Pick a green


http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f3...1Jan301455.jpg

Perhaps Ilya will do a version with pink grass for those of you who don't think the colour is important. The same people also seem to think it was sunny from March to December in 1940, with temps around 95 degrees F. Clueless.

I think you may not understand. When you calibrate something it'sa one time shot. If Maddox uses a calibrated monitor to balance colors and another developer of another game does not, you can't expect the other game to look right... You will not get all games to look good if they are not all calibrated during development.

Sorry, but over the past few months I have rarely posted and rarely 'complained'. However, being a UK resident, the shots did scream oout to me this week. Lastweek, at a higher altitude, the landscape looked wonderful. However, usually the positive posts I make are missed and people only post adversely on the comments I make which go against their fanboy nature.
I am in no doubt that the release will clarify things, so I am happy to wait.
The colour will not impact on my gameplay experience in anyway, but as Oleg said at SimHQ, and other marketing members here have pointed out, it is generally best for members to be 100% honest, as construtive feedback is useful to the team. I think Oleg, or Luthier, said that all points are taken into consideration, so it's nice to know that we are all heard on some level.
Peace, people, I don't mean to gripe. I'm just honest about my feelings :D
Have a nice Sunday evening, all.

The BoB, 10 July to 31 December. Clueless.
All in all, one of the hottest summers on record. Of course, in the early July days there was precipitiation, and the same is true for some parts of October, but overall largely hot. There are many books on the battle, and some have day by day guides with weather forecasts, so these make useful guides :D

Oh shut up .ed :grin:

Was I too nice? :-P

Which one is RLM25? I'll have that!

/Daniel

RLM25 is a classified color, reserved only for the deluxe boxed version...you would be wise to forget all about RLM25, if you know what's good for you,

:grin:

Some screenshots look good and some look like the colour has been turned up a little too much on a TV set. The game hasn't come out yet so we'll see.

Yes, i feel the prewhining is strong in this forum.

Your a Pome , you were born mean :grin:

philip.ed please check out this site:
http://www.battleofbritain1940.net/contents-index.html
Gives daily account of the Battle of Britain including the daily weather report, also gives daily activity for units of both sides and their losses, and accounts of combat from participants of both sides. Please stop posting complete tripe about the weather.
Regards

Here's the weathering editter for the aircraft. Another subject everyone is in a twist about is how shiny the 109s are. The weathering editter should fix that. Plus all of the skinners will be busy I'm sure as soon as this game comes out.

How can I thank you Oleg & Co,
for updating another friday in a row
Step up stand up, take a bow
wait for the some to have the cow
receive your applause, thank you again

fast to avoid the waaamublance train
Houston Baikonur we have problem
this or another overwhelming them

Neon to green, its a Las Vegas theme, not a UK scene
Where's the specs so I can build my machine
High altitude to make my mixture lean
Too many complaints and not enough time
to add to a long list of whines

Ask her number but the girl don't care
Call of Duty Dover equals ROF scare
stay tuned for the video share

lol, nice one

Good looking girl!
Got to agree though the colors look a bit "off", whats up with the AA, I mean WOP looks better... I hate to whine (because here being critical is whining) but its alittle underwhelming. Cockpits look nice, terrain kinda meh. Are the settings on high? If not, why not?

Heliocon, my thoughts entirely (+1)

It's not that being critical is whining. It's people who read the updates and despite the information given, ignorantly bash and complain. It's usually the same people who find plenty to cry about but never find anything good to write about.

It's people who ask the same question that's been covered again and again. RTFF. It's those who complain and yet refuse to see improvements on a weekly basis, indicating that things are still WiP AND being improved upon. It's some folks taking bits and bobs, targeting their complaints upon a few pictures, and not seeing the overall development process. There's some REALLY NICE STUFF to view if one takes a minute. It's folks complaining about tree types in lower England. It's those people who come in and bash, then give an off handed insult to the development team or other members of the forum. And quite frankly, the AA complaints are ridiculous. Does ANYONE really think this game would be released without the ability to have AA running? Seriously? And NO. The settings are not on high. RTFF.

Take a few minutes to read the forum before leaving comments. Some posts are as annoying as the next door neighbor's dog leaving land mines on my property.

It's those sort posts that clog up the forum like a bacon sandwich in my lower colon and cause unnecessary discomfort.



