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

[Mysticpuma]

So I'll qualify the title by asking those who played the original IL2 to remember the following;

Ground objects popping into view. Textures being drawn onto objects as if there was a large bubble around the players aircraft and once inside that 'bubble' the textures were rendered, showing a pop-up effect as they 'appeared'. Clouds 'popping' into view in the distance.

The 'new' smoke effects are barely discernible from the smoke effects that have been created in modified installs of the old IL2 game engine (just check the new effects for 4.12 by Gurner?).

Effects present in old IL2 have been removed from 'new' CloD.

Example? Just check the effect when an aircraft hits the water or ground. Old IL2, aircraft exploded and scattered, new CloD...aircraft vanish at point of impact (game pauses maybe 2 frames then continues), just watch any aircraft you shoot down collide with the ground/water...they disappear.

Effects that were present in the 'new' game engine have been removed/stripped right back just to get any performance.

So now, we have to sit and wait for BoM.

Now the way it goes is that we are either getting fixes for CloD after installing BoM over it, or fixes for CloD stand-alone once they are working in patches for Bom (the latter is highly unlikely) but lets look at the Graphics Engine they are working with.

It still has horrendous 'pop-up' on ground textures. Fly over London, look down and the ground is visibly drawn in front of you...it looks 'S**^'. The annoying thing is, when you are chasing an aircraft low on the deck, it's hard to concentrate on the LoD (when it is visible) as the background popping into view is just rubbish, especially when other games do it so well.

If they can't do it successfully, then make smaller maps! Sorry, but after reading of Bomber Pilot troubles as the objects don't appear because of the 'draw distance bubble', I would suggest the first thing that 1C do is actually destroy the crappy legacy IL 2 engine and start from scratch.

My feeling is that IL2 1946 is the single best WW2 simulation ever, but CloD tried to hang onto the apron strings and take the plaudits of it's parent!

Time has shown it has failed to do that with Multiple bugs still unresolved and the graphics engine, tweaked and spruced up from the original has not enabled the Developer's to create the vision they hoped.

I wonder if they will be brave enough to admit they failed with the 'new' Graphics engine and actually re-invest in one that works?

Just asking?

Cheers, MP

[Chivas]

I have no doubt that if the series survives the graphic engine will evolve even more than the original series graphics did. The whole reason they built the new game engine was too make it easier to add/change features and evolve with advanced computer graphics. There is no doubt that there are still way to many problems, but nothing that can't be overcome with the existing engine. Many people think they can't, because they won't see beyond the unfinished game engine, that was forced out the door way to early.

SpeedTree/Shadows/Shimmer/Collisions and Cloud/Smoke particles are major problems that really needs addressing before the Sequels release. I would like to see a user option to set the LOD building popup distance for those with more capable systems.

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine. If the existing game engine can't be repaired and evolve, the series and development is doomed.

Some other developer will have to take up the challenge, and I see no other developer close to picking up the WW2 aircombat simulation batton. Gaijin has a chance, and I hope they are making the effort, but their last effort has me concerned they will, or even want to deliver a simulation.

[arthursmedley]

Just asking?

Cheers, MP

Why? Who are you asking? No one outside the Dev's knows what is going on and after reading Luthiers "answers" it seems they're not completely sure either.

Puma, you've met the man. Why not e-mail Oleg over at his new company and ask him? Lets face it, he's the one who f*cked this up big-stylee in the first place.

Infact, I think you can reach him here;

http://vizerra.com/forms/contact-us

[*Buzzsaw*]

So I'll qualify the title by asking those who played the original IL2 to remember the following;

Ground objects popping into view. Textures being drawn onto objects as if there was a large bubble around the players aircraft and once inside that 'bubble' the textures were rendered, showing a pop-up effect as they 'appeared'. Clouds 'popping' into view in the distance.

The 'new' smoke effects are barely discernible from the smoke effects that have been created in modified installs of the old IL2 game engine (just check the new effects for 4.12 by Gurner?).

Effects present in old IL2 have been removed from 'new' CloD.

Example? Just check the effect when an aircraft hits the water or ground. Old IL2, aircraft exploded and scattered, new CloD...aircraft vanish at point of impact (game pauses maybe 2 frames then continues), just watch any aircraft you shoot down collide with the ground/water...they disappear.

