Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover

IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-24-2011, 09:43 PM
Strike Strike is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Norway
Posts: 684
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peril View Post
The only thing that I can say is 'you can't please everyone'.

I'm happy with this effect, it works for me as immersive, and yes I know it's not reality. Prop is a matter of personal choice and always has been in every sim, damed if you do, damed if you dont. I'm happy to move on to some other more pressing inaccuracies that don't require a personal persective argument for right and wrong.
Just to find a perfect real-life example in regards to visibility realism.

If you made a computer game showing a classroom with 3 CRT monitors amd the ingame footage showed perfect screens, would you complain about the screens not flickering?



The human eye is the standard if you want to have your gametitle labeled "Simulator", just like they said the tracers were the most accurate rendering ever because they used a real "shutterspeed" effect similar to that of a humans eye to re-create length. Why not do the same for the props?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-25-2011, 12:42 PM
Peril Peril is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 78
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike View Post
Just to find a perfect real-life example in regards to visibility realism.

If you made a computer game showing a classroom with 3 CRT monitors amd the ingame footage showed perfect screens, would you complain about the screens not flickering?



The human eye is the standard if you want to have your gametitle labeled "Simulator", just like they said the tracers were the most accurate rendering ever because they used a real "shutterspeed" effect similar to that of a humans eye to re-create length. Why not do the same for the props?
PS, pritorities gentlemen.

Lets see how you react to the Spit or 109 that flies beyond it's real life performance spec. I'm happy to accept a simple and inconsiquential hollywood 2D prop FX in preferance to the hollywood '''PERFORMANCE FM''' of a Spit or 109 in game. One effcts the end result of an hours battle and years of study, the other is?? Well, more self indulgence

Would you choose something different in priority?? Would you prefer a personal choice of 2D to a reality in FM performance??

Sorry, Luther is in charge now and 'reality' is surly 'TANGIBLE' not just the visable as in the past IL2?

So, what ever the 2d prop FX is defined as is incosiquental to the outcome of the game, the 'end result' is more important to me personally.

Hollywood FX or blur prop, just choose so we can free up time to the more game impacting aspects.

Last edited by Peril; 05-25-2011 at 01:04 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.