no we all need new VGAs

So, why you talk about collision meshes in trees? :cool:

You people really don't undestand yeat that the "personal taste" tweaks in "landscape", thinking about colours, vegetation placing, textures, is the last thing to be adressed in this sim engine? And yes, people are ALREADY modding this, is easy to do!

It's really fun: we have an 1:1 map of BOB scenario, filled with towns, roads, railroads, forest, all elevations, rivers, cliffs, landmarks, etc, but it's all "crap or poor landscape"... My God! Listen to your words!

Some just don't deserve the work made in this title. Never in my life I saw so negative people! You make me a little sick...:(

I'm not so sure about that, in fact I get the impression that the terrain side of the optimisation is done, and has been for a while. They have improved it significantly, I can run original textures (just, still some stutter) since the last patch, which would have been impossible at release.

That said the massive texture size, as well as the colouration is still an issue that deserves a dev comment. Texture settings at Low or Medium make the terrain look absolutely awful, High is better.. but still not great (and not even that much difference between high/original in terms of performance now either). The colouration issue is more of a personal preference, but slightly darker trees and fields overall would be nice.

What, if anything I'd like to see Luthier comment on is simply whether it's possible to improve the appearance of the low/medium/high ground textures, so that people using those settings aren't playing a game that looks ten years old - and whether performance can continue to be improved across all ground texture settings.

Terrain here = texture painting...

People of vision... Only I like the work on elevation data, to say just one point? Only I know that we have HUGE limitations in realistic and detailed ground textures in flight sims with LARGE scenarios, in low level flight?

People talk like it's easy to do and the Maddox Games crew are stupid... Go paint trees to personal taste, please...

If we make you sick then throw up.
Anyway, I said MOST of my flying. I may go down to tree-top levels, but not to the extent that I can see individual leaves. Use your brain man! In any case, trees with hit-boxes are completely necessay for crash-landings, because otherwise it just ruins the immersion when you see that Oak-tree coming into view, thinking to yourself 'damn, I'm going to hit it' and then you crash right through it without a scratch.

It's great having this map, but improvements can be made. What you're adovating is that if you had a car that could drive, that's the only purpose it serves. Have you got a CD player in your car? Are your seats heated? Do they need to be?! No, but it's a nice luxury. A beautiful landscape really adds to the immersion. If you live in England, and see a terrain in CloD that looks like any country other than Blighty, it doesn't really stir any patriotic attachments.

@Orpheus, I can see what you mean. The reason I think the terrain is still partially WIP is because of the issues the team had with incorporating speed-tree. It's caused them issues, and I imagine that they would want to look into it. And when they do look into it, hopefully they will assess the other terrain 'issues' as well. When the SDK is released (or if it is released) hopefully there will be a mjor modding effort to really bring this terrain up to photo-realistic standards. Oleg promised it, and hasn't really delivered.

The biggest release problem was perfromance. We still have performance issues with detailed textures. You appears to don't understand that.

"Immersion" with stutters aren't so good. SpeedTree is great, I dont have any major drop in FPS even with all leaves. There is no real problem with detailed trees. This isn't related with problems in calculation of trees hitboxes. You are in truble to undestand that.

The same with trees colours and placement: "easy" to solve, but it's a minor priority in patching, and people with patience in community can do that. I don't suffer a lot with tree placement/colour, so, isn't a real big problem. Will be cool if it's imporved, I agree, but we can fly ok now.

You are just like Tree: since after first release yu just focus in the damn "scenario colour". You only see that. I'll throw up now...

E
 

lol Lob mate,heres a bucket:)

we can fly ok now....true, but the problem is ok is not good enough.especially for a product like a WWII flight sim.
and i dont think that it has minor priority.this thread shows that the majority or at least a big percentage of members here are dissappointed by the landscape.
maybe it has minor priority for you. and maybe members here on the forum who are hardcore flight simmers bought this sim for CEM and so on(including me)and not because of the overall look,...but you will not gain many new customers, even when it was perfekt in realism and performance, if the product looks outdated. most kids, who are the potential future flight simmers, wont buy it, if they look at the back of the cover and see an strange looking landscape.
i really think it is an very important issue this sim is facing.imagine this sim with photorealistic graphics!then this product would be sucessfull for the next decade for sure.

