/_air11/air_341a.html

[Wilcke]

Here is the latest on SOW.

http://www.checksix-fr.com/articles/Art ... xy_EN.html