Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike
Just to find a perfect real-life example in regards to visibility realism.
If you made a computer game showing a classroom with 3 CRT monitors amd the ingame footage showed perfect screens, would you complain about the screens not flickering?
The human eye is the standard if you want to have your gametitle labeled "Simulator", just like they said the tracers were the most accurate rendering ever because they used a real "shutterspeed" effect similar to that of a humans eye to re-create length. Why not do the same for the props? |
PS, pritorities gentlemen.
Lets see how you react to the Spit or 109 that flies beyond it's real life performance spec. I'm happy to accept a simple and inconsiquential hollywood 2D prop FX in preferance to the hollywood '''PERFORMANCE FM''' of a Spit or 109 in game. One effcts the end result of an hours battle and years of study, the other is?? Well, more self indulgence
Would you choose something different in priority?? Would you prefer a personal choice of 2D to a reality in FM performance??
Sorry, Luther is in charge now and 'reality' is surly 'TANGIBLE' not just the visable as in the past IL2?
So, what ever the 2d prop FX is defined as is incosiquental to the outcome of the game, the 'end result' is more important to me personally.
Hollywood FX or blur prop, just choose so we can free up time to the more game impacting aspects.