New Graphics Engine

[RickRuski]

If the team is having so much difficulty getting this graphics engine working, how on earth are they testing the expansion BoM with any certainty that it will work. Blacksix says that he is working on the expansion so how is he testing what he is doing (or have they got a completely new engine just for that which they will then merge with CoD). Are they trying to patch the current engine to keep CoD users happy until they are ready to release BoM?? I thought the idea was to get Cod working with the new engine ready for the expansion. Come on BlackSix at least bring us up to date with what is happening, it's Luthier's duty to explain to his paying customers why we have had a beta version now for over 12 months.
And yes we have all been beta testers during this time if every body is honest about it.

[pstyle]

Ask Why: ENRON

[tarks]

Alot of the things that gets said doesn't add up. :-)

[Blackdog_kt]

My understanding is that the work on the sequel is primarily about 3d modeling and laying the groundwork at this point in time.

It's entirely possible to make "static" models in the meantime, but eventually each engine will handle these models differently to give them motion. One engine might do effects one way while the other engine does effects with a different algorithm, the same for calculating lights and shadows, etc, (and this is what results in the differences in performance and quality) but in the end they all take a 3d object and make calculations on top of it: the initial object that is being "read" into the engine can be the same, even if the calculations to be performed on it are different.

To give a simplistic example, it's like you have a bunch of oranges in your kitchen. You can just eat them, make them into orange juice, or extract the pulp and some orange skin shavings and put it in a cake, the oranges will work fine in every case.

I've taken up a computing degree course this year and one of the things they try to really press in all the classes i attend is modularity, especially for the so called object oriented languages.

To give you another example, as a form of practice for my computer classes i've taken up a project with a mate and we want to build an interface that will allow us to play pen-and-paper tabletop RPGs over the internet with other friends.

I don't know anything about how to handle databases, save data to disk or push packets through a network yet. However, i can still design and implement the interface of the application, as well as define categories of all the objects the game includes (with their proper attributes and ways to interact with them). So, what i'll do is exactly that, then i'll give the code over to my buddy and he'll do the rest.

There is no need for us to be doing exactly the same thing, nor is there a need to be able to do things at the same pace. It's like installing household appliances more or less. I can design my part of the modules (ie, pick some electrical appliances in the above example), the other guy can do the same for his share of the work and the we just have to plug it into a suitable outlet. Well, the power grid in that case is the programming language you use. And languages nowadays don't tell you "you can't plug in a fridge unless you first connect a hair dryer", they just let you plug each module in at your own convenience and, most importantly, take a module out, redesign it (to improve it) and put it back in.

That's pretty much what is being done with the sim currently. It's just that the module they are working on is being built from scratch and it's one of the biggest in the game. However, that doesn't mean it needs every other module to work correctly before it can function: new graphics engine will be just that, regardless of whether the switchology in the cockpits is corrected and vice-versa.

Now, both the previous IL2 series and the new one are built with languages that follow this method (C++ and Java for the old one, C++ and C# for the new one).

So, long story short, I can't tell you exactly how they do it, but i can understand the process somewhat to tell you it's not wasted time.
Heck, you could probably take the code that governs the systems modelling in the sim and port it to another sim with totally different graphics if you wanted to.

I hope this helps explain a few things :grin:

[Ataros]

B6 is the mission designer as goes from his signature. Nothing to do with the game engine. Get reasonable before posting please.

[banned]

My understanding is that the work on the sequel is primarily about 3d modeling and laying the groundwork at this point in time.

It's entirely possible to make "static" models in the meantime, but eventually each engine will handle these models differently to give them motion. One engine might do effects one way while the other engine does effects with a different algorithm, the same for calculating lights and shadows, etc, (and this is what results in the differences in performance and quality) but in the end they all take a 3d object and make calculations on top of it: the initial object that is being "read" into the engine can be the same, even if the calculations to be performed on it are different.

To give a simplistic example, it's like you have a bunch of oranges in your kitchen. You can just eat them, make them into orange juice, or extract the pulp and some orange skin shavings and put it in a cake, the oranges will work fine in every case.

