Quote:
Originally Posted by matsher
Right, onto the real reason I wanted to post. This posting thing is pretty new to me so please excuse any babbling...
I have one development question / wish / request that has always been on my mind, and I have never come across anyone else asking about it... So here it is
Full cockpit vs Wonderview:- In IL-2 there is either Full cockpit or gunsight and sky. Nothing inbetween. It would be so good if there was a third option.
To Oleg- Will/can there be a player defined option to set the in-cockpit view at 65% (or so) opacity, to make it semi-transparent?
So pilots can still have more "sky" but also can have the feeling that they are still flying in a beautifully rendered fighter plane?
The cockpit opacity settings would be amazing to have... No longer will we have to choose between dynamic gameplay (Wonderview) and immersion (In cockpit)... We could have both.
Not too sure what the technical implications of this request is but I had to ask anyway.
Please give me feedback guys, I am interested to know your opinions on this request...
And Oleg, Please answer, I am burning to know...
I'll be satisfied with either a
1. Yes
2. No
or
3. Could happen in a future release.
(RESPONSE TO OLEG'S EARLIER POST) I also want to say that the view options in IL-2 are the best of any sim ever... I have played pretty much every single flight sim that has been made and none compares with IL-2's viewing systems... Coupled with the fact that outside camera views can be used (turned) with the track IR is immensely useful. Please dont change them, but add to them with your new secret viewing options 
I also love the little details, like the pilots and gunners having 'weight' to them. I can see myself flying with the chase camera and throwing the bomber around the skies and seeing how the gunners react to inertia - Seeing if I can shunt the plane hard enough so they will fall out...
I am not sure how many more people will view my post... I think I may have missed the boat a bit cause most of the vast majority of the community have already been and gone, So I will repost this next week and hopefully get loads of responses, I am super interested to know what other may think of this idea. |
Welcome to the forum first of all.You'll find that things get heated some times, but that's because we're all a bunch of over-enthusiastic kids at heart, with a lot of passion for this hobby.
Don't get discouraged if someone shouts you down and don't get dragged down to petty arguments, just keep providing your opinion and feedback in the manner you just did and all is going to be ok. I think you'll do just fine.
As for your request, i would never use something like that but i can recognize that other people would find it useful. As long as time constraints and coding limitations permit, i wouldn't mind one bit if it was included as a feature of this upcoming flight simulator. Like i always say what's bad is forcing a certain set of preferences on everyone because not everyone has the same taste, but extra options are never a bad thing. In that sense, even though i would never use it i can still see the usefulness of it for other people.
Also as Baron said, it would a serve as a useful transition point from no-cockpit view to full cockpit view and anything that helps people move from lower to higher realism settings is useful in my opinion. Just because someone is flying on lower difficulty settings doesn't mean he should be shunned and made fun of. From where i'm standing, the best thing to do would be to guide that person through increasing difficulty settings and showcase the amount of satisfaction that comes with increased challenges, but i know that some steps of this progression tend to have a steep learning curve. Such a feature would be very useful in bridging part of that gap. The only concern, again as Baron has already stated, is how much effect it would have on frame rates because it increases the amount of things to be rendered.
On another note...
Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss
You're wrong.
He's speculative on the release date - he's free to do so.
He doesn't like the terrain. He's free to like whatever, unfortunately he picked a bad formulation.
The whiners here are actually not negative or destructive - they are just disappointed.
Not of Olegs work - but they had unrealistic dreams(i'm exaggerating here) of a Sim, where you can fly over meadows and see the grasshoppers jump away if you only do it low enough.
Now their dream is manifesting and they realize it's not going be like they imagined, hence the don't like this, don't like that.
|
I think this is a pretty accurate post. Tree doesn't have to change his opinions, he's entitled to them. What annoys people is usually the way they are presented. I too am not that happy about the terrain but i would never say it's painted by a child because even though it's not perfect i can still see a lot of things i like, i know next to nothing about whether it's final or not, i don't know the settings used to take the screenshots and i don't know if it's placeholder or in a testing stage.
For me, the most important thing to be gleaned from the Friday updates is not the quality displayed because that changes constantly due to testing. In fact, we've seen a lot of older update shots where things look better than newer ones and vice versa. What happens is that most people take the most recent set of screenshots as a universal quality benchmark that supersedes and "overwrites" all previous updates, while that is most probably not the case. Instead of doing that, people should take the time to look back to previous updates and accumulate all the positive points of what's there if they want to have a more thorough look at what's possible with the new engine. Maybe our PCs can't run it at full tilt just yet and that's why certain features move up and down on the quality scale? With regards to PC resources, it's one thing to show a fully detailed aircraft in the object viewer or a static shot with nothing happening (not even the propeller turning) like we've seen in the past, but a totally different one to show a shot of a full-blown combat sequence where some things will have to be set to lower detail in order to maintain playable frame rates.
So, how can we dissect these updates properly? I'd say it's the pace of progress made that matters and trust me, from my point of view progress is happening rapidly. We just have to be able to accumulate all the positive points from the previous updates as well, instead of assuming that what we see is final each week. Some shots might be taken with aircraft detail at 60% and terrain detail at 80%, others could be taken with aircraft detail at 100% and terrain detail at 40%, because it's too heavy to run on the PC used to take the screenshots. Of course you don't need highly playable FPS just to snap a few stills, but thing about something else...these guys are on a tight schedule and every minute counts. If showing things at full detail on the medium range PC used for optimizing the sim to run on lower spec systems means a 10 minute loading time, then the developers will just drop the graphics sliders in the options to make it load in 2 minutes and snap the pictures using that setting because they have other more important things to do, like finishing the game for example