I Hope BOS Graphics Are Better Than ROF.

[Richie]

I find that the Rise Of Flight graphics have a very harsh high contrast look to them. You can say all the bad things you like about Cliffs Of Dover but it's look is much better. I have Rise Of Flight. I don't fly it much because I'm not too interested in the theater and that's to my detriment it has nothing to do with the theater of war. Back to the graphics. I hope they can take away some of this as one person said "cartoonish look".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-RfSo9JNGo

[JG52Uther]

I have found the sweetfx programme has toned RoF down a bit for me.Not as good as CoD but still. They have a couple of years to get it right, so heres hoping!

[furbs]

You should check out the SweetFX for ROF, its called FlightFX and its a program where you can adjust most aspects of ROF "look".

Here is a few shots of ROF after my tweaks...

http://imageshack.us/a/img209/68/shot13.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img341/8513/shot14x.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img27/1204/shot12t.jpg


http://imageshack.us/a/img855/843/shot11e.jpg

The look of flight sims is very personal, and each person might perfer one look over another, but where ROF beats COD hands down is the LOD/planes at a distance, ROF does not lose detail at all and FSAA and FSAF is done very well.

[major_setback]

I find that the Rise Of Flight graphics have a very harsh high contrast look to them. You can say all the bad things you like about Cliffs Of Dover but it's look is much better. I have Rise Of Flight. I don't fly it much because I'm not too interested in the theater and that's to my detriment it has nothing to do with the theater of war. Back to the graphics. I hope they can take away some of this as one person said "cartoonish look".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-RfSo9JNGo


Agreed very much. I have yet to see 1 good screenshot from RoF. Including those in this thread (sorry).

[Richie]

Agreed very much. I have yet to see 1 good screenshot from RoF. Including those in this thread (sorry).

I am the last one in this forum who want's to have a negative outlook so..I think the great thing about this merge will be the swiftness in witch the addons will come. I'm pretty sure different arenas such as North Africa, Western Europe etc. will take a fraction of the time to be added compared to Cliffs Of Dover. Also there is nothing wrong with Rise Of Flight's flight models in the slightest. They are excellent. Let's hope the graphics get improved on.

[Lexicon]

Agreed very much. I have yet to see 1 good screenshot from RoF. Including those in this thread (sorry).

Indeed... At release,BOS will be compared to CLOD and War Thunder in terms of graphics . That is inevitable. In its actual state, ROF graphics are already quite behind those two...
And their potential clientèle is playing those game today...
Will the accuracy of the cockpits, FM and Weather model be enough to overcome the lack of " good looks" and ground features to satisfy hardcore simmers ?
It is quite a challenge for the new team....Maybe thay have something up their
sleaves...
But no more "maybe"...We have learned our lesson...:rolleyes:

Salute !

[baronWastelan]

RoF is already past its "use by" date. Only thing good to say about the graphics is it's better than nothin.

[furbs]

Yes, CLOD with flickering shadows, shimmer, pop up buildings, puff ball clouds, dots showing through clouds and landscape, particle and smoke slow down, low detail LODs, only 2x FSAA, no heat haze, low detail land tiles, no weather system, no overcast, rain is much better than the screen shots of ROF above. :rolleyes:

[Fjordmonkey]

Yes, CLOD with flickering shadows, shimmer, pop up buildings, puff ball clouds, dots showing through clouds and landscape, particle and smoke slow down, low detail LODs, only 2x FSAA, no heat haze, low detail land tiles is much better than the screen shots of ROF above. :rolleyes:

Meh, it's all subjective, to be honest.

Some of the shots posted in this thread are pretty nice, and RoF as a whole isn't all that bad looking to me even in stock. Besides, I'm much more interested in the level of simulation and the handling of the aircraft than mere eyecandy.

My biggest issue with RoF, however, is the setting. WWI isn't very interesting to me at all. No 109's :(

[furbs]

I can agree with the ww1 setting, while enjoying ROF alot, its not my "thing" as well.
I also agree eye candy comes third after the sim aspects, and being historical accurate.

Im hoping BOS manages to do all three to a level we all enjoy.

[JG52Uther]

Well I'm sure everyone wll keep them honest and ask awkward questions as and when they need to be asked.
I don't really mind the RoF graphics, what counts in a flight sim is FM and content. Both companies have fallen down on that so far.

[baronWastelan]

Just for future reference, since most of the action in Russia happens under 3,000 ft...

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d63/baronWastelan/Launcher_2012_05_13_17_30_46_169.jpg

[JG52Krupi]

I can agree with the ww1 setting, while enjoying ROF alot, its not my "thing" as well.
I also agree eye candy comes third after the sim aspects, and being historical accurate.

Im hoping BOS manages to do all three to a level we all enjoy.

Personally I found the best things in cod were the landscape and cockpits.

I doubt we will see an improved landscape in BOS but you can't fairly compare cockpits of rof to cod, they are too different.

Hopefully the felix will show what the rof engine can do with a closed cockpit and hopefully finially some damage model.

[furbs]

Cockpits in CLOD are the best ive ever seen anywhere.
Landscape, i dont agree.

That's the past now, lets hope BOS does both.

[JG52Krupi]

Cockpits in CLOD are the best ive ever seen anywhere.
Landscape, i dont agree.

That's the past now, lets hope BOS does both.

In terms of landscape the way I see it is down low cod looks better but up high I prefer rof.

The popping trees planes in rof are a real turn off.

[furbs]

Popping tree? you mean the way they turn towards you?

I guess its a trade off, 1000's of trees that are 2d and turn, look ok up close, look great up high and you can hit them...

or

1000's of trees that look fantastic up close, look ok up high but you can fly through, use as cover in a low dogfight and have no affect in a crash landing.

il take the 1st.

[JG52Krupi]

Yeah they constantly flicker when you fly over them.

