"Wings" Of Prey (PC). Watchout Oleg!

[fuzzychickens]

Yes, you are having your game served to you like small child when you buy games like MW2 and WOP.

It's a business model. The point is to kill off a traditional game community by designing a rigid game structure. If you don't let a game community make user created content or decide how they want to experience the game, then you can sell more of them a sequel in a year's time. This is how console games have been designed and now PC games are becoming ports of console games with the same dish of shallow crap for kids being served.

Clearly Oleg has decided to move in the opposite direction of this. SOW will be more "moddable" than IL2.

[Igo kyu]

I played MSCFS, MSCFS2, and briefly MSCFS3, and before those Falcon, F16CP and Domark's MiG29 on the ST, then Fighting Falcon F16 and MiG Alley on the PC. I've played IL*2 from Sturmovik, and probably will for years to come. I'm a flight sim fan, not a fanboy of any particular brand.

I wait until it's released, and often longer than that, before making up my mind about any sim. I do expect to like SoW, and would like it released as soon as possible, but would rather it is finished than released early. I may try WoP, if the price is right for me.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by fuzzychickens

Yes, you are having your game served to you like small child when you buy games like MW2 and WOP.

It's a business model. The point is to kill off a traditional game community by designing a rigid game structure. If you don't let a game community make user created content or decide how they want to experience the game, then you can sell more of them a sequel in a year's time. This is how console games have been designed and now PC games are becoming ports of console games with the same dish of shallow crap for kids being served.

Clearly Oleg has decided to move in the opposite direction of this. SOW will be more "moddable" than IL2.

or maybe they just want to make a decent flight sim that is accessible to the average gamer?

you do realize this will draw more people into the genre right? hard to say that's killing anything off

[Romanator21]

SoW does not look entirely realistic either. But, this part of the engine is not even close to being finished, and we don't have a serious map made of England yet. I am giving the team the benefit of the doubt that it will be looking good when done. I am not saying that SoW is perfectly realistic, although the quality of the aircraft is a pretty good indication of where it will go.

WoP on the other hand is already a Beta. I think we can expect it to look pretty much as you see it except for bugs.

See this video: http://www.jaggyroadfilms.com/showFi...rld%20of%20FTX

This looks, in my opinion, very realistic. I expect to see this out of an airplane window. But, it doesn't have as much eye candy, or is visually exciting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPDEZ...eature=related

This on the other hand looks like a movie where the director went crazy with filters, and the sky is hazier than the air over LA. Yes, it is beautiful, and it has nice detail, and it looks "real". But only if "real" to you is through a filter.

The game will be fun, and it will rope a lot of people into the flight sim department. This game took a lot of work to make, I imagine, and in no way do I intend to bash the makers. I may even buy it. But, the argument that these images represent reality, I do not agree with.

And again, SoW scenery is not the best, but I see it has potential to look very realistic.

[Feuerfalke]

SoW has no scenery, yet - just testmaps.

Comparing apples and green oranges.

[13th Hsqn Protos]

If you were half in the loop as you claim to be you would know that is not true ......

[Feuerfalke]

I claim nothing. It was posted repeatedly, that the current maps seen in the screenshots are merely placeholders and testmaps for various settings and the original SoW map will not be shown until the engine enters beta. The houses and ground-objects are placeholders, as well as the textures.

Infact the shot from the map you posted earlier even came with the comment, that the odd-looking hill was just testing the map-builder.

Nothing miraculous about it - just look it up.


@ AdMan:

Who said atmospheric haze is unrealistic?
It was just said that a dark brown haze on a sunny day at high noon with 1/8 clouding is unrealistic and yes, indeed it is.

[Romanator21]

You did nothing to disprove my point Adman. Yes, there is haze in real life. Duh!
And there are situations where there is thick haze, fog, etc which makes visibility very bad. Even on a clear day there is always an effect on distant objects! This is not what I was objecting!

But please compare what you just posted to a supposedly "clear" day in WoP. Again, WoP looks nice, but has exaggerated the effect to a point where it is not believable.

[AdMan]

It's funny that people use atmospheric haze to say something in UNrealistic when the exact opposite is true. Simulating atmospheric haze is the first thing a landscape painter learns how to do, not because it "looks cool" but because thats the scientific reality of our atmosphere. It took years for gaming to come far enough along to be able to compute realistic atmospheres and now people complain about it? Is it over exaggerated? Not by much if any, it's better over exaggerate than under exaggerate as a general principle. Every game, even a simulator needs art direction, 3d modeling is art, texturing is art, anything that graphically attempts to simulate reality is art, this includes BoB. What was Luthier's response to the over weathering comments? - "New things simply don't look good in games" - meaning they made a artistic creative choice to represent something in a way that is more visually appealing to the eye.

here is haze, as it appears in reality - and it isn't over Los Angeles, it has more to do with how much water vapor is in the air and if that vapor has dust particles to attach to so it can form clouds.

[RomBinDaHouse]

Originally Posted by AdMan

It's funny that people use atmospheric haze to say something in UNrealistic...

+1

1) About BoP (almost=WoP). Tons of visual references was used for everything in environment.

2) there's some technical restrictions in real-time 3D engine that causes trade-offs. In one hand - maximum visiblity of horizon, in other - farclip plane, for example, that needs fog for soft seamless line of horizon. But everything checked for possiblity of existence in real world by references. Many other things goes like that.

3) Fundamental visual idea of BoP(=>Wop) art direction was HQ tasty cinematographic widescreen picture, not "everyday" CNN news picture. PostProcess (color toning, vignette, some other things), shiny surfaces, etc. makes it. Because it is console title in a raw of other "trendy-next-gen-picture" titles.

WoP environments differs slightly from BoP, maybe some sceneries becomes too exaggerated. But dev.team polishing wop everyday, maybe it will be fixed i hope so. Some effects are already optional (you can turn-off vignette, for example; but in full screen it not bother as on screenshots placed on white background actually).

ps. sorry for english