Friday update and discussions 2011-02-25

[BadAim]

[QUOTE=Peffi;228663]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”? bla bla bla
QUOTE]

Question for Skoshi Tiger: How many times has Oleg said that "the color is dependent on the lighting conditions" ? Do you know how many times or are you just in a mood to criticize people that voice their honest opinion because you are whiner yourself?

EXCELLENT! Now that's more like it, a beautiful example of a compound whine: whiner complaining about whiner complaining about whiners.

[FG28_Kodiak]

First, the comparing of a Emil with a Gustav is worthless.

Second other Pictures of Emils:

[B25Mitch]

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

[Meusli]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Hurray, somebody who knows something. Thanks for the explanation as even I understand that.

[McHilt]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



.............

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

That explains it very clearly! thx a lot for your effort!
@BadAim: you're right about the stabiliser... hence the position indicator: - 0 + I could've known....

[Skarphol]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Thanks for your explenation Mitch! I found that gap in the shadow peculiar. As this gap has not been seen on other pictures, I guess the problem occures when the light hit the joining of those to surfaces at very special angles.

Skarphol

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Originally Posted by Skarphol

Thanks for your explenation Mitch! I found that gap in the shadow peculiar. As this gap has not been seen on other pictures, I guess the problem occures when the light hit the joining of those to surfaces at very special angles.

Skarphol

It has shown up in quite a few of the earlier pictures. I've noticed it quite a lot. It shows where the aerial mast joins the fuselage (look at the big/close 109 screenshot in this weeks update), and on exhaust covers for example. You can see it on an opened spitfire door, and under the Hurricane tail too.
It looks like they (understandably) try to avoid taking screenshots from certain angles because of it.



Aerial and 'floating' engine intakes:



Exhaust cover and tail:

[major_setback]

I'd say that the pilot here is the right size. I can't imagine he could be much bigger:



It looks an improvement on this:

[Sutts]

It does look better but could just be the angle of the shot. He sure looks like he's just had a broom shoved up his a$$ in the second shot.

I'd love to see some oxy masks too. Goggles down without a mask was not a common sight from all the evidence I've seen.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Sutts

It does look better but could just be the angle of the shot. He sure looks like he's just had a broom shoved up his a$$ in the second shot.

I'd love to see some oxy masks too. Goggles down without a mask was not a common sight from all the evidence I've seen.

+1
also, few wore these mark IV goggles