Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=98)
-   -   Friday update and discussions 2011-02-25 (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=18904)

McHilt 02-25-2011 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strike (Post 228400)
For Olegs team, and us fans...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k

Oh my God, that's cramped... not quite a delight to fly if you ask me.:shock:
very nice to watch and to hear his comments on it, thx

major_setback 02-25-2011 07:09 PM

Waves: we saw some incredible videos of waves a long time ago. I do not expect to see these in the initial release, but it would be good if we saw some simple waves. As yet we have not seen any waves at all in the weekly updates. Will there be waves in the initial release?

philip.ed 02-25-2011 07:27 PM

Lovely update, the game really is looking photorealistic: those 109's are just breathtaking. Could I request a red-nosed one for another update? I'm not a Lufty fan, but I always liked red-nosed 109's....

Out of everything, to me the smoke and fire effects are the only areas that don't really look photorealistic. I'm not sure if I'm alone, but that hurri seems to be producing a hell of a lot of smoke and fire. Is that really realistic?

Great work chaps. ;)

PS_you missed out the 7th, my Birthday, from your calendar!!! :P

McHilt 02-25-2011 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.ed (Post 228422)
Lovely update, the game really is looking photorealistic: those 109's are just breathtaking. Could I request a red-nosed one for another update? I'm not a Lufty fan, but I always liked red-nosed 109's....

Out of everything, to me the smoke and fire effects are the only areas that don't really look photorealistic. I'm not sure if I'm alone, but that hurri seems to be producing a hell of a lot of smoke and fire. Is that really realistic?

Great work chaps. ;)

PS_you missed out the 7th, my Birthday, from your calendar!!! :P

Congratulations PhilipEd (little late but hell)
Haha, may I kindly add mine was 23th ;)

Oh and you're not alone on that smoke

Biggs 02-25-2011 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sven (Post 228396)
Yes pilot is too small in my opinion as well, the screenshot where you see the cockpit from above lets you see it the best, I don't think there was so much space between shoulder and sidewindow either. Also the head seems to be perfectly aligned to the gunsight in 'cruise mode', that would not be correct but I can't say for sure.

Yes, its not just the 109 pilot model its ALL the character models in the game, they are all too small, they need to be scaled up slightly... You can even see in the He111 pics the crew is too small...

Unfortunately they have been this size for a while now(alpha build?) and i fear its too late to change it now... I just hope its fixed in a patch

Richie 02-25-2011 07:45 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bakelit (Post 228392)
Looking at period pictures the pilot figure is too small. The 109E cockpit was not as spacious as the new screenshots suggest.

It's not that far off.

Chivas 02-25-2011 07:53 PM

Will "Triggers" be implemented in the scripted campaigns to allow variations in missions if you fly different routes.

philip.ed 02-25-2011 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHilt (Post 228423)
Congratulations PhilipEd (little late but hell)
Haha, may I kindly add mine was 23th ;)

Oh and you're not alone on that smoke

Congratulations too! :D

Oleg, I was wondering, does the RAF pilot have an oxygen mask...? I know it's a teeny-tiny part of the sim, but considering the work you have gone into for the kit, I'd hate to see that you missed this out. (It won't put me off BTW if this isn't included, or isn't modelled correctly)

major_setback 02-25-2011 08:02 PM

I know that the pilot is WiP.
But.

http://www.luftwaffe.cz/images/grunberg2.jpg

Tree_UK 02-25-2011 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHilt (Post 228414)
Oh my God, that's cramped... not quite a delight to fly if you ask me.:shock:
very nice to watch and to hear his comments on it, thx

Oleg, please watch this video and fix the midget pilots they look really silly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVe...layer_embedded

furbs 02-25-2011 08:17 PM

They do look small...but midgets?

To me the bigger problem is the pilot posture...they seem too straight backed, like they have a broomstick from the top of his head to his bum.

The rest of the update is great!!

BadAim 02-25-2011 08:22 PM

I'm just curious if anyone has noticed that like when you go into a store and stuff, that like the clothes come in different sizes? I'm wondering if that's because people do or do people all come in like the same size according to aircraft cockpits and I just never noticed?

Sauf 02-25-2011 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadAim (Post 228444)
I'm just curious if anyone has noticed that like when you go into a store and stuff, that like the clothes come in different sizes? I'm wondering if that's because people do or do people all come in like the same size according to aircraft cockpits and I just never noticed?

+1



http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c9...AF_WWII_ah.jpg

Tree_UK 02-25-2011 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadAim (Post 228444)
I'm just curious if anyone has noticed that like when you go into a store and stuff, that like the clothes come in different sizes? I'm wondering if that's because people do or do people all come in like the same size according to aircraft cockpits and I just never noticed?

Sure, you can get clothes for midgets, or they would all be walking round naked??

Sven 02-25-2011 08:42 PM

I dont see the point in your comment BadAim, so far I haven't seen any size differences in pilots and they are all very short, maybe they were all a little smaller 70 years ago, but theyre still a tad to small in my opinion. But maybe that's not what you meant at all.

Nanuk 02-25-2011 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BadAim (Post 228444)
I'm just curious if anyone has noticed that like when you go into a store and stuff, that like the clothes come in different sizes? I'm wondering if that's because people do or do people all come in like the same size according to aircraft cockpits and I just never noticed?