FANBOI MODE ACTIVATED: I think we're all going to be surprised at what's released in March. But what I find really exceptional is that even at these lowered settings the game will be very playable while still looking quite nice. For an exercise play IL2/FB at it's lowest setting. I think you'll be surprised at how comical it looks. You'll also discover how 'bad' the landscape is. Now turn it back up to the highest setting you can. Looks damn good don't it? I personally think CoD will have this sort of graphic flexibility. If these screen shots represent lower settings, then what's in store for the less graphically challenged gaming rigs?

Patience folks. Read the forum. Most topics and complaints have been covered. If one has to complain, at least have an alternative idea for improvement or facts to back yourself up. THAT's true criticism. Adding 'meh's' and portents of gloom and doom do nothing but reduce this forum to a battle ground. .

I agree with nearly everything you said, Robert. The only thing I disagree with is the comment about AA...it's not that people don't think the game will be able to use it, it's just that many of us, almost as much as any member of the development team, want to see this game do well in sales, and releasing screenshots and trailers without AA is one of those things that will put off casual buyers, especially those who don't know what AA is. Something will just look subtly wrong, and they'll just think the game has "bad graphics" and not bother. We want to see the effort the devs put in repaid, we're just hoping they'll realise how critical a lot of less hardcore simmers are about small touches like that because they're comparing the game's publicity to that of other games which are publicised in a way that's all flash and no content.

Point noted Grunch re: AA..... and thinking twice about it, you're correct.

The marketing has barely ratcheted itself up. The casual gamer isn't aware of CoD yet (IMO). The next few weeks will probably see a plethora of screenies and clips and I think these will be more reflective of what we have in store for the release of CoD.

WOP uses a lot of cheats to trick you into thinking that the terrain is good, when in fact it's pretty fake. First they use that annoying vignette to make it look like an old film, you can turn that off. Next look at the view distance. Looks like you're flying over modern day Beijing with all that fog. Next the colours are exagerrated and in some cases washed out to look (at the same time) more vibrant and toned down.

It also relies on the FSX terrain trick of having the "ideal" altitude for terrain detail. The textures you will find look best at the altitude you spend 90% of the game at. When you get lower they look all stretched and very low detail. Load up the Slovakia map in IL-2 and start buzzing around at 200 feet. Doesn't look so good now does it? Same thing with WOP.

All flight sims suffer from this exact same problem. Even COD to a certain extent. In order to get rid of this issue you'd need ground textures to be a lot larger and more detailed. This would be both extremely time consuming and also it would really tax your system or require LOD settings that would really break immersion when changing altitude.

Look at this pic I'm posting below: It's the first pic that would load properly in GIS when typing "wing of prey terrain" with large pic settings.

Do I really need to explain why this is does not look good?
http://img502.imageshack.us/img502/6...riginal.th.jpg

It does look good Jockey, why? Because the creators of this are brilliant, doesn't consume a lot of PC power, runs great, looks good, it's perfect. Like Oleg's trick with the trees, just brilliant. You are of course being tricked, but this kind of tricking is class.

You sound like someone who just went to a magic show, and afterwards saying out loud in the crowd: You guys do know that that was all a big trick right?!

WOP looks good for what it was intended to do. Run fast and smooth on a Console or Midrange PC and remind people of the camera filters used in Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers. The reason they do that is to trick people into thinking, this is what it should look like, because, hey! "That WWII movie and Show looked like that".

What Oleg is trying to do is show you what a flight sim would look like if you were looking out the cockpit glass, and not at 70 year old archival footage.

What I'm saying is that comparing the terrain in WOP to COD is not really a good comparison at all since the WOP environment has been so warped that there isn't a realistic frame of reference in it. Despite what people say about the grass in COD, WOP is more like a cartoon with all the colours and effects set to the extreme. There are no accurate colours in the game, so it's harder to say something looks wrong, meanwhile COD is going for everything looking realistic, so it's easier to find faults, even though it is miles more accurate and realistic graphics wise.

LOL! "Casual gamers". They don't even know what a flightsim is. Most people on this forum are fanatics, I'm willing to admit it, are you?:grin:

addict yes, fanatic - no.

I'm trying to be delicate, so I'm giving my views in the form of a complement sandwich.

The cockpits look incredible.
The landscape coloring looks off. Too bright and too much yellow.
The plane exteriors look great.

Example landscape with game cockpit
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/6463/kentb.jpg

I've read the landscape color and brightness whines until it's just unbearable.

Think about what you are saying...