Cod trees were a bit over the top with the swaying leaves and branches, a happy medium between the two would be great.

[JG52Krupi]

Also the shadows on the trees were amazing in cod

[ZaltysZ]

I have yet to see a sim, which does not look cartoonish at summer noon. Most of them are plausible at dusk, dawn or with overcast or at winter, but there is always something wrong with summer noon. RoF and CoD have this problem too.

[furbs]

Also the shadows on the trees were amazing in cod

That's a joke right Krupi? :) flickering shadows are not funny.

[JG52Krupi]

That's a joke right Krupi? :) flickering shadows are not funny.

I didn't have a flicker on my shadows only now and again.

Better than nothing like rof though

[Ataros]

Furbs, I know you do not like CloD and like RoF, but tell yourself why did not you post high-res images of RoF.

High-res images will show you flat low-res landscape textures with no bump-mapping, flat sprite trees and DX9 lighting/shading. I wish BoS good luck but using an old engine is just a financial decision of 1C beancounters as it is cheaper and quicker in development. This desire to save money may make BoS the last game in hardcore sim genre because younger WT/BF3 audience will never switch from DX10/11 to DX9 game. Never. This is how much this 1C's mistake may cost. (It is not 777's fault as they do not have a budget to rewrite the engine but 1C has.)

Landscape textures and shading
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t91ahWKFpGU/T2Z5YOlTMSI/AAAAAAAAAfs/y0RGFkwx01g/s1600/Game+-+Prev+1.jpg

Side-by-side compare it to
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3627/rof2012030423080144.jpg

Trees lighting
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qYWV0hx6sUU/TeTUv5yQ5LI/AAAAAAAABXM/snGst5m5p0E/s1440/2011-05-03_00018.jpg
http://www.gameskype.com/uploads/posts/1302191694_9.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-kJZIBIY0kCk/TeTW9EzsWoI/AAAAAAAABs0/tjP_hBGO3fM/s1440/2011-05-19_00032.jpg

Imagine how CloD/BoM engine could look in 2014 with bugs you mentioned polished out.

You can not get same "feeling of flight" and "fear of height" with a 5-year old DX9 engine... Flightsims is all about a "feeling of flight" to me at least. Not trigger-happy feeling you get in an arcade combat (Warbirds, original IL-2, RoF) but a feeling of height you have during final approach IRL for instance. In a PC game we cannot feel it with our body, but only with our eyes and ears.
http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/397150d1301503456-sammelthread-il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-dover-5.jpg

A sim must give a feeling of flight, not a feeling of being a cartoon hero-pilot. I love RoF 3D models and FM but without proper visual impression can not believe I am flying (used to have a little bit of IRL experience). Hope the dev team does not get stuck in the last decade in spite of all financial difficulties they are facing.

[JG52Krupi]

I have yet to see a sim, which does not look cartoonish at summer noon. Most of them are plausible at dusk, dawn or with overcast or at winter, but there is always something wrong with summer noon. RoF and CoD have this problem too.

Agreed, it's seems quite hard to make it look correct!

[JG52Krupi]

Furbs, I know you do not like CloD and like RoF, but tell yourself why did not you post high-res images of RoF.

High-res images will show you flat low-res landscape textures with no bump-mapping, flat sprite trees and DX9 lighting/shading. I wish BoS good luck but using an old engine is just a financial decision of 1C beancounters as it is cheaper and quicker in development. This desire to save money may make BoS the last game in hardcore sim genre because younger WT/BF3 audience will never switch from DX10/11 to DX9 game. Never. This is how much this 1C's mistake may cost. (It is not 777's fault as they do not have a budget to rewrite the engine but 1C has.)

Landscape textures and shading
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t91ahWKFpGU/T2Z5YOlTMSI/AAAAAAAAAfs/y0RGFkwx01g/s1600/Game+-+Prev+1.jpg

Side-by-side compare it to
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3627/rof2012030423080144.jpg

Trees lighting
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qYWV0hx6sUU/TeTUv5yQ5LI/AAAAAAAABXM/snGst5m5p0E/s1440/2011-05-03_00018.jpg
http://www.gameskype.com/uploads/posts/1302191694_9.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-kJZIBIY0kCk/TeTW9EzsWoI/AAAAAAAABs0/tjP_hBGO3fM/s1440/2011-05-19_00032.jpg

Imagine how CloD/BoM engine could look in 2014 with bugs you mentioned polished out.

You can not get same "feeling of flight" and "fear of height" with a 5-year old DX9 engine... Flightsims is all about a "feeling of flight" to me at least. Not trigger-happy feeling you get in an arcade combat (Warbirds, original IL-2, RoF) but a feeling of height you have during final approach IRL for instance. In a PC game we cannot feel it with our body, but only with our eyes and ears.
http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/397150d1301503456-sammelthread-il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-dover-5.jpg

A sim must give a feeling of flight, not a feeling of being a cartoon hero-pilot. I love RoF 3D models and FM but without proper visual impression can not believe I am flying (used to have a little bit of IRL experience). Hope the dev team does not get stuck in the last decade in spite of all financial difficulties they are facing.

Agreed, Cod landscape without those few bugs would totally own rods landscape... Pity the ROF fans are too biased to admit that they just turn around and say "errr no tree hit box" and runaway thinking they have won the day, ignorant assess!

[furbs]

Furbs, I know you do not like CloD and like RoF, but tell yourself why did not you post high-res images of RoF.

High-res images will show you flat low-res landscape textures with no bump-mapping, flat sprite trees and DX9 lighting/shading. I wish BoS good luck but using an old engine is just a financial decision of 1C beancounters as it is cheaper and quicker in development. This desire to save money may make BoS the last game in hardcore sim genre because younger WT/BF3 audience will never switch from DX10/11 to DX9 game. Never. This is how much this 1C's mistake may cost. (It is not 777's fault as they do not have a budget to rewrite the engine but 1C has.)