+1

Maybe someone could post the WW2 regulations that state that to gain entrance into the Luftwaffe you had to be a 6'2" and broad shouldered. :rolleyes:

McHilt 02-25-2011 08:48 PM

BadAim was just joking I guess :rolleyes: :mrgreen:
at least I thought it was a funny comment...

baronWastelan 02-25-2011 08:54 PM

They're not "midgets" they're Hobbit-Americans :-x

Ibis 02-25-2011 08:59 PM

Quote:
crew is too small...
Unfortunately they have been this size for a while now(alpha build?) and i fear its too late to change it now... I just hope its fixed in a patch
-----------------------------------------------

It’s the FW190 bar of COD so dont hold your breath.

Chivas 02-25-2011 09:08 PM

We know that the aircraft were built to specs and the pilot modeled was the average size for the time. We also know that the pilots head moves where we are looking. I think I remember that there were some issues with pilot head movement and 6 DOF in cockpit. They may have made a compromise. Unfortunately sometimes compromises have to made when trying to turn our desktops into Spitfires,etc.

The pilots in some pics do sometimes look slightly smaller than they should, but frankly I don't spend my time analyzing screenshots. To me its more about the flying and combat, where most of my attention is to the sky,scanning the terrain for targets, and checking cockpit gauges. I probably won't notice that my wingmans head is slightly too small or the hood fastener on the engine compartment are not quite right.

Of course my Wife notices everything. :(

Trooper117 02-25-2011 09:11 PM

I've just looked at about a dozen 109 photos of early 109 E3's, the dimensions don't look far out at all.. then compare pictures of a later version with the newer heavier framed cockpit, say the E4 and later variants, and then yes, you may be forgiven for thinking they have it wrong.. I don't think it's such a 'glaring' error at all. :)

Buglord 02-25-2011 09:24 PM

Great stuff, cheers oleg & team.

furbs 02-25-2011 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chivas (Post 228470)
We know that the aircraft were built to specs and the pilot modeled was the average size for the time. We also know that the pilots head moves where we are looking. I think I remember that there were some issues with pilot head movement and 6 DOF in cockpit. They may have made a compromise. Unfortunately sometimes compromises have to made when trying to turn our desktops into Spitfires,etc.

The pilots in some pics do sometimes look slightly smaller than they should, but frankly I don't spend my time analyzing screenshots. To me its more about the flying and combat, where most of my attention is to the sky,scanning the terrain for targets, and checking cockpit gauges. I probably won't notice that my wingmans head is slightly too small or the hood fastener on the engine compartment are not quite right.

Agreed...but if the details can be got right...then its better yes?

Chivas 02-25-2011 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furbs (Post 228474)
Agreed...but if the details can be got right...then its better yes?

I agree furbs, but at what cost. Sometimes other details have a higher priority.

furbs 02-25-2011 09:41 PM

yep...with luck it will be looked into at a later date.

Zorin 02-25-2011 09:45 PM

There are definitely pilots that fit the bill.

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...W/th_109_1.jpg

http://i205.photobucket.com/albums/b...W/th_109_2.jpg

stu babes 02-25-2011 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 228218)
Hi folks,

Some combat shots today. On the last shot is one of drafts for the CoD calendar. At the moment confirmed just Russian release of such calendar in a limited edition.

the trimmer tabs are too bright in colour oleg,,,they should be wine red ,,ie darker ,,i know its nit picking but only want to get the game as perfect as possible m8,,cant wait for the release

Skarphol 02-25-2011 10:25 PM

Sorry if anyone has mentioned this during the 13 pages, but
I wonder what has happened to the shadow of the stabiliser:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/.../Bf109tail.jpg

It hasn't been like this before?

Skarphol

nearmiss 02-25-2011 10:34 PM

You guys are taking the tiny pilot thing to far.

I'm just glad we have planes that appear to be flown by humans, rather than empty cockpits. The ground vehicles will probably have hobbits as well. LOL

Oleg will probably address the hobbits issue in a "little" patch.

Biggs [CV] 02-25-2011 10:58 PM

I know Oleg hears it all the time but anyways........

Thank you Oleg. Your dedication to making this flight sim is amazing. The work you and your team has done is stunning.
Yes this community will nit pick at the final product, but we do it out of love.;)

fireflyerz 02-25-2011 10:59 PM

If its wrong its wrong, and it is , the creator has said as much , what more can be done?......thats up to Oleg and team , but i hope they do put it right cos it looks even worse in the spit , like the pilot is watching AVATAR on a 42 ' screen.

Kikuchiyo 02-25-2011 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarphol (Post 228486)
Sorry if anyone has mentioned this during the 13 pages, but
I wonder what has happened to the shadow of the stabiliser:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y1/.../Bf109tail.jpg

It hasn't been like this before?

Skarphol

Not real sure what you are trying to point out here. If it is the separation from the shadow to the object then the position of the sun is a highly determining factor here. Be a bit more specific about your concerns? Looks to me like the sun is iikely hanging at a 17:00 or 08:00 position and that stabilizer is facing towards the sun.

jayrc 02-25-2011 11:44 PM

Great work Oleg and team, Thank you:grin:

zapatista 02-25-2011 11:44 PM

yes the aircraft crew are still a little to small, but currently this is a relatively small error (much less severe then when first raised many months ago)

for those who havnt payed attention in the past 2 or 3 years of updates and discussion here: pilots are modeled a little smaller because..... initially there was a problem with their limbs sticking out of the aircraft during some of the movements they made, and keeping that WOULD have been very odd !

it has to do with object collisions, the pilots should bump into the walls and not go partially through them, but right now with the articulated skeletal movements they have implemented (see pilot climbing out of cockpit video) the limb movements are a little larger then desired, and they could sometimes poke outside the limited space they are in

so right now as a compromise the pilots are a little smaller then they should be on average, and it is a priority fix to be released in one of the early patches.

note: oleg already confirmed the 1e person view inside the cockpit has the pilot eye level at the correct hight, so for the players themselves it is not a problem

Skoshi Tiger 02-25-2011 11:57 PM

I think that of all the things shown in these updates, my biggest issue is with the quality of whining being displayed. It is definitely of a lower quality that previous updates.

