Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Friday 2009-10-23 Screenshots Update discussion thread

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)

- - Friday 2009-10-23 Screenshots Update discussion thread (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=10702)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 114388)

We never had a problem with sound using proper level of sound cards and speakers for which it was designed.
The changes for some aircraft using mp3 from video samples isn't right. maybe it is nice for someone, but it is done without 3D enviroument that we had in Il-2.
I listened some mods that recommended me to listen and what I found? 2D sound using one-two samples.... and damaged sound of other aircraft.

Of course we can take the sound from handheld camcoders and put it in sound engine, but it will be incorrect from the point of view what pilot hear, what people on the ground hear, and what you may hear simulating the position (camera) outside the plane in air.

It is too early to ask me what we will have. However in many inerviews I told that we will have other sound engine working even on a cheap sound card and speakers

100% copy of each aircraft we can't make. We can make just some things that are close and simulate in 3D binaural sound that no one sim has or had (partially had Il-2).

By simple words we will have compessed in dynmaic range sound that to get it working well on any type of sound-speaker system.
In Il-2 was wide dynamic rage, that not all sound systems was able to play right.

:) Hopefully the sim pilot in SOW will no longer hear the engine sound of a six o'clock enemy fighter who is secretly approaching him. ;) In the current IL2, there is no stealth in this respect.

nice pterodaktulos

ask for oleg.
How is going to call all the Series Of Storm Of War.?
Ej: Storm Of War - Battle of Britain, Storm Of War - Korea, Storm Of War - ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avimimus (Post 114631)

IMHO,
There are no surviving animals that flew like Pterosaurs and it is very different to infer how they flew.

No doubt it was either the quad-20mm cannons that led to the extinction or that they were extremly tasty.

Sorry for going OT but I couldn't help it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger (Post 114649)

No doubt it was either the quad-20mm cannons that led to the extinction or that they were extremly tasty.

Sorry for going OT but I couldn't help it.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

It's perfectly obvious the remaining pterodactyls mutated into creatures like Rodan and attacked Japan:
http://sportsmansdaily.com/thescrum/...tent/rodan.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by RomBinDaHouse (Post 114531)

This screens was over year before release (IGN published it on June 6, 2008; released sept-4-09):

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/...09197_640w.jpg
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/...27774_640w.jpg

..not only screens but also gameplay videotrailers was presented.

2all - it based on project priorities which things are finished\polished first in development stages.

Dear RomBinDaHouse,

They used original code of Il-2, if you don't know. We give them it. They wasn't need to make everything from zero. Isn't it different case? To rework say 3D model of aircraft to add polygons on some details, to make more greater size textures doen't means to make greatest technical and historical research that to make original 3D model. Loking on the models of SoW i'm personally sure that I can say that a lot of people, historian writers, cinematograph, etc will use OUR sim for the reference and modelling for the cinema some aerial battles (like it was already with Il-2, but now it will be on a 10+ times higher level at all and will looks at least in air close to real picture). I'm sure that nobody also would put in a single sim so much love to aviation on the whole market. Everything that currently do others as new fligth sims - its not for years, its just flyby...

Also we are not using technologies like do it others - demo, then upgrade nad upgrade more and more. We make many things in parallel and then do complete compilations more close to beta.

Also you show me pictures, that are not looking like the photo, but looking like the painted picture, that of course has some style of painter(s), but not like real picture that would see the human eye. Trust me :)
In our case - we would like to get the most photographic quality of the whole image on monitor from differnet angles of view and distances. The goal is to get the best looking sim for a long time, how it was with Il-2 when its born.
Also we make a constructor, that many other developers will modify with new content... this absolutely other comparison to the console games.... or ported from console to PC games... :)

Just try to think about info I giving you in my message.

The more I look at that 110 the more amazed I am, not just the reflection off the canopy and the canopy framing shadow on the nose, but the panel detail on the wing, the small panels between the nacel and fuselage show shadowing and high lighting of very high realism, the panels even look slightly uneven as you would see on a real aircraft. Awesome.
Video will be jaw dropping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fuzzychickens (Post 114527)

Oleg, just curious, have you seen how Polyphony Digital solves anti-aliasing jagged edges on PSP version of Gran Turismo.

They didn't use anti-aliasing (too processor hungry), they used something like one pixle shift between frames that reduced the jagged edges when game is in motion.

Is anything like this a possibilty for SOW?

http://www.gtplanet.net/why-gran-tur...ooks-so-good/?

There is an article of how PD reduced the jagged edges without using antialiasing.

It is known technology from specialized TV processors.
However in DX11 - there is no contradiction between anti aliasing and HDR technology. We simply currently working in DX10. And As I know in new version of DX10 also will be something that will remove that contradiction. Not sure.
This is small thing that we will put in attention more later becasue it is not the most important things in development tasks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by imaca (Post 114727)

I posted couple of screen shots, including this one on the photosource forum.
Photographers, even professionals were thinking that this pic is a photo... and didn't understand why the props ar stoped... they were thinking that it was taken by some accident with aircraft... they discussed it for some time untill I told them it is computer image of real time rendering.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 114348)

Please read all my posts.

As the aswer you: In my opinon, these who know me from the time of Il-2 development would understand that to make so good quality of aircraft and vechles means that we will have equal quality of envirounment in future.
The main standard set the planes, then for the ground standard set the vechicles.
Same was with Il-2. It is easy to make comparison of tanks and cars with the ground envirounment in Il-2, that to imagine what we plan to have with the ground, etc in SoW.

Simply there would be such logic, as I undersand the normal logic myself.

If what you are saying is that when it's all said and done the terrain will knock the socks off anything seen in SoW and make me drool on my keyboard then that's great and I trust what you say is true.

Yes, I think that DX10 (and 11) remove the problem with HDR and FSAA. Of course that also needs a graphics-card that supports it, but DX10-cards are already available for a while, so it's not gonna cost a fortune.

On a personal note: I honestly don't give a damn about the BoP-Screenshots posted. As posted before, the graphics are way to Hollywood and it never was intended to be a flightsim in the literal meaning of the word. If you go for graphics and nice effects go for BoP or HAWX. Neither is a real competitor for SoW.

Doesn't mean either game is bad - it's just comparing apples and oranges.

And when in doubt, I prefer a high degree of simulation over graphics anytime.