*Facepalms*

Oleg himself said that they were having to work hard to get the best out of speed-tree. Aesthetically, a lot of work is still needed. If Speed-tree auto-generates the trees, then there-in may lie the problem of hit-boxes, as opposed to trees in-grained as part of the map. For the latter 'solution' a lot of work would be required, but the effects may be awesome (although tricky to work-around to dinstinguish between high and low settings)
Either way, the focus here is on aesthetics. No one is rebuttling the fact that there are more serious issues with the sim; but one cannot avoid the fact that the terrain is far fom perfect.

Y'know..
I never whine.
But I totally agree with this post.
I mean, the state of this game in no way resembles the game in the video..
What the heck happened..? Was it lost in a fire..?

Just weird, really..

Mike

you still making friends there, LoBi?

Yes! And flying with FreeTrack full support! How life is going here in NP? :cool:

Like all subjects on this forum it has been touched upon before. Maybe we should get weekly apologies from Luthier so we can all feel better. Let them sort out the game first colours second.

Yer...your right, its only been 4 months now.

people are entitled to make criticism, it's their right and there are plenty reasons for that. i just can't understand these childish intolerance towards criticism from some.. what's the point, do they like it so much they don't want to even hear about 'change'? do they think they own the thing? WHAT ?????????? IS THERE A POINT? always keeping with the whining and bitching because some people express and justify their views.. and they call us whiners.. when that's all these ppl do, never bringing anything to the discussion except "it's ok as it is" "i know better, you don't" "i'm smart, your dumb" "i can see, you're blind" etc.. empty, childish, and above all pointless. those who criticize do it so because they want CoD to get as good as it can. those who whine about justified complaints, i'd really like to see their point. maybe they ignore the reason of this thread; take a look at the vid in OP, we've been lied, plain and simple, not saying intentionally, but nevertheless

personally what hurts me the most is to see that things looked better in previous stages, seeing much simpler games out there having much better landscape (yes WoP, and if you don't like the green colour all over then compare in grayscale, works just the same because it's not a colour issue; trees, tree placement, towns and tiling just end up looking plain better); as for landscape not being a central feature, that's much more debatable than colour grading and such; i for one like immersion and want as believable terrain as it gets; i don't think anyone else taste on this matter is more important or overrides my own; i've seen simpler or older sim games conveying the feeling of england countryside much better than CoD (hello BoB 2). it's not a matter of HW resources, rather an art direction and the time spent with it. i'd say the countryside on CoD looks good. BUT I'LL BE DAMNED IF RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE ENGLAND!!

the np is just fine LoBi ;) ... FT is getting rather bugged, or so I've been reading

oh LoBi, and btw way, the landscaping in COD needs a major overhaul

Well said!

And, believe it or not, the devs doesn't have to listen. U might think they have to because u are entitled, but they really don't have to. If they think its fine there really isn't much u can do about it and if they do change it its because they CHOOSE to listen.

Cold hard truth, i know.

As for making changes, the quote from Oleg in another post should tell u that it MIGHT not be so easy as most of the "experts" in here think. The colour changes has to correspond with lighting conditions, times of day, dynamic lighting etc.etc. What is the point of having dynamic lighting, dynamic weather (when it arrives) if the "perfect" colours etc. only looks "perfect" at 12.00 noon

Its one thing for a modder to do it since he doesn't have to pay any attention to the rest of the game and how the "whole" works (and they rarely do) but another matter entirely if u have to stand by your work towards a boat load of "experts" for years to come. Because, as we all know, there are quite a few in these forums that have a real hard time letting go.

As for how it looks now, i couldn't care less if some people think it doesnt look like ENGLAND because the colour is a bit off, or if the trees isn't placed correctly (seriously?) because, as a WHOLE, it looks good to me and as far as i know IT IS a BoB flight sim, u know, the one that took place up in the sky, And NOT a "true representation of ENGLAND" sim. There are other more important things to do first.

But who knows, maby the change will appear one day because the CHOSE to listen, even if they don have to. ;)


BTW. This: "those who whine about justified complaints, i'd really like to see their point." Tells me everyone who have a "complaint" or want a fix automatically assumes he is right and anyone who disagrees is a "whiner" and is therefore not entitled to think "it looks ok". Not a very mature approach, is it? Tells me the "problem" lies in those who have "legitimate complaints" to begin with. Takes us right back to: the devs can do whatever the like and think whatever they want, its their product, their choise to listen or not listen. Just because u bought a COPY doesn't automaticaly make u the CeO of the company. For ex. from my end (regarding this issue) u saying BoBII represents a better representation of England than CoD is something i cant for the life of me rap my head around, i just cant. Imo that game looks like ****** (insert bad word). So, in your opinion, who should the devs listen to? Or maby its easier for them if they go by what THEY think?