I've taken up a computing degree course this year and one of the things they try to really press in all the classes i attend is modularity, especially for the so called object oriented languages.

To give you another example, as a form of practice for my computer classes i've taken up a project with a mate and we want to build an interface that will allow us to play pen-and-paper tabletop RPGs over the internet with other friends.

I don't know anything about how to handle databases, save data to disk or push packets through a network yet. However, i can still design and implement the interface of the application, as well as define categories of all the objects the game includes (with their proper attributes and ways to interact with them). So, what i'll do is exactly that, then i'll give the code over to my buddy and he'll do the rest.

There is no need for us to be doing exactly the same thing, nor is there a need to be able to do things at the same pace. It's like installing household appliances more or less. I can design my part of the modules (ie, pick some electrical appliances in the above example), the other guy can do the same for his share of the work and the we just have to plug it into a suitable outlet. Well, the power grid in that case is the programming language you use. And languages nowadays don't tell you "you can't plug in a fridge unless you first connect a hair dryer", they just let you plug each module in at your own convenience and, most importantly, take a module out, redesign it (to improve it) and put it back in.

That's pretty much what is being done with the sim currently. It's just that the module they are working on is being built from scratch and it's one of the biggest in the game. However, that doesn't mean it needs every other module to work correctly before it can function: new graphics engine will be just that, regardless of whether the switchology in the cockpits is corrected and vice-versa.

Now, both the previous IL2 series and the new one are built with languages that follow this method (C++ and Java for the old one, C++ and C# for the new one).

So, long story short, I can't tell you exactly how they do it, but i can understand the process somewhat to tell you it's not wasted time.
Heck, you could probably take the code that governs the systems modelling in the sim and port it to another sim with totally different graphics if you wanted to.

I hope this helps explain a few things :grin:
It explains it well mate, thanks.

[RickRuski]

The reason for the post was to get some answers from the development team, all we seem to be getting lately are excuses. It certainly doesn't bode well for the expansion. We are the paying customers, lets have some truthful answers from the team. Under some countries laws we could demand a refund or the company taken to court for false advertising from what was promised. I know the flag wavers will crucify this thread but I don't realy care any more.

[Verhängnis]

Class action lawsuit! :grin:

[mazex]

My understanding is that the work on the sequel is primarily about 3d modeling and laying the groundwork at this point in time.

It's entirely possible to make "static" models in the meantime, but eventually each engine will handle these models differently to give them motion. One engine might do effects one way while the other engine does effects with a different algorithm, the same for calculating lights and shadows, etc, (and this is what results in the differences in performance and quality) but in the end they all take a 3d object and make calculations on top of it: the initial object that is being "read" into the engine can be the same, even if the calculations to be performed on it are different.



Fully agree!



I've taken up a computing degree course this year and one of the things they try to really press in all the classes i attend is modularity, especially for the so called object oriented languages.

To give you another example, as a form of practice for my computer classes i've taken up a project with a mate and we want to build an interface that will allow us to play pen-and-paper tabletop RPGs over the internet with other friends.



Not to spoil your project, but Have you looked at Vassal? (for wargames)

http://www.vassalengine.org/

And Battlegrounds (for classic RPG:s)

http://www.battlegroundsgames.com/index.html



I don't know anything about how to handle databases, save data to disk or push packets through a network yet. However, i can still design and implement the interface of the application, as well as define categories of all the objects the game includes (with their proper attributes and ways to interact with them). So, what i'll do is exactly that, then i'll give the code over to my buddy and he'll do the rest.



But, just an advice as an old programmer, be wary about how to save the state of the game engine already from start so you for instance can save it easily at any point, as that is a classic "trap" for the first game... And like you say - you have to get the object model completely finished with all parts taken into account before you write the first line of code. Like in you case - is there a "turn" object? Should it be? After that, do "a virtual spike" that for one central game object instance does it all the way to test that you have not done any "thought lapses" in the model. Then do one spike for real before putting down more work!

Good luck!

