Friday 2010-10-01 Dev. update and Discussion

[Romanator21]

For starters, cliffs erode, and sometimes rather quickly. Today's landscape isn't going to match 1940's landscape 100%.

3rd set, shot 2 and 5. It's faintly clear here

Allow me to respectfully disagree with you here and say that there is nothing out of the ordinary with these clouds, and in fact they are quite realistic as I see these types quite often. I have also flown very close to clouds (but not in them as I'm not IFR certified). Theses are already rather flat in appearance, but you shouldn't expect to see table-tops except for under certain conditions.

And others have a double standard. The Hurricane pilot size is not to be mentioned ‘on peril of death’, but the leaf colour, tree trunk sizes, road widths, tracer appearance, colour of the tires (just kidding) and who knows what other details, are ok to criticize…??

Tracer color, leaf color, etc are subjective based on our experiences and monitor calibrations. Pilot size is scaled in the 3D engine along with every other object. It's impossible to make a pilot which is shorter than you scale it to be. If it's 175cm, it's 175cm, no speculation necessary.

[bf-110]

B.R.20...Magnifico!!!!

[Jimko]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Tracer color, leaf color, etc are subjective based on our experiences and monitor calibrations. Pilot size is scaled in the 3D engine along with every other object. It's impossible to make a pilot which is shorter than you scale it to be. If it's 175cm, it's 175cm, no speculation necessary.

Ahh..and so you are saying that road width, tree trunk size, and all other sizes are not scaled like the pilot size or in your words "every other object"?

Strangely, some others noticed a discrepency as well, when it came to pilot size...

Nevertheless, all opinions and observations should be accepted without malice which was more to the point of my post.

Cheers!

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Romanator21

Allow me to respectfully disagree with you here and say that there is nothing out of the ordinary with these clouds, and in fact they are quite realistic as I see these types quite often. I have also flown very close to clouds (but not in them as I'm not IFR certified). Theses are already rather flat in appearance, but you shouldn't expect to see table-tops except for under certain conditions.

My post above answers this quite well. They may look good to you, but please, post a photo of clouds that look exactly like this (over England). Then I may begin to believe that these look realistic.
It's just like the smoke issue. When I first said the smoke didn't look good, people started saying I was wrong. I was called a moaner, and a whiner and I think you were one of the people you said that to me, Romanator. Then Luthier and Oleg replied by saying they hated the smoke more than the minority who had truthfully expressed their opinions. So here we had it; I was right in this instance.
Until Oleg replies, you can be as fan-boiish as you want, but it won't change the fact that Oleg and Luthier have proved you wrong in the past. That's why my original post was in good taste. It just got blown way out of proportion.

[Rodolphe]

...

Originally Posted by Tone71

All things considered, I don't think it looks too bad:



Sorry for the small pic, best I could find! This is St.Catherine's on the Isle of Wight; you can just make out how steep it really is and the 'double step' up from the sea.

A floral study (I know, just starting to talk about tree again )

The Undercliff and the surrounding countryside;

Then and ...















... Now.





...

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Rodolphe

...






A floral study (I know, just starting to talk about tree again )

The Undercliff and the surrounding countryside;

Then and ...















... Now.





...

Well found! A couple more.





We should get this area on the map, I think (correct me otherwise). I want to fly a Spitfire under that arch!!!!
And it would be a perfect place for an online quick dogfight map. Old Harry, Swanage:









[EDIT] - Ohh...just found that Durdle Door is in that area too..(I thought it was further away at first);
an amazing looking place. I think you might even get a Blenheim through there
.... IF it's modelled of course!!!








For scale:

[matsher]

[QUOTE=Tone71;186463]All things considered, I don't think it looks too bad:



@ Tree_UK
I think that the landscape looks great. I say this because in this reference pic from TONE71 you can clearly see that in the distance is a distinct haze. Which is very common, and looking at Olegs' Screenshot you can see the haze is present all the way to the shoreline.
In the above reference pic, the haze has burned off in the near distance. I fly a lot and I can vouch for the presence of this haze effect, which dampens and flattens the colour of the ground and skies... The ground is really very well rendered.

Also the above reference shot is also over saturated, it has way too much blue/cyan. You wanted others input about this concern of yours, so this
is mine.

I also want to tell you that its not your opinion that rubs people up the wrong way, its your delivery. Telling Oleg his landscapes look like a child painted them
or that Canon should or could fix up what (in your opinion) Oleg couldn't achieve cannot be viewed as criticism. Constructive or otherwise.
They are straight up insults...
If it was your intention to insult Oleg and his years of work, then congrats, you've achieved your goal. BUT if it wasn't your intent, then try and consider another approach. This is my opinion. Use it, Don't use it, you choose.

[philip.ed]

The colours are just a bit bright for summer at the moment. But of course this will be subject to change right up until x-day. Be sure.

[matsher]

Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...

I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is

Full cockpit vs Wonderview:- In IL-2 there is either Full cockpit or gunsight and sky. Nothing inbetween. It would be so good if there was a third option.

To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?

The cockpit opacity settings would be amazing to have... No longer will we have to choose between dynamic gameplay (Wonderview) and immersion (In cockpit)... We could have both.

Not too sure what the technical implications of this request is but I had to ask anyway.

Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...

And Oleg, Please answer, I am burning to know...
I'll be satisfied with either a
1. Yes
2. No
or
3. Could happen in a future release.

(RESPONSE TO OLEG'S EARLIER POST) I also want to say that the view options in IL-2 are the best of any sim ever... I have played pretty much every single flight sim that has been made and none compares with IL-2's viewing systems... Coupled with the fact that outside camera views can be used (turned) with the track IR is immensely useful. Please dont change them, but add to them with your new secret viewing options

I also love the little details, like the pilots and gunners having 'weight' to them. I can see myself flying with the chase camera and throwing the bomber around the skies and seeing how the gunners react to inertia - Seeing if I can shunt the plane hard enough so they will fall out...

I am not sure how many more people will view my post... I think I may have missed the boat a bit cause most of the vast majority of the community have already been and gone, So I will repost this next week and hopefully get loads of responses, I am super interested to know what other may think of this idea.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Tone71

All things considered, I don't think it looks too bad:




I think that the landscape looks great. I say this because in this reference pic from TONE71 you can clearly see that in the distance is a distinct haze. Which is very common, and looking at Olegs' Screenshot you can see the haze is present all the way to the shoreline.

In the above reference pic, the haze has burned off in the near distance. I fly a lot and I can vouch for the presence of this haze effect, which dampens and flattens the colour of the ground and skies... The ground is really very well rendered..

exactly, the main point with the recent high altitude screenshots is that what we see of the terrain below shows good detail in the ground contours, toning the color palate (or density of foliage/scrubs/trees/hedges) is a very minor and easy component (and is not the purpose of showing those shots imho)