Landscape textures and shading
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-t91ahWKFpGU/T2Z5YOlTMSI/AAAAAAAAAfs/y0RGFkwx01g/s1600/Game+-+Prev+1.jpg

Side-by-side compare it to
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/3627/rof2012030423080144.jpg

Trees lighting
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-qYWV0hx6sUU/TeTUv5yQ5LI/AAAAAAAABXM/snGst5m5p0E/s1440/2011-05-03_00018.jpg
http://www.gameskype.com/uploads/posts/1302191694_9.jpg
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-kJZIBIY0kCk/TeTW9EzsWoI/AAAAAAAABs0/tjP_hBGO3fM/s1440/2011-05-19_00032.jpg

Imagine how CloD/BoM engine could look in 2014 with bugs you mentioned polished out.

You can not get same "feeling of flight" and "fear of height" with a 5-year old DX9 engine... Flightsims is all about a "feeling of flight" to me at least. Not trigger-happy feeling you get in an arcade combat (Warbirds, original IL-2, RoF) but a feeling of height you have during final approach IRL for instance. In a PC game we cannot feel it with our body, but only with our eyes and ears.
http://extreme.pcgameshardware.de/attachments/397150d1301503456-sammelthread-il-2-sturmovik-cliffs-dover-5.jpg

A sim must give a feeling of flight, not a feeling of being a cartoon hero-pilot. I love RoF 3D models and FM but without proper visual impression can not believe I am flying (used to have a little bit of IRL experience). Hope the dev team does not get stuck in the last decade in spite of all financial difficulties they are facing.

Well, my ROF does not look like your pics...

And there is a guy on these forums who flies bi-planes in real life and says the feeling of flight in ROF is as close as he has seen in a sim, if its good enough for him.

Hold on, i will take a few like yours...

[JG52Krupi]

ROF does not use landscape bump mapping in the same way so unless you have added something to the pics Ataros has a point.

I do agree with the feeling of flight but the immersion that cod gave over came the lack of feeling off flight.

[taildraggernut]

Furbs said he uses sweetFX which is a 3rd party module to improve graphics, COD didn't need any of that.

[JG1Baron]

Furbs said he uses sweetFX which is a 3rd party module to improve graphics, COD didn't need any of that.

It is a joke? SweetFX was used in Clod much earlier before it ever started to use players in RoF, but it was called FXAA. Many players using SweetFX in CLoD because the original graphic is too faded.

[Liz Lemon]

Furbs said he uses sweetFX which is a 3rd party module to improve graphics, COD didn't need any of that.

Hahahahah, really?

SweetFX is just a post-process injector. It can do things like color grading, bloom, ect but it shouldn't be a replacement for the underlying graphics. Just something that improves/changes them to the users taste.

[Liz Lemon]

It is a joke? SweetFX was used in Clod much earlier before it ever started to use players in RoF, but it was called FXAA. Many players using SweetFX in CLoD because the original graphic is too faded.

No it wasn't.

MlAA shaders are present in CLOD code, but I don't think they were ever used (unfortunately. Why were they were left untouched????)

FXAA is a post process AA filter, aka blurs most everything on screen in the hopes of removing things like shader AA. Its a mixed bag, but something like SMAA works much better in CLOD.

Basically its like photoshop in practice. It can get rid of jaggies, but don't be surprised when it shows up on video.

[furbs]

here are a few side by side...i dont know your ROF settings but i would check.

yours...
http://imageshack.us/a/img525/3627/rof2012030423080144.jpg

mine...
http://imageshack.us/a/img339/6340/sidebyside1.jpg




yours...

http://imageshack.us/a/img407/6268/gameprev1.jpg


mine...

http://imageshack.us/a/img38/2271/big5n.jpg

[JG1Baron]

One picture from me - default RoF settings only:

http://wtigers.org/extra/full-2274-45734-2012729211236.jpg

[Fjordmonkey]

I find that I could easily live with graphics of the quality that JG1Baron has, to be honest.

Graphics isn't everything, gentlemen. It doesn't have to be photorealistic, but it does need to be believable. And the pic posted above is.

[furbs]

Here the full size shots...now compare, again these are not edited in a anyway, just using SweetFX in game.



http://imageshack.us/a/img29/1015/big4i.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img809/3993/big3z.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img35/7194/big2r.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img341/852/big1f.jpg

[Ataros]

Thank you, Furbs. You are right, it does not look as bad as in the RoF picture I posted. Textures definitely are more detailed.

I still like DX10 lighting better as it gives "less flat" image. Bump-mapping also adds to a more deep world but hopefully it can be integrated in BoS within DX9.

I hope they can also include 3D trees and the engine can handle them.

The best advantage RoF engine has now is that it is financially supported. Let's hope after BoS success 777 can develop a new modern engine faster than 1C developed CloD after original Il-2 success. Another 5 year-long wait from now anyway :)

PS. BTW what happened to trees from 1st picture here http://www.cleared-to-engage.com/2011/07/02/whats-next-after-rise-of-flight/ Are they 3D? Are they included in the game yet, will they be?

[JG52Krupi]

Wow I take it that is not your normal fps!!!

[FS~Phat]

I know this is a bit naughty cross posting but this is important.

DX11 and 64bit is on the horizon.. will it make it to BoS? Probably, but maybe not on release. We may not get DX11 and 64bit on release of the new sequel but the 777 way is to make things fun, get it out and then continually tweak it. So if they are already working on DX11 and 64bit expect that will probably make its way into ROF (or maybe another project?) before the sequel for refinement and testing.

Bottom line. Dont dis 777 just because today they are DX9, they are already looking beyond that.