Effects that were present in the 'new' game engine have been removed/stripped right back just to get any performance.

So now, we have to sit and wait for BoM.

Now the way it goes is that we are either getting fixes for CloD after installing BoM over it, or fixes for CloD stand-alone once they are working in patches for Bom (the latter is highly unlikely) but lets look at the Graphics Engine they are working with.

It still has horrendous 'pop-up' on ground textures. Fly over London, look down and the ground is visibly drawn in front of you...it looks 'S**^'. The annoying thing is, when you are chasing an aircraft low on the deck, it's hard to concentrate on the LoD (when it is visible) as the background popping into view is just rubbish, especially when other games do it so well.

If they can't do it successfully, then make smaller maps! Sorry, but after reading of Bomber Pilot troubles as the objects don't appear because of the 'draw distance bubble', I would suggest the first thing that 1C do is actually destroy the crappy legacy IL 2 engine and start from scratch.

My feeling is that IL2 1946 is the single best WW2 simulation ever, but CloD tried to hang onto the apron strings and take the plaudits of it's parent!

Time has shown it has failed to do that with Multiple bugs still unresolved and the graphics engine, tweaked and spruced up from the original has not enabled the Developer's to create the vision they hoped.

I wonder if they will be brave enough to admit they failed with the 'new' Graphics engine and actually re-invest in one that works?

Just asking?

Cheers, MP

Salute

I think there naturally had to be some evolution from the old IL-2 1946 engine, there were many positive elements in that code, it handled many aspects of rendering and drawing very well.

I am not a programmer, and haven't had access to the code, neither has anyone here, so anything we say is speculation, however I would guess the issues they had when the game was released with the code not properly making use of multiple core processors is a clue as to why we are still seeing the engine limited in its ability to draw distant objects and their appearance smoothly.

It would seem the basic structure of the original release of CoD was not advanced much beyond the old IL-2 single core standard, and when the release made its appearance to near universal condemnation of its failure, they had to cobble together some sort of addon to make partial use of the number of cores in current processors. This was an addon, not a complete revision and we are likely not seeing the efficiency we should.

It's true we do see some multiple core use now, but how effectively? As you say, we still have the issue with distance draw, handling multiple aircraft, pauses when approaching objects, etc. etc.

Perhaps that is one of the major reasons they are doing a big rewrite for BoM>?

[mazex]

So I'll qualify the title by asking those who played the original IL2 to remember the following;

Ground objects popping into view. Textures being drawn onto objects as if there was a large bubble around the players aircraft and once inside that 'bubble' the textures were rendered, showing a pop-up effect as they 'appeared'. Clouds 'popping' into view in the distance.


Sorry to be sarcastic but how on earth should a graphics engine work that loads all objects and textures on a map like the one in BoB from start?

Remember Falcon 4 and the "Player bubble" slider? Ahh - they only load textures and do collision detection and detailed AI for objects in bubble around the player - thus IL2 uses the Falcon 4 graphics engine! ;)

The graphics engine in CloD is NOT the same as the old OpenGL/Dx8 one used in IL2. It uses the same mechanism as all other flight sims with a "bubble" and due to the density of objects in the new engine it is much more noticable over London for example. True. And if the render engine was more effective they could make the bubble larger so you don't see it - but it will still be there. Be sure ;)

EDIT: And do you remember what happened when you set the F4 bubble slider to far on the rigs we had when F4 was released? Slideshow. Maybe they should offer a "bubble slider" in CloD (or rather the seqel) for the ones that are so annoyed by seeing the bubble that they rather have a slideshow. I think it would be good for the ones with beefy systems... The problem of making of making a bubble larger was however discovered long ago by the greeks...

EDIT AGAIN: And yes it's Friday night after a though week and a couple of glasses of red wine so my sarcasm it a bit over the top - sorry for that :)

[JG52Krupi]

Sorry to be sarcastic but how on earth should a graphics engine work that loads all objects and textures on a map like the one in BoB from start?

