Friday 2010-10-01 Dev. update and Discussion

[Azimech]

I won't mind playing with settings at minimal if I can enjoy full functionality, FM and DM. Someday I'll build a new PC.

At worst it will probably look like IL2.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

That's exactly what I meant! SoW seems so advanced, that it will probably limit how high we can turn the graphics up. My point is, the terrain we've seen looks worse than RoF, so if this is as high as we can turn it up without limiting the amount of planes etc then IMO this will mean that (in the short term) certain aspects of the game may not live up to everyone's expectations.
Of course, this may not be 100% true (as most of the game is still being worked on and will be post-release) so of course the terrain is by no means final. The same goes for the clouds too.

Personally I have no doubt that the SOW terrain will be far superior to the ROF and WOP terrain even though SOW is developing a much larger area. Just the fact that SOW terrain will have elevated riverbanks will make a huge difference to the overall look of the terrrain. We haven't seen a few terrain and cloud features because of bugs yet to be ironed out.

[Freycinet]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

My point is, the terrain we've seen looks worse than RoF, so if this is as high as we can turn it up without limiting the amount of planes etc then IMO this will mean that (in the short term) certain aspects of the game may not live up to everyone's expectations.
Of course, this may not be 100% true (as most of the game is still being worked on and will be post-release) so of course the terrain is by no means final. The same goes for the clouds too.

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to compare WIP images of SoW:BoB with the look of a sim already released. The info from the updates is way too incomplete to base anything on.

And again: how many planes can be in the air at once in RoF compared to SoW:BoB? What are the differences in draw distance? How much processor power is dedicated to AI tactics? Which after effects will be used? We lack so many elements of the equation.

I think it is completely valid to give factual criticism of spelling errors in cockpit instruments, remark on squadron code colours, note a wrong antenna position in a Bf-110, etc.

But I just think it is really difficult to conclude anything on general features such as look of the terrain, of clouds, etc, based on the very limited information we get from a few update screenies posted. We don't know the specs of the machine they are taken on, we don't know of any after effects, we don't know of the build, and more importantly we don't know how it will look in motion and whether a screenie is even representative. We're looking through a soda straw at a landscape scene, so what use is it to opine about it?

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by Freycinet

Most of the above posting was unintelligible to me, but I think I understood the last phrase:



I think there are some basic issues about making a flight sim that you don't understand.

Every single element of the sim takes processor cycles and therefore impacts FPS.

Rendering textures is one thing, FM, DM are other things, and several calculations and processes "under the hood" such as AI impact the fps as well. If we all had Craig supercomputers we could just pile it on, but we don't and we can't.

Cuda

http://www.nvidia.com/object/cuda_home_new.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CUDA

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by Freycinet

I think a couple of you neglect the fact that this sim actually has to be programmed and has to work with an acceptable number of frames per second on a typical high-end computer.

It isn't possible to just overlay a rendering of the cockpit with a rendering of the full view. Both of those need processor cycles to render and you can't just double processor cycles out of the blue.

Same with adding textures to the clouds. You can't just do that endlessly until you have a photographic rendering. Especially if you want the exact same clouds to be visible from all angles by 25 guys flying online. This is very different from an MSFS add-on hanging big flat photos of clouds up around you as you putter along on your own in a Cessna.

+1 Freycinet

Listen to that man, he speaks the truth. That semi transparent cockpit idea is technically very naive.

Same goes for the clouds. People forget too that those clouds-behaviors are probably linked to Oleg's new dynamic weather system. You have to find a way to find different forms that can shape-shift real time and be seen alike by all players, from all sides. Complex "true life" -like clouds would eat your computers alive.

[JVM]

Originally Posted by KOM.Nausicaa

That semi transparent cockpit idea is technically very naive.

Keep in mind not everyone is informed about real time programming constraints as well as you are...I understand you did not want to be pedantic and yet some may feel that way!

Originally Posted by KOM.Nausicaa

Same goes for the clouds. People forget too that those clouds-behaviors are probably linked to Oleg's new dynamic weather system. You have to find a way to find different forms that can shape-shift real time and be seen alike by all players, from all sides. Complex "true life" -like clouds would eat your computers alive.

It is quite true but so far the shape of the clouds we saw are still very much Il2-like and we can only hope at least their shape will be good (aaah the flat bottoms!) but I have no worries there as OM already stated they were many more shapes and that we did not see them yet!
One thing we can be sure will be glorious is the lighting (like in SC one of this update) which together with the very well made close-by "fluffy" effect literally transfigures the cloud aspect such that some did not remark that we still have 2nd gen Il2-type clouds!

It would be very interesting to see if OM is going to integrate dynamic weather at release, and how the cloud positions and statuses (shape, development) will be transmitted over the network...
logically in the same way than other objects like airplanes and their position, speed or damage status except that it can be done at a lot slower rate than for an airplane.
It can be imagined that each cloud type has been developed around a set of parameters (type, basic shape in type, position, orientation, development state...) which allows quasi exact rebuilding on each player machine locally...and Oleg has already proven how good his team was at writing netcode!

JV