Friday 2011-01-28 Dev. update and Discussion

[carl]

what with hecke and phillip, i think i may go smoke some grass as it is the only way i will be able to make sense of where this thread has gone.

[HenFre]

Thanks for the update Oleg and Luthier.. Love the colour of the green grass

[Heliocon]

Good looking girl!
Got to agree though the colors look a bit "off", whats up with the AA, I mean WOP looks better... I hate to whine (because here being critical is whining) but its alittle underwhelming. Cockpits look nice, terrain kinda meh. Are the settings on high? If not, why not?

[SQB]

Heliocon, my thoughts entirely (+1)

[Robert]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Good looking girl!
Got to agree though the colors look a bit "off", whats up with the AA, I mean WOP looks better... I hate to whine (because here being critical is whining) but its alittle underwhelming. Cockpits look nice, terrain kinda meh. Are the settings on high? If not, why not?

It's not that being critical is whining. It's people who read the updates and despite the information given, ignorantly bash and complain. It's usually the same people who find plenty to cry about but never find anything good to write about.

It's people who ask the same question that's been covered again and again. RTFF. It's those who complain and yet refuse to see improvements on a weekly basis, indicating that things are still WiP AND being improved upon. It's some folks taking bits and bobs, targeting their complaints upon a few pictures, and not seeing the overall development process. There's some REALLY NICE STUFF to view if one takes a minute. It's folks complaining about tree types in lower England. It's those people who come in and bash, then give an off handed insult to the development team or other members of the forum. And quite frankly, the AA complaints are ridiculous. Does ANYONE really think this game would be released without the ability to have AA running? Seriously? And NO. The settings are not on high. RTFF.

Take a few minutes to read the forum before leaving comments. Some posts are as annoying as the next door neighbor's dog leaving land mines on my property.

It's those sort posts that clog up the forum like a bacon sandwich in my lower colon and cause unnecessary discomfort.



FANBOI MODE ACTIVATED: I think we're all going to be surprised at what's released in March. But what I find really exceptional is that even at these lowered settings the game will be very playable while still looking quite nice. For an exercise play IL2/FB at it's lowest setting. I think you'll be surprised at how comical it looks. You'll also discover how 'bad' the landscape is. Now turn it back up to the highest setting you can. Looks damn good don't it? I personally think CoD will have this sort of graphic flexibility. If these screen shots represent lower settings, then what's in store for the less graphically challenged gaming rigs?

Patience folks. Read the forum. Most topics and complaints have been covered. If one has to complain, at least have an alternative idea for improvement or facts to back yourself up. THAT's true criticism. Adding 'meh's' and portents of gloom and doom do nothing but reduce this forum to a battle ground. .

[TheGrunch]

I agree with nearly everything you said, Robert. The only thing I disagree with is the comment about AA...it's not that people don't think the game will be able to use it, it's just that many of us, almost as much as any member of the development team, want to see this game do well in sales, and releasing screenshots and trailers without AA is one of those things that will put off casual buyers, especially those who don't know what AA is. Something will just look subtly wrong, and they'll just think the game has "bad graphics" and not bother. We want to see the effort the devs put in repaid, we're just hoping they'll realise how critical a lot of less hardcore simmers are about small touches like that because they're comparing the game's publicity to that of other games which are publicised in a way that's all flash and no content.

[Robert]

Point noted Grunch re: AA..... and thinking twice about it, you're correct.

The marketing has barely ratcheted itself up. The casual gamer isn't aware of CoD yet (IMO). The next few weeks will probably see a plethora of screenies and clips and I think these will be more reflective of what we have in store for the release of CoD.

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Good looking girl!
Got to agree though the colors look a bit "off", whats up with the AA, I mean WOP looks better... I hate to whine (because here being critical is whining) but its alittle underwhelming. Cockpits look nice, terrain kinda meh. Are the settings on high? If not, why not?

WOP uses a lot of cheats to trick you into thinking that the terrain is good, when in fact it's pretty fake. First they use that annoying vignette to make it look like an old film, you can turn that off. Next look at the view distance. Looks like you're flying over modern day Beijing with all that fog. Next the colours are exagerrated and in some cases washed out to look (at the same time) more vibrant and toned down.

It also relies on the FSX terrain trick of having the "ideal" altitude for terrain detail. The textures you will find look best at the altitude you spend 90% of the game at. When you get lower they look all stretched and very low detail. Load up the Slovakia map in IL-2 and start buzzing around at 200 feet. Doesn't look so good now does it? Same thing with WOP.

All flight sims suffer from this exact same problem. Even COD to a certain extent. In order to get rid of this issue you'd need ground textures to be a lot larger and more detailed. This would be both extremely time consuming and also it would really tax your system or require LOD settings that would really break immersion when changing altitude.

Look at this pic I'm posting below: It's the first pic that would load properly in GIS when typing "wing of prey terrain" with large pic settings.

Do I really need to explain why this is does not look good?

[Sven]

It does look good Jockey, why? Because the creators of this are brilliant, doesn't consume a lot of PC power, runs great, looks good, it's perfect. Like Oleg's trick with the trees, just brilliant. You are of course being tricked, but this kind of tricking is class.

You sound like someone who just went to a magic show, and afterwards saying out loud in the crowd: You guys do know that that was all a big trick right?!

Originally Posted by Sven

It does look good Jockey, why? Because the creators of this are brilliant, doesn't consume a lot of PC power, runs great, looks good, it's perfect. Like Oleg's trick with the trees, just brilliant. You are of course being tricked, but this kind of ticking is class.

WOP looks good for what it was intended to do. Run fast and smooth on a Console or Midrange PC and remind people of the camera filters used in Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. The reason they do that is to trick people into thinking, this is what it should look like, because, hey! "That WWII movie and Show looked like that".

What Oleg is trying to do is show you what a flight sim would look like if you were looking out the cockpit glass, and not at 70 year old archival footage.

What I'm saying is that comparing the terrain in WOP to COD is not really a good comparison at all since the WOP environment has been so warped that there isn't a realistic frame of reference in it. Despite what people say about the grass in COD, WOP is more like a cartoon with all the colours and effects set to the extreme. There are no accurate colours in the game, so it's harder to say something looks wrong, meanwhile COD is going for everything looking realistic, so it's easier to find faults, even though it is miles more accurate and realistic graphics wise.