Remember Falcon 4 and the "Player bubble" slider? Ahh - they only load textures and do collision detection and detailed AI for objects in bubble around the player - thus IL2 uses the Falcon 4 graphics engine! ;)

The graphics engine in CloD is NOT the same as the old OpenGL/Dx8 one used in IL2. It uses the same mechanism as all other flight sims with a "bubble" and due to the density of objects in the new engine it is much more noticable over London for example. True. And if the render engine was more effective they could make the bubble larger so you don't see it - but it will still be there. Be sure ;)

EDIT: And do you remember what happened when you set the F4 bubble slider to far on the rigs we had when F4 was released? Slideshow. Maybe they should offer a "bubble slider" in CloD (or rather the seqel) for the ones that are so annoyed by seeing the bubble that they rather have a slideshow. I think it would be good for the ones with beefy systems... The problem of making of making a bubble larger was however discovered long ago by the greeks...

EDIT AGAIN: And yes it's Friday night after a though week and a couple of glasses of red wine so my sarcasm it a bit over the top - sorry for that :)

+1, common sense (A rare thing on these forums) ;).

[Ailantd]

So I'll qualify the title by asking those who played the original IL2 to remember the following;

Ground objects popping into view. Textures being drawn onto objects as if there was a large bubble around the players aircraft and once inside that 'bubble' the textures were rendered, showing a pop-up effect as they 'appeared'. Clouds 'popping' into view in the distance.

The 'new' smoke effects are barely discernible from the smoke effects that have been created in modified installs of the old IL2 game engine (just check the new effects for 4.12 by Gurner?).

Effects present in old IL2 have been removed from 'new' CloD.

Example? Just check the effect when an aircraft hits the water or ground. Old IL2, aircraft exploded and scattered, new CloD...aircraft vanish at point of impact (game pauses maybe 2 frames then continues), just watch any aircraft you shoot down collide with the ground/water...they disappear.

Effects that were present in the 'new' game engine have been removed/stripped right back just to get any performance.

So now, we have to sit and wait for BoM.

Now the way it goes is that we are either getting fixes for CloD after installing BoM over it, or fixes for CloD stand-alone once they are working in patches for Bom (the latter is highly unlikely) but lets look at the Graphics Engine they are working with.

It still has horrendous 'pop-up' on ground textures. Fly over London, look down and the ground is visibly drawn in front of you...it looks 'S**^'. The annoying thing is, when you are chasing an aircraft low on the deck, it's hard to concentrate on the LoD (when it is visible) as the background popping into view is just rubbish, especially when other games do it so well.

If they can't do it successfully, then make smaller maps! Sorry, but after reading of Bomber Pilot troubles as the objects don't appear because of the 'draw distance bubble', I would suggest the first thing that 1C do is actually destroy the crappy legacy IL 2 engine and start from scratch.

My feeling is that IL2 1946 is the single best WW2 simulation ever, but CloD tried to hang onto the apron strings and take the plaudits of it's parent!

Time has shown it has failed to do that with Multiple bugs still unresolved and the graphics engine, tweaked and spruced up from the original has not enabled the Developer's to create the vision they hoped.

I wonder if they will be brave enough to admit they failed with the 'new' Graphics engine and actually re-invest in one that works?

Just asking?

Cheers, MP

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

[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.

[zapatista]

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.

nonsense !

what is true is that some of the aircraft flight physics parameters have been re-used from the late il2 series, and why wouldnt they ? they already had the data needed for a number of aircraft, do you really think they would tell their new people "burn all the old stuff and go out again to search for all that data from scratch" ?

what IS different in CoD is that there is a new gfx and game engine to represent/display/model that data (and new information available has allowed them to refine it further), hence it would behave much more realistically and true to life.

regarding the high altitude aircraft performance, luthier already stated there are reasons why in CoD this is not working correctly, and it will require a significant rewrite of some of the code to correctly implement (so not a "limitation" of the new game engine), and they havnt had the time to do this for the CoD rewrite so far, but hare intending to include it for BoM.

