Official Fulqrum Publishing forum - Weather/Terrain effects. Surely this is the minimum we expect for CloD or the Sequel

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)

- IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)

- - Weather/Terrain effects. Surely this is the minimum we expect for CloD or the Sequel (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=34239)

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibo (Post 459450)

as they said the game had to be rushed on the market
problems are lying way to deep in the code, that's the way it is
the clean rework is the sequel

i really hope it will be a success, because we won't see anything bigger as a wwII project for decades

+1, seeing the big picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by phoenix1963 (Post 459420)

Interesting, I assume you know much more about it than me.
They did claim that nobody used more Speedtrees than CloD, hence their implementation had to be different.
I also remember Oleg's comment that one day graphics cards would have enough memory to hold all the textures, which I presume was a lament that they had to write a texture manager - with 3GB only to play with at 32 bits.
I can also see how the typical UDP packet sizes, without fragmentation, could be an incredible driver for the radius-of-influence engine that seems to be there.

56RAF_phoenix

I have experience with implementing SpeedTree-- indeed.

CloD may be far up there in terms of speedtrees visible at any time-- but not markedly more than say, WWII Online, or even games such as ArmA which use their own proprietary tree & vegetation rendering software.

It is also worth noting that most trees visible in the gameworld at any given moment are instanced 2D Impostors, which have a much smaller impact on performance.

While SpeedTree's do have a performance impact at the levels implemented in CloD-- they should not be the source of performance issues.

Similar video (this one with a P-51). Just look at the terrain and environment. Thick clouds, great lighting on them, buildings with no 'popcorn' textures...

War Thunder:

http://youtu.be/mAkyZ1IFX74

Mysticpuma have you seen this game, awesome graphics!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-k2F...layer_embedded

Now its not all about the graphics is it...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG52Krupi (Post 459621)

Mysticpuma have you seen this game, awesome graphics!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-k2F...layer_embedded

Now its not all about the graphics is it...

So true.

WT is superior to that arcade game in graphics and every other way. WT is not as good as a finished CoD will be, but it is miles better than that kids toy.

The problem with COD is it's taken far to long to get of the ground. We are 18+ months on and there is still talk about getting the game running stable before they can move onto other fixes :rolleyes:.

Make the game stable after all this time I hear people cry.. Your having a laugh aren't you? WELL AREN'T YOU? All I can say is if it's taken this amount of time to get it running stable, then how longs it going to be before they fix the massive list of bugs they still have? I'll be an old man before this is finished at this rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PotNoodles (Post 459626)

And yet you're still here...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PotNoodles (Post 459626)

Yes, I agree 18 months is a long period of time for what they have achieved since release. At least they have made some progress. But it is discouraging that it is taking sooooo long. I think it is still possible to fix this thing, but it is getting harder to keep that faith with such incremental steps and such long periods of time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by icarus (Post 459633)

+1 its quite clear that only a skeleton crew are now maintaining COD, we know what the rest are up to :|