SOW and round shapes quallity
 

Hi all

I'm mad about this game and Oleg is still my hero but it is still a whine...

It is still easy to spot the straight lines in engine model outer lines of JU-88 as seen here:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=15932
To see thing like that in modern sim to be released is a bit disapointing,I know the work on models started long time ago, but, to see much more perfect engine shape in FB new planes and expect to have is somehow sad for me - can it/will it be improved for better?

gprr

2 words.... polygon budget.

Well you have to remember that the game engine is effectively already out of date if it was started in 2006/2007, SOW has taken that long to develop that i guess it will look a little old when released as others have already pointed out. however that said we still haven't seen anything in high res or with high detail in DX11 so I would imagine it will look somewhat better than what we are currently seeing, how it will run is another story. :grin:

This is barely noticeable and for the price of less CPU/GPU load = bigger formations and historical battles, I would go even more toward IL2's way in 'modeling straight lines'.

Personally, I couldn't care less if the graphics is "so last year standard" as this game is all about everything else than today's standards which translates to = too much time spent in polishing up models and not enough time spent in getting the gameplay right.

All this can be polished up later on with patches and what not. I am much more interested in seeing some examples how AI in this game functions and more importantly - how are sounds modeled. In other words, do we get "land mowers" or Rolls Royce and Daimler-Benz engines. ;)

With as long as this game has been in development and with such a small user base relative to mainsteam games I dont see how Oleg and Maddox will break even much less make a profit. What are the development costs to date 5 -10 million? How many copies they might sell 200k if there lucky.

I hope it doesnt stop future development wit hthe dwindling market and lack of profits

ROFLOL - you're really so funny lighthearted onesided, Tree. :grin:

You're saying that the game is outdated and as such is not able to compete with more standards in terms of graphics and polygons.
But even your professional pessimism has to give way to logic: Considering a game needs between 3 and 7 years of development, chances are these modern games you compare it with, in fact are very likely to be much older than SoW. :-P

It's not even "so last year". Every game out there still shows polys somewhere. Yes there is tessellation technology that can do some pretty amazing stuff with DX11 but that is still in its infancy and it'll be a few more years before we properly see games take advantage of that.

Storm of War has to balance details on individual objects with overall world detail. Toss in a hundred plane engagement with an extremely advanced physics model (many big budget video games do NOT have the same level) and an advanced AI model that has to operate in a very complex world... Yes I think we can forgive them for having small numbers of polys still showing here and there. As they are.... they are barely noticeable and with some anti-aliasing on the scene you'll barely notice them.

I agree the sooner the better for its release, but 5-10 million, I really doubt that figure.

No, I think you misunderstand me, I am saying that given the time when the development started and how things have moved on then there are always going to be areas that appear to be outdated or that could be improved. For example, If SOW had started development last year then the technology available would be so much greater than 3/4 years previously. Obviously bigger companies develop faster because they have the money/resources to get games out fairly quick, thus never being too far away from what the latest technology has to offer.

16 poly sided circles - that's as good as it gets.

8 poly sided circles - in Il2 Sturmovik

The renders are significantly better.

It's going to take a lot more processing power for 32 to 64 poly circles. LOL

The (mathematical) equation for a circle (or ellipse, depending on point of view) isn't that complex. It might be time to actually do it in maths, rather than fudge it in polys.

I dont think they would have used all the same engine components from the start of coding. I'll bet that the engine is still under development and being changed all the way up to completion. Untill the game/sim is released im sure theres engine tweaking going on. So to say the engine is from '06 is a stretch. Its been under development since then maybe.

yeah maybe your right, but i figured once you start with the basic framework then you are somewhat limited, but im far from an expert in these things.

What approximately is your level of knowledge?

Well i have a general understanding of what a game engine is and does, but i have never worked in that enviroment, my knowledge is in hardware.

Tree, there is no chance that the game engine is outdated. If anything it probably way ahead of its time, and we will have to see more than a few addons before computer systems can handle what the engine is capable of doing.

As above posters already pointed out, these equations are... let me say: superficial. Like in any building or development process, you have a start of a production that starts at some point and you keep reshaping and redesigning things until they all come together and are polished for the end product.
It's not like they say, "Well, we've got a plan, lets start programming it 1:1", starting from line 1 and finishing with [END] 2 weeks before production begins. I can't imagine any process being that static, linear or unable to be changed to include improvements and changes.

And it's not necessarily right, that bigger teams with more resources or money produce games faster. If you think about which games you describe with these words, it's either the mainstream games or those of very renown software-developers. But if you take a closer look, e.g. at Call of Duty, Unreal Tournament, Sims, Flightsimulator, etc. you can see that these are all sequels very much based on previous releases, with minor changes to the engine and mostly cosmetic changes.
Long story short: Just because somebody get's more money doesn't mean he does the job better. If it was that way, we could have spared one or the other global financial crisis. ;)

It could be part of the reason why SoW is taking so long. It's gonna take much longer to program than a 'game' and in that time there are new developments in the industry which then get included and so on.