[Verhängnis]

Of course though, why invent the wheel twice? ;) It's cheaper, albeit somewhat slower to innovate (due to all the bugs and limitations) than if they had just wrote a new engine completely from scratch (because then they would really know what is going on inside and debugging probably wouldn't be so tedious).
This thread actually makes it seem like they really did just take portions of the old engine, updated a few things and then split it into modules.
A bit like Apple really; no inventions, just cramming the best together and adding an "i" to the name and slapping on an outrageous price and calling it revolutionary. :)

Although I am very optimistic for BoM because many patches back, I had decent performance after finally figuring out the best settings for my rig

My advice to everybody on here:

"Be a pessimist, and expect the worst because then life can only get better."

[Dano]

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

[Mysticpuma]

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 :rolleyes:

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

[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.

[Verhängnis]

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

[smink1701]

So I'll qualify the title by asking those who played the original IL2 to remember the following;

Ground objects popping into view. Textures being drawn onto objects as if there was a large bubble around the players aircraft and once inside that 'bubble' the textures were rendered, showing a pop-up effect as they 'appeared'. Clouds 'popping' into view in the distance.

The 'new' smoke effects are barely discernible from the smoke effects that have been created in modified installs of the old IL2 game engine (just check the new effects for 4.12 by Gurner?).

Effects present in old IL2 have been removed from 'new' CloD.

Example? Just check the effect when an aircraft hits the water or ground. Old IL2, aircraft exploded and scattered, new CloD...aircraft vanish at point of impact (game pauses maybe 2 frames then continues), just watch any aircraft you shoot down collide with the ground/water...they disappear.

Effects that were present in the 'new' game engine have been removed/stripped right back just to get any performance.

So now, we have to sit and wait for BoM.

Now the way it goes is that we are either getting fixes for CloD after installing BoM over it, or fixes for CloD stand-alone once they are working in patches for Bom (the latter is highly unlikely) but lets look at the Graphics Engine they are working with.

It still has horrendous 'pop-up' on ground textures. Fly over London, look down and the ground is visibly drawn in front of you...it looks 'S**^'. The annoying thing is, when you are chasing an aircraft low on the deck, it's hard to concentrate on the LoD (when it is visible) as the background popping into view is just rubbish, especially when other games do it so well.

If they can't do it successfully, then make smaller maps! Sorry, but after reading of Bomber Pilot troubles as the objects don't appear because of the 'draw distance bubble', I would suggest the first thing that 1C do is actually destroy the crappy legacy IL 2 engine and start from scratch.

My feeling is that IL2 1946 is the single best WW2 simulation ever, but CloD tried to hang onto the apron strings and take the plaudits of it's parent!

Time has shown it has failed to do that with Multiple bugs still unresolved and the graphics engine, tweaked and spruced up from the original has not enabled the Developer's to create the vision they hoped.

I wonder if they will be brave enough to admit they failed with the 'new' Graphics engine and actually re-invest in one that works?

Just asking?

Cheers, MP

And your point would be...

Seriously, me thinks the developers have already admitted to all they are going to. When Luthier was given the wheel to this ship it had already struck the iceberg. Most of us purchased CLoD before reading the reviews and learning how incredibly flawed the product was and still is today. But...most will not repeat this mistake and “IF” BOM ever sees the light of day (I think it's 50/50), it better be pretty sorted out or that will be the end of the franchise. That’s one reason why we won’t be seeing it anytime soon. Until then, CLoD is still the best WW2 combat sim you can find and nothing else even comes close.

[Jaws2002]

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]

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.

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.

[=GI=Joel]

I did get tense 4 weeks ago with CLOD, then I remembered playing il2 v1.0; I think around 2000- 2001. Then I remember playing forgotten battles in 2003. Then "shit" Pacific fighters 2005 and finally 1946 in 2007. Then the penny dropped.....

[vranac]

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 didn't tried that in the FMB.I'am flying only online.

Before optimization ATAG guys couldn't put clouds at all because lot of pilots had big problems.Now they have some clouds in missions.

Lots of old clouds I tried on another server,I dont remember the name, but there were 10-15 pilots.I spawned in France and there was a lot of clouds.
I thought that this would be unplayable on 560.But on the contrary when I was flying between them FPS varied between 30 and 45.
Only noticable thing was when looking arround view wasn't smooth.
With this new clouds everything is smooth at least for me and I didn't hear complaints on TS like before.

[Ailantd]

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 :rolleyes:

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!

.

