Busy Building whilie I wait
 

I have been spending the past 3 months Building missions for online servers for IL2 COD (And having great fun doing it) as I would now rather wait to play the game in a stutter free environment, then be annoyed by the little things.

What you can do in the mission builder and coding is just fantastic. I just wish my efforts were usable in the games current state.

I have not been posting on here in months because I came to the conclusion of "Why Bother, just wait till the damn patches and Moscow add-on come out"

Not taking a dig at 1C you guys are working hard and total RESPECT! Love what you have done so far and Love what I can do in C#.

Anyway,

I came across a great picture and video 1c released about iL2 Cliffs of Dover. I had to post as I really hope this is what will come to us in next patch. Wishful thinking I know. I fear Dx9.0 graphics & colours will continue to dog this game.

What would make it worth the wait would be DX10 graphics with DX11 effects. Something that would use more than 20% of my GTX580 3g awesomeness.


http://www.pcworld.com/article/22394...h_trailer.html

Remeber this photo in the depth and richness of colour. God I am looking forward to seeing this again....
Look at the Bloom and HDR effects of teh fire and the Reds in the flame. Beautiful!!!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/22394...h_trailer.html

God, I forgot how this game used to look.
Seriously some of the shots in that clip look like an entirely different game.

S!

Well the Frostbite engine will be next year only 64-bit..go figure ;)

Cockpit at 1:22?
 

Edit: Never Mind, it´s the G.50. Just haven´t flown it enough...

But i got that for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJ_U4...feature=relmfu

sigh...

Here is your flames :

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=15585

You can see them in the screenshots in that thread, they was in the game, also you can see in that thread people bashing them as is usual in every update posted here.

I´m not saying that Madoxx tuned down the flames due the complains of these people but I think that what we have now is due to the jugglery done in the graphics effects trying to reach that unreachable realistic picture lost in these photo threads with a lot of pages of opinions, tastes and complains too.

What we have now ... The HDR is almost nonexistent, the bloom is there but is very low, and there a blue haze over all even at low altitude ... I'm not saying that the blue haze don't exist but that after sum all we have poor representation of the Chanel in summer time, the sun light is almost nonexistent for example.

The effects still there but are tuned down, you can see them stimulated out in this thread :

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=32255

Buchon,

I agree, they are there just tuned way down. All the groundwork is done in having it in the engine an I understand why they are tuned down also, because it is best to build the new graphics engine then turn it all up again ( I hope ).

This was not a bash thread, just a look back and remind everyone just how much more we have awaiting us in the next patch and beyond. Now.... Back to scripting.

It is becoming increasingly hard to make an observation/comment on IL2CoD without sounding like being critical of this or that feature. Sadly very little to see here, except soap.

Those flames did not reached even the release date so I don't think that they are tuned down due the work in the graphics engine.

Like you I still hope for a return of those effects and a better lighting with a better use of HDR but I have more hopes in tweak it by my self, using an injector or tweaking the files.

It will not be the first game fixed by my self for my self.

Thanks Wolf, your work on the mission's is greatly appreciated:!:

I got something special coming for ATAG.

Hey I am in New Orleans from June 6-9. Anyone that way?

I wonder if 1C would consider releasing TWO versions of CoD; "CoD Lite" (for the Win XP DX9 systems) and "COD Heavy Duty" (for Vista/Win 7 DX10/11 systems). That way legal obligations to continue support for older Win XP systems would be fulfilled, yet 1C wouldn't be hamstrung in further development of BoM (not to mention further updates of CoD Heavy Duty).

This thought occurred to me yesterday after purchasing Disastersoft's excellent "Wick vs Dundas" add on for CoD. They offer two downloads -- one is designed for slower systems and isn't as heavily populated with objects/aircraft etc to keep framerates acceptable. Purchase of one version entitles you to a download of the other should you need or desire it.

If they don't drop DX 9 support with BoM they're simply stupid.

Way to go with yer statement there. Tell them how it is done.

Have to agree on dropping DX9 support. If they want to use this engine for the next 10 years, they have to be on the top of technology today...

Agree. As I've read elsewhere, 1C has to honour its commitment to support Win XP/DX9 in Cliffs of Dover for existing customers. I don't believe any such commitment was made for BoM. As a layman (I'm no programmer nor sim designer) it would just make sense to have the current CoD playable for DX9 by completing as many fixes as possible for it and declaring it "done". To make both camps happy perhaps license a 3rd party like Disastersoft to include some GOOD campaigns. Meanwhile, work could continue in earnest on the "CoD Heavy Duty/BoM" engine. As customers, we could be confident that if it works well in Cliffs of Dover Heavy Duty, then it's worth spending the bucks for Battle of Moscow. Knowing this, I would be willing to ante up the cash for BoM, as would most others in the CoD/IL2: 1946 community.

Well they are simply stupid if they drop DX9 and implement DX10 instead of DX11 ! Even Microsoft dropped DX10 as it was buggy and unstable.

It really hurts to see what is left from all this more than one year later.....:(

True but Microsoft don't drooped DX10, it just get outdated because the fixes are in DX11.

with the introduction of DX10 Microsoft rebuild his API to be more flexible, in past with every new version you had to buy a video card that supported the new version but now you can use a DX10 card with a DX11 game.

