Graphics engine from original IL2 utilised in CloD. So what hope for BoM?

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Stublerone

There is no need to rewrite engine as they already did. And it is a problem of the of the technique together with the high viewing rang. Noone on this earth could make it sufficient with this method and the given parameters.

We are talking about an open world, large maps, big texture and clear and ultra long viewing range. Noone ever get this work as you all intend. Simply not possible with our "slow" machines to compute all the workload needed to get a really good result you are looking for. Impossible with all the slow interfaces between the components. Not to speak of a completely revolution in using multicore cpu and multicore graphics (sli has to function totally different with a much more effective interface between the cards). Also fasterssd, fast as ddr3 at least and change ddr3 ram to ddr5 vram speed and get the right and fast buses between them. If the pc is working like this, you could PERHAPS be able to generate a sufficiently working stream engine game with some free capacities for graphics evolutions.

So: really difficult technically!

one further possible avenue of increased performance for game programers is to directly access/write-to GPU functions (instead of using intermediary languages as they do now, which need 1 or several steps between the hardware function and the game code written), but i am not aware of any current game that does so yet. from what i read, this will allow a significant further step forward in performance nd some upcoming FPS are sarting to use these methods afaik. future more efficient game code writing for flightsims is also possible even using current harrdware, but i agree that right now given the current method of writing these games, performance for flightsims is very much strangled by what the current hardware can perform, and it is a game genre that is pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

[tintifaxl]

Originally Posted by Stublerone

There is no need to rewrite engine as they already did. And it is a problem of the of the technique together with the high viewing rang. Noone on this earth could make it sufficient with this method and the given parameters.
...

You contradict yourself in the next sentence. So a rewrite of the engine with support for multicore cpu's and sli gpu's is necessary to achieve better results.

Why do I have such a fast and expensive system? So developers can still not support multicore cpu's, multiple gpu's and use slow execution programming languages like C#, that have a huge overhead when using the Direct3D API?

[Stublerone]

Originally Posted by tintifaxl

You contradict yourself in the next sentence. So a rewrite of the engine with support for multicore cpu's and sli gpu's is necessary to achieve better results.

Why do I have such a fast and expensive system? So developers can still not support multicore cpu's, multiple gpu's and use slow execution programming languages like C#, that have a huge overhead when using the Direct3D API?

You are right with second. But what you claimed in your first part: I just wanted to say that sli is bad, multicore cpu is bad as long its buses, interfaces and the way they are handled gets improved. Sli for example do not us both cards capabilities 100% and it is even worse with its vram just 100%, where it should be 200% with 2 cards. It is just using the amount of 1 x vram, which is rediculous especially when upgrading a 1gb vram card. You can directly take the money as toilet paper, because it does not help you get rid of the problem of texture load in clod. You can buy 50 cards and generate 3000 fps in clod without getting rid of the last hick ups.

So sli needs rework and another implementation. 3 cards for 3 monitors will do 3 parts of thepicture. 1 for every monitor and without loss of the potential vram. -> That would be an sli, which I directly buy, no matter how much bucks. But you will perhaps never see such an upgrade politics from the manufacturer, because he cannot sell his top product for gaming, if the people can upgrade sufficiently. Why should he do that? He earns not as much and perhaps needs to produce lower end or nearly obsolete cards a longer time. Not a sufficient model for him. So he will stick with the politics, which is not doing him any harm, but us! Simple business. Add the fact to use prematerials that brake after 4 years and you are a rich company! And noone really can do anything as long as it is needed and as long as there is a market for it.

As long as the coms between the hardware parts are just evolving as now, we will always have such a problem. Usb2, usb3, sata 300, sata 600, thunderbolt, firewire, .... All crap to the possibilities, that they could integrate. The hardware is to far away from each other

[priller26]

Originally Posted by jermin

He's right. You can find quite some bugs in Clod which have made their appearances in original IL2 ever since its release. The most compelling proof is the high altitude performance bug. Apparently Oleg had migrated some systems (and hence bugs with them) from IL2 to Clod.

Hello Jermin, is that cool Pik As in your signature a skin one can download? looks great.

[jermin]

It's an add-on plane Bf-109K-4 for FSX made by Flight Replicas. You can find more information about it at http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...-JG53-Pik-As-2

[Ataros]

CloD uses completely new engine with a new modular architecture and without many of original IL-2 limitations. According to Oleg's posts at sukhoi.ru development of the new engine instead of limiting themselves to the old one was the main reason for delays in game development and his personal mistake.

At the same time CloD uses big parts of old IL-2 code because some members of the dev team failed to create new optimized code in time(and were fired). These parts were and I think still are being rewritten by new team members.

[jctrnacty]

Switching to DX11 could solve most of the problems graphics engine has right now.

90 prcent of graphics cards is DX11 so why stay in the DX 9 mode????