[tarks]

Looking at this thread from Oleg back in 2007/2008 the graphics really don't look any different to now , in some shots better i'd say.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040

[Wolf_Rider]

Looking at this thread from Oleg back in 2007/2008 the graphics really don't look any different to now , in some shots better i'd say.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040

We have been advised by the developers: the sim won't look any different but it will run better, in comparison to the release engine.

[Falstaff]

Wolf Rider said:

>>We have been advised by the developers: the sim won't look any different but it will run better, in comparison to the release engine. <<

Yes, this is correct, and needs drawing attention to. Many might have forgotten this over time, so it's as well to remind the forum from time to time. It cannot be stated often enough, especially to those who wish to do nothing but complain.

The forum needs more of this style of factual post, far too much moaning has taken place recently.

A breath of fresh air, Wolf Rider. Thank you.

[skarden]

would you rather have the development team here explaining stuff that has been explained many many times over ( and yet again, very well too by blackdog ) or have them working on the beta? ya can't really have both, they don't have a big team and I for one would rather they be working on ironing out the bugs in the beta then answering the same whining questions over and over to people who don't bother to read previous posts.

[Ataros]

The reason for the post was to get some answers from the development team, all we seem to be getting lately are excuses. It certainly doesn't bode well for the expansion. We are the paying customers, lets have some truthful answers from the team. Under some countries laws we could demand a refund or the company taken to court for false advertising from what was promised. I know the flag wavers will crucify this thread but I don't realy care any more.

It is possible to search the forum by user to find answers from B6 (not excuses). He posts updates several times a week recently. Last week the patch was ready but final assembly showed new graphical artefacts which they are fixing this week making their best to push the patch before holidays. They are pressed for time by the publishers with sequel announcement and must issue the patch ASAP.

There are 2 options:
- wait, support and encourage the devs on the forums with positive posts if you want them to succeed and continue the series to 1942 - 1945
- talk to UBI about refund if you want your money back and studio closed.

Cursing the devs on the forums or posting the same question every week is not really an option because no one benefits from it: the devs are not encouraged and work slower, you do not get a refund. No point in doing this, just does not make logical sense.

[Verhängnis]

Yes, I would rather have the development team here explaining what is going on, although I am assuming they will at least answer some questions after the patch is released. And as far as I know Blackdog isn't part of the development team, I too could make speculations and general statements about software development, but that doesn't tell us anything specific.
As he said, he only has an "understanding" - like the rest of us. In reality it means nothing about the actual development of the game.

[Thee_oddball]

My understanding is that the work on the sequel is primarily about 3d modeling and laying the groundwork at this point in time.

It's entirely possible to make "static" models in the meantime, but eventually each engine will handle these models differently to give them motion. One engine might do effects one way while the other engine does effects with a different algorithm, the same for calculating lights and shadows, etc, (and this is what results in the differences in performance and quality) but in the end they all take a 3d object and make calculations on top of it: the initial object that is being "read" into the engine can be the same, even if the calculations to be performed on it are different.

To give a simplistic example, it's like you have a bunch of oranges in your kitchen. You can just eat them, make them into orange juice, or extract the pulp and some orange skin shavings and put it in a cake, the oranges will work fine in every case.

I've taken up a computing degree course this year and one of the things they try to really press in all the classes i attend is modularity, especially for the so called object oriented languages.

To give you another example, as a form of practice for my computer classes i've taken up a project with a mate and we want to build an interface that will allow us to play pen-and-paper tabletop RPGs over the internet with other friends.

I don't know anything about how to handle databases, save data to disk or push packets through a network yet. However, i can still design and implement the interface of the application, as well as define categories of all the objects the game includes (with their proper attributes and ways to interact with them). So, what i'll do is exactly that, then i'll give the code over to my buddy and he'll do the rest.