The whines are repetitive and monotonous. Surely we can do better than this? It is my guess that due to our poor community contribution we are the butt of many other forums whining jokes.
“That was pretty lame! But I guess it wasn’t as bad as a Il-2 Whine!”

We are dredging up and recycling issues that have been thoroughly rehashed many times without adding any new insight or progression through the whine. How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”?

To transcend the Whine/Constructive Criticism Boundary (WCCB) please back up your statements with evidence. The Yellows wrong? How about supplying a photo of the correct colour after researching what camera, film, exposure settings were used and the process that it was developed with? Can’t find that?

Then how about accepting that colour photography was and still is a developing art and that your favourite photo scanned from a 70 year old magazine cover and placed on the Internet may not accurately reflect the actual colours being depicted?

Cheers and pick up your socks community whiners!

PS Great Update Oleg! Can’t wait for the release date!

Skarphol 02-26-2011 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo (Post 228501)
Not real sure what you are trying to point out here.

Yes, it is the separation of the shadow and the stabiliser. No big deal, but I've never seen that in earlier screenshots. I saw the radiomast and its shadow separated once, but never a big thing like the stabilisers. It looks the light is shining through an opening between the stabiliser and the fuselage.

Skarphol

Kikuchiyo 02-26-2011 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger (Post 228505)
I think that of all the things shown in these updates, my biggest issue is with the quality of whining being displayed. It is definitely of a lower quality that previous updates.

The whines are repetitive and monotonous. Surely we can do better than this? It is my guess that due to our poor community contribution we are the butt of many other forums whining jokes.
“That was pretty lame! But I guess it wasn’t as bad as a Il-2 Whine!”

We are dredging up and recycling issues that have been thoroughly rehashed many times without adding any new insight or progression through the whine. How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”?

To transcend the Whine/Constructive Criticism Boundary (WCCB) please back up your statements with evidence. The Yellows wrong? How about supplying a photo of the correct colour after researching what camera, film, exposure settings were used and the process that it was developed with? Can’t find that?

Then how about accepting that colour photography was and still is a developing art and that your favourite photo scanned from a 70 year old magazine cover and placed on the Internet may not accurately reflect the actual colours being depicted?

Cheers and pick up your socks community whiners!

PS Great Update Oleg! Can’t wait for the release date!

Hehe. You have hit the nail on the head here. My forum refers to it as Sperglording. The attempts made by a lot of this community to find (what seems like a competition for) the most minute things to go nuclear over is astounding. I've tried over and over to point this out, but it never seems to get through. Being the biggest whiner isn't a good thing, and it must be understood that most people that are going to play this aren't going to care that the 3rd screw from the left on the instrument panel being misplaced by a millimeter doesn't really matter to most CFS enthusiasts. We aren't as worried about that as "is the FM accurate, and is the damage model accurate? Is the plane being flown the correct model?" To be perfectly honest a lot of the stuff that gets harped on I think damages the IP more than it helps. If all an outsider sees is complaining from what they percieve to be the biggest and most informed fans then they will avoid the game because it gives an impression that the game is not going to be worthy of their time.

That seems to be what is really lost on this community. The issue over absolute perfection to the letter over what is possible or relevant.

Richie 02-26-2011 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 228479)

Bellyaching time is over :)

airmalik 02-26-2011 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bakelit (Post 228392)
Looking at period pictures the pilot figure is too small. The 109E cockpit was not as spacious as the new screenshots suggest.

I suspect the pilots are small on purpose. Looking at the video of the cramped 109 cockpit it's obvious that a correctly sized pilot model would stick out of the sides of the cockpit since it won't 'squish' like a human body.

kancerosik 02-26-2011 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 228437)
Oleg, please watch this video and fix the midget pilots they look really silly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVe...layer_embedded

do u think that the medium high of te te population during the 30s and 40s decades is equal to the pressent days? (supposing that the video is from 1980 ;) )

Pd: that pilot is really tall

Sauf 02-26-2011 01:47 AM

From "Aces of the Reich" by Mike Spick

"Physically they varied considerably. The cockpit of a bf109 was not very roomy, and so single seater pilots tended to be of moderate height. There was of course exceptions; the towering Hannes Trautloft successfully shoe-horned himself into the messerschmitt fighter, while at the other end of the scale, at just five feet four inches tall, Josef Priller had to keep his seat raised in order to see out."

Im happy with them till a patch comes out, though i do agree the spit pilot does look a bit silly in the screenshots, but it wont effect game play which is the most important thing IMO atm.

Cheers

drewpee 02-26-2011 02:15 AM

You guys are looking at it all wrong. The pilots are a perfect size. Its the Airplanes that are just to darn BIG. So the easy fix is to keep the pilot size as is and just scale down the planes,trees ,houses, ships ex cetera,ex cetera, ex cetera.
Hope this helps.:grin:

speculum jockey 02-26-2011 02:31 AM

Some of you guys who are still harping on pilot size really need to get checked out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome .

