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

[Dano]

Same coders = same techniques = same bugs and same limitations, does not mean that stuff was not re-written.

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.

[He111]

Originally Posted by Gle55nn

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.

Hand over the AI module to users

time to fix : Quick
Cost to 1C : nothing!
Beneficiaries : ALL!

win-win

As to graphics engine, current is ok. sound quality could improve (like the original).

.

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Ma233e

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.

And the game engine now is good. Regards "drawning buble" we maybe need some tweaks in view distance of some important objects, just that. Wll be good for navigation and level bombing runs.

[Stublerone]

Originally Posted by Ma233e

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.

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!

[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.

[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