High quality video cards render differently with settings. The internet postings you see are also affected by your local VC settings. The quality is also set when the poster puts the picture up, rendered from his computer settings.

The most important thing is to just leave off these whines, until we get the BOB COD installed on our computer systems. Then you work through your settings and configuration files to get the color and brightness just right for you.

I'm not suggesting that the whole of the BoB was scorching hot, I have never said that. But it was quite a hot summer (it is on records as being so, hence the book: Kent and the Battle of Britain: The Long Hot Summer of 1940 by Robin J. Brooks). some books tend to exaggerate, slightly, on the climate of the Battle, but it was unprediactably hot (compared to previous summers. Although 1933 was a very hot summer).
I'm not posting complete tripe, obviously I'm not going to post exact weather forecasts and then go and wait until England is that temperature and take samples of grass colour, but at the same time, the information is irrefutable.
Indeed, it is one of the reasons why many pictures (although arguably staged) show pilots in their shirts and 1932 pattern life-preservers, with their SD jacket left in their locker. Not a lot of evidence points to them flying like this (because at altitude it would still get very cold) but it was too hot, at times, to wear a jacket.
Looking in my book The Battle of Britain by Richard Townsend Bickers, I can see that when Autumn came the weather started to become randomly wet and rainy, so I was wrong in suggesting September was hot. That is true, so sorry for that :oops:
But before then there were hot spells.
Actually, viewing this guide, day by day, perhaps I have over-estimated the extent the weather would have on the terrain? Because although there wasn't as much rain between late July and late August, there was still a fair amount of cloud. Temeratures were warm, verging on hot, but I cannot comment on their effect on the terrain. Nor would I want to, I'm not bothered about that.
Either way, it is nonsensical to go into this much detail, so sorry for rambling, but books will always have conflicting information, and so I think it is wrong to discount certain views as tripe ;) (and also hypocritical, based on your date periods for the battle)
Peace ;)
I am not bothered about the colour being a perfect match, but from looking at the pictures, the brightness does really come out.
As I said, release will show the game in its true form and I can't wait for that :cool:

Regarding the colours,the proof will be in the pudding.
QUESTION, IF it is decided the colours are not correct are they the sort of thing that can be altered either by the user or by the developer in a patch after the sim is released?.

Lol :)

The development team knows what they are doing. They are especially sensitive to graphic issues. Afterall, the graphics environment is a priority for most current users of IL2. It certainly will be the same or more so with BOB COD.

You are going to love the graphics environment.

Take your dog for a nice walk, don't worry over it.

Yeeees! Strong in this one the whining is.....

Relax and wait he must.


Now you mention it: Maybe luthier should add some predators. :mrgreen:

NOOOOO I lost my post by accidently clicking ctrl... wtf

Jockey, you are brilliant I actually never noticed the things you pointed out before myself. Maybe on comps, with maxed settings they removed it? Next time I play I will have to check, but the fact that its their discretly in the background is why it is very clever.

So why isnt the SS on max or high settings? Its like an artist who has a gallery but only displays their mediocre/lunch time scribbles in the window. When you pass by they say: Hey, come inside I have some amazing paintings. Only $60 for entrance to see my good art, all this stuff in the window for show is just the below average work, but imagine how great the "good" paintings will look!

It makes no buisness sense, it makes no sense as a professional dev team and it makes no sense to put out images of the game which are inherently visual advertising/sampling, yet giving us only the mediocre scenes which strikes me as a quality issue (like take pride in your work, always present the best etc). It just doesnt "add up" and makes even me even alittle skitish when combined with the vids we have seen and the horrible performance at the show...
It looks like an engine from 5-10 years ago when you couldnt use HDR and AA at the same time, its absurd and jarring.

Also I dont have a problem with the pallete, but I think the colors look "washed out" and kind of pastel...
Its not my monitor ever so dont even suggest it, I own 4 LCD monitors where 3 of them are different (1 Dell, 2 Samsung + another Samsun of different model), as well as old crt's for when I am working. Its not a monitor issue.

and I'd tend to prefer the cinematic look these games try to put forth.

Why? It simply looks more interesting, gives the setting a different feel, etc.
Lighting is an amazingally important aspect in any medium (photography, film or gaming).

It changes the entire way you percieve the scene, changing the emotions, impressions, and everything inbetween.