DoolittleRaider 02-26-2011 03:29 AM

The midget pilot mistake was pointed out several months ago with a screencap of a Hurricane. Many photos and other evidence was presented.

Unfortunately, it appears constructive criticism and suggestions presented in these update WIP threads are pointless, since they are ignored. The explanation is always that these are just WIPs, so all criticism is unwarranted...since all errors will be fixed before final release. But with the release supposedly just weeks away, that is clearly not going to happen. What you see in the current Update and a couple of upcoming weekly Updates is what you are going to get. imho.

Sauf 02-26-2011 03:36 AM

Doolittleraider i think Zapatista's post explains it pretty well, the developer's are not ignoring anyone, its comparable to when you restore a bike/car or build a model, you tend to know all the little mistakes that no-one else can see. Pretty sure Oleg knows his stuff and if we have some small errors in release version it will be because there are more important issues that need looking at first.




Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 228503)
yes the aircraft crew are still a little to small, but currently this is a relatively small error (much less severe then when first raised many months ago)

for those who havnt payed attention in the past 2 or 3 years of updates and discussion here: pilots are modeled a little smaller because..... initially there was a problem with their limbs sticking out of the aircraft during some of the movements they made, and keeping that WOULD have been very odd !

it has to do with object collisions, the pilots should bump into the walls and not go partially through them, but right now with the articulated skeletal movements they have implemented (see pilot climbing out of cockpit video) the limb movements are a little larger then desired, and they could sometimes poke outside the limited space they are in

so right now as a compromise the pilots are a little smaller then they should be on average, and it is a priority fix to be released in one of the early patches.

note: oleg already confirmed the 1e person view inside the cockpit has the pilot eye level at the correct hight, so for the players themselves it is not a problem


FG28_Kodiak 02-26-2011 05:02 AM

For me, nothing wrong with the pilot size:

http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/2779/me109e.jpg

mungee 02-26-2011 05:31 AM

Thank you Oleg & Team - excellent work ... as always!!

You know, I've been thinking about the "whining" that often occurs on this forum - and I feel that I must (humbly) offer some comment:

- I believe that Oleg pays a lot of attention to comments/constructive criticism, and I suspect appreciates it

- I think that members understandably believe that Oleg is a perfectionist and is wanting to produce the best-ever flight sim - hence there's a lot of "nit-picking" that takes place(people wanting to assist him in producing the best-ever flight sim, so no detail is too small!!)

- having said all of the above, the most important aspect re commenting/criticising anyone/anything is HOW it is said/worded - that is where I think some members need to be a little more sensitive - obviously if English is not one's home language, that may not be so easy, but from my observations, the sometimes tactless (although often valid) comments generally come from those who have a good command of the English language.

My apologies if I'm coming across as "preaching", I just feel that it needs to be said.

Can't wait for the release of this "beauty"!!

F19_Klunk 02-26-2011 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speculum jockey (Post 228523)
Some of you guys who are still harping on pilot size really need to get checked out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome .

very mature

Flanker35M 02-26-2011 07:30 AM

S!

Nice shots of the Bf109E's :) Gotta love that plane.

McHilt 02-26-2011 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo (Post 228501)
Not real sure what you are trying to point out here. If it is the separation from the shadow to the object then the position of the sun is a highly determining factor here. Be a bit more specific about your concerns? Looks to me like the sun is iikely hanging at a 17:00 or 08:00 position and that stabilizer is facing towards the sun.

What he's trying to point out is that the shadow from the stabilizer has a gap of sunlit metal where it should be shady given the fact that the stabilizer is fixed to the fuselage. Even if the sun was from 18.00 or 07.00 as you point out the shadows should be accordingly thrown, say long and more horizontal or, in case it's facing the sun, no shadow at all or maybe just a few inches under that surface. Here in this pic the sun is at between 14.00 or 11.00. and therefore the shadow should be completely solid at the base where the stabilizer is fixed to the body... it's not what it should be anyway, it's like they're offset and detached from the aft fuselage. (take a look at the above posted picture of the Bf's and notice the shadow, it's the same sunposition more or less)
:rolleyes:

Bakelit 02-26-2011 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airmalik (Post 228514)
I suspect the pilots are small on purpose. Looking at the video of the cramped 109 cockpit it's obvious that a correctly sized pilot model would stick out of the sides of the cockpit since it won't 'squish' like a human body.

I did not know this was already known fact. I just read your explanation and that of zapatista and am not one who has read the forum on a regular basis the last years.

However I thought you can compensate for poke through in the "rigging" phase of a 3D animation, like giving tighter constraints ie not allowing full range of human movement.
But Olegs team knows first hand and I am content, now that I know the reason for undersize pilots.

So of course I did not want to be the 100th whiner to point it out. It just was obvious from first glance to me when seeing the pictures and so I commented.

So, sorry then.


PS: FG28 Kodiak, that does not look like a period photo to me at all. More like a clever composition render of 3D models. Check out the reflection of the humps over the machine guns. You never find that on a real Emil. And there are more clues ...

Flying_Nutcase 02-26-2011 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox (Post 228267)
Yes it is

Fantasic, thank you! (Moving heads)

And the calendar is a brilliant idea!!

winny 02-26-2011 10:33 AM

Here's a real 109 vs the ingame ones.. Pretty crude, sorry.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...ne/109copy.jpg

EDIT : I'm not trying trying to make a point, just provide a reference.