You said it Baron!!!

It is very astounding what people think, they have bought for about 50 bucks.

The americans, i think, have this saying: love it or leave it.
I wonder how so many people can express their love only in the range from critisizing (constantly) to outright bashing (also constantly).
That reminds me of a dad, spanking his son for some minor offense, saying: it is only for your best.

generally my thoughts on the matter. To come up with this negativity for me means you are comparing COD with other games out there. That is the unfair part. Compare COD to somthing more appropriate and its very likely that debate would see COD at the top of the list. bar any colour discussions in respects of colouring i believe there is an issue.

im comparing Cod landscape with my visuals of countryside in kent from late 50's onwards, it just doesnt look like English counTryside To me neither THe colours or the layout etc,im enTiTled to an opinion as I bought the game.

I like a lot about Cod,i dont like the landscape because it doesnt immerse me in the feeling of being over England let alone Kent,WOP does by the way just incase you wanted a comparison of what i think looks more realistic and on my new monitor the wop doesnt look over green at all to me:)

oh and thats really why i dont care about this game anymore so ive deleted it and am concentrating on FSX

I'm just going to state what is obvious from the pages of this thread - some people have an issue with the landscape and some don't. Can we all at least agree that others are entitled to their own opinions no matter how wrong we may think they are?

As there is no point continuing to argue over the same points, maybe it would be an idea to have a poll - one question 'How happy are you with current COD terrain?'. 4 possible answers -

Very happy - don't want changes
Reasonably happy - but would like to see improvements
Unhappy - Big changes needed
Very unhappy - This issue ruins the game for me

Getting some numbers on how people feel would at least give the devs an idea of how important (or not) this is to fix.

Baron and Robtek make some good points, but on the 'love it or leave it' idea, as someone who looked forward to this game for years, and who really wants to enjoy it and play it I find I am in danger of 'leaving it' (for the foreseeable future at least) because certain aspects ruin things for me atm. Please realise that most of us with genuine issues about this game's current state are not whining for the sake of it or because we enjoy it.

responding to ALi Fish - I'm with SsSsnake here too. There are quite a few il-2 maps (modded and unmodded) that I prefer to current COD. [a word of explanation to pre-empt the inevitable 'wtf' response - yes I know that COD is technically superior with better lighting, but the fact is a lot of the il-2 maps do the job of creating believable terrain better for me - they work within their limitations and manage to fade into the background without jarring the eye constantly as COD seems to for some (?) of us]

pal why do you quote me if you CHOOSE not to address anything i said?? what have i said specifically about colours?? when was i implying demands to devs?? nowhere i think. you just lack concentration when reading. and your BTW end paragraph, i can't answer that, it just doesn't make any sense. read more carefully, you don't seem to have a way at manipulating meanings.
just a word about the devs doing what they want: plainly right and ok with, as long as we're told the truth. which wasn't the case. again read carefully at the end of 1st paragraph (not to mention the vid, where features where advertised, which were re-stated in later stages of development)

anyway, i read a whole lot more then i write in here, what drove me in here were incredibly intolerant comments towards legit criticism, triggered by the devs former promises, and if everything i (or others) write can be used as fuel for war, well, makes me not want to.

as a final word, i just can't understand this attitude where you're supposed to not just notice but appreciate inertia effects on spinning wheels you forgot to retract after take off, but then you have to pretend major visual aspects are ok when clearly they're not. sounds kinda schizophrenic to me. after all this is a simulation; its users are known for being perfectionist and demanding. something cultivated by the 1C founder himself. some go about physics, some go about visual fidelity, some go for everything. to each he's own i say

bravo

I've got X-Plane 9 installed with photoscenery of the UK assembled from Google Maps. (G2XPL plugin - zoom level 17).

It compares favourably with the IL2 textures. Granted, one represents England 70 years ago and one is for present day, but it seems logical that the colours of plants/crops haven't changed that much in the years between.

COD is missing a decent weather system though. IMO, this would make much more difference to perception of the colours than what there is at the moment (permanent dry, sunny day at the moment in COD).

The map is a work of genius though. I live in Brighton and frequently travel between home and London. The whole surrounding area is easily recognisable. The South Downs are accurate and the towns and villages are in the right place. It's very easy to navigate around based on the scenery, which I think is far more important than the colours. Good work 1C!