Considering CoD has a dynamic day-night cycle, this needs to be seamlessly transitioned between time and weather states. (i.e. different color correction based on time of day and weather)

Do you think there is a single accurate colour in any other game, or film for that matter? Everything nowadays goes through colour-correction - and it makes things much more interesting to look at.


Using Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers as your example is rather dumb, considering the fact that they only use a very light bleach-bypass film process, barely altering colours (mostly just desaturating them slightly).

Let's just wait and see what tweaks CoD:IL-2 will offer. I know RoF has adjustable saturation in the startup.cfg file(conf.ini) so you can pretty much use the color saturation you like.

Oh and good luck rendering a photo realistic image in a flightsim in 2011. That's like 20-30 years ahead. I don't see why people would use a photorealistic image as reference at all. Especially when we consider the medium.

1. Most people are interested in COD because it's striving for accuracy instead of "looks more interesting". They want accurate FM, accurate damage, and accurate lighting as opposed to a bag full of effects to get an atmospheric feel and still run on consoles and midrange PC's.

2. I don't know where you're going with the middle portion. I know that "accurate" is somewhat relative and that no game has a perfectly accurate colour for it, but I think that Oleg and Co. are trying for it instead of "washed out" like WOP.

3. Using Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers as an example works perfectly since that's that the WOP guys were going for. Spielberg washed out the colours and used steadycams since that's what you see in archival footage. He toned it down for the movie so the audience would be immersed more in the time period since everyone has seen a WWII clip. WOP went for the same thing, trying to get people to identify the same way since most people who are going to buy a WWII flight sim have watched archival footage as well.

If you prefer the cinematic look, I wouldn't be surprised if there were options in the config file or maybe even the graphics panel to get closer to what you want. And ATI/Nvidia also have soem rendering options that will help out as well if you get the full driver/suite downloads or aftermarket add-ons for their driver suites.

Isn't that what we're all aiming for? Immersion?

"accuracy" is - as you mention, a relative term. To me, the current screenshots of CoD are not exactly the epitome of realism either.

You seem to have this arbitrary conviction that "effects" are bad. Why the hell is this? The color correction used in WoP works absolute wonders. It provides a sense of immersion, and sets a mood to the mission/area in which you are flying.

The rendering of trees, clouds, atmosphere and terrain by WoP is unmatched, even by CoD. As someone else mentioned, it has a bag of tricks to make it look good, and as long as it looks good, who cares how many shaders they use, or how they page their terrain.

And no, that is not what the WoP devs were going for. Some of the maps are pushing the colors towards bronze/beige, some are diffusing the whites, but none that I have seen try to emulate the bleach-bypass method utilized by the colourgrader in Band of Brothers/SPR.
Band of Brothers and SPR are very unique films - considering the fact that they do very minimal colour correction.

If you mean to say that they were trying to achieve a cinematic effect by color-correcting the screen, then yes- they were, alas so does every other film in existence.

And that is exactly my point, you say "the same way since most people who are going to buy a WWII flight sim have watched archival footage as well."

Isn't that the whole point?
To immerse ourselves, suspension of disbelief, etc.
Cinematic effects help with this, simple as that.

The idea, above all "immersion" intentions, is, as i see it, to simulate reality as perfect as possible, not a movie!

:grin: Laugh, had I not, angry would I be.


But I'm not whining; last week I said the landscape looked perfect, so I agree with Winny. Monitor tweaking should easily sort any brightness out (hopefully). It must be the CRT monitors the team are apparently using, because otherwise it makes more sense for the team to aim for complete consensus in terms of colour qualities on most monitor types. obviously this is near-on impossible.
My problem is I have exhausted myself here. The game looks perfect to me. I just felt the 'whiners' were getting too much harsh critique for posting their personal views (which is all relevent to the team, in one way) So it was my job to take this load on myself :P

Although if you want a scapegoat, call me.

You bring up good points, but what Oleg is trying to do (might be the photographer background there) is recreate the lighting and colours your eye sees in real life as opposed to a colour-corrected/altered version you'd see in the movies or other games.

The point of him taking that direction (I'm guessing) is that if you have a somewhat realistic starting point or "base" then you can more easily move from there. If he created COD with all the settings and tricks that WOP has then it would be much harder for someone to get it to look like FSX or X-Plane, or any other "non-styled/colour-corrected" sim. It's a lot eaiser to add in the vingette or the heavy-handed colour-correction, or the fog seen in WOP than it is to try and remove it.