It just happen that you will not benefit of the improvements that the game use through DX11 but you still can play the game.

Also the new versions are not a complete build like was in past but small improvements and more frequents because no new hardware is required.

DX10 was the base build and the post versions are just upsets, like small upgrades, so you can use the DX10 api and use some calls to DX11.

An example between DX10 and DX11 can be the how the shadows are done, in DX10 they are hardware demanding but in DX11 this disadvantage was fixed and you can use high quality shadows without lose much performance.

Another fix done in DX11 was better AA performance and better HDR precision.

So to sum all ... having the game now written in DX10 is not a disadvantage, they just should go straight for the necessary DX11 calls to improve the game.

no need, there are plenty of big titles that support both 9c and 11 without the need for 2 versions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...Released_games

So does the current retail version of Cliffs of Dover. However, the recent alpha/beta version does not support DX9c. Why is that?

I would guess that they have not modified the video settings in the game to reflect those with 9 vs those with 11, in other words certain settings should be only available to 9 and 11 users respectively.

I´ll re sum and show it easy as is possible :

-Having the game written in DX9 only and then have to jump to DX10/11 = Bad thing.

-Having the game written in DX10 only and then have to jump to DX11 = Not bad thing because DX11 is a upper set of DX10 so you just should update some strings in the render pipeline.

-Having the game written in DX9 and DX10 and then have to jump to DX11 = Not a bad thing if you don't have the game textures and performance balanced to show good IQ and performance in DX9.

If you have the game balanced to show good Image Quality and performance in DX9 then you are holding back the DX10/11 possibilities.

You´ll have to adjust the textures to the new DX10/11 lighting and project a better use of performance in the map details = more work.

Thanks, Buchon, that was exactly the answer I was looking for. To simply say there are games out there that do it all (DX9c, 10, and 11) tells me absolutely nothing that we don't know already. Clearly there was a reason why the CoD beta did not support DX9c -- even a simple layman like me could figure that out.:rolleyes:

Which gets me back to my original question: if DX9c is holding back development but must be supported for legal reasons -- why not two versions of CoD?

Crysis 2, Updated to support DirectX 11 on June 27, 2011, also release High-Res Texture Pack

9c is the not the issue here.....

The reason behind that DX9 was not in the Alpha patch is that the DX9 code was not ready for the deep changes in the graphics engine, don't get confused by Graphics engine and DX, the graphics engine handle the Graphics and the DX library handle how the graphics are shown.

When I said that you should adjust the textures is because the HDR lighting affects the textures, in different levels in DX10 than in DX9, so you should balance the saturation of the textures colors to compensate the use of HDR or they will look washed.

CLoD dont use HDR in DX9 but it is enabled in DX10 at very low levels, why is it very low ?

The problem is that you cant balance the colors of the ground textures in DX10 to compensate the use of high HDR levels because those same textures are used in DX9 without HDR (in this case), it will look bad in DX9 if they do that.

Did you even understand what I said there ?

Don't mind, now everyone understand why they released new textures with the DX11 patch.

Some of the differences can be seen in the feature comparison table on this page:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx

Note things like "Shader Model", "Max Texture Dimension" and "Max Primitive Count".

These are a few of the reasons why full DX11 support is very hard to integrate with DX9 support.

@Buchon - thanks for the detailed explanation. I admit some of it falls outside my immediate comprehension, but it gives me an idea of the challenges faced by the devs when they try to produce a product that looks good on all PC operating systems.

@ Colander - great link; got it bookmarked. Dovetails well with Buchon's posts on the complexities involved with working with the different graphic capabilities of our PC systems.

ok ....explain why all those other titles are able to have 9c-11 support and not Clod?

here is a comparison of 9c vs 11 from 3/19/2010
http://www.overclock.net/t/690645/me...tionn-and-adof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc2hhef-Nzo

First things first...
Thanks Wolf and everyone who spends hours and hours to improve our gaming experience. That goes for squads, serveradmins, missionmakers and so forth.
It's much appreciated and without you this game would be dead in the water.

And to continue offtopic...
I doubt anyone could sue 1C and win if they dropped DirectX 9 altogether... It won't be the first software(nor game) to do it and it won't be the last. With no reports of anyone ever winning a lawsuit over it.
As examples there are EVE-Online which has upped it's minimum shader requirements at least twice since it's inception and Team Fortress 2 which dropped Dx8 support aswell.
Probably other software that i don't know about did the same.
Neither had an expansion which you had to buy, so no new minimum requirements at the time of purchase. They just posted a few months in advance that shader 2.0 or Dx8 would be dropped at such and such date and that was it.
Ofcourse some people missed the announcement and had to scramble after patchday to keep on playing..but those were a massive minority and never read threats about lawsuits..let alone any being filed ,making it to court and won.
Yes a certain part of this community will shout murder and act like it's worse than WWIII breaking out, but fgs don't let a minority drag down the whole game.

Only reason I can think of to keep dx9 would be if a large part of Russian customers still runs very old hardware, but seeing as even they seem to buy expensive computers, joysticks, pedals ,TrackIR,... I'm not convinced that is the case.