David603 02-26-2011 10:55 AM

Picture comparisons like this are not very useful unless you know how tall the pilot is. The average height of a man in 1940 was something like 5'7" or 5'8". If that guy in the real Messerschmitt is 5'8" then at 6'2" I wouldn't be able to close the canopy http://usergroup.plus.net/forum/Smil...s/rolleyes.gif

I'm not even particularly tall compared to most men my age (21), so I would suspect the RL pic shows someone of around 6' height, while the CoD pilot is about 5'8".

DB605 02-26-2011 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David603 (Post 228621)
Picture comparisons like this are not very useful unless you know how tall the pilot is. The average height of a man in 1940 was something like 5'7" or 5'8". If that guy in the real Messerschmitt is 5'8" then at 6'2" I wouldn't be able to close the canopy http://usergroup.plus.net/forum/Smil...s/rolleyes.gif

I'm not even particularly tall compared to most men my age (21), so I would suspect the RL pic shows someone of around 6' height, while the CoD pilot is about 5'8".

I dont think height is the problem. It just looks like pilots are in too small scale overall. You can see it from this pic: http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...0&d=1298644259
In real life pilot shoulders would be very close to sidewalls, in game it looks like 1/35 figure in 1/32 plane :)

furbs 02-26-2011 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by winny (Post 228610)
Here's a real 109 vs the ingame ones.. Pretty crude, sorry.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...ne/109copy.jpg

EDIT : I'm not trying trying to make a point, just provide a reference.

But it does show the pilot posture problem quite well...the real pic shows the pilot in a "active" posture, leaning forward slightly, he looks like he is flying the plane. where as the COD pic he looks awkward and stiff backed, like a shop dummy has been just dropped in the cockpit.

Oleg already knows this and i hope it can be adressed soon as it does spoil the fantastic looking models and takes away immersion.

Im sure i wont even notice while flying missions but for taking great screen shots and movie makers it is a problem.

BadAim 02-26-2011 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHilt (Post 228559)
What he's trying to point out is that the shadow from the stabilizer has a gap of sunlit metal where it should be shady given the fact that the stabilizer is fixed to the fuselage. Even if the sun was from 18.00 or 07.00 as you point out the shadows should be accordingly thrown, say long and more horizontal or, in case it's facing the sun, no shadow at all or maybe just a few inches under that surface. Here in this pic the sun is at between 14.00 or 11.00. and therefore the shadow should be completely solid at the base where the stabilizer is fixed to the body... it's not what it should be anyway, it's like they're offset and detached from the aft fuselage. (take a look at the above posted picture of the Bf's and notice the shadow, it's the same sunposition more or less)
:rolleyes:

Actually, the stabilizer is not fixed to the fuselage on this model, it tilts and so it has a small gap. Look at the shots again boys and be marveled. I do think however that the gap might be a bit much, but then again shadows are funny things both in life and in games.

Peffi 02-26-2011 12:37 PM

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;228505] How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”? bla bla bla
QUOTE]

Question for Skoshi Tiger: How many times has Oleg said that "the color is dependent on the lighting conditions" ? Do you know how many times or are you just in a mood to criticize people that voice their honest opinion because you are whiner yourself?

BadAim 02-26-2011 12:51 PM

[QUOTE=Peffi;228663]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger (Post 228505)
How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”? bla bla bla
QUOTE]

Question for Skoshi Tiger: How many times has Oleg said that "the color is dependent on the lighting conditions" ? Do you know how many times or are you just in a mood to criticize people that voice their honest opinion because you are whiner yourself?

EXCELLENT! Now that's more like it, a beautiful example of a compound whine: whiner complaining about whiner complaining about whiners.

FG28_Kodiak 02-26-2011 01:04 PM

First, the comparing of a Emil with a Gustav is worthless.

Second other Pictures of Emils:
http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/8493/1017v.jpg
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8951/bf109e2.jpg

zauii 02-26-2011 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by furbs (Post 228631)
But it does show the pilot posture problem quite well...the real pic shows the pilot in a "active" posture, leaning forward slightly, he looks like he is flying the plane. where as the COD pic he looks awkward and stiff backed, like a shop dummy has been just dropped in the cockpit.

Oleg already knows this and i hope it can be adressed soon as it does spoil the fantastic looking models and takes away immersion.

Im sure i wont even notice while flying missions but for taking great screen shots and movie makers it is a problem.

For all we know the ingame pilot could've been looking up in the air(hence the position).. seriously these discussions are rather pointless since Oleg knows about it already.

B25Mitch 02-26-2011 01:20 PM

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/261...ailbiasing.jpg

This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6433/biasing.jpg

Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Peffi 02-26-2011 01:22 PM

[QUOTE=BadAim;228670]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Peffi (Post 228663)

EXCELLENT! Now that's more like it, a beautiful example of a compound whine: whiner complaining about whiner complaining about whiners.

Bad Aim; your name suits you. You just placed yourself on the wiener list togeteher with Skoshi Tiger... :rolleyes: (don't know why I even bother 2 answer u guys... :confused: )

Meusli 02-26-2011 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B25Mitch (Post 228682)
Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Hurray, somebody who knows something. Thanks for the explanation as even I understand that. :)

kalimba 02-26-2011 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendo65 (Post 228254)
Fantastic collection of pics. Thanks. Flames on the Hurri look great.