It's all up to people's preferences, and it seems that most people like what Oleg is going for rather than what WOP already has. I'm not knocking WOP. It does what it wants to really well, but I'm guessing most simmers interested in the type of sim COD is shaping up to be want what Oleg has in mind for the visuals.

As for the visuals/style/colour-corrections found in WOP and Saving Private Ryan, that was just a rough comparison. After SPR was released a lot of people probably thought that real-life colour wasn't as vibrant as it is today. When I look out the window of a small aircraft I don't usually see a "pea-soup" film over everything like I do when playing WOP or watching a SPR.

You're entitled to your opinion, and so am I. But it looks like Oleg and I are on the same page given the direction the screen shots have been/are going.

The problem is that immersion is completely subjective, and what works for one person can be a deal breaker for someone else. And that's where things get complicated.

For example, here are some opinions that I personally don't agree with:

- Il2 lacked "soul" and thus immersion
- dynamic campaigns are more immersive
- all WW2 sims should have EAW-style menus for increased immersion
- plane skins should have lots of weathering
- tracers should show a zig-zag pattern like in gun cam footage
- multiplayer is more immersive

DEAR OLEG MADDOX I REQUEST FOR CoD one expecial option for mission builder.
include traces of planes are not drawn on the map using the mouse, but .....

tracks recorded on a flight that is not realistic in the game in the map.

example: I fly from the coast to the island track is recorded and entered in the mission builder can also shoot in the air but still the track is recorded and included in the mission builder.

ie instead of using the mouse manually insert a track I use a piece of tracks recorded in the mission builder.

I used google translator to translate Mr. Oleg Maddox now I am writing in Italian and you try to translate myself.



Signor Oleg MADDOX richiedo una speciale opzione nel mission builder.
Precisamente richiedo di avere un opzione che inserisce anche le tracce registrate in tempo reale di volo oltre che le tracce inserite manualmente tramite il mouse nel mission builder.
ESEMPIO:
1)TRACCIA registrata in tempo reale : io effetuo un volo dalla costa all'isola posso sparare nel vuoto posso schiantarmi o posso atterrare il tutto viene registrato e inserito nel mission builder.
2)TRACCIA inserita manulmente con il mouse con dati di velocita' armamento carburante altitudine e vettore.

Problem here is you two are arguing over what immersion is when you have two different opinions as it applies to COD.
Immersion as a emotional response that draws you into the enviroment/battle and makes it feel engrossing + incredible.
VS
Immersion that draws you into the game with the feeling off: so now I know how these pilots felt when they looked down and saw the landscape below. This is as close as I can get to flying a spitfire without actually physically flying one...

Two different definitions and I would argue "genres".

Also the CRT monitor comment is probably right, I noticed RT (russia today) did a segment on COD awhile back, dont know if other saw it or when it was from. Anyway the whole team were using what looked like 19/17 inch CRT monitors...

Exactly!

Immersion is something that is different for every individual. The way Oleg is doing it allows for the easiest path to customizing it for the individual since he is trying to accomplish "real world accuracy" instead of "cinema accuracy" like WOP.

Firstly I'm not doing this as a 'I think it should be this way' thing.

It's purley to illustrate a point.

All I've done to the bottom pic is increase the contrast.

http://i822.photobucket.com/albums/z...e/Contrast.jpg

My point is that all of the CoD screenshots have felt slightly 'lightweight'. The reason for this is that they contain very little true black, and the eye sees a lot of black in shadows in RL.
The effect you end up with is a slightly super-real look where you can see details in shadows that you wouldn't be able to in RL.

Speculum

Everytime I read one of your posting I have the visual picture of speculum in use. I recently thought as I read one of your postings... I wonder how he learned that looking up a tailpipe.

Your last post where you mentioned immersion.... " Immersion is something that is different for every individual."

I guess I'm too visual

Ewwww..

Nothing better then dropping your load over the enemy positions.
Blowing the enemy out of the sky.
Positioning yourself on the planes tail.

Ok I am out for now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...J7W2NUE#t=202s

Words to live by!

About tracers/projectile dispersion i think is very early to say since the picture are not very good to see such behaviour. I ll wait the videos on the next weeks. That Hurricane was shoting only two machine guns or four (MGs not firing together)?

This is the truth here. I have to go for the real life as opposed to the post processed look myself. I prefer the realistic look as opposed to the "gritty realism" look personally. It works well in film, but I don't want to feel like I am playing in a film. You can as others have pointed out add such post processing through your drivers if you really have to have them to feel like you are in the action.