More here on the graphics engine
http://www.cleared-to-engage.com/category/777-studios-2/

Extract:
"It’s pre-mature to talk about what’s next, but we will say that the ROF Engine (Digital Nature Engine) is being groomed for bigger and better things. What that means will be announced sometime in the future. We want to be the best sim developer in the world, even if it kills us.


(Jason Williams – President of 777 Studios)

Yes, we are thinking of what will be the next step. We have done evolutionary development with our Digital Nature Engine. This laid the basis for the project architecture. Our programmers are already making plans to use DX11 to create graphics and the possibility of 64-bit systems using large amounts of memory. This course will give us the opportunity to make the next technological step, and even more surprising graphics and depth of physical modeling.



It would be interesting to create a project of another era, the Battle of the Pacific Ocean, huge aircraft carriers, hundreds of people performing their work on the deck to ensure your take-off or landing, night operations P-61, flying boats patrolling coastal territories and rescuing crews from wrecked planes, and perhaps give you opportunity to manage other military equipment.


(Albert Zhiltzov – Producer of Rise of Flight)"

[JG52Krupi]

Thank you, Furbs. You are right, it does not look as bad as in the RoF picture I posted. Textures definitely are more detailed.

I still like DX10 lighting better as it gives "less flat" image. Bump-mapping also adds to a more deep world but hopefully it can be integrated in BoS within DX9.

I hope they can also include 3D trees and the engine can handle them.

The best advantage RoF engine has now is that it is financially supported. Let's hope after BoS success 777 can develop a new modern engine faster than 1C developed CloD after original Il-2 success. Another 5 year-long wait from now anyway :)

Come on Ataros ROF isn't that bad, hopefully 777 can use the next two years to bolt on some more good features :)

Check out the fire and haze in rof it's awesome... Will get a pic!

[furbs]

Wow I take it that is not your normal fps!!!

Outside looking at all that landscape yes Krupi, in cockpit fighting its about 45FPS with no slowdow or one stutter.

[furbs]

Thank you, Furbs. You are right, it does not look as bad as in the RoF picture I posted. Textures definitely are more detailed.

I still like DX10 lighting better as it gives "less flat" image. Bump-mapping also adds to a more deep world but hopefully it can be integrated in BoS within DX9.

I hope they can also include 3D trees and the engine can handle them.

The best advantage RoF engine has now is that it is financially supported. Let's hope after BoS success 777 can develop a new modern engine faster than 1C developed CloD after original Il-2 success. Another 5 year-long wait from now anyway :)

Agreed Ataros, the DX10 lighting is better, no question about that.

But as Phat says, were 14 months away from BOS, hopefully the DN engine will have even more improvements.

Trees, i dont think we will get 3D and hit boxes, but i can live with that.

[JG52Krupi]

I know this is a bit naughty cross posting but this is important.

DX11 and 64bit is on the horizon.. will it make it to BoS? Probably, but maybe not on release. We may not get DX11 and 64bit on release of the new sequel but the 777 way is to make things fun, get it out and then continually tweak it. So if they are already working on DX11 and 64bit expect that will probably make its way into ROF (or maybe another project?) before the sequel for refinement and testing.

Bottom line. Dont dis 777 just because today they are DX9, they are already looking beyond that.

More here on the graphics engine
http://www.cleared-to-engage.com/category/777-studios-2/

Extract:
"It’s pre-mature to talk about what’s next, but we will say that the ROF Engine (Digital Nature Engine) is being groomed for bigger and better things. What that means will be announced sometime in the future. We want to be the best sim developer in the world, even if it kills us.


(Jason Williams – President of 777 Studios)

Yes, we are thinking of what will be the next step. We have done evolutionary development with our Digital Nature Engine. This laid the basis for the project architecture. Our programmers are already making plans to use DX11 to create graphics and the possibility of 64-bit systems using large amounts of memory. This course will give us the opportunity to make the next technological step, and even more surprising graphics and depth of physical modeling.



It would be interesting to create a project of another era, the Battle of the Pacific Ocean, huge aircraft carriers, hundreds of people performing their work on the deck to ensure your take-off or landing, night operations P-61, flying boats patrolling coastal territories and rescuing crews from wrecked planes, and perhaps give you opportunity to manage other military equipment.


(Albert Zhiltzov – Producer of Rise of Flight)"

Interesting thanks for posting Phat, I think that given a chance 777 could make the ww2 game that we all want, hopefully COD will have given them some good ideas on things like the FMB which is awesome just look at the scripts that members of ACG and ATAG have made truly jaw dropping stuff but requires knowkedge of C++ to truly make.

[Richie]

The way I see the Rise Of Flight aeroplanes is they apear like they are in an old 1930's era movie where an object such as an aeroplane is put in front of a flat screen panel. The aeroplanes just have a starkness to them. Too harsh.

[ZaltysZ]

The way I see the Rise Of Flight aeroplanes is they apear like they are in an old 1930's era movie where an object such as an aeroplane is put in front of a flat screen panel. The aeroplanes just have a starkness to them. Too harsh.

RoF have lots of settings which greatly affect final image: 4 different settings for HDR, high contrast post effect, desaturation, bloom effect, sharpening post effect, light and color reflection. Manipulating them you can get image ranging from dull and washed out to something "explosive". Turning everything on does not guarantee the most natural look. ;)

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-979-6449-rof_2010_10_12_15_56_24_83.jpg

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-2942-6833-escort.jpg

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-23835-6518-2011_2_15__18_33_0.jpg

[Richie]

RoF have lots of settings which greatly affect final image: 4 different settings for HDR, high contrast post effect, desaturation, bloom effect, sharpening post effect, light and color reflection. Manipulating them you can get image ranging from dull and washed out to something "explosive". Turning everything on does not guarantee the most natural look. ;)

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-979-6449-rof_2010_10_12_15_56_24_83.jpg

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-2942-6833-escort.jpg

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-23835-6518-2011_2_15__18_33_0.jpg

Now that's better. Those screenshots are nicer ZattysZ. Thanks for posting them.