Oleg, a few people have commented on the pilot position in the Spitfire - seems to be very rigid with his head too far back. I expect that you are already aware of it and it will be fixed?

OLeg :Yes, aware, but not sure that we will rework the model till release.

Great work Oleg ! But what is kind of odd and hard to understand for some of us, is the fact that we have been shown fantastic shots of ground vehicules, trains , buildings , and very advanced detailed work of non-priority objects regarding a flight sim, and what could be considered essential for good immersion, like pilot position , well, it is not yet implemented...The same goes for the clouds and weather system...I am not complaining, and have good faith , but it is a bit akward....;)

Salute !

Peffi 02-26-2011 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalimba (Post 228696)
Great work Oleg ! But what is kind of odd and hard to understand for some of us, is the fact that we have been shown fantastic shots of ground vehicules, trains , buildings , and very advanced detailed work of non-priority objects regarding a flight sim, and what could be considered essential for good immersion, like pilot position , well, it is not yet implemented...The same goes for the clouds and weather system...I am not complaining, and have good faith , but it is a bit akward....;)

Salute !

Oh YES, you are complainer, a whiner, a criticizer a a, a.... I don't know what bla bla bla. I don't understand people that bla bla bla. Why don't you just bla bla bla. Now let's see how many will call you a whiner... :grin:

Icewolf 02-26-2011 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zapatista (Post 228266)
Hi Oleg,

thx for the new screenshots, they look very good !

is the pilot figure "head" now moving in the direction we are looking to inside the cockpit ? i remember you hoped to have it working by release time, but dont know if there was any update if you were able to include it.

why is this so important? nothing but a cpu monster contributing little to game real realism.
just how often will you even look at this?

Sven 02-26-2011 02:24 PM

Every time I'm on the ground for a co-op with 20 engines roaring and all the pilots looking around waiting for the signal to take off, that would be really immersive, maybe we can even wave, lol;)

Or check if your teammates haven't fallen asleep when you're observing them, so that you can shout on comms to them, definitely useful.

Strike 02-26-2011 02:36 PM

I hope they fix that multiplayer engine bug.

If engine no 1 is destroyed on a two engine plane, both engines stop from the other online players' view.

Sometimes people would be like :"Hah! I shot out your engines!!" and the victim is like "No.. only engine no 1, the other 3 are still running.."

and the attacker is like "What ze hell!?"

McHilt 02-26-2011 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B25Mitch (Post 228682)
Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/261...ailbiasing.jpg

.............

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

That explains it very clearly! thx a lot for your effort!
@BadAim: you're right about the stabiliser... :cool: hence the position indicator: - 0 + I could've known....:mrgreen:

Zorin 02-26-2011 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalimba (Post 228696)
Great work Oleg ! But what is kind of odd and hard to understand for some of us, is the fact that we have been shown fantastic shots of ground vehicules, trains , buildings , and very advanced detailed work of non-priority objects regarding a flight sim, and what could be considered essential for good immersion, like pilot position , well, it is not yet implemented...The same goes for the clouds and weather system...I am not complaining, and have good faith , but it is a bit akward....;)

Salute !

Simple, 3d modellers do not have the knowledge to work on weather system coding or any other stuff like that. They do what they are good at and that is buidling objects to populate the environment.

carl 02-26-2011 03:16 PM

pilots look right to me, they certainly look a lot better than in il2, in all the years i have been playing il2 online i have never felt a loss of immersion because of il2 pilots, i never see them unless they bail, this has been improved beyond any comparison, it is ok to compliment if there is nothing to complain about.
S oleg and team.

Old_Canuck 02-26-2011 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger (Post 228505)
I think that of all the things shown in these updates, my biggest issue is with the quality of whining being displayed. It is definitely of a lower quality that previous updates.

The whines are repetitive and monotonous. Surely we can do better than this? It is my guess that due to our poor community contribution we are the butt of many other forums whining jokes.
“That was pretty lame! But I guess it wasn’t as bad as a Il-2 Whine!”

We are dredging up and recycling issues that have been thoroughly rehashed many times without adding any new insight or progression through the whine. How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”?

To transcend the Whine/Constructive Criticism Boundary (WCCB) please back up your statements with evidence. The Yellows wrong? How about supplying a photo of the correct colour after researching what camera, film, exposure settings were used and the process that it was developed with? Can’t find that?

Then how about accepting that colour photography was and still is a developing art and that your favourite photo scanned from a 70 year old magazine cover and placed on the Internet may not accurately reflect the actual colours being depicted?

Cheers and pick up your socks community whiners!

PS Great Update Oleg! Can’t wait for the release date!

Good stuff, Skoshi Tiger. Regarding whine quality, how about some new whines? The old whines are racked on "ignore" because they've become redundant and they leave a bad after taste. BTW, what was the best year for whine? We must not forget the "where's-my-trim-on-a-slider?" variety under RBJ's label. It was certainly one of the most interesting offerings which perhaps will never be surpassed.

addman 02-26-2011 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodolphe (Post 228689)
...


:grin:

I guess we'll get with the first game patch, the pilot "size vs bmi" options.

:grin:

http://users.teledisnet.be/web/mfe39146/bmi.jpg



anyway, thanks for the update. ;)

...

lol! +2 1/2

Skarphol 02-26-2011 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B25Mitch (Post 228682)
Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/261...ailbiasing.jpg

This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6433/biasing.jpg

Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Thanks for your explenation Mitch! I found that gap in the shadow peculiar. As this gap has not been seen on other pictures, I guess the problem occures when the light hit the joining of those to surfaces at very special angles.