Simulation is the most demanding software so all players have powerfull computers with DX 11, i dont see a reason here to sty in dx9

[Mysticpuma]

Originally Posted by Ailantd

Sorry and not offense, but I have to say you have not even a clue about what you are talking about.

Having re-read my original post, and in the same vain that you posted.....no offense but you are talking out of your arse....no offense

So, regarding other replies, the point I was trying to make was that not only does CloD contain many 'legacy' issues from the original 1946 engine, the only significant (visual) change that I have seen is shadows. That's pretty much it.

Initial releases actually showed much visual promise. Fog layers, beautiful lighting, dark intense shadows, more detail in the aircraft cockpits, light rendering on aircraft, particle effects (small flames as bullets hit), better debris effects, in fact many additions to the game engine.

However.

It also carried over many of the annoyances and irritations of the previous models, the main one in my opinion is the draw distance (or lack of).

Do we really now, in 2012, expect to see popcorn clouds? No clouds...POP! there's one. Pop! Pop!...there's some more! Oh look, I've changed direction... Pop!...they've gone? This is a legacy effect from the original.

Surely by now Clouds should be truly opaque. There should be cloud layers. Multiple cloud layers. Low-level thick and opaque, high level, broken. Both being able to be flown over and through WITHOUT the distance being drawn so obviously?

Yes we get a new weather and dynamic weather in BoM...but it is using this game engine. I guarantee (mark my words here I am prepared to go out on the limb!!), they will still Pop! They will till carry over the legacy of the original IL2. They look pants, totally unbelievable and not immersive at-all!

Regarding the ground textures.

Personally I would rather some way of the ground being aliased in (blurred in) smoothly than the (never been changed since the original) way of buildings and textures popping into view.

Flying low over any populated city really shows how little has changed since the original 10-year-old Il2 in the methods used to create a believable terrain.

Maybe as a thought (don't worry I am about to mention Wings of prey...but waiiiiittttttttttt!!!) there could be some much smaller maps made, specifically for Dog fighting that are just 64K x 64K?

This would allow far more processor time and GPU power to be spent on the preloaded Graphics, like the (here it comes and other will say "far inferior") Wings of Prey.

Could the Developer's of CloD possibly make graphic advances that are possible in the 'lowly and he who should not be named' Wings of Prey, if they actually produced what are considered to be 'too small' maps of Wings of Prey?

I imagine that if the Dev's put some effort into making a few smaller maps that weren't such a resource hog (as I am told by forum users that the only reason we have the hopeless draw distance is because the maps are large?) then there would be a considerably larger draw (pre-rendered LoD) distance, that would at-least make the ground look a little more authentic?

I'm not making this a WoP thread. There isn't a comparison in the workings, FM, DM, Simulation!!! But by using 'smaller' maps, they do achieve at-least a believable impression of flying over a convincing landscape and also clouds?

That doesn't mean that the Maps are all 64K x 64K, but maybe an option so that the ground objects are loaded much further from the player bubble and at-least don't pop,pop,pop,pop,pop into view.

So now development is concluded with CloD (as a stand-alone) just what should we really expect to see (AS PROGRESS) in BoM regarding innovation from the original IL2?

So-far, I see very little Graphically that has been added (that worked and wasn't removed when it became clear that the old IL2 engine couldn't cope with it in CloD) from the original, other than shadows.

I mean even tree collisions were removed and these were in the original?

Currently I just see the Development team putting some features in because they really should be in, then realising that it's not worth the effort of actually fixing it...so take it out and say it's in the sequel?

Well the sequel will be using an optomised CloD engine....built on the legacy programming of the original IL2. What difference will that make? I don't really know, but currently I fear being presented with BoM and having nothing more than "The Emperor's New Clothes".

MP

[vranac]

With all due respect you are talking mostly about optimizations they did to achieve better performance and IIRC you was also one of the many people who were complaining about poor performace until you upgraded your PC.

On the other way this sim was performing good on my PC after first few patches.It was playable even with old clouds and a lot of them, FPS drop was there but I could fight arround them without a problem.
If you see that some pilots still have problems with this new optimised ones you could uderstand the reason why devs did that.

I am happy that for most of the pilots sim is playable now and performing much better than before.
That also can be seen in number of players online.

You could try to solve your problem with poping houses and trees by putting them on max but I don't know if your PC will stand.

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by vranac

If you see that some pilots still have problems with this new optimised ones you could uderstand the reason why devs did thatnd.

What "optimised " clouds are you talking about? They did not optimised the clouds. On my machine they are more resource hungry then before.
I used to mke missions just to try that "local weather" engine in full mission builder, with a huge area covered by clouds and it worked on my computer. The frame rate was bad, but it worked. If you look at the "local wether" in the full mission builder, when you add clouds, you get a very small are covered by default. I used to add two zeros to the first two entries and that would give you a decent size covered. I tried multiple layers at different altitudes. It worked.
Now the game crashes when I try a single layer.