There is no need for us to be doing exactly the same thing, nor is there a need to be able to do things at the same pace. It's like installing household appliances more or less. I can design my part of the modules (ie, pick some electrical appliances in the above example), the other guy can do the same for his share of the work and the we just have to plug it into a suitable outlet. Well, the power grid in that case is the programming language you use. And languages nowadays don't tell you "you can't plug in a fridge unless you first connect a hair dryer", they just let you plug each module in at your own convenience and, most importantly, take a module out, redesign it (to improve it) and put it back in.

That's pretty much what is being done with the sim currently. It's just that the module they are working on is being built from scratch and it's one of the biggest in the game. However, that doesn't mean it needs every other module to work correctly before it can function: new graphics engine will be just that, regardless of whether the switchology in the cockpits is corrected and vice-versa.

Now, both the previous IL2 series and the new one are built with languages that follow this method (C++ and Java for the old one, C++ and C# for the new one).

So, long story short, I can't tell you exactly how they do it, but i can understand the process somewhat to tell you it's not wasted time.
Heck, you could probably take the code that governs the systems modelling in the sim and port it to another sim with totally different graphics if you wanted to.

I hope this helps explain a few things :grin:

just for clarification BD, IL2 had the core game written in C++ CLOD has the core written in .NET with some small libraries written in C++

[6BL Bird-Dog]

My understanding is that the work on the sequel is primarily about 3d modeling and laying the groundwork at this point in time.

It's entirely possible to make "static" models in the meantime, but eventually each engine will handle these models differently to give them motion. One engine might do effects one way while the other engine does effects with a different algorithm, the same for calculating lights and shadows, etc, (and this is what results in the differences in performance and quality) but in the end they all take a 3d object and make calculations on top of it: the initial object that is being "read" into the engine can be the same, even if the calculations to be performed on it are different.

To give a simplistic example, it's like you have a bunch of oranges in your kitchen. You can just eat them, make them into orange juice, or extract the pulp and some orange skin shavings and put it in a cake, the oranges will work fine in every case.

I've taken up a computing degree course this year and one of the things they try to really press in all the classes i attend is modularity, especially for the so called object oriented languages.

To give you another example, as a form of practice for my computer classes i've taken up a project with a mate and we want to build an interface that will allow us to play pen-and-paper tabletop RPGs over the internet with other friends.

I don't know anything about how to handle databases, save data to disk or push packets through a network yet. However, i can still design and implement the interface of the application, as well as define categories of all the objects the game includes (with their proper attributes and ways to interact with them). So, what i'll do is exactly that, then i'll give the code over to my buddy and he'll do the rest.

There is no need for us to be doing exactly the same thing, nor is there a need to be able to do things at the same pace. It's like installing household appliances more or less. I can design my part of the modules (ie, pick some electrical appliances in the above example), the other guy can do the same for his share of the work and the we just have to plug it into a suitable outlet. Well, the power grid in that case is the programming language you use. And languages nowadays don't tell you "you can't plug in a fridge unless you first connect a hair dryer", they just let you plug each module in at your own convenience and, most importantly, take a module out, redesign it (to improve it) and put it back in.

That's pretty much what is being done with the sim currently. It's just that the module they are working on is being built from scratch and it's one of the biggest in the game. However, that doesn't mean it needs every other module to work correctly before it can function: new graphics engine will be just that, regardless of whether the switchology in the cockpits is corrected and vice-versa.

Now, both the previous IL2 series and the new one are built with languages that follow this method (C++ and Java for the old one, C++ and C# for the new one).

So, long story short, I can't tell you exactly how they do it, but i can understand the process somewhat to tell you it's not wasted time.
Heck, you could probably take the code that governs the systems modelling in the sim and port it to another sim with totally different graphics if you wanted to.

I hope this helps explain a few things :grin:

Thanks for a clear explination.

[Jaws2002]

Looks like throwing away the "old" graphics engine and starting from scratch, wasn't such a smart thing to do. They just replaced the bugs they knew about, with new ones and lost some of the advanced featured in the process. This "new" graphics engine was suposed to be a quick fix. LMAO.