[Gle55nn]

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/04.jpg
http://www.rdox.info/9.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/0.jpg

[He111]

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/04.jpg
http://www.rdox.info/9.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/0.jpg

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).

.

[JG52Krupi]

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!

[philip.ed]

The smaller in game maps look terrible and don't give me any performance increases over flying over the main map. So I don't understand all this crap about how the map-size is killing CloD's ability to model clouds, draw distance etc effectively. The trees, textures, weather effects all need optimisation. This doesn't indicate that they need to be worsened.

[LoBiSoMeM]

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!

This "huge" map runs great in my modest rig.

Next?

By the way, people don't really know about LODs and draw distance? If people don't understand that, please, don't post about "buildings pop-ups"... It's REALLY boring... :rolleyes:

[Blackdog_kt]

Been away for a long time and missed the new patch. Anyway, to address the initial question...it doesn't seem possible to use IL2's graphics engine in CoD, simply because they are coded in different languages.

IL2 was done in Java and C++
CoD was done in C# and C++

You can't copy/paste code between different languages and have them work, and i suppose you can't just "import" code (running a language within a different one) without massive interoperability issues.

What happens is that depending on how each language handles compilation and execution, it might be possible to have some modules written in a different language to execute in a program written in another. I think that's what's going on with speedtree for example, it's a C/C++ module running inside the rest of the software which is done in C#. A single module we've seen how it affects performance.

It would probably be an insurmountable interop hurdle to have the entire Java-based graphics engine from IL2 running in CoD.

[furbs]

Hi Blackdog! we just hit the 18 month mark, remember? ;)

[addman]

The smaller in game maps look terrible and don't give me any performance increases over flying over the main map. So I don't understand all this crap about how the map-size is killing CloD's ability to model clouds, draw distance etc effectively. The trees, textures, weather effects all need optimisation. This doesn't indicate that they need to be worsened.

Well, I might recall incorrectly since I haven't played the game recently. You say you don't notice any performance difference by flying on a smaller map? I'm looking forward to see what the sequel brings to the table in terms of performance improvements. One good thing about waiting for the sequel is that it will give me time to save up some dough for a new rig. :)

[Cobra8472]

The CloD is definitely not a new engine, rather it is based on IL-2. For anyone with a pair of eyes or common sense, this is completely obvious.

There are many identifiable elements from the IL-2 series visible in CloD.

[ElAurens]

The CloD is definitely not a new engine, rather it is based on IL-2. For anyone with a pair of eyes or common sense, this is completely obvious.

There are many identifiable elements from the IL-2 series visible in CloD.


Please cite some examples.

Real identifiable ones.

[skarden]

Yep, I'd like some examples as well, I played 1946 a LOT and I've played COD quiet a bit and I don't see ANYTHING from 1946 in the graphics engine, features yes but actual graphics components nope, I think your confusing the 2 things.
They were always going to use features from 1946 to build on, it's a great game so it'd make sense to use it feature wise as a base for COD.

Also it's been stated many times that it is in fact a completely new engine, maybe you missed that stuff or you weren't around then I don't know.

[Chivas]

The CloD is definitely not a new engine, rather it is based on IL-2. For anyone with a pair of eyes or common sense, this is completely obvious.

There are many identifiable elements from the IL-2 series visible in CloD.

If it wasn't a new game engine maybe you could explain why its taken so long to release a Battle of Britain sim.

[Ailantd]

The CloD is definitely not a new engine, rather it is based on IL-2. For anyone with a pair of eyes or common sense, this is completely obvious.

There are many identifiable elements from the IL-2 series visible in CloD.

"many identifiable elements" like planes, clouds, trees, cities, tanks... yes, you are right, there are many of them.

[tintifaxl]

One example is the console. Same commands, same functionality. The layout of the conf.ini looks very similiar, too.

So I think the sim has inherited some technical concepts of IL2:1946.

[priller26]

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/sohforums/showthread.php?69337-Flight-Replicas-BF109-k4-FSX-Repaint-texture-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.

[jctrnacty]

Switching to DX11 could solve most of the problems graphics engine has right now.

90 prcent of graphics cards is DX11 so why stay in the DX 9 mode????