'Normal' game developers would just release the game after 18 months, then continue to develop the idea and do a sequel (sales dependant). SoW has to be a lot more future proof than your average shooter. So it's probably being constantly updated engine wise, as new tools become available. It must be hard to know when to stop.

^^ exactly.

Hi ya all

Looknig closely at Olegs late FW-190's - Antons and Doras that look better(maybe due to a bit smaller diameter) it seems that game engine is not the limiting reason but improved industry standard vs old aircraft model that didn't get the rework it needed.
The bright side - if FB can do perfect round engines;) and it does, SoW will not try to CTD my PC on the spot(from that aspect only...:):lol:

gprr

The engine may not be the overall limiting factor, but the hardware is. And more recently modeled aircraft have the comfort to be built for much faster machines as the earlier aircraft, thus are allowed to have more polygons and/or higher skin resolutions.

I wonder if there are any games that do this? I have been thinking along these lines too.
I'm also surprised there isn't software that will simply stitch together a 3D model from stills taken at different angles - automatically correcting for perspective and size discrepancies.

It would be nice if it were that easy - but we take a lot for granted with regard to the feature recognition that our eyes and brains do. You really need structured lighting (laser lines) and controlled camera positioning to do it (or a specially painted object!). No doubt it will be done one day, by detailed and small pattern learning and recognition, but I don't think we're near it yet, at the prices game producers could pay.

I can see it now...

WE ARE going to get another hilarious flood of threads that are intended to "scare" Oleg into revealing the "SoW" release date (or web site, or in-game video's, or you name it).

Examples...

1) You better hurry up and release the game...its going to be "out of date" soon.

2) You better hurry up Oleg..."Rise of Flight" is planning a WW2 add-on.

3) ...Micro$oft is adding a damage model and explosions (guns, ect) to the "Simulator X" series (soon, I read it here).

4) "I'm so frustrated with Oleg's lack of interaction with the community that I will never buy the game"

5) Oleg lied about the release date.

6) "This game is vaporware..."

7) Ubisoft is preventing the release of SoW...

8) It doesn't look as good as "Simulator X"...show us screen shots.

LOL !!!!

Now, where did you get Tree's "why the world (especially SOW/OM) is bad"-list from? :-P

I have never quoted anything from that list.

It has been around for years my friend, it's called Vector Graphics.

You can build models using mathematics rather than points in any good 3D modelling package (Maya, 3D Studio Max etc). Methods like NURBS and Bézier Curves use mathematical equations to describe an object rather than points.

The draw back = speed. Rendering and animating an object using these methods taxes a processor quite heavily. While using todays CPU/GPUs you can render a lot of NURB objects and animate them in 3D modelling programs, to translate that into modelling planes, ground vehicles, terrain (not such a big deal), trees, NPCs would be a huge drain on even todays PC's. Don't forget the system/game engine also needs to deal with user input, AI, Physics, Lighting, Networks etc.

Don't despair though, it's not impossible. Quake III had a few animated NURB objects and that was in 1999.

Apparently it's all out of date according to this article.

http://www.atomicmpc.com.au/Feature/...just-that.aspx

...and we will be playing hi def 3D games on our mobile phones all because of the power of Voxels!

Hmmmm! Didn't Comanche V Werewolf use Voxels??????

Cheers!

Nice find, it's peaked my interest :cool:

Very interesting technology. Thanks for posting.

If you say so.

A number of games in the 90ties like Outcast or multiple Nova Logic games already used Voxel graphics. They looked very well compared to contemporary titles but this technology disappeared quickly with the advent of 3D hardware acceleration and generally more powerful PCs. This might be useful for low performance platforms but I doubt it will come back on the PC.

Just to clarfiy one point this is not a voxel graphics SDK. This is software that does use point cloud data but the real development they claim to have made is the algorithm that renders the individual points.

It's an interesting development but far from being the next step in producing CG geometery..Nice find tho tiger i'll be keeping a look out for a trail version of the SDK when and if it's completed. Don't chuck your graphics cards away yet;)

Good advice! Better go a dig my Nvidia 480 back out of the rubbish bin! ;)

I forgot a complaint that you have never used...

"With Oleg focusing on useless details like moving grass, its obvious that Oleg has become lost in his own little world, and Ubi had to pull their support."

OR

"With Oleg focusing on details like moving grass, I can tell that SoW will not be a very good Combat simulator...and the damage model will be under developed."

;)

What? I have never ever mentioned anything about moving grass, what the feck is wrong with you people.

I said you never used them.... ;)

Wow! The concept sure looks promising! Would be very interested to see a sample made by graphics professionals to showcase the true capabilities of Unlimited Detail's algorhytms in HD instead of just technology demos shown in their videos which explain the concept well but don't reveal what is the true potential in their technology.