Friday 2010-08-06 Dev. update and Discussions

[Foo'bar]

Originally Posted by daHeld

As can be seen in these aerial photographs, you normally can't see tree trunks from the air. It's rather the exception than the rule.
So for me, it looks certainly good enough. Did you actually realize how far back to the horizon we are able to see the trees in the sim?

One can see that the trees are way too high.

[swiss]

Luthier, in case you have a desert map soemwhere - please use that one for the next screenshots....

But then agian, maybe the color of the sand is not like the real desert, or maybe the grain of sand is the wrong size.

[lbuchele]

It's incredible to see that a lot of trees in England actually have 2 or 3 floor height.
I was wondering why the trees was so high in the second pic...
But I still think that they might be a little shorter,what do you think?

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by lbuchele

But I still think that they might be a little shorter,what do you think?

They're fine.

[Vylsain]

It's so easy to caricature... Almost everybody agrees that the height is fine. We all see outside, some trees 3 or 4 floors high. The proof is that screens posted by Tbag are fine for all despite trees are tall too.

But look at the differences :





The difference is not the height but the complexity. Everybody knows that some trees are 20m high but they do not look like little shrubs with tripled volume and do not have leafs with the size of an Opel Blitz...

By the way, the trees in the second screen are really good looking.

I think people are focusing on the scenery because that's what we see the first on screens and also because most of us know that Oleg and his team will provide us an amazing sim on every other sides...
The few problems IL2 had where related to sceney like "flashy green" and scale problems.

Personnaly, I focus my attention on trees and land textures because everything else is almost perfect to me. It should be taken as a compliment... If the most demanding simmers are complaining about trees, it means that Oleg is on the right way, isn't it ?

[koivis]

Originally Posted by Vylsain

Personnaly, I focus my attention on trees and land textures because everything else is almost perfect to me. It should be taken as a compliment... If the most demanding simmers are complaining about trees, it means that Oleg is on the right way, isn't it ?

You are 100% right. It is indeed a fact that people always find something to complain about. Now, there is even a real reason to whine about, because the trees shown in the latest screenshots are not really that good, to put it nicely.

I find it interesting that some shots look almost like Il-2 (yes I know!) while some just are jaw-droppingly beautiful... Maybe they're just teasing us?

Or maybe they found some 4-year old shots and posted those just for kicks? Or maybe the game is already finished and they're just postponing the release closer to Xmas? Or maybe there is no game and it's all just a hoax?

[Targ]

I am sorry but the brass knockers on the buildings are way off.

Forget the tree's, the knockers on those doors is just simply unforgivable. Do you really

expect me to make that leap of faith with crap knockers like that?

This is just another nail in the coffin of SoW...

This is supposed to be a S-I-MU-L-A-T-I-O-N!

Yet you guys cannot even get the knockers correct.

Sad, sad day.

[tourmaline]

Originally Posted by Vylsain

It's so easy to caricature... Almost everybody agrees that the height is fine. We all see outside, some trees 3 or 4 floors high. The proof is that screens posted by Tbag are fine for all despite trees are tall too.

But look at the differences :

The difference is not the height but the complexity. Everybody knows that some trees are 20m high but they do not look like little shrubs with tripled volume and do not have leafs with the size of an Opel Blitz...

By the way, the trees in the second screen are really good looking.

I think people are focusing on the scenery because that's what we see the first on screens and also because most of us know that Oleg and his team will provide us an amazing sim on every other sides...
The few problems IL2 had where related to sceney like "flashy green" and scale problems.

Personnaly, I focus my attention on trees and land textures because everything else is almost perfect to me. It should be taken as a compliment... If the most demanding simmers are complaining about trees, it means that Oleg is on the right way, isn't it ?

There might be a reason why these trees look a bit simpler...First of all, there's way much more trees and buildings in the SOW screen, this means a lot more stress for cpu and videocard!

How detailed do you want it to be?! Do you want to fly at least 30-60fps or do you want to watch your plane moving every second or so...

Sacrifices have to be made for playabilty, for a flightsim trees are just a bonus. And this looks more then good enough.

I cannot imagine that everyone wants to buy a new super computer to be able to run just a flightsim. Please return to the real world.

Planes' look and feel and behavier are the most important thing for a flightsim...

If you guys are just bickering about some trees, then this might be the evidence that everything else is allready on a high level...

[Xilon_x]

all peoples in this forum have age 20-28-30-35-60 age old and have experience from FSX F16 FALCON X-PLANE LOCK ON ecc.ec.
now we whait SoW simulator.
and we want SUPER SIMULATOR OF WW2 not arcade game ONE STANDARD SIMULATION IN ALL WORLD.
i loock OPS operation flash point and ARMA2 is good but very good product is a STANDART in all WORLD.
FSX is a stadart in all world.
BUT NOW WE WANT A NEW GENERATION OF SIMULATOR NEW TECNOLOGY NEW PHYSIC AND GOOD REAL SIMULATION not a simple game.

[Ekar]

Originally Posted by tourmaline

There might be a reason why these trees look a bit simpler...First of all, there's way much more trees and buildings in the SOW screen, this means a lot more stress for cpu and videocard!

As far as I'm aware they are both screens from SOW. As to scene complexity, I can't speak for SOW, but other modern games have been able to do great things with object instancing whereby you can have a great many of the same or similar object and suffer minimal impact on system resources. Maybe this has to do with certain features in later versions of Direct X, or maybe it's just good programming on the developer side. I'm no programmer, I just know it's possible.

How detailed do you want it to be?! Do you want to fly at least 30-60fps or do you want to watch your plane moving every second or so...

Scalable to current, future, and past hardware seems best. There's no reason not to work towards accomodating GPU/CPU power that may be a year or two away from now, especially if SOW is not going to be released for awhile yet. The latest DX11 cards from Nvidia and ATI are super quick, and some of the budget cards in these new lineups are very reasonably priced.

Sacrifices have to be made for playabilty, for a flightsim trees are just a bonus. And this looks more then good enough.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'd imagine for a 2010/2011 flight sim, trees would be de rigueur by now. For a flight sim that's aiming to be a revolution and new standard setter for perhaps years to come, well...

I cannot imagine that everyone wants to buy a new super computer to be able to run just a flightsim. Please return to the real world.

It seems plenty of people following the development of SOW are preparing to upgrade their systems when the time is right. It's certainly been mentioned time and time again by people throughout these threads. Though I'm sure any computer up to fairly modern standards will be able to handle SOW- the devs have indicated they are taking precautions here.

Planes' look and feel and behavier are the most important thing for a flightsim...

Yup.

If you guys are just bickering about some trees, then this might be the evidence that everything else is allready on a high level...

There really isn't much else to talk about in static shots. There's just simply an absence of evidence (distinct from any evidence of absence )