![]() |
|
IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Both SilverLining and Nimble are simply not good looking enough for Flightsim usage. They are very easy to implement and use, but both are very lackluster for the area of utilization required of a Sim. They are, however, good solutions for sky rendering for a ground-based game. I have personally not used TrueSky, alas from what I can see it is a rather decent alternative. There are, as mentioned, many many examples of solutions like this, and creating your own is not too difficult due to the amount of research and public material available on the implementation. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Nice topic...
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Second video looks bad, first one looks ok because of the advanced lighting features. I am going to say this again and I know I know... DX11
Why? Because volumetric clouds that interact with light and weather physics would only be possible using DX11 tech for both cpu and gpu reasons. (it would also run faster). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
This is certainly NOT true. An implementation of cloud rendering based on basic light scattering through clouds (or particles.. basically), is possible, and perfectly viable using DX9. (and older versions too) on a sidenote, I believe I have an old demo on my other PC from a whitepaper implementation from 2002, that looks amazing. Again and again I see people overestimating the capabilities of DX11 or DX10 vs DX9. It MUST be noted time and time again that while these DX iterations are more powerful, they do not drastically improve the amount of things that you can actually do on the GPU. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
So DX8 had sub surface scattering, and advanced particle physics/light interaction? Care to back that up with pics/evidence? Last edited by Heliocon; 03-31-2011 at 05:05 AM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Been reading some more wiki's I see.
DX11 is a great incremental improvement in many different areas, especially visual quality and efficiency of certain effects (among other stuff) but much like DX10 it's hardly the panacea you always make it out to be. Good topic though, and I'd love to see some developer input although I'm also just as sure you'd be telling Ilya what he really should be doing with DX11, or assume he's just lying. ![]() If we're not seeing a lot of implementation of cloud systems like that first video by now after 4 years it's a pretty good indication it's not all it's cracked up to be. Other systems like SpeedTree have caught on and are being used in CoD (I'm pretty sure) and many other games. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
http://translate.google.de/translate...ews%2F&act=url http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...795#post233795 "PCGH: Would the use of DX11 will only accelerate the performance when rendering or DX11 provides for a clear appreciation of the optics? Oleg Maddox: Beide Aspekte sind sehr wichtig. Oleg Maddox: Both aspects are very important. Zum einen ist eine verbesserte Performance hilfreich. First, an improved performance is helpful. Zum anderen planen wir, die Landschaft per Tesselation optisch aufzuwerten und Post-Effekte wie einen Local Tonemap Operator oder High Qualitiy Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (HQSSAO) einzusetzen. Second, we plan to enhance the landscape visually by tessellation and post-effects such as a Local Tonemap operator or high Qualitiy Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (HQSSAO) use." As always if you post like an idiot - I reserve the right to call you one, especially because its the only type of post you ever write in response. I guess your reading skills arent very advanced because this is not the first time I have had to link you to info like this. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I'd rather they take their time and properly implement a cloud rendering solution for the next expansion or something as such. Clouds are by far one of the most important factors when it comes to the look and graphics of the game. |
![]() |
|
|