Where is the ground personnel?

Originally Posted by winny

Speculation is Trees forte. That and repitition.

......and yours is? No i wont say it.

[winny]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

......and yours is? No i wont say it.

Go on? What is mine?

You and your constant moaning... It's easy to be negative.

[ChrisDNT]

"I always hate it when the quality isn't consistent throughout..."

Like for instance the ultra-sharp houses floating over low-quality ground textures ?

"On the other hand polygon crunching isn't such a big deal anymore..."

Yes, today, you can design a very nice cow, with few polys, BUT with a very high texture baked back from a very detailed model (with softwares like Zbrush, Mudbox, Mari or 3dCoat). I still wonder why these softs have not been used for the ground textures ?

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

"I always hate it when the quality isn't consistent throughout..."

Like for instance the ultra-sharp houses floating over low-quality ground textures ?

No, although that's also an issue (one that will fortunately go away with higher texture and AF settings, as shown in previous screens). I was more thinking of going from the Gladiator cockpit to the P-47 in Il2. Or watching some of the legacy 3D models in DCS along with some of the latest ones with 150.000+ polygons.

"On the other hand polygon crunching isn't such a big deal anymore..."

Yes, today, you can design a very nice cow, with few polys, BUT with a very high texture baked back from a very detailed model (with softwares like Zbrush, Mudbox, Mari or 3dCoat). I still wonder why these softs have not been used for the ground textures ?

Baked-in shadows don't work well with dynamic lighting conditions, which is why Oleg probably sticks with bump mapping for the terrain (rarely shown so far unfortunately). And the models we've seen from planes over ground objects to seagulls already has a very conservative polygon count and are using various tricks to make them look more complex (just check how many of the vehicle surface features are done with bump mapping).

But that's not really my point - what I'm saying is, polygon count is not really the problem (for rendering ground personnel or traffic), so using "sprites" is not the solution. Such objects will not eat a current GPU:

[TheGrunch]

What the Kraken says, basically. As long as these personnel have no real AI to speak of, it shouldn't be tooooo-tooo taxing, but as far as I'm concerned it'd be a nice extra and nothing more as a release feature. This game is about flying historical air combat missions, not RAF Fighter Station Simulator 1940.

[Bloblast]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

What the Kraken says, basically. As long as these personnel have no real AI to speak of, it shouldn't be tooooo-tooo taxing, but as far as I'm concerned it'd be a nice extra and nothing more as a release feature. This game is about flying historical air combat missions, not RAF Fighter Station Simulator 1940.

It's not a show stopper but in IL-2 back in 2001 we had ground gunners and drivers, if convoi was attacked they jumped out. Must be said that those figures were low polygon.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Bloblast

It's not a show stopper but in IL-2 back in 2001 we had ground gunners and drivers, if convoi was attacked they jumped out. Must be said that those figures were low polygon.

Today (political correctness) such features are the best way to a 18+ rating!

[fireflyerz]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

......and yours is? No i wont say it.

LOl... good shot Tree .

[winny]

Originally Posted by fireflyerz

LOl... good shot Tree .

Wow, you're easily pleased.