Simulation is the most demanding software so all players have powerfull computers with DX 11, i dont see a reason here to sty in dx9

[palker4]

One example is the console. Same commands, same functionality. The layout of the conf.ini looks very similiar, too.

So I think the sim has inherited some technical concepts of IL2:1946.

Thanks for stating the obvious genius. If they have something working and are used to having such commands and .ini layouts why would they create something new. To confuse themselves? To make their work harder? If you are such an expert why don't you try to suggest something better.

[David Hayward]

It's funny when people who know absolutely nothing about computer programming start to comment on the way the game was coded.

[SiThSpAwN]

It's funny when people who know absolutely nothing about ___________ start to comment on _________.

Pretty sure right there is the definition of internet forums :)

[BadAim]

I can't be bothered to read the entire thread, so I don't know if this has been said yet, but I just want to comment that you, Puma are doing nothing but trolling.

I have come to expect better from you, but I guess that is my own failing.

[Mysticpuma]

Hey no hard feelings. It's not an intentional troll!

Currently as we now wait for the next installment, it's been obvious to see where the issues still lie in the Graphics department. To be honest I am mostly flying over the Sea as I find the ground pop-up textures too annoying. But over the sea (and when the particles of smoke aren't too huge, the sim is really enjoyable.

Regarding the legacy I refer to...here's a short clip to show how nothing has changed since the 'old' 1946 days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweBqsH-9Jk&feature=youtu.be

Cheers, MP

[David Hayward]

Does that clip show the matching code? If not it is useless.

[Mysticpuma]

No you are right David...there is nothing similar there is there? Blimey!

If it walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck..then it must be an Ostrich, eh David?

[JG52Krupi]

No you are right David...there is nothing similar there is there? Blimey!

If it walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck..then it must be an Ostrich, eh David?

Yes but this is a video game and most video games have this area of vision, hopefully they can improve it.

Suggest you learn what you talk about before slagging it off... :rolleyes:

il2:1946 and CoD have the same engine LOL what a tool!

[Dano]

If we post videos of other games showing the same can we kick off an Apple vs Samsung-esque patent war over who has copied who?

[Mysticpuma]

Yes but this is a video game and most video games have this area of vision, hopefully they can improve it.

Suggest you learn what you talk about before slagging it off... :rolleyes:

il2:1946 and CoD have the same engine LOL what a tool!

As we are now going down the route of personal insults, lets call it a day. Mods, please delete the thread, let bygones be bygones and everyone be happy again?

I'll not mention that other sims can blend distant objects almost invisibly as they render then into the draw bubble, it just seemed that IL2 was built on the legacy of the previous build.

Sad times when personal abuse is made over such an obvious Graphic 'issue'.

Please delete the thread. MP

[priller26]

God only knows what they will use, lets just hope it performs better out of the box, however, I seriously think they are going the MMO route, which will bring a whole host of new issues. I think BOM is a long time and a few graphic card generations away.

[David Hayward]

No you are right David...there is nothing similar there is there? Blimey!

If it walks like a Duck, Quacks like a Duck..then it must be an Ostrich, eh David?

Can you tell the difference between a GIF and BMP digital image?

In short, if you don't have the code, you've got nothing.

As an aside, you're making a fool of yourself.

[Ataros]

Other games have "fog of war" covering the transition (Arma2, War Thunder:WoP, etc.). Not possible to see horizon there.

[zapatista]

......
Regarding the legacy I refer to...here's a short clip to show how nothing has changed since the 'old' 1946 days:..............

you'r confusing a few concepts

the draw bubble for these 3D objects popping up directly depends on the power of your pc gpu/cpu, and the density of detail you have set in the options. want less popup ? turn down the detail or get better/faster cpu/gpu component for your pc. notice how each of those buildings is popping up ? thats your pc saying WTF and each time having to draw an additional buildings, and there are 1000's of them (all in low LoD at that point), but in those console games those buildings/objects simply arnt there to be drawn, its just a bland large texture map. games like BoP and console type games that look "nicer" from the same mid altitude level do so by using low resolution textures as large tiles area's with a few 3D objects placed in them only, and keep that poor detail display till you are very low to the ground (which is why they look ugly at low altitude).