[Fjordmonkey]

RoF have lots of settings which greatly affect final image: 4 different settings for HDR, high contrast post effect, desaturation, bloom effect, sharpening post effect, light and color reflection. Manipulating them you can get image ranging from dull and washed out to something "explosive". Turning everything on does not guarantee the most natural look. ;)

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-979-6449-rof_2010_10_12_15_56_24_83.jpg

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-2942-6833-escort.jpg

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-23835-6518-2011_2_15__18_33_0.jpg

I think it's time I gave RoF another go, heh. If anything, it can be the salve for my uncomplicated-aircraft-combat itch for the time being. When you spend a lot of time flying in DCS, flying something that doesn't require a 800+ page manual is nice.

[Taxman]

I think it's time I gave RoF another go, heh. If anything, it can be the salve for my uncomplicated-aircraft-combat itch for the time being. When you spend a lot of time flying in DCS, flying something that doesn't require a 800+ page manual is nice.

I bought ROF when the Iron Cross edition came up just to support flight sims as well as WOP. I never loaded them, but like you I think ROF is now worth a look.:)

Also a thank you to ZaltysZ for posting a link to those great ROF pictures:eek:

[Jaws2002]

Both are good engines. The problem is Clod was very badly managed for the money it chewed up. If 777 team had access to all those funds clod chewed up, they could have made a game much better than what clod is. that's fact.

Oleg got lost in small details. That's what killed the game. That and firing the guys that made most of the engine, a year before release. It's no surprise it was a mess. I also can't blame 1c (even if i want to) for not wanting to spend more money on the engine. First of all, they wanted new management. There's no way Jasson would have abandoned the ROF community and take his team to start fixing CLOD.
I hope that down the road they can get something better.

What pisses me off is that I had a taste of a more advanced ww2 combat flight sim and now we'll have to go back to 2008-2009 level.:(

[4H_V-man]

Some of you 'old-timers' here will remember me from the pre-hacked Il-2 days. I haven't been around this forum in well over a year. Reading some of the posts here made me want to weigh in, though.

I was a rabid Il-2 flyer. I helped beta-test RoF and was really looking forward to CloD until Ubi screwed it with the Steam requirement and premature release. In regard to the graphics of CloD, I have nothing to go on but screenshots and You Tube videos. From my experience with RoF, though, with the proper graphics settings RoF seems to appear much more realistic than CloD does. Plus, trees have a collision model, which is absent in CloD.

I've got hundreds of hours flying in RoF, and the sensation of flight that I get in RoF still amazes me. The different weather settings can really add to the immersion. The ground textures I've seen in CloD seem very 'cartoonish' to me. I have never experienced problems with textures popping in and out as some of you have talked about. I believe that goes back to how much you have tweaked settings to get the most out of your system. The damage modeling in RoF is fantastic. Seeing torn fabric and internal structure, and the effect the damage has on handling seems to be done extremely well in RoF.

Those of you here who aren't regular RoF flyers really should give it a try. WWI isn't my first choice of interest either, but 777 has done a wonderful job with this sim. Give Jason and his guys your support and I think we will all have a great sim to enjoy. They have really proven themselves with RoF. It was a dog in beta, but they have continually tweaked and improved on it. RoF just gets better and better.

I think we have the 'dream-team' of simulation artists working for us now. Both have proven track records. Here's hoping for a bright future for all of us hard-core simmers!

[Jaws2002]

Dude, Many of us fly ROF for a long time. you obviously don't play Clod, so you don't know how they stack up. I have most stuf released for ROF and play it since release.
I'll tell you straight up, they are not in the same league. Not even close. The last few patches actually messed up Clod quite a bit, but at release it looked light years ahead of everything.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/shot_20120418_182437.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120902_193341.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120418_182520.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120109_134655.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120109_134429.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120109_131205.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120108_032247.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120107_012530.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_153611.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_153605.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_143505.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_142054.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_141350.jpg

[il_corleone]

Dude, Many of us fly ROF for a long time. you obviously don't play Clod, so you don't know how they stack up. I have most stuf released for ROF and play it since release.
I'll tell you straight up, they are not in the same league. Not even close. The last few patches actually messed up Clod quite a bit, but at release it looked light years ahead of everything.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/shot_20120418_182437.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120902_193341.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120418_182520.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120109_134655.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120109_134429.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120109_131205.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120108_032247.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120107_012530.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_153611.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_153605.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_143505.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_142054.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/shot_20120106_141350.jpg

hell yeah! i think your screenshots closed up some mouths

http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/8303/morningmist.png

http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/6364/stillgoing.jpg

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/3759/codtest8.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v320/Kristorf/CLoD/Clowes2.jpg

[Sven]

For the love of the internet, do not quote pictures please... we saw them the first time.

[kendo65]

As others have remarked judgements about the graphics is subjective, but as someone who was wildly excited about CLOD for years before its release I have always felt hugely disappointed in its overall graphical quality. I could appreciate the DX10 lighting, and the cockpits were outrageous and beyond anything else, but the terrain and lack of AA made the overall experience a real let-down - sorry Jaws and il-corleone but those posted screenshots look inferior in believability and more cartoony to me than the Furbs ROF ones.

CLOD's terrain was such a huge turn-off (apart from at zero altitude on the ground and at very low levels) that I could only ever bring myself to fly planes over the Channel!

[il_corleone]

i did it! i achieved to get the first version whit the first few patches of cliffs of dover, and for surprise, i dont get much fps impact.... i am surpriseed, and tthe clouds barely quit me 3 or 4 fps instead of 10 or more in the now version. mmm

[SlipBall]

As others have remarked judgements about the graphics is subjective, but as someone who was wildly excited about CLOD for years before its release I have always felt hugely disappointed in its overall graphical quality. I could appreciate the DX10 lighting, and the cockpits were outrageous and beyond anything else, but the terrain and lack of AA made the overall experience a real let-down - sorry Jaws and il-corleone but those posted screenshots look inferior in believability and more cartoony to me than the Furbs ROF ones.