I believe what the 1C Maddox team has done is what is the best all rounder, and I look forward to flying and dieing when Il-2:CoD hit's shelves here in the U.S.. Not because it will feel like a movie or a game, but for just the opposite.

Well, that is weird...Dr House and M.Bean having a discussion about death...;)

Salute !

I wonder if it is a lighting effect. For example alot of modern games (WOP included) have HDR/contrast changes so if you are looking at a dark area then suddenly turn around to look at the sun it will be very bright for a few seconds until the image "adjusts" which mimics the way our eye adjusts to different light levels. What might be weird and we are picking up on subconciously is that if you were flying in a cockpit which would have a certain ambient light level normally (or lack off) the contrarst when looking out the window would be higher. For example if you are looking in the suns direction the terrain would look normal but you couldnt see your cockpit controls because they are shaded. When looking at your controls or facing away from the sun then the ground/enviro would look comparativly brighter.

Its interesting, anyone ever seen those images where is a painting but you see faces everywhere you look? The eyes and mind pick up on subtle things we are not aware of conciously.

The human brain is remarkably capable of resolving objects in shadow as well as in light, even at the same time. (ex, sky behind some trees).

Cameras on the other hand, don't and make shadows which are totally black, or light which is totally white and has no detail. A photograph would show a black silhouette of trees on a blue sky or show some nice green trees on a white sky. The only way to mitigate this problem is to take the same photo two or three times with different exposures and composite them for the best results :)

I think Oleg's code is simplifying what our brain does automatically without our perceiving it, so the result is low contrast overall. Which is fine, I think. I imagine it would be difficult for a computer to know whether your eyes are glancing to the instrument panel or outside at any given moment (like in the screenshot where both are visible at once). Currently, the mouse just moves our "head", which would lead to some awkward situations I think, including having to move the mouse around much more to "see" everything.

@SpecJockey - I agree with your points, and with Oleg's philosophy on the matter. I prefer a realistic shot than "filtered" ones, but I imagine the possibility to fiddle with effects is already implemented or in the works (I recall Oleg wanted movie makers to be able to the engine for truly cinematic sequences).

it is an achievement that we dont have black shadows....it simulates indirect light wich is all around us and make this world look interesting. simple black shadows are like totally 1995

Oh my god, It's the end of days. I think Xilon has just made a suggestion that is both understandable and quite bloody good.

The idea of having a 3D track of your flight, as opposed to the 2D overlay we look at afterwards on the little overhead map - genius! Either as a third party add-on or implemented into the apres-flight briefing, that would be extremely cool. I mean, all the data is there anyways, assuming the tracking data is recorded. It's just a matter of manipulating it afterwards in a simplified 3d environment, which admittedly is over-simplifying the business.

Anyways, I think that's what he meant. Sounds good to me.

This man speaks the truth, the contrast was slightly overdone (giving a bit of oversaturation to the cockpit) but by god, the shadows, the FIELDS! it looks AMAZING! :grin:

What about a "XBOX colors" settings option for those who like oversaturation ?

Have to agree with you novotny, have always wanted to be able to see my flight in 3d afterwards. would be great if could see other aircraft that have been engaged too, then would be able to see where mistakes were made in a dogfight

:lol:

Now That's funny.

As part of the same switch we might as well add in:

- a big DX11 Button of Awesomeness that doesn't really do anything noticeable but adds a cool placebo effect and framerate drop just for bragging rights.

- Multi-GPU support : Another shiny button that actually doesn't do anything per-se in the game of course since it's actually up to the vidcard driver, but imparts a smug sense of self-satisfaction every 10 minutes of play when it pops up in-game to display it's mega-awesomeness (usually just before crashing from lack of +12v from the power supply).

- Green slider : turn vegetation from Baby-Diaper to Ecstacy Rave neon green all with one handy mappable slider!

- (slated for first patch 1.01) the Luftwhiner On-A-Slider : we all know what's coming 1.96 seconds after release. But why leave the sim open up your browser and post here when you run out of fuel in another low turn-fight over London? Just choose your level of whinge from subtly insulting to raving, colon-clenching furious with a simple slide and click - then back to leaving froth and dental caps in your keyboard.

I have a few more suggestions but I don't want to overwhelm the team at this late juncture. I'm sure they'll be in touch with me for more awesome suggestions to lure in more console gamers but that's me, I'm a giver.

