Friday 2010-10-01 Dev. update and Discussion

Some people need to be reminded that this is a thread for discussion of screenshots, I think the terrain looks bad, now try and discuss without getting personal.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

I think the terrain looks bad, now try and discuss.

I don't really understand the people who are criticising clouds' shape and colour. All of this week's screenshots look superb to me.
Aren't clouds infinitely variable in colour, shape and size?

The terrain is either not being shown in its full glory or maybe we're just not used to the way it looks.
On trawling through older screenshots, here's one of a Hurri in SoW and one of a Spit in IL2 on the map discussed earlier.
Personally, I much prefer the more realistic 'washed out' colours in SoW, including the camouflage on the Hurri, but I can't put my finger on what it is about the landscape detail that seems amiss.
And before anyone jumps on my back, I don't think there's anything wrong and I'm not complaining, I'm sure the final result will be excellent.
I'm interested in people's opinions of the relative attributes. I only ever fly IL2 and FSX so haven't got anything more recent to compare to. I'm completely ignorant of the technicalities too!
Thanks.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

I don't really understand the people who are criticising clouds' shape and colour. All of this week's screenshots look superb to me.
Aren't clouds infinitely variable in colour, shape and size?
.

Cloud shape is tricky. Generally mostly all clouds have flat bottoms. That's a definate. These clouds look like cotton balls, which really isn't realistic. But they may be WIP, so hopefully they'll be looked at at some point
Also, the clouds will reflect a lot of sunlight too. I have yet to see that effect modelled here. On a nice summer day, the clouds will look a vibrant white, whereas the area the sun doesn't hit will be a lot greyer (maybe like the ones shown, but with more texture)

Zapatista; you should count yourself lucky you haven't been banned. Name-calling like that is just childish. Women call eachother bitches. (Note, this is not a subliminal dig at you). Tree was just posting his own opinion. Your reaction was just a bit OTT. If you feel that way, then a PM will save from cluttering the forum like that.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

I'm interested in people's opinions of the relative attributes.

Tumbleweed floats and bounces gently across the screen..............

In answer to my own post it seems to me to be the contrast between the darkness of the trees and the paleness of the fields at this altitude in the SoW shots.
For the fields to be that pale, I'd expect the trees to be less black green and more green green, yet when we get lower, they seem more green green relative to the surrounding landscape.
Maybe a simple colour contrasting thing.
Anyone?

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Tumbleweed floats and bounces gently across the screen..............

In answer to my own post it seems to me to be the contrast between the darkness of the trees and the paleness of the fields at this altitude in the SoW shots.
For the fields to be that pale, I'd expect the trees to be less black green and more green green, yet when we get lower, they seem more green green relative to the surrounding landscape.
Maybe a simple colour contrasting thing.
Anyone?

Ah, well......

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Tumbleweed floats and bounces gently across the screen..............

In answer to my own post it seems to me to be the contrast between the darkness of the trees and the paleness of the fields at this altitude in the SoW shots.
For the fields to be that pale, I'd expect the trees to be less black green and more green green, yet when we get lower, they seem more green green relative to the surrounding landscape.
Maybe a simple colour contrasting thing.
Anyone?

Ok, I'll bite

You were asking about what's missing from SoW's landscape that makes it look strange. Above all it is texture resolution: as displayed the textures are extremely blurry, and in contrast you have the relatively sharp edges of the tree lines. There is a mismatch in detail which is something the human eye is quite good at realizing. The impression is that the trees a somewhat detached from the landscape.

As for the trees themselves, there are repeating patterns in the forest areas; yet again a focus point for the eye and something we aren't used to from reality, so it looks out of place.

These are the main issues I can see. I'd expect that in motion, the tree rendering as shown on that screen (which is already a bit older) could also result in some flickering.

Note that none of these issues are unsolvable (it's possible they were already non-issues when that image was taken, just not in that detail level). The colours and lighting themselves look spot on to me, and the atmospheric model is way beyond what Il2 provides. The same goes for the view range which is exceptional (most sims have a much closer horizon).

In the Il2 image you posted, the main drawbacks are the colours (see above) and the fact that a lot of the vegetation is only part of the texture, although that's not too apparent from a still shot at that altitude.

A final point: we haven't seen medium-distance shadows in any SoW screen yet. Shadows are very important to generate the impression that objects are placed within the landscape (and not "floating"; partially an issue with the trees). Il2 can create some very good images because every object up to a certain distance casts a nice shadow. Seeing a higher shadow distance (probably a quality setting) would also improve the SoW scenery a lot.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by The Kraken

Ok, I'll bite

That's very useful info, thanks. I'm aware of the visual perception type stuff.
It's technical things about programming, DX this and that, AA, AF, or anything to do with computers I'm rubbish at.
Thanks for responding!