Friday 2010-08-20 Dev. update and Discussions

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by airmalik

Some screenshots on the http://windwardmark.net/ show frame rates between 100 and 170fps on 2006 hardware. I don't know how that compares to the rendering cost of Oleg's landscape/cloud rendering.

Yeah, but do you crash if you hit them? Solid clouds would be useless.

<edit>

Also, if they weren't generated by Oleg's code, how would the AI know they couldn't see you through them? In IL*2 I turn clouds off because in single player I'm not prepared to be shot through clouds by AI I can't see. That is supposed to be fixed in SoW.

[nearmiss]

It never bothered me to have non-moving clouds. WHen I was moving it wasn't even noticeable.

WHen I was getting ready for take off it wasn't a biggy either.

So, moving clouds vs better FPS with non moving clouds, I'll take the latter.

Just like the leaves rustling on the trees. WHo gives a flip. I recall running the various graphic benchmarks over the years and how rustling leaves killed any high FPS rates.

I'm definitely for clouds, but however Oleg wants to handle clouds I'm OK with it.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

It never bothered me to have non-moving clouds. WHen I was moving it wasn't even noticeable.

WHen I was getting ready for take off it wasn't a biggy either.

So, moving clouds vs better FPS with non moving clouds, I'll take the latter.

Just like the leaves rustling on the trees. WHo gives a flip. I recall running the various graphic benchmarks over the years and how rustling leaves killed any high FPS rates.

I'm definitely for clouds, but however Oleg wants to handle clouds I'm OK with it.

I agree; for me, as long as the clouds look right I'm happy. No offence to the team, but at the moment they don't....

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I agree; for me, as long as the clouds look right I'm happy. No offence to the team, but at the moment they don't....

We know. You mention it almost every week.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

We know. You mention it almost every week.

Nice to see it's been noted then.

[furbs]

And the landscape looks fantastic in that video too

[Insuber]

Well this means that they spent the last 4 years to remove the nice clouds and degradate the landscapes

[kedrednael]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

It never bothered me to have non-moving clouds. WHen I was moving it wasn't even noticeable.

WHen I was getting ready for take off it wasn't a biggy either.

So, moving clouds vs better FPS with non moving clouds, I'll take the latter.

Just like the leaves rustling on the trees. WHo gives a flip. I recall running the various graphic benchmarks over the years and how rustling leaves killed any high FPS rates.

I'm definitely for clouds, but however Oleg wants to handle clouds I'm OK with it.

When I look at clouds in real life I always see them move, and beneath SOW's clouds I saw nice shadows on the land, in real life you can see the shadows move over the land really good it would be nice to have moving clouds with good shadows if you are going to land in a field, than you can see where the wind is comming from. in il2 it bothers me a bit that clouds are still on the excact place above the ground when you land as when you began the mission (40 minutes earlier)
(sorry for the really bad English )

[nearmiss]

If you have to take an FPS hit, because of moving clouds... no thanks to moving clouds

for me it's only important that Olegs final clouds look believable and as realistic as possible and have a realistic effect on plane behaviour.

If the clouds don't stay how they are now, everything's fine to me.