I think he meant something else, like pasting a recorded track into mission builder, to make a sort of ghost track. Probably to make movie of it, without using multiplay.

I think I'm going to stop reading these forums between now and the launch.....

I'll just read Oleg's post and then close my browser for another week.

Thanks, made me

a: lol

b: remind this one
http://www.filehurricane.com/viewert...6744811994.jpg

FIGHTER DUEL had this, what was it 15-20 years ago. It was a great help in analysing the fight.

Same with me, I like the experience as real as it gets whether it's the plane behaviour or the colours around me. I love to see the 'movie look' like in SPR with bleached colours, shaky cams etc, but I want to see them afterwards as some wizard turns the recorded clips into a CoD movie for everyone to enjoy.

OMG, can't wait for movies made with CoD engine!

He said that?! I tend to scroll past the posts pretty quick, but that would indeed be a wonderful feature to learn from your mistakes. We've seen it in some other titles before I recon?

So +1 as they say..

D'oh, I better start reading the threads to an end before posting.. I'm repeating someone elses exact words for the second time in a row now. Bare with me!

I bet someone wrote this already too! :)

That effect is in Rise of Flight and is called HDR (High Dynamic Range). It is applied in your game graphics options. It will surely be in CoD too.

If it is, I would be satisfied. The bottom pic on this monitor looks more correct (albeit not perfect) to my eye. It's a little overdone/oversaturated, but it doesn't look washed out like the top pic.

You're probably right, somewhere in the middle would be nice.
(I didn't touch the saturation btw just contrast)

Personally I'll probably stick with what Oleg gives us as being the best balance. I know a lot of people go for the brightest, most contrasted and saturated look for much the same reasons the TV's in BestBuy sell better set to these extremes.

If Oleg doesn't release the game with these extremes it will be very easy for you to just dime your monitor settings to 100 for brightness, saturation and contrast to get that look. Better yet he may even put slider controls into the options menu for that.

It is interesting...but as a side note, notice how it has affected the chap in the nose area. His SD jacket is now much bluer, and not the typical slate-grey/blue. Worth bearing in mind for the future, but nice job Winny :D

If the darker image was the original everyone would be complaining twice as much. To me it almost looks like I have yellow tinted night gasses on witch my dad used for driving at night to see the road better.

I think Oleg mentioned that HDR will not be in the game since it is too "heavy handed/overdone" and not realistic. I'm paraphrasing here.

Are you **** kidding me??? NO HDR? Thats absurd. No really, this is not like DX11, this is like a basic feature of every game release for years, it is on par with Anti aliasing. No HDR is seriously a bad thing, have it as an optional setting but to have no HDR at all means there is little - no point in even advanced DX9 since the main progress in DX9 itself was HDR and other lighting features. So wtf???

Oh btw and if there is no HDR the game will look absurd, HDR is implemented to mimic the way the human eye reacts to different lighting conditions and intensities. No HDR = no realism, the sun will just be a big yellow circle in the sky...

You would need to alter the brightness of the instruments as you can't see them very well in the 2nd picture.
I prefer the 2nd picture personally.:)

What purpose would HDR serve in a flight sim? You aren't going in and out of buildings which is the main feature of HDR. Personally I find HDR irritating most of the time anyway because it takes a hell of a lot longer for that feature to "adjust my eyesight" than my eyes adjust to it in real life. I agree that it is very heavy handed. It works well in FPSes where you are moving in and out of buildings etc, but it has no place or point in a flight simulator. Especially considering that sun glare has been implemented in flight sims for eons now. It does what you need it to do, and does it well without a bunch of extra processing.

I'm pretty sure HDR was present in the videos at Igromir (or whatever it's called). ;) Oleg's a photographer, so I trust the guy to deliver :P

I'm pretty sure he said they were coding their own lighting from the ground up instead of relying on HDR.

Im an amateur photographer myself and even though I enjoy hdr in some pictures it is almost always overdone.It wouldnt add much to the realism of the game so Im with Oleg there :D

HDR does not mimic how the human eye reacts,it shows detail that otherwise you wouldnt be able to see with your bare eyes.Its all about enhancing the highlights.If done properly it gives a pleasant touch to pictures but since people tend to overdo this effect, the result is not so pleasant.

We've seen HDR shots in the past so I expect it will be used as part of the lighting engine, but yes Oleg mentioned he prefers a more subtle approach and wants to avoid the usually exaggerated way it's done in most games. Let's hope it works out like that.

