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

[vranac]

With all due respect you are talking mostly about optimizations they did to achieve better performance and IIRC you was also one of the many people who were complaining about poor performace until you upgraded your PC.

On the other way this sim was performing good on my PC after first few patches.It was playable even with old clouds and a lot of them, FPS drop was there but I could fight arround them without a problem.
If you see that some pilots still have problems with this new optimised ones you could uderstand the reason why devs did that.

I am happy that for most of the pilots sim is playable now and performing much better than before.
That also can be seen in number of players online.

You could try to solve your problem with poping houses and trees by putting them on max but I don't know if your PC will stand.

[Jaws2002]

Originally Posted by vranac

If you see that some pilots still have problems with this new optimised ones you could uderstand the reason why devs did thatnd.

What "optimised " clouds are you talking about? They did not optimised the clouds. On my machine they are more resource hungry then before.
I used to mke missions just to try that "local weather" engine in full mission builder, with a huge area covered by clouds and it worked on my computer. The frame rate was bad, but it worked. If you look at the "local wether" in the full mission builder, when you add clouds, you get a very small are covered by default. I used to add two zeros to the first two entries and that would give you a decent size covered. I tried multiple layers at different altitudes. It worked.
Now the game crashes when I try a single layer.

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by vranac

With all due respect you are talking mostly about optimizations they did to achieve better performance and IIRC you was also one of the many people who were complaining about poor performace until you upgraded your PC.

On the other way this sim was performing good on my PC after first few patches.It was playable even with old clouds and a lot of them, FPS drop was there but I could fight arround them without a problem.
If you see that some pilots still have problems with this new optimised ones you could uderstand the reason why devs did that.

I am happy that for most of the pilots sim is playable now and performing much better than before.
That also can be seen in number of players online.

You could try to solve your problem with poping houses and trees by putting them on max but I don't know if your PC will stand.

Very true complaints ruined some good features, for now anyway.

Originally Posted by Jaws2002

What "optimised " clouds are you talking about? They did not optimised the clouds. On my machine they are more resource hungry then before.
I used to mke missions just to try that "local weather" engine in full mission builder, with a huge area covered by clouds and it worked on my computer. The frame rate was bad, but it worked. If you look at the "local wether" in the full mission builder, when you add clouds, you get a very small are covered by default. I used to add two zeros to the first two entries and that would give you a decent size covered. I tried multiple layers at different altitudes. It worked.
Now the game crashes when I try a single layer.

I am fully enjoying the pre-optimised clouds, I will have to try that trick of yours to add two zeros

[Chivas]

"I mean even tree collisions were removed and these were in the original?"

The original trees on this huge map brought the sim to its knees. The only way they could put enough trees on the map was licencing "SpeedTree". Unfortunately putting a collision model on the "SpeedTree" program would also bring the sim to its knees.

There is very little I like about "SpeedTree", and hopefully the development will be able optimize them or replace them with something better. You can't see the forests for the trees making visual navigation difficult in COD.

[Verhängnis]

Perhaps we should just accept that making a perfect flight simulation is simply unachievable? Otherwise it would have been done before...

[Ailantd]

Originally Posted by Mysticpuma

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

Sorry and not offense, but again I have to say you have not even a clue about what you are talking about.

I´m a 3D artist and graphic engine programmer, and I can tell you without a doub that 1946 and CloD have not even similar GF engines. All that similar "bugs" you are talking about are limitations of current technology and GF power capacity. The fact that you think shadows are the only difference is all I need to know to tell you that you really, ( and without offense ), don´t know what you are talking about.

But sure, you can believe if you want that a long distance to be draw is not a decisive factor in the quality of what a graphic engine can depict in the screen. But then be sure also to think that a computer has no limits whatsoever and that all the universe can be loaded in its memory without problem. Then go play BF3 and look how far objects are rendered, and how many differents streets you can walk arround.

Seriously, it´s better not to talk so firmly about what you have no idea.

[MB_Avro_UK]

It's the best.

Name another that comes close.

[He111]

I don't see any similarity with flight characteristics between 1946 and CLOD .. 1946 has very realistic and believable flight characteristics of AI aircraft .. CLOd on the other hand .. doesn't! Watching Emils dive on defiants looks really weird. They dive fast , slow up, move side ways slightly then climb away .. nothing looks natural.

As i've said before, the AI desperately needs WORK!

.

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by ailantd

sorry and not offense, but again i have to say you have not even a clue about what you are talking about.

I´m a 3d artist and graphic engine programmer, and i can tell you without a doub that 1946 and clod have not even similar gf engines. All that similar "bugs" you are talking about are limitations of current technology and gf power capacity. The fact that you think shadows are the only difference is all i need to know to tell you that you really, ( and without offense ), don´t know what you are talking about.

But sure, you can believe if you want that a long distance to be draw is not a decisive factor in the quality of what a graphic engine can depict in the screen. But then be sure also to think that a computer has no limits whatsoever and that all the universe can be loaded in its memory without problem. Then go play bf3 and look how far objects are rendered, and how many differents streets you can walk arround.

Seriously, it´s better not to talk so firmly about what you have no idea.

+1,000,000

[addman]

I think the biggest problem with CloD is the heart of the game, namely the huge channel map. It's enormous and it will challenge the brute force of any beast rig out there. Just try some of the smaller online maps and the game runs better IIRC (since I don't play it anymore). I'm sure the Russian stepp maps will be both smaller and kinder to the performance on most setups, anything else will be instant fail and Luthier knows this, be sure. Still, the building pop-ups, looks very "old" IMO and really detracts from the experience. Sure, there are many buildings in some places but they're not relatively high-polygon models exactly. Also, fix that smoke/particle stuff for the next game, that stuff looks, performs and feels too "legacy" if you ask me. It really makes you wonder if they weren't using parts of the old engine when they made CloD. Here's to the future!