in comparison the il2 series was initially made as a sim for the il2-sturmovick aircraft, a low level ground attack plane, so the focus on scenery detail was done with that focus. with oleg's ambition of now even showing "moving blades of grass" they have gone a bit overkill on still trying to provide that very high level of detail in a 2010 sim and simultaneously have your pc still able to deal with FM, DM, high numbers of moving objects near you etc.. And it has to do this on a huge map with a very good view of the distant horizon, something i havnt see any other modern game do as well. at the point of performance "where the tire meets the road" our pc's arnt quite coping with their ambitious plans (and code can be optimized further ?). one possible way to improve this, and i am no pc grafix expert, might be to use a better type of distant LoD model which blends in more with the background, so the popup effect is less obvious. a gfx artists could work with their game coder to address that, but the fact remains your little pc has to try and draw every single new object, and it is struggling right now to do so :)

iirc, from what oleg said during development, the way CoD is designed there is 3 levels of altitude where different amount of details are show, and right now in the hurry to fix CoD iirc the transition point between low and medium altitude "zones" isnt correctly balanced (exacerbated by them trying to squeeze more fpsec's out of the new gfx engine for mid level pc's), hence the complaints during the last few patches that bomber crews couldnt see their targets for high altitude bombing runs

just because the 2 sim series show building popup, doesnt mean they have gone cut and paste from the old il2 code :)

[LoBiSoMeM]

I believe Skyrim uses the same code too! Look:

oGtu8XnxhhI

CloD graphics engine gave some bugs and still need even more work, some features back but running better, but it's much better than IL-2 1946 graphics engine, even in performance.

If you doubt, please show me a He111 running in IL-2 1946 engine that looks like this:

QoAkNtBXOcM

I'm waiting...

[ZaltysZ]

Regarding the legacy I refer to...here's a short clip to show how nothing has changed since the 'old' 1946 days:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweBqsH-9Jk&feature=youtu.be


Object density and performance have linear relation. Drawing distance and performance have cubic relation. Doubling drawing distance requires not 2 times more, but 4 times more computing power. This means that drawing distance will always be a pain, unless you want to sacrifice much density and complexity of objects. Other games simply add fog outside of the bubble, so objects don't pop up, but appear out of fog instead. Cosmetically it looks nicer, but you simply loose ability to have different drawing distances for different objects. I would personally choose to live with popups, than with fog, which masks rivers, hills at distance and make navigation uncomfortable.

[Stublerone]

Drawing distances are not always noticable in other games as they have not that viewing range and tnhey use crappy effects to minimze the problem.

Second topic is, that it is a streaming engine. It not only depends what you set in the config or not only on the power of your cpu and gpu. It depends on vram, ram and also very much on your drives. Using a ssd will improve streaming. You can alsi see that in other large scaled games like arma 2.. And there you normally have server sided restricted view distances of about 4km. So clod is using perhaps 20km? (not sure) to have it all in place without popping up, you will need a new generation of computers with a whole bunch of new connections, buses, etc. The workload is big and as long as computers are still depending on approaches from consiles, this revolution will not happen alone.

It is simply stuck technically to create games with streaming engines, big textures and high viewing range. The current pc is not capable to sort out that priblems. :) Not an opinion, but a fact that everyone knows, who is going a bit deeper into the technical side. It is not always bad programming, but it is also a technical hurdle, that prevents streaming engines to be totally running sufficiently in detail.

[tintifaxl]

... The current pc is not capable to sort out that priblems. :) Not an opinion, but a fact that everyone knows, who is going a bit deeper into the technical side. It is not always bad programming, but it is also a technical hurdle, that prevents streaming engines to be totally running sufficiently in detail.

Using C++ over C# would have helped our poor little pc's a lot. Go assembler, and it would have helped even more. So it's not the hardware that's lacking primarily but the ressources and expertise of the developer. Which of course is a money problem.

Fact is the bubble in CloD is very ugly.

[LoBiSoMeM]

Object density and performance have linear relation. Drawing distance and performance have cubic relation. Doubling drawing distance requires not 2 times more, but 4 times more computing power. This means that drawing distance will always be a pain, unless you want to sacrifice much density and complexity of objects. Other games simply add fog outside of the bubble, so objects don't pop up, but appear out of fog instead. Cosmetically it looks nicer, but you simply loose ability to have different drawing distances for different objects. I would personally choose to live with popups, than with fog, which masks rivers, hills at distance and make navigation uncomfortable.