Skarphol

kalimba 02-26-2011 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peffi (Post 228702)
Oh YES, you are complainer, a whiner, a criticizer a a, a.... I don't know what bla bla bla. I don't understand people that bla bla bla. Why don't you just bla bla bla. Now let's see how many will call you a whiner... :grin:

That sweet...And how should I've formulated my positive comment so , in your opinion, it would not be regarded as whining ? Do you have an intelligent explanation regarding my remarks about the developpement of CoD ?Can you
tell us why those decisions regarding what is a priority, or not, were taking ?
So, witch comments are more constructive, yours or mine ? :cool:

Peffi 02-26-2011 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kalimba (Post 228745)
That sweet...And how should I've formulated my positive comment so , in your opinion, it would not be regarded as whining ? Do you have an intelligent explanation regarding my remarks about the developpement of CoD ?Can you
tell us why those decisions regarding what is a priority, or not, were taking ?
So, witch comments are more constructive, yours or mine ? :cool:

Kalimba: I guess you failed to read between the lines and see the irony in my post about your post. Nothing wrong with what you say or ask. Some wieners on this forum is however soon going to whine about your post since you are asking questions they probably consider to be whining. Calling others for whiners is a way of trying to give themselves cred towards the developers and being important ;-)

Strike 02-26-2011 04:04 PM

This is now, officially, not longer a discussion, but a "Disgustion"

Trolls. I see them everywhere... I think they have this forum surrounded

kalimba 02-26-2011 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peffi (Post 228755)
Kalimba: I guess you failed to read between the lines and see the irony in my post about your post. Nothing wrong with what you say or ask. Some wieners on this forum is however soon going to whine about your post since you are asking questions they probably consider to be whining. Calling others for whiners is a way of trying to give themselves cred towards the developers and being important ;-)

Oh my ...Sorry Peffi ! English is realy not my first language and I certainly failed to catch the 2nd degree in your response...:rolleyes:
Thanks for your kind explanation...;)
Have a nice day !

Salute !

Freycinet 02-26-2011 04:48 PM

For all shots of pilots sitting in cockpits of airplanes that are still on the ground, remember that the pilots adopted a sitting position as high as possible for take-off to look over the nose as well as possible. In flight they of course sat lower to line up with the gun sight and not bump against the canopy.

Skarphol 02-26-2011 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freycinet (Post 228769)
In flight they of course sat lower to line up with the gun sight...

My thought, too.
Wouldn't the pilots have some way of ajusting their seat or position so that their eye was ligned up with the gun sight, ant thus every pilot would sit at aproximately the same height in the cockpit? Then it would be just the size of their head and helmet wich differed? I don't know. But I will never think of it during gameplay, be sure..

Skarphol

Old_Canuck 02-26-2011 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B25Mitch (Post 228682)
Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/261...ailbiasing.jpg

This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6433/biasing.jpg

Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Well done Mitch. You're a guy worth listening to.

zakkandrachoff 02-26-2011 06:15 PM

loock at this link.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...id=13883518665

will be great have take off in a raining day (not hazy) and that willl be wahter in the airfield.

by the way, i dont see soo much raining pics of Cliffs of Dover. !!!:rolleyes:

will be nice fly over england whit finest rain (not strng wind)

McHilt 02-26-2011 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domian (Post 228787)
The thing with the shadows do not care! Such a nitpicker xxxx...

Might be domian, but bringing it up (in a positive and constructive way like Skarphol) is also a way to learn things, like in this case
Mitch explains something many people didn't know. It gains a better understanding of what Oleg and crew are doing which hopefully leads to a lot less whining... hope folks understand that.

Cheers :grin:

Sauf 02-26-2011 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McHilt (Post 228802)
Might be domian, but bringing it up (in a positive and constructive way like Skarphol) is also a way to learn things, like in this case
Mitch explains something many people didn't know. It gains a better understanding of what Oleg and crew are doing which hopefully leads to a lot less whining... hope folks understand that.

Cheers :grin:

Well said Mr McHilt

major_setback 02-26-2011 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B25Mitch (Post 228682)
Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/261...ailbiasing.jpg

This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/6433/biasing.jpg

Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skarphol (Post 228739)
Thanks for your explenation Mitch! I found that gap in the shadow peculiar. As this gap has not been seen on other pictures, I guess the problem occures when the light hit the joining of those to surfaces at very special angles.

Skarphol

It has shown up in quite a few of the earlier pictures. I've noticed it quite a lot. It shows where the aerial mast joins the fuselage (look at the big/close 109 screenshot in this weeks update), and on exhaust covers for example. You can see it on an opened spitfire door, and under the Hurricane tail too.
It looks like they (understandably) try to avoid taking screenshots from certain angles because of it.



Aerial and 'floating' engine intakes:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...625_172033.jpg
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...201_173937.jpg

Exhaust cover and tail:
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...120206copy.jpg

major_setback 02-26-2011 08:44 PM

I'd say that the pilot here is the right size. I can't imagine he could be much bigger:

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g2...-britain15.jpg

It looks an improvement on this:
http://www.blisteredthumbs.net/wp-co...11/01/617x.jpg

Sutts 02-26-2011 09:34 PM

It does look better but could just be the angle of the shot. He sure looks like he's just had a broom shoved up his a$$ in the second shot.:grin:

I'd love to see some oxy masks too. Goggles down without a mask was not a common sight from all the evidence I've seen.

philip.ed 02-26-2011 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sutts (Post 228839)
It does look better but could just be the angle of the shot. He sure looks like he's just had a broom shoved up his a$$ in the second shot.:grin:

I'd love to see some oxy masks too. Goggles down without a mask was not a common sight from all the evidence I've seen.