Baron, have you played BoB2? It's a five/six year old game and still has the best campaign/AI/speech-pack of any current sim modelling WW2/BoB. CloD should have nocked it out of the water in this aspect, but it didn't.
Yes with regards to the terrain, BoB2's is largely poor, but when you're flying at angels-20, it's not too far from CloD's, and definitely doesn't detract from the immersion.
In any case, I can see what you're saying, but you seem to have gone off at a massive tangent from Jatta's original post. Yes, the devs can do whatever they like, but I think you have forgotten what Luthier wrote a while back (maybe because he spoke in traditional English, and not text language):

"If we didn't listen to criticism, Il-2 would never in a million years get to where it did back in 2001. So please keep it coming. " That speaks ten-folds for what is useful to the Dev team, and IMHO, constructive criticism for those familiar with England's terrain is useful for them to take on board. Indeed, it also shows a great approach to CloD as well; in that the team is willing to take our criticism on board. Obviously many people's views may conflict, but it is possible to see that there are areas of the terrain which most people predominantly agree on: the trees-placing, the lack of hedge-rows, and the style of the trees in relation to the landscape. Colours and the like are another matter entirely; but the actual geometry of the landscape could clearly be improved (maybe with drastic results).

it is possible to see that there are areas of the terrain which most people predominantly agree on: the trees-placing, the lack of hedge-rows, and the style of the trees in relation to the landscape.

Hear, Hear. It's very important to the majority of posters on this issue, whether they be Britons or not. Those who are know for a fact that CoD's landscape is sadly in no way a convincing representation of England. Even people from overseas know that something is badly awry, and they are correct.

Pointing this out is not going to make Luthier and Co cry or get upset and wound their feelings as long as its done in a respectful manner (which by and large it is). They are professional sim devs and constructive criticism is their meat and drink. Criticism is important in any endevour, because like anyone else Devs are human and are not always right, or things can be improved. It is an ongoing process. Luthier is wise enough to know this.

If I wanted an opinion as to the veracity of a computer recreation of France for example, who would I ask? A Mongolian? No, that would be daft. I think I'd ask the Frenchman, and I think I would take his opinion and evaluation quite seriously. That is not to say that overseas people do not know what England looks like (in fact reading these posts most definitely do)

Please forgive me, but it does get a bit tiresome when people try to tell me what my own blinking country looks like. :grin: I think I and others would know. :grin: We don't need to recalibrate our monitors or any such nonsense. We have the trusty MkI eyeball with which we see it everyday. We know its not right, and that it is in need of pretty big improvement. Finito. End of story. :grin:

Constant 'OMG I LOVE YOU 1C!!!!' posts, while very nice to read for 1c I'm sure.....Actually contribute nothing whatsoever of value or utility. Pointing out things that can be improved actually do.

These are the facts of the case, M'lud. :grin:

Cheers.

Well said Orville.

+1 Orville.by the way how is Keith ?:)

Thanks chaps. Keith's in the trunk of my car, Snake.....having outlived his usefulness. I told him I could fly....but he wouldn't let me. Bad mistake.

His family can have him back as soon as they give me a new TV show *quack quack*. I think that's fair enough. :grin:

lol nice 1 M8:)

Seriously, i think u are the one who needs to reread your first post and then my awnser, who by the way wasn't directed entirely towards u alone. I for one hevent the energy to point u towards the specific line or word i was addressing. Using a bit of "reading in between the lines" is something u need to do.

I was addressing the topic and some of what u said in one go, my misstake.



Never mind, i edited out your entire quote.

Happy now?

no one's playing online. nothing interesting to do offline. broken AI, inoperative basic features, major graphical glitches, monster recommended specs, generalized criticism from the community. promises of unmatched and unmatchable quality (the devs words). oh well... love is blind and so is fanboism. leave them be i say, fanaticism hasn't been banned after all...

As i already pointed out, i addressed the topic and some of his post in one go, is it really that hard to understand without thinking im ripping him (specifically) a new one?

I didnt swear, call him, or anyone for that matter any names, nothing. What is it with the sudden sensitivity?

I know what Luthier said etc. Still doesn't mean what i said doesn't apply. It does. I commented (o gosh, amongst other things) on this, something HE wrote in his orginal post btw, new notion that criticism, however put forward, is valid , and thinking something is ok, or the horror, even very good, is not. Etc. etc.