[von Pilsner]

Looks like throwing away the "old" graphics engine and starting from scratch, wasn't such a smart thing to do. They just replaced the bugs they knew about, with new ones and lost some of the advanced featured in the process. This "new" graphics engine was suposed to be a quick fix. LMAO.

Where did you read that the new graphics engine was to be a quick fix? I seem to recall they said it would take time to do and get right.

[RickRuski]

Just read Blacksix's April 28th post, dear o dear another excuse how sad. Blackdog, I understand that this sim is in modular form but the moduals still have to be able to talk to each other. A mistake in one module should create problems further on. If the main module can't hear what the other is saying correctly then the resultant answer would be something like this. (this is from a birthday card my wife gave me, she says my hearing is getting worse).

Three old friends are walking on the beach one day, male A says "it' fine day" male B replies "no it's Thursday" male C responds "so am I let's have a beer"

A typical example of statements getting mis-interpreted from one to the other. So once again I still can't see how programmer A can complete his module until the master is finished. He will have no way of testing it as has been shown by recent delays in the patch release.

[Chivas]

Looks like throwing away the "old" graphics engine and starting from scratch, wasn't such a smart thing to do. They just replaced the bugs they knew about, with new ones and lost some of the advanced featured in the process. This "new" graphics engine was suposed to be a quick fix. LMAO.

The graphic engine had to be rewritten to provide the necessary performance and stability to allow people to actually play the sim. It appears the rewrite has succeeded in its main objective of the performance increase and fixed CTD's etc, but there are still enough graphics bugs to delay the release. Not sure how you figured a major rewrite of the graphic engine would be a quick fix, the developer certainly never alluded to that.

[Falstaff]

Chivas said:

>>The graphic engine had to be rewritten to provide the necessary performance and stability to allow people to actually play the sim. <<

Yes, it would appear that way.

>>It appears the rewrite has succeeded in its main objective of the performance increase and fixed CTD's etc, but there are still enough graphics bugs to delay the release.<<

Correct. These are deductions we can all agree with...apart from the silly whiners and complainers of course.

>>Not sure how you figured a major rewrite of the graphic engine would be a quick fix, the developer certainly never alluded to that. <<

Correct again. I wonder if the devs should not consider hiring you in some capacity - perhaps in the PR dept - since your knowledge of the dev process seems second to none, and your predictions have unerring accuracy. Perhaps the role of liaison officer?

[furbs]

They alluded that it is "almost finished" at Christmas.

[Jaws2002]

The graphic engine had to be rewritten to provide the necessary performance and stability to allow people to actually play the sim. It appears the rewrite has succeeded in its main objective of the performance increase and fixed CTD's etc, but there are still enough graphics bugs to delay the release. Not sure how you figured a major rewrite of the graphic engine would be a quick fix, the developer certainly never alluded to that.

Actually it was advertized as a quick fix. They said we'll have it by Christmas.
Also remember, this bad patch, we are stuck with for six months, is part of that "new graphics engine. The online crashes were introduced with this "primer" for the new graphics engine. My game was looking a lot better, runing faster and was a lot more stable before this last messy patch.

[Chivas]

Actually it was advertized as a quick fix. They said we'll have it by Christmas.
Also remember, this bad patch, we are stuck with for six months, is part of that "new graphics engine. The online crashes were introduced with this "primer" for the new graphics engine. My game was looking a lot better, runing faster and was a lot more stable before this last messy patch.

No part of the Performance/graphic engine rewrite has been released. They did release tweaks to the old graphic engine, but found it wasn't going to work, and then decided to do the total rewrite of the graphic engine to fix the performance and CTD issues. There is no such thing as a quick fix major graphic engine rewrite.

[Jaws2002]

No part of the Performance/graphic engine rewrite has been released. They did release tweaks to the old graphic engine, but found it wasn't going to work, and then decided to do the total rewrite of the graphic engine to fix the performance and CTD issues. There is no such thing as a quick fix major graphic engine rewrite.

