Rendering capacities of a 2011 game !

[Space Communist]

It's not that a simulation cannot look like this theoretically, but nobody making simulations has the budget, and even if they did, nobody has the hardware to run graphics like that at the same time as a complex simulation.

We can dream of the future though. Just wait for the mind/machine interface :p

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Space Communist

nobody has the hardware to run graphics like that at the same time as a complex simulation.

Why not?

[Specht]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Why not?

Complex physics are very hardware intensive, so are complex graphics, one has to find a balance between both in order to not rape consumer's computers.

Being a fan of Battlefield 1942, I can't wait for this game, I love simulations and realism, but I can live with games like this, it's a shame, however, that the game will not be moddable, I just hope they release a DLC or a pack with WWII theater.

Then again, modding could easily make it closer to a simulation, like Project Reality did to Battlefield 2.

[Space Communist]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Why not?

Well I suppose an argument could be made that as long as your gpu is up to the task then everything else can fall to your cpu. It could be that I am simply too used to thinking in terms of what has been true of gaming in the past.

But even so I think it would be a monumental task. Like in that video for instance, the game area appears to be quite large but I am willing to bet almost anything that a huge amount of what you see is not actually part of the game's world. Those mountains are almost certainly the edge of it, and I doubt they are navigable.

Take that smoke in the distant background in this video. Definitely amazing looking. However there is no way in hell that is some kind of volumetric fog. That is an animation that was rendered pretty much by hand and will play out the same way every single time. You can never actually get close to it or go into it, so it never really has to be simulated. It only takes a few resources from the GPU.

Once you provide that you might actually be able to interact with it though, suddenly you can't just use a graphical shortcut. you must now compute both its physical properties, and how those properties will translate into a visual. Herein lies the real problem: translating an effect that is simulated and variable into a visual is an order of magnitude more complex than simply using a stock visual that comes with a stock effect.

Anyway I will concede that it may be possible to get a simulation to look like this and still run on a top of the line machine. However it is pretty much going to involve having a budget that allows for things like "ok you are the shrub guy. Your entire job is to ensure that shrubbery looks good at any distance, from 3 inches to 10 km, with seamless transition in between, and that this shrubbery also interacts with all possible environmental objects and effects. Oh and make sure it is perfectly optimized as well."

[Space Communist]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

That's an excellent example of "picking your battles". FPS's can do this much easier than Flight Sims since you are usually stuck on the ground in a certain area. Flight sims don't have that luxury of being able to hide things in the distance. One thing that I was sort of disappointed with CloD was their lack of "corner cutting" graphics where appropriate instead of cutting features.

Those high density forests we see could have been replaced by "Oleg Trees Version 2.0" and nobody would have noticed and I'm sure it would have helped free up some resources for other stuff.

Heh I should have read the thread more closely, you pretty much summed it up much more concisely than I did.

I agree that CloD probably could have stood to take a few more tricks from the FPS's

[Lololopoulos]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Propellers do not look like that in real life. How many times must we go over this? It is a function of the shutter speed of the camera.

But I forgot, most of you lot don't want realism, you want your idea of realism, which unfortunately is pretty far from the real thing.

In real life, does it look more like what it is now in the game? I doubt it. I've seen propellers in real life. From the side, it's more like a thin, translucent eclipse, not like the visible turning propeller blades as we have in game right now.
I'm mostly criticizing the look of propellers from the side view and the awkward transition from other angles to the side view.

[ChrisDNT]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Why not?

I don't buy this argument anymore.

In the past ten years, our PC's and our graphic cards have seen their computing power greatly expanded.

If a flight sim is probably more computer-intensive than a FPS, a 2011 flight sim must nevertheless show more than a "last decade style" sim !

[Tiger27]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Try this:



By the way, combat flight sims are "first person shooters", but inside a plane. In BF3 you can ride vehicles...

No they are not, couldn't be further from the truth, you do understand that most FPS have very little balistics modelled, they dont model any air over the vehicles, honestly you should go and wash your mouth out, probably one of the silliest comments I have heard in a while.

[Tiger27]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Hate to say it - I told you so (I posted a thread about bf3 last year but it got deleted by mods when fanboys picked a fight). Remember BF3 will have air to air combat in it. Also not the tank video but the pre arranged demonstration has console footage mixed in with pc footage (they challenged reviewers to find the console scenes vs the pc ones).

Bet BF3 runs only 10x smoother than Clod, its also DX11

I flew choppers in BF2BC, but it wasnt quite the same as flying one in Black Shark, I love these FPS games, but why are we comparing it with CoD, they are just different games simple as that.

Originally Posted by Lololopoulos

In real life, does it look more like what it is now in the game? I doubt it. I've seen propellers in real life. From the side, it's more like a thin, translucent eclipse, not like the visible turning propeller blades as we have in game right now.
I'm mostly criticizing the look of propellers from the side view and the awkward transition from other angles to the side view.

Trust me man,the side view is spot on,if my experience with warbirds is still worth something.. A Cessna prop might look like it's gleaming cos it's mostly gloss paint white props,but big black semi-opaque props look just like that. I agree about the transaction though,but then again I suppose it depends on graphic settings? Best prop rendition so far is RoF.