CLOD's terrain was such a huge turn-off (apart from at zero altitude on the ground and at very low levels) that I could only ever bring myself to fly planes over the Channel!

I scheduled an eye exam for you :grin:

i did it! i achieved to get the first version whit the first few patches of cliffs of dover, and for surprise, i dont get much fps impact.... i am surpriseed, and tthe clouds barely quit me 3 or 4 fps instead of 10 or more in the now version. mmm

congrats

[Jaws2002]

sorry Jaws and il-corleone but those posted screenshots look inferior in believability and more cartoony to me than the Furbs ROF ones.



Usually I'm outside at sunset most of the time and I like to pay attention to colors, how light interacts with things around, how the sunset looks from day to day depending on athmospheric conditions and so many other things.

The world around us is very colorful. Not every sunset looks like a hazy day, over a poluted big industrial city, or a washed out ww2 gun camera clip.
Look for the beauty this old rock gives us every day. You will be surprised how much color there's around us.

[4H_V-man]

The difference is that almost any system can run RoF at or near maximum with nice frame rates and no stutters. NO ONE I have talked to, even with very high end systems, can say the same about CloD.

I'm not going to debate this any more. Graphics preferences are too subjective. Let's just wait and see what 777 and 1C come up with. I'm sure that two top-notch teams like them working together will give us a product we can all enjoy.

[major_setback]

The biggest issue they have with the graphics is that they changed the original settings
they had during game development and implemented the extreme contrasty look that
exists now. It gives an immediate striking look but adds nothing in reality.

There should be no part of any picture which is black. Even at midday.
Ask any artist or any photographer. It is taboo. It looks unnatural and tells you straight away
that the person who is responsible for the look of the game doesn't know what they are doing.

Game, with almost black shadows

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-979-6449-rof_2010_10_12_15_56_24_83.jpg

Reality
http://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SE5-3a.jpg



http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/DSb_9794.jpg

However you will find very many photos of aircraft with black shadows if you look.
They are not good photographs though.

The contrast is way too high.
It looks like overuse of the 'levels' slider or misuse of 'curves' in Photoshop, in this way:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/SE5-3ab.jpg

It looked quite good once, but they ruined it about the time it was released.

Look how much black there is on the histogram. There can be a little,
but here most of the pixels are around the black area at the left side of the histogram.
Detail is lost because it has been lowered to the point of disappearing into blackness.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/seu01.jpg

There is actually no excuse for such poor graphics. Anyone with simple knowledge of photography or image editing should see it immediately.

[kendo65]

I scheduled an eye exam for you :grin:


It's funny, but that was my reaction to some of the posts praising the COD shots.

Look, this all gets us nowhere. It's clear there is massive variation in what people think is good.

Oh, and it is possible to genuinely wish Luthier the best for the future and have had high hopes for CLOD as well as having genuine criticisms of ClOD's failures and shortcomings. :rolleyes:

[Richie]

The biggest issue they have with the graphics is that they changed the original settings
they had during game development and implemented the extreme contrasty look that
exists now. It gives an immediate striking look but adds nothing in reality.

There should be no part of any picture which is black. Even at midday.
Ask any artist or any photographer. It is taboo. It looks unnatural and tells you straight away
that the person who is responsible for the look of the game doesn't know what they are doing.

Game, with almost black shadows

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/02/full-979-6449-rof_2010_10_12_15_56_24_83.jpg

Reality
http://www.tangmere-museum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/SE5-3a.jpg



http://home.comcast.net/~bzee1b/DSb_9794.jpg

However you will find very many photos of aircraft with black shadows if you look.
They are not good photographs though.

The contrast is way too high.
It looks like overuse of the 'levels' slider or misuse of 'curves' in Photoshop, in this way:
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/SE5-3ab.jpg

It looked quite good once, but they ruined it about the time it was released.

Look how much black there is on the histogram. There can be a little,
but here most of the pixels are around the black area at the left side of the histogram.
Detail is lost because it has been lowered to the point of disappearing into blackness.
http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y129/major-setback/seu01.jpg

There is actually no excuse for such poor graphics. Anyone with simple knowledge of photography or image editing should see it immediately.

Thanks for saying this. Over the past I've worked in a dark room with photographic paper. Also have taken photo courses in the 80's. People now may laugh about film but there are still directors that love it Spielberg "War Horse" still shoots all his movies in film. The movie "The Master" Paul Thomas Anderson was shot in 70mm film and it looks beautiful. My point is is that people who have worked with camera's taken pictures and developed them know what scenery and objects should look like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ1O1vb9AUU

[bzc3lk]

A game with no "Almost Black Shadows"

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f51/bzc3lk/zzzzz_zps5c4b0d9e.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f51/bzc3lk/dfvcz_zpsfa4db7e8.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f51/bzc3lk/yuhgz_zpsecc52d1a.jpg



Some people think that by cranking every option to the max they will achieve the nirvana of graphics. I have seen both stunning and very average screenshots from Cod as a result of how the in game graphics was set up.The same can be said for Rof as well, with some shockers being posted by people who have a different perception of how the gaming world should look through their eyes.

[Liz Lemon]

Usually I'm outside at sunset most of the time and I like to pay attention to colors, how light interacts with things around, how the sunset looks from day to day depending on athmospheric conditions and so many other things.

The world around us is very colorful. Not every sunset looks like a hazy day, over a poluted big industrial city, or a washed out ww2 gun camera clip.
Look for the beauty this old rock gives us every day. You will be surprised how much color there's around us.

