Originally Posted by Heliocon (Post 235109)

My problem with charvels response is that he never specified what he had a problem with, or disagreed with. The reason I said what I said is that if the devs statements of true it is poor planning. I dont think its "lazy" but they knew what they were getting into, knew what they wanted out of the engine and they should of planned it in a way that takes into account all these problems. What I see is a lack of foresight that can be crippling to a game engine.

Now as far as DX11 is concerned - I think they should of cut out dx10 completely and just gone dx11 and dx9, because dx11 builds on dx10, but is far far easier to work with, so the time they spent on 10 could of been spent on 11, and would of been completed far faster. Also it would mean that they would have alot less modeling work to do (although this depends on alot of factors). Now I think mechanics are as important if not more than graphics - but they keep saying they want fps fidelity, which is absurd because atm it has no where near the detail of an fps, and no where near the detail it should have as a flight sim either, because when buildings sprout from the ground it screams "cheap indie game". That should not happen at all in 2011, there is no excuse for it with modern hardware and tech. Now maybe on mid range systems it does not happen, but since they dont care to update their non russian community, we dont know.

The supposed CPU bottleneck on buildings is due to bad optimization and tbh makes no sense.
1. Its because the cpu keep track of every building, irregardless of LOD or distance and has to tell the gpu to render shadows and lighting interactions on each of them irrespective of if we can see the effects or not = Gpu bottleneck. If not and it is purely CPU then I have no idea what the hell they are doing because you dont need to track a houses position, the damn thing is stationary. Why do you need to track its position if it is not visible? Because it blocks another object? Thats crazy, who the hell makes maps / engines that way? Also adding to that there no reason why they would need to track stationary objects for anything BUT LOS rendering on the GPU. Computers can dome enormous amounts of calculations per second, but its like we are adding 1+1 and we get 33.33333x66.6666^infinity. It just doesnt add up and it should not be an issue in the first place...

-p.s DX11 has been around for two years now, its time to move on.

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 234677)

Its not a problem in Wings Of Prey, they have got some kind of fade thing going on which stops the buildings suddenly popping up. I would have asked the question sooner but with 10 days from release its the first time ive seen a plane fly over a city, so I think the question is more than relevant. Hopefully the asnswer will be that it was an old beta copy that was given out for review.

Now try and calm down a bit boys, someone needs to ask the awkward questions. :grin:

Originally Posted by Tiger27 (Post 235131)

Wings of prey has an horizon that appears to be much closer than Il2, in fact much much less going on in the background, fm's dm's etc so probably not a great example.

That poor horse of yours tree it wont even be good for glue by the time CoD is released ;)

Originally Posted by CharveL (Post 235242)

I didn't respond with specifics because it's been explained to you in the past and when you throw out words like "liars" it becomes obvious that it's more about getting attention than actually absorbing what people are telling you.

In other words it's a waste of time.

I don't want to come across as being offensive to you but here's a good example of why it just seems futile discussing it:



It's just that you don't have any clue - or the rest of us - what the hell you're talking about. I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you though.

Originally Posted by *Buzzsaw* (Post 234655)

Salute

It gets old, this continual whining.

Guess what, the game is a simulation, which is scaled to use computers of different power, with their game settings at various levels of detail. With less powerful computers, the requirement is to set distance draw nearer, just like every other sim out there. Unlike FPS's which have artificial 'fog' laid in to obscure landscape at as little as 300 meters distance, this is a flight sim, and requires the distance at which we can see to be extended WAY out, to 50 km or even further. To expect a home computer to be able to draw in detail, every single object at 50 km distance is ridiculous. So there will be some degree of 'popup' even in the most powerful computer. With computers of lesser power, the distance at which we see 'popup' occurring decreases, and it becomes more obvious, since the distance models are larger. The promotional videos we are seeing are from computers of average power.

If you don't want 'popup', then get the most powerful computer you can find. If you don't want to spend the money, then accept the limitations of your computer.

Get your head around that, and get it out of where its stuck, and you'll enjoy this game more.

The good news is, as computers catch up with what this game engine is capable of, 'popup' will become less and less noticeable.