Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-07-2011, 01:26 PM
ZaltysZ's Avatar
ZaltysZ ZaltysZ is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lithuania
Posts: 426
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Owl View Post
I hate lens flares. My eyeball doesn't experience lens flares. Why do game developers insist on adding this ugly effect that doesn't match what my eyeball sees?
Because TV is standard of reality
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-07-2011, 09:32 PM
JumpingHubert's Avatar
JumpingHubert JumpingHubert is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 170
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ZaltysZ View Post
Because TV is standard of reality
exactly! true words in a stupid reality
__________________
GTX570 @940Mhz watercooled
Q6600 @3,9Ghz watercooled
HP w2207 22" (1680x1050)
Eheim 1250
Toyota Radiator
XP Home 32bit & Win7 64bit
Crucial SSD C300 64GB
TrackIR 3 Pro
Hotas Cougar + 18cm Extension
+Hall Sensors
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-07-2011, 01:29 PM
Sternjaeger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by White Owl View Post
I hate lens flares. My eyeball doesn't experience lens flares. Why do game developers insist on adding this ugly effect that doesn't match what my eyeball sees?
I'd see an oculist if I were you

BF3 is surely going to be a milestone. If some of you guys can't see its outstanding features it's because you just like to be a contrary Mary..

Stunning graphics, animations, acting voices and plot, but yes, it's a game, not a sim. I doubt someone would survive all that heap of sounds and explosions for another day of fighting

There's one thing that always annoyed me about FPSs, the little gnome in your rucksack that automatically moves your ammunition to the half emptied magazines so that you can keep on picking up fully loaded ones..
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-07-2011, 01:42 PM
Skoshi Tiger Skoshi Tiger is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 2,197
Default

The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.

As the tanks raced toward it I wanted it to get bigger and tower up higher. It didn't.

It didn't even have any internal movement as a real cloud of smoke would have. But I gess thats because they're only modeling a map 10's of kilometres wide rather than 100's of kilometres. All that detail restricts how big the maps are.

Not long ago people were complaing about the inclusion of grass in COD. It would be fantastic to have targets with as much detail as that compound, but would it be worth having it if your bombing from 20,000 feet or racing past at tree top level at 300Kph?


Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-07-2011, 01:59 PM
Baron Baron is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger View Post
The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.

As the tanks raced toward it I wanted it to get bigger and tower up higher. It didn't.

It didn't even have any internal movement as a real cloud of smoke would have. But I gess thats because they're only modeling a map 10's of kilometres wide rather than 100's of kilometres. All that detail restricts how big the maps are.

Not long ago people were complaing about the inclusion of grass in COD. It would be fantastic to have targets with as much detail as that compound, but would it be worth having it if your bombing from 20,000 feet or racing past at tree top level at 300Kph?


Cheers!

One of those things people comparing apples and oranges conveniently overlook and wonder why cant we have this.

"They" probably think CoD, BF etc never have to make compromises.

Those giant smokestacks is a perfect example.

As far as i can tell BF forums isnt flooded with people thinking they always know how to do BF better.

Last edited by Baron; 06-07-2011 at 02:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-07-2011, 02:01 PM
speculum jockey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger View Post
The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.
That's an excellent example of "picking your battles". FPS's can do this much easier than Flight Sims since you are usually stuck on the ground in a certain area. Flight sims don't have that luxury of being able to hide things in the distance. One thing that I was sort of disappointed with CloD was their lack of "corner cutting" graphics where appropriate instead of cutting features.

Those high density forests we see could have been replaced by "Oleg Trees Version 2.0" and nobody would have noticed and I'm sure it would have helped free up some resources for other stuff.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.