Exactly where do i tell HIM to sod of or thinking his opinion sucks, or whatever u and he seem to think i did, somehow?

well isn't this folk the one who just recommended "reading in between the lines" ? maybe he should take he's own advice on he's own posts. not all contempt is explicit, but when it's there, it's there

U really are picking a fight aint you.

Well I have been flying with 25 people on repka 1 the other day so your clearly not looking hard enough and repka 2 had 40-50 players but was password protected :( think the ruskis had enough of pl telling them to speak English on Russian servers :| :D

wanna settle it at sunset?:rolleyes: seriously no i'm not.. and even if i were then we both would have a share in it.. anyway i had a break this afternoon. i'm thinking to myself "what the heck am i doing here instead online with CoD?" well this turned out to be funnier.. that's the reason we're saying what we're saying. anyway i am in no way convinced you're bad ppl. this is really getting beyond reason. time to get outside for a while.. sun has come up

Baron, your whole post seemed as though it was aggressively aimed towards Jatta, and you did go off at a tangent from what he was suggesting. I wasn't sensitive to what you wrote; I just didn't agree with the comment about how you were happy that the terrain was there (effectively what you were suggesting) and that it was rather unnecessary to be critical of it (again, I'm sorry if there is a misunderstanding on this issue). I have already said why I disagreed with this view above, so I won't regurgitate it again. Just remember though, it is extremely easy to misunderstand people on the internet, and that may be the case here. I wasn't trying to be aggressive towards you in particular, so I'm sorry if it appeared to be this way.

Hmmm.................., ok I wasn't going to post this, as I'm not a fan of photo scenery, but as I don't have a real aeroplane, or a licence to fly one, photo scenery is the next best thing to look at.

Yes I know the light conditions are hugely different and photo scenery has no ground detail or shadows, but as a comparison of Cliffs to 'reality'?

I actually like the landscape in Cliffs if the colours were a little closer, the trees looked English, and the roads had hedgerows. In fact I don't really understand why hedgerows couldn't be added to the roads/field - models/textures as a matter of course. But I know nothing of 3D programming. On the ground, and close to it, Cliffs looks superb. It's only when you climb it starts to look 'wrong'.

I also can't wait for a weather system to be implemented successfully, you'll see from the clip what I mean, (and before anyone jumps on my neck, I know REX are only 2D clouds).

Don't blink, the comparisons are very short. Anyway, enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LubLOo2en0k

NP.

Wasnt trying to be aggressive at all, anyone can think what ever they like, just as anyone can disagree and as far as how the terrain looks now, of course i wont scream bloody murder if they would change it. I just feel there are a few much more important things that needs fixing first.

How the terrain looks is an est-ethic argument and i think most would agree that it has a fairly "low" priority at the moment and bringing it up all the time wont make it happen any faster.

Lumping est-ethic issues with actual bugs and playability issues only makes everything look worse than it is for no reason or gain for anyone. (just promotes a lot of bickering)

Imo there's a time and place for everything. The terrain issue isn't going anywhere, it will still be there when the "real" bugs is fixed. ;)

I dont know how far of i am, but the REX scenery does not mach up my vision (in my head) of how England looks like from above. At least not the colours. Maby looks to "modern"? Almost like industrial farming areas (if there is such a thing) Lighting, time of day and weather probably have something to do with it to.

Anyways, and i dont know if i recall this correctly, but i think Oleg did mention that miles and miles of hedge rows would become very hardware intensive, dont ask me why. And "knowing" Oleg he was probably talking about actual hedges in 3D.

What would help a little with the terrain is replacing those white paths that seem to be everywhere with dark green paths that would from above look like the hedgerows that are so badly missing.

Its the terrain i believe that causes the stutters, i think maybe if they look into how the textures are loaded maybe they can reduce stutters more.

:rolleyes: they have already done that...

No, it's all textures streaming: ground texture+objects textures.

I should've also pointed out that REX is just the sky, water and clouds @ £45 or so. The landscape is VFR real scenery also @ £45 or so. It cost me the same (roughly) for two collector's editions of Cliffs of Dover as it did for these two 'add-ons'..

Oh, the Spit was about £20 aswell. I must be barmy or summat.

I reckon that given time we'll see improvements to the landscape generally, but when the weather engine gets going, the landscape colours will start to make more sense. Try to concentrate on the area of shadow under a cloud as it is at the moment and you'll get an idea. I didn't manage to catch this in the clip.:)