I absolutely agree with you. However, CLOD had great sunsets not because the team did a great job, but because they used a clever technique to emulate atmospheric scattering that was developed by someone else.

Here is his website, just scroll down to atmosphere to see what I am talking about (incidentally, his teams work on clouds are also worth a look, hint hint 777)
http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Membres/Eric.Bruneton/

CLOD literally uses his code. If you look through the shader files, which can be done with ketegys extractor, you will see that the "new sky" sections is credited to him and line for line identical to his work.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. He released his work for free, and several other titles have used it to great effect. Space Engine being one of the best examples - and something I highly recommend anyone with an interest in space or modern rendering techniques to download. Its really is that amazing.

The biggest issue they have with the graphics is that they changed the original settings
they had during game development and implemented the extreme contrasty look that
exists now. It gives an immediate striking look but adds nothing in reality.

There should be no part of any picture which is black. Even at midday.
Ask any artist or any photographer. It is taboo. It looks unnatural and tells you straight away
that the person who is responsible for the look of the game doesn't know what they are doing.

Game, with almost black shadows
However you will find very many photos of aircraft with black shadows if you look.
They are not good photographs though.

The contrast is way too high.
It looks like overuse of the 'levels' slider or misuse of 'curves' in Photoshop, in this way:

It looked quite good once, but they ruined it about the time it was released.

Look how much black there is on the histogram. There can be a little,
but here most of the pixels are around the black area at the left side of the histogram.
Detail is lost because it has been lowered to the point of disappearing into blackness.

There is actually no excuse for such poor graphics. Anyone with simple knowledge of photography or image editing should see it immediately.

+1

As a person who has had a keen interest in photography since being a child, and who also enjoys 3d modelling, I can definitely back what you are saying.

Far too many games on the market today push the contrast up until its far too "punchy". The end result is tons of blown out highlights and crushed blacks, with little subtly in the mid range. It looks unnatural, but some people prefer it. Compounding this problem is that textures themselves often have far to much contrast - things like a gravel road or blocks of cement should never have areas of pure white and pure black!!!

And I've found that most people who work professionally in the area of graphics in games (emphasis on the games part) almost never have any background in photography. Instead they base their work on what their peers are doing. Ideas that are common to even the most entry level photographer are completely foreign to them (again, in my experience. They are a few people I've met who work a bit differently then the norm)

And there are plenty of other problems inherit to real time rendering that compound the above issues.....

But I'll miss how CLOD had the eye of a photographer behind it. I have never seen a game that did things like bloom right until I saw CLOD. Hopefully 777 will be taking some notes.

[ZaltysZ]

When you photograph something, you will consider whole scene, but usually have some part of it, which is the most important and which needs to be emphasized, so you can let some other parts suffer a bit without much heartache. The most difficult photographs are the ones, which have been taken while making hard compromise on what had to be preserved, and what not. Sim is like those difficult photographs, because you can't know, what will be important for player or what should made important for player. It is very different from some action/rpg/horror games, in which you have to emphasize things to create emotional atmosphere. Sims artists aim for average cases, but unfortunately average will always remain just average, so there always will be things to be "picked" on.

[Jaws2002]

I absolutely agree with you. However, CLOD had great sunsets not because the team did a great job, but because they used a clever technique to emulate atmospheric scattering that was developed by someone else.

Here is his website, just scroll down to atmosphere to see what I am talking about (incidentally, his teams work on clouds are also worth a look, hint hint 777)
http://www-evasion.imag.fr/Membres/Eric.Bruneton/

CLOD literally uses his code. If you look through the shader files, which can be done with ketegys extractor, you will see that the "new sky" sections is credited to him and line for line identical to his work.

Not that there is anything wrong with that. He released his work for free, and several other titles have used it to great effect. Space Engine being one of the best examples - and something I highly recommend anyone with an interest in space or modern rendering techniques to download. Its really is that amazing.


That explains it. Thank you for the info. I thought Oleg, being a proffesional photographer made that natural lighting engine. It looks very interesting. I think I'll post this in the requests for BOS ,hopefully Jasson is willing to get that into the new game.




+1

As a person who has had a keen interest in photography since being a child, and who also enjoys 3d modelling, I can definitely back what you are saying.

Far too many games on the market today push the contrast up until its far too "punchy". The end result is tons of blown out highlights and crushed blacks, with little subtly in the mid range. It looks unnatural, but some people prefer it. Compounding this problem is that textures themselves often have far to much contrast - things like a gravel road or blocks of cement should never have areas of pure white and pure black!!!

And I've found that most people who work professionally in the area of graphics in games (emphasis on the games part) almost never have any background in photography. Instead they base their work on what their peers are doing. Ideas that are common to even the most entry level photographer are completely foreign to them (again, in my experience. They are a few people I've met who work a bit differently then the norm)

And there are plenty of other problems inherit to real time rendering that compound the above issues.....

But I'll miss how CLOD had the eye of a photographer behind it. I have never seen a game that did things like bloom right until I saw CLOD. Hopefully 777 will be taking some notes.


Absolutle agree with you. This is the part about CLOD that had the biggest impact on me from the start. Nobody ever got the lighting so close to natural. It blew me away. That's why I got my old copy of the game going again. I really missed that natural beauty.

[=CfC= Father Ted]

This is all pretty interesting (no sarcasm), and surprisingly well-mannered. What I prefer in RoF over CloD (visually) most is the horizon. I don't know about the technical side of it, but the RoF horizon is the closest to what I see IRL that I've come across in games.

I think that this really helps to conjure up the sense of distance and the volume of space that you're "flying" in. What also helps is the maintenance of resolution of plane models at distance, so that when you look over the side of your cockpit and see little aeroplanes wheeling about below you, they really appear to be in the distance rather than just smaller sprites. This in turn gives you a feeling of height.

As has been pointed out, it's all subjective, but I don't get those same sensations when flying CloD.