August 6 2011 update:

"1. Graphics. Our graphics team is in the middle of a dramatic revision of our graphics engine. The new engine, still in alpha stage, is both faster and better looking. I won’t get into the technical details, but in a word it’s faster and more streamlined. From the appearance point of view, the change is equally as dramatic but is easier seen. Colors are calculated differently, especially in terms of distance. I’m attaching some screenshots showing before and after. The colors are not yet tuned, and there are some other issues but we are much happier with the game’s visuals today than we’ve been for quite some time."

Some of those changes were introduced in the next patch, the one we have now. The patch notes also said, they are in the final stages of testing for this "new" engine.:

From the patch notes of the current version released october 17. :

"MAIN * Drastically reworked graphic algorithms dealing with in-game color;
.....


3. Performance. We are in final stages of testing a thorough overhaul of the game’s graphic engine. It won’t look any different but it will be much more streamlined. It’s too early to say what the FPS increase will be in the final version, but it shouldn’t be less than 50%."


So, as you said. There's no such a thing as quick fix new graphics engine..... they found out the hard way.:(

I' just curious how much beauty was lost with this engine change. I hope they can restore the reflections.

[Peaveywolf]

It was pretty obvious that they were modeling the world and the aircraft to apply the coding of the new engine to, is it just me? Isn't that how all game designers work? 2 separate departments, one for the 3d modeling and one for the coding of the engine.

[Verhängnis]

It was pretty obvious that they were modeling the world and the aircraft to apply the coding of the new engine to, is it just me? Isn't that how all game designers work? 2 separate departments, one for the 3d modeling and one for the coding of the engine.

What do you mean?
Yes, generally in the industry I would assume that while some may be qualified in both professions, they may be taking a role in only one of the departments.

[Peaveywolf]

Because the whole context of this post is about how they are testing BoM without the new engine in place. The reason why they are only showing static screenshots. I just thought it was obvious that they were just showing the 3d modeling and had not implemented the engine into the game. Sorry, it did look confusing without the above explanation.

[Verhängnis]

Yeh, a 3rd party team is creating the BoM landscape/maps with what I presume would be the same old 3d modelling team also working on related grounds objects, planes etc while the engine coders are re-creating the graphics engine.

[gonk]

history has shown that graphic engine rewrites take a very long time to perfect... so they have at least 1-2 years of work ahead of them. So do they just let the crowd dissipated, hoping that they will return in 12months time... or just release it as an Alpha to keep people interest. Once people change their habits it is very hard to get them back.

I am just very concerned this will go the way of duke nukem... they had graphic engine rewrite after graphic engine rewrite... the money will eventually dry up... and this being a company they are driven by accountants and run on money...not programmers skills or users' admiration...:(.

good luck but the clouds are looking blacker...not clearer.

[Volksieg]

I am just very concerned this will go the way of duke nukem...

.....good luck but the clouds are looking blacker...not clearer.

I think the big thing CloD has over "Duke Nukem Forever", mind, is that CloD is actually good. :D

I honestly do believe that CloD will be saved and the clouds may end up getting blacker for 1C (I hope not) but for us, the fanbase, the skies will eventually clear up. Why do I say that? One only has to look at "Gothic 3" or "Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines".... both games with a cult following which were, pretty much, an absolute joke on release and for quite some time afterwards. What happened? The community ended up fixing them and they are both fairly solid games these days. The ingenuity of the Flight Sim community has been demonstrated time and time again and, as a fan of CloD, I doubt everyone will give up that easily.

All that said, I actually do have some faith in the development team. I don't think they have handled everything particularly well 100% of the time but I really do think they are doing what they can and the patch will arrive in time (Hopefully sooner than later).

That said..... I'm having a great time on this clunky, low frame rate, mess. lol I'll certainly keep flying whatever the outcome. I know not everyone is as lucky as me to be able to eke some enjoyment out of CloD and my deepest sympathies go to them.

The future is as bright as we allow it to be. :)

[Ploughman]

Looking at this thread from Oleg back in 2007/2008 the graphics really don't look any different to now , in some shots better i'd say.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=2040

Hmmmm. Looking through those links I noticed with some delight the tail hook on one of the shots of the Sky Raider.