+1
also, few wore these mark IV goggles :P

Biggs 02-26-2011 10:09 PM

many pilots flew without goggles because they weren't the greatest quality back then and would distort the pilots vision. this effect was compounded when adding to the regular amount of distortion that the cockpit glass already created.

they figured it was best to have the least amount of material between the pilots eye and the sky.

I think Bob Doe wrote/said something to that effect at one point.

stigkk 02-26-2011 11:05 PM

The author of "The last enemy" Richard Hillary, always flew without goggles because it made him feel claustrophobic. Much to his regret later as he suffered severe burns to his face.

Richie 02-26-2011 11:08 PM

Does anyone know if there is "Ingame saturation control"

Blakduk 02-26-2011 11:50 PM

Regarding the pictures of the stabiliser shadows on the 109's- they were not fixed completely to the tail section. They could be tilted to trim the aircraft- as i understand it they were not adjustable in-flight, and could only be set by groundcrew. I think the shadow gap is overdone but it is not apparent on the models of the other planes (such as the Spits and Hurricanes).
The problem of floating elements on smaller parts such as the exhaust covers and aerial masts is definitely there, as illustrated by the excellent examples posted by Major_setback, but the 109 stabilisers shadow gaps is partly due to the design of the real aircraft and therefore the true-to-life computer model.

Blackdog_kt 02-27-2011 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caveman (Post 228381)
Surprised noone has said more about the water in shot 3... The oil smoke is fantastic, but the water is what appears to be the best in ANY sim. Better than all the addons for FSX... Incredible.

It looks like water!

We're so busy looking at the aircraft that we miss a lot of stuff i guess. And yes, it does look like a photo of choppy seas ;)


Another little detail well spotted:
Quote:

Originally Posted by major_setback (Post 228409)
I'm happy to see markings with weathering today! :-)

I think that until this is experienced in motion and for some considerable length of time to allow us to digest it (either in a high-res, promotional video going over the features in some depth or on our own PCs) we won't be able to really grasp how good it looks...there's just so much detail to overload on :grin:



On the issue of pilot size
Quote:

Originally Posted by Trooper117 (Post 228471)
I've just looked at about a dozen 109 photos of early 109 E3's, the dimensions don't look far out at all.. then compare pictures of a later version with the newer heavier framed cockpit, say the E4 and later variants, and then yes, you may be forgiven for thinking they have it wrong.. I don't think it's such a 'glaring' error at all. :)

I think you're on to something here. There's much less framing and even lack of armor glass in most of those E3s, which gives a more spacious look to it. The real life photos of early 109Es posted by others seem to give a similar impression.

To be perfectly honest with you all, i can't really decide. Sometimes and from certain angles they look a tad small, but in other screenshots they look just perfect. All in all, i'm not too worried about it and i'd rather have a bit of a smaller pilot that moves and might possibly be used to signal other players when flying online, rather than have a 100% anatomically correct one and have to choose between him clipping through the fuselage or having him as a static figure.


Finally, i'd also like to second the request for some details on multi-engined/multi-crewed aircraft. If the crew AI is good enough to make the aircraft not feel "empty" and they can be interacted with and be useful via certain commands, i'm sure i'll be spending a lot of time in heavier aircraft.

All in all, excellent progress as usual and i can't wait to fly this.

philip.ed 02-27-2011 10:15 AM

Test Pilot Geoffrey Page had his groundcrew make him up a full-face visor comletely out of cellulid, in the hope that it would provide clear visibility (rather like the visors firemen wear today). Unfortunately, the mark III series of goggles had their lenses made from celluloid too, and it distorted vision and scratched easily. With a visor completly made out of the stuff, Page found that it 'burned beautifully' (in his own words) as well when he was shot down in flames during the BoB. Rather ironic really. He recovered though, and always wore a pair of issue goggles on his head, although thankfully he never had need to use them.

Pilots didn't like wearing goggles; they did affect visibility, and were really uncomfortable.

Abbeville-Boy 02-27-2011 01:32 PM

cool calendar
only 3 more weeks

stu babes 02-27-2011 02:23 PM

ive just been told its out in april now,,,,,is that correct,,,,,and if it is when is?
 
:evil:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbeville-Boy (Post 228971)
cool calendar
only 3 more weeks


Richie 02-27-2011 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbeville-Boy (Post 228971)
cool calendar
only 3 more weeks

Brings back 2001 IL-2 memories while playing the demo together.

undercut 02-27-2011 08:14 PM

Thanks again for the update m8. I just gotta ask, what are the chances of us getting to see a video of dog fights in one of these updates before the release?

DoolittleRaider 02-27-2011 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strike (Post 228400)
For Olegs team, and us fans...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9YVei2Yb_k

Quote:

Originally Posted by kancerosik (Post 228519)
do u think that the medium high of te te population during the 30s and 40s decades is equal to the pressent days? (supposing that the video is from 1980 ;) )
Pd: that pilot is really tall

My impression is that Adolph Galland was not exceptionally tall…seemingly of average height…yet the Bf109 is a bit of a tight fit as seen in this often seen Film Clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMWEmg-P_m4


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.