[bolox]

nice discussion.
I may have somethings to add to this, coming from a slightly different perspective.

First off, in R/L i'm a lighting designer, mainly in a 'rock 'n roll' context, tho have done quite a bit in theatre also.
I did a degree in Biophysics (a long time ago). 3rd yr project was on frog eyeballs.
I've repainted the 'odd cockpit' in IL2.

My first point would be that the human eye works in a different way to a camera, then the 'image' is translated by that most adaptive computer, the human brain.
This is not to disparage photography, just that there are differences in how they 'see' the world.
TV cameras in particular. are somewhat restricted in the variation of light level, colour temperature and also require 'backlight' to bring the subject out from the background.
The eye/brain combination is much better at this with even very dim scattered light as long as the visual 'clues' remain consistent. If something inconsistent is seen though, alarm bells go off in the brain- is that a sabre toothed tiger looking for a snack?! It is this ability to spot something wrong that any game designer has to avoid triggering as it destroys the illusion of 'being there'- things like black shadows.

Anyway, enough waffle from me

[Wolf_Rider]

First off, in R/L i'm a lighting designer, mainly in a 'rock 'n roll' context, tho have done quite a bit in theatre also.




Lol... from one LD to another (nodding buckets are much too clinical compared to a parcan and specs rig :) )

[Jaws2002]

nice discussion.
I may have somethings to add to this, coming from a slightly different perspective.

First off, in R/L i'm a lighting designer, mainly in a 'rock 'n roll' context, tho have done quite a bit in theatre also.
I did a degree in Biophysics (a long time ago). 3rd yr project was on frog eyeballs.
I've repainted the 'odd cockpit' in IL2.

My first point would be that the human eye works in a different way to a camera, then the 'image' is translated by that most adaptive computer, the human brain.
This is not to disparage photography, just that there are differences in how they 'see' the world.
TV cameras in particular. are somewhat restricted in the variation of light level, colour temperature and also require 'backlight' to bring the subject out from the background.
The eye/brain combination is much better at this with even very dim scattered light as long as the visual 'clues' remain consistent. If something inconsistent is seen though, alarm bells go off in the brain- is that a sabre toothed tiger looking for a snack?! It is this ability to spot something wrong that any game designer has to avoid triggering as it destroys the illusion of 'being there'- things like black shadows.

Anyway, enough waffle from me

This is one thing that imediately struck at me when they modified the lighting engine. If you looked at the sun, just after sunrise, in the old engine, you could see the colors of the entire area around the sun. and scatered light. The human eye can see that color.
The new "fix" made it work like a cheap camera on auto. when looking straight at the sun, they turned everything else but the sun disc in grey. This was a clear example of royally dumbing down of the lighting engine.

Here are two images that show the difference:
Old way of doing it:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/shot_20120107_202855.jpg


And the "fixed" engine.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/Screenshot5059_zps95289997.png

[Liz Lemon]

This is one thing that imediately struck at me when they modified the lighting engine. If you looked at the sun, just after sunrise, in the old engine, you could see the colors of the entire area around the sun. and scatered light. The human eye can see that color.
The new "fix" made it work like a cheap camera on auto. when looking straight at the sun, they turned everything else but the sun disc in grey. This was a clear example of royally dumbing down of the lighting engine.


Here is a paper on a slightly different method of atmospheric scattering. Incidentally, this is what Xplane 10 uses.
http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/gpugems2_chapter16.html

Scroll down to section 16.6 where it talks about HDR, but here is the important pic.
http://http.developer.nvidia.com/GPUGems2/elementLinks/16_atmospheric_04a.jpg

Left is with HDR, right is without.

Guess what MG fixed... er, I should say removed...

[kendo65]

That first pic is rather wonderful Jaws.

[Jaws2002]

That first pic is rather wonderful Jaws.


Every time i fire up the old version of the game i have, and think about where we are now, and specially where we are heading, I want to kick a puppy.:evil:

[TX-EcoDragon]

I for one find that setting the HDR to medium gets me a much more realistic RoF environment, at least as far as lighting effects and color palette are concerned. Turning HDR off results in an overly saturated, high contrast environment, with less shadow detail.

[Davy TASB]

Every time i fire up the old version of the game i have, and think about where we are now, and specially where we are heading, I want to kick a puppy.:evil:

Could be worse. Once upon a time (many moons ago), we were all quite happy to have this sort of thing.

http://web.telecom.cz/josef.havlik/external/MSFS2.12+SD9_001.gif

[WTE_Galway]

Could be worse. Once upon a time (many moons ago), we were all quite happy to have this sort of thing.

http://web.telecom.cz/josef.havlik/external/MSFS2.12+SD9_001.gif

Hey ... that airfield was shutdown by the Chicago Mayor and turned into his personal park years ago. They should update there maps !!!

[bongodriver]

Yes, CLOD with flickering shadows, shimmer, pop up buildings, puff ball clouds, dots showing through clouds and landscape, particle and smoke slow down, low detail LODs, only 2x FSAA, no heat haze, low detail land tiles, no weather system, no overcast, rain is much better than the screen shots of ROF above. :rolleyes:

Stop getting your hackles up every time someone criticises ROF, be a man and accept some people are not brainwashed.

[WTE_Galway]

RoF is sterile and CoD is buggy.

The funds I had allocated for a new gaming PC got diverted into paying for real life flying and buying better photo gear for aviation photography some time ago.

I must say I do not regret that decision. The graphics quality when flying a real aircraft from your local airfield is astounding and the experience even comes in 3D without the need for special glasses :D

[Jaws2002]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/i-went-outside-once-graphics-were-amazing.jpg


:lol:

[=CfC= Father Ted]

Stop getting your hackles up every time someone criticises ROF, be a man and accept some people are not brainwashed.

Outstanding. "I'm right - you're brainwashed".