(not trying to knock Rise of Flight here btw, they've done some beautiful stuff with their engine, but the HDR part seems to produce too many surreal images for my taste)

If you want to see some horrible HDR, go play the original Brothers in Arms. It seemed that everyone's skin produced light instead of absorbing and reflecting it. Sort of like how people portray angels in movies. Glowing skin with light blooms all around them. Now days they've toned it down quite a bit, but I think that Oleg probably has a better system that that "cut and paste" effect.

Yes I remember how after the Lost Coast tech demo for Half Life 2 (which was actually quite well done) many developers went crazy with HDR & bloom. Results were often unbearable, but they could at least claim to use the latest and greatest technology. And for many people that seems to count more than the actual result.

Heliocon you are absolutely right, it's a travesty beyond proportion.

I would suggest you make a real stand and not buy the game on principal.

You can use the time you save to g00gle up an education on the graphics features you are getting yourself so worked up over.

But whatever you do please dont stop posting your little nuggets of wisdom, sport! :lol:

For the record: an image with a lot of contrast and dark areas is not a HDR picture. The opposite is true, an HDR image shows details in all areas, with reduced contrast.

In photo: Several exposures can be combined into one, each exposed perfectly for certain parts of the photo, and themn merged so you see detail in sky (not overexposed) and shadow (usually dark).


Examples.

http://www.google.se/images?q=hdr&oe...w=1005&bih=648

Technique:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...amic-range.htm


Please stop saying the bottom photo of the two submitted earlier has a HDR.

You nailed it.

Never said that.
HDR mimics the way the eye perceives lighting and details. You obviously didnt put much time into thinking about it. For example if you are in a dark room and walk out the door into bright daylight, it temporarily blinds you (for atleast a few seconds). Your eyes adjust and you are then able to see details etc. This is the same mechanic as a camera's exposure, which is the length of time light is let into the lens/film etc. Same mechanic with the eye, except its not based on an "exposure time" but based on the quantity of light that enters through your pupil. I am not a photographer but I certainly have enough experience with film, so if you want to throw crap my way make sure you think it through.
@Roy: He didnt nail much, HDR in games is completely different than HDR in photography. Seriously, dont say he nailed it because it makes you look stupid, when was the last time you say a print or a picture emiting light? Not often, but a monitor does. In basic theory its the same "physical mechanic" which is based on light and the eyes perception of said light, in practice photography and graphics engines are very different in nature.

Also HDR is an effect that can be toned down if they want to, but eliminating it is silly.

Did I mention hdr IN A GAME??I look stupid??You need to calm down my friend.You got a right to defend your ideas but that is not the way.You do the same on every thread,who do you think looks stupid??I said he nailed the description of HDR I didnt say inside a game.I got a tip for you, whenever your angry start counting from 1-10 very slowly then reply. :DThis forum is so full of whine.

Think I figured out why the babe is modeled as an extra in the cockpit. She's simply a test place holder for now, think "picking up your downed squad mate" in a real time rescue.

That would actually be very cool having to land a plane in rough terrain, see a buddy come running out to get picked up and then trying to get up off a rough field or a narrow road with a little extra weight... Could make for some cool mission...

the whole "picking up a squadmate in your spitty" has been done in wings of prey, but with no animations. Was fairly cool.

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could help me?

Im looking for the updated information on the upcoming IL2 CoD game because im a WW2 combat aircraft enthusiast who is very much looking forward to taking part in aircraft combat. Im hoping that this game will model aircraft combat well as my main interest is aircraft combat. I am correct in thinking this upcoming games' main feature will be aircraft combat?

3 Cheers for WW2 aircraft combat!

Did i mention that im excited about the aircraft combat?

It seems that somewhere along the line i clicked the wrong forums and ended up in either a botanist forum or a DIY photographer forum. Please redirect me to the forum where the other pilots/forum posters are excited about blowin' s**t up please.

Kind Regards,

A real IL2 Gamer.

Welcome HERE! :grin:


This is the best place to get informations about that game... there is no dedicated 'Cliffs of Dover' game site yet, AFAIK.


EDIT: more precisely you want to go here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/forumdisplay.php?f=189

And there, my dear Caspar, you are wrong, or not "up to date", i have to remark.

Look there: http://il2sturmovik.ubi.com/cliffs-o...ming-soon.aspx