Perfect!

We just need that important buildings (like ground objectives, bases buildings, radar stations, etc) have huge drawning distance. In FMB for the sequel maybe we can set this and bomber pilots can have a easier life... Just a suggestion! ;)

[Ma233e]

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/04.jpg

[LoBiSoMeM]

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/04.jpg

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]

There is simply no time, or even more importantly money, to build a new game engine.
http://www.rdox.info/01.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/02.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/8.jpghttp://www.rdox.info/04.jpg

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! ;)

[zapatista]

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! ;)

one further possible avenue of increased performance for game programers is to directly access/write-to GPU functions (instead of using intermediary languages as they do now, which need 1 or several steps between the hardware function and the game code written), but i am not aware of any current game that does so yet. from what i read, this will allow a significant further step forward in performance nd some upcoming FPS are sarting to use these methods afaik. future more efficient game code writing for flightsims is also possible even using current harrdware, but i agree that right now given the current method of writing these games, performance for flightsims is very much strangled by what the current hardware can perform, and it is a game genre that is pushing the boundaries of what is possible.

[ZaltysZ]

Perfect!

We just need that important buildings (like ground objectives, bases buildings, radar stations, etc) have huge drawning distance. In FMB for the sequel maybe we can set this and bomber pilots can have a easier life... Just a suggestion! ;)

Bomber guys would be happy even with such simple solution as separate view distance slider for bombsight mode. It is better to do slight adjustements at 15FPS and see your target in advance, than to have it poping up when it is already too late for corrections.

[tintifaxl]

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.
...

You contradict yourself in the next sentence. So a rewrite of the engine with support for multicore cpu's and sli gpu's is necessary to achieve better results.

Why do I have such a fast and expensive system? So developers can still not support multicore cpu's, multiple gpu's and use slow execution programming languages like C#, that have a huge overhead when using the Direct3D API?

[LoBiSoMeM]

Bomber guys would be happy even with such simple solution as separate view distance slider for bombsight mode. It is better to do slight adjustements at 15FPS and see your target in advance, than to have it poping up when it is already too late for corrections.

Yes, maybe the two things can be put together in BoM: bigger draw distance for important objects defined by mission builders AND general bigger view distance for bombsight.

[Stublerone]

You contradict yourself in the next sentence. So a rewrite of the engine with support for multicore cpu's and sli gpu's is necessary to achieve better results.

Why do I have such a fast and expensive system? So developers can still not support multicore cpu's, multiple gpu's and use slow execution programming languages like C#, that have a huge overhead when using the Direct3D API?

You are right with second. But what you claimed in your first part: I just wanted to say that sli is bad, multicore cpu is bad as long its buses, interfaces and the way they are handled gets improved. Sli for example do not us both cards capabilities 100% and it is even worse with its vram just 100%, where it should be 200% with 2 cards. It is just using the amount of 1 x vram, which is rediculous especially when upgrading a 1gb vram card. You can directly take the money as toilet paper, because it does not help you get rid of the problem of texture load in clod. You can buy 50 cards and generate 3000 fps in clod without getting rid of the last hick ups.

So sli needs rework and another implementation. 3 cards for 3 monitors will do 3 parts of thepicture. 1 for every monitor and without loss of the potential vram. -> That would be an sli, which I directly buy, no matter how much bucks. But you will perhaps never see such an upgrade politics from the manufacturer, because he cannot sell his top product for gaming, if the people can upgrade sufficiently. Why should he do that? He earns not as much and perhaps needs to produce lower end or nearly obsolete cards a longer time. Not a sufficient model for him. So he will stick with the politics, which is not doing him any harm, but us! ;) Simple business. Add the fact to use prematerials that brake after 4 years and you are a rich company! And noone really can do anything as long as it is needed and as long as there is a market for it.

As long as the coms between the hardware parts are just evolving as now, we will always have such a problem. Usb2, usb3, sata 300, sata 600, thunderbolt, firewire, .... All crap to the possibilities, that they could integrate. The hardware is to far away from each other :)