Friday Update, April 6, 2012

[Foo'bar]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Not saying they haven't done a good job, but the guys who made the Slovakia map did the same for no money. Better get into FMB and see for youselves. Detailed houses, fences, sheds, stacks of wood and hay and what not. All already in IL-2 1946.

So I am sorry to say it, but I am not impressed.

I'm far from telling bad things about the Slovakia map designers. But you really think there are no differences between those two?

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Foo'bar

I'm far from telling bad things about the Slovakia map designers. But you really think there are no differences between those two?

Naturally, due to the higher levels of tris and bigger textures, there are differences, but in my book they are not big enough to shower these new 3rd party guys with praise. Their work is good, no question, but they get paid for it so that is what I expect of them anyway.

Besides that, my point was that we can already recreate such villiages, convincingly enough as far as I am concerned, in IL-2 1946, so this is certainly no trump card for Battle of Moscow.

[6BL Bird-Dog]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Naturally, due to the higher levels of tris and bigger textures, there are differences, but in my book they are not big enough to shower these new 3rd party guys with praise. Their work is good, no question, but they get paid for it so that is what I expect of them anyway.

Besides that, my point was that we can already recreate such villiages, convincingly enough as far as I am concerned, in IL-2 1946, so this is certainly no trump card for Battle of Moscow.

I don`t think anyone has tried to do other than show the work being done for the sequel as many of us are interested after all it is just showing us work in progress.
The Towns,Villages and other map features have always been placed on the maps we recieved in previous releases and with the up and coming capability for ground battles the relevance of higher ground detail and object density with more attention to accurate mapping is more far more pertinant .The work looks good, so for those who like to show encouragement then why not tell the designers,it`s their choice ?
No-one has said the GFX detail a trump card in this case but never the less is what we can expect to see when we fly over or drive on the map.I would be happier building missions in FMB for BoM rather than having to build the target towns and villages first .For military targets close to towns and villages ,yes ,many have all built missions with specific installations like transport and equipment depots in 1946 but we do need a well populated map to start with in CloD & BoM.
If what you are saying is you want more access to objects in FMB as in FB 1946 then I agree on that.
I think that more of a concern for many is the hit on FPS if the details are so much higher & will this effect their PC`s ability to run the game with any fluidity at present. Until the new GFX engine is rolled out and any bugs in it are fixed then we wont know.There is the options to turn down the detail as there was in previous releases.

[Sutts]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Naturally, due to the higher levels of tris and bigger textures, there are differences, but in my book they are not big enough to shower these new 3rd party guys with praise. Their work is good, no question, but they get paid for it so that is what I expect of them anyway.

Besides that, my point was that we can already recreate such villiages, convincingly enough as far as I am concerned, in IL-2 1946, so this is certainly no trump card for Battle of Moscow.

Who was suggesting it was a trump card for BoM? Nobody. B6 was good enough to show us some work in progress and ask our opinions, that's all. You guys really have some personal issues. A real lack of common courtesy and respect is evident on these forums. I guess it's just a sign of the times but I find it very sad.

[lensman1945]

Originally Posted by Sutts

Who was suggesting it was a trump card for BoM? Nobody. B6 was good enough to show us some work in progress and ask our opinions, that's all. You guys really have some personal issues. A real lack of common courtesy and respect is evident on these forums. I guess it's just a sign of the times but I find it very sad.

+1

I normally keep quiet when threads go in this direction...but saddened here too..

[6S.Tamat]

yes there is a difference, a drop of fps for something that probably i'll never see for more than 0,5 sec.

btw hope that will function everything well, but in my personal list of wish things there are tons of stuff about playability before of that.

[ChrisDNT]

Yep, the houses look very good, but for some reason it looks that this studio can't get the landscape colors, for any places in the world, looking right !!!

[mkubani]

I have modelled the Slovakia buildings to match the IL-2 tech. requirements and taking into consideration the fact that 90% of time they will be viewed from at least couple hundred meters. So no need for high res textures or overdone 3D models.

Since CloD offers (or will offer) a ground battle simulation, the houses need to be more detailed. I like the models presented in this update. Style and colours nicely match the terrain. I would love to see the damage model as well. I was hoping that CloD would introduce at least 2 stage damage (light an heavy). Maybe next Friday.

[Ailantd]

In my opinion, while the house models and detail are outstanding for a flight sim, they are only barely good for ground simulators today´s standards.

From the flight sim and aesthetically point of view, there are three items where improvement need to be done to vastly improve the immersion, without which is no important how well done are the buildings or landscape items models:

- Ground surface texture at medium distance.
The nice detail texture and grass is good only for the few closer meters, which you almost don´t see never while flying. The medium distance texture looks always blurred and very low resolution, and I think it´s the bigger landscape flaw in COD right now and it makes spot of ground units very difficult as it fool your sense of scale. So I would add another detail level texture for medium distances and also improve the ground detail texture in cities.

- Landscape life.
For me this is the total immersion killer from a landscape point of view. You have very nicely landscape, but it is a dead landscape. Add some vehicles moving in the road or parked at the cities. Some birds, some animals, some smoke fires... and the magic is done. You have a breathtaking living landscape ( for people with systems that could move that at least ).

- Terrain blending and limits.
While the terrain tiles are very well done and are hardly noticeable but from very high altitudes there are two very clear ways to improve them. Airfields ground texture and blending with surrounding textures could be very improved so it fits in a more believable way.
Roads should impact the textures behind them, may be cutting the terrain tiles patches so roads become real terrain limits like in reality. Also primary roads look smaller than in-texture secondary ones, which looks estrange.

These are my constructive two cents for the landscape.

[Red Dragon-DK]

I have walked arround the pictures again and again, because I thought it was something I had seen before. ITo me it looks like the buildings in same low resolution as IL2 46. As a paper figure is cut out and glued together. I do not think they live up to the high standard that many other visuellt objects have in Clod. Yes it is a FLYSIM, where many flies + 300 meters I belive it still must be a bette resolution and the models should be well be made ​​whit higher resolution for more realistic view. Why go on compromise with this? It is much easier to correct now rather than later. If it is intended that there should be room to walk on earth, it must also look good. Allso for the future.