Friday 2010-07-02 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by pupaxx

Hi Oleg, well done again!
My previous post in occasion of 2010 06 26 dev update was....

Thanks for your hard work Oleg,
I'm sure the final product will repay you for your efforts.
my question is: in the realization of SOW have you ever considered to implement and facilitate your job with 3rd party 3d engine? I post this link related to a 3d planetary engine found on the net, it seem interesting
http://outerra.com/
what is your opinion?.
Cheers

I would like to know your comment.
Thank you

Usually engine means everything from terrain to the features of AI.
But this one offers just several intersting things of hundreds that should be really done for a combat flight sim.

So... if we want to get real combat sim with a long life on the market, comparable with life of Il-2 or even longer, we need to make own engine. Engine here means not only the feature to render ligth and 3D objects, but everything... and everything for using of third party with special tools.
Really... we have way more complex system.

Another thing - it is possible to render the great looking and superb detailed earth... then nothing have with the AI, FM, physics of explosions and car movement (I don't speak about a lot of details we model inside the aircraft.... - that is system that should work all at once.

The graphics render and its presentation in a game is just a small part of the whole sim engine.

Hope you understand my explanation.


For more simple sample: there is very good Unreal engine... but it is completely impossible to use for other types of the games without very seriuos limits. And many things there simply is impossible to implement or change as we may need to have for the fligth sim.


Another sample. it is possible to use third party 3d render engine, hovewer probabaly just for fully arcade games.

finally for understanding of my explanation: the other code part than the 3D representation of terrain and sky is way more complex in our sim comparing to that part....


BTW: Really nice engine shown by a link.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by KOM.Nausicaa

Philip.Ed:

I am almost sure most of the shots are done in tele objective. (maybe Oleg can comment on this)
Using tele objective (or other extreme lenses) distorts your 3D world to a a point like you wouldn't believe. In the movies I worked on, some sets build in 3D were one day approved, the other day rejected -- the exact same sets! Just because they were filmed one day with this lens, one day with the other. The client thought we had build something new or so--but not at all in reality. This is very hard to understand for someone that has no experience in virtual building -- and filming it for the public.
The smoke is about right in my opinion. It's heavy, but ok. It looks massive in some shots because of image composition and lens. You should wait to judge it until you see it in game.

repeatable patterns: except a solution for this when the first quantum computer comes out

Or haven't simply knowledge of photograpy and different focus leight of lenses.

In our sim the tele position is more close to 50 mm focus leght (normal) like it is for human eye.

the wider angle means wide angle lenses with all their ditortions... (less then in real lenses, but anyway presented due to perspective distortions)

Sample of wide anle is here. I don't post such shots that to do not recall some voices that the plane is incorrect in proportions. Howere we need to have wider than in a life angles due to limits of monitors view.

Sample of wide angle view in a sim.

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Zorin

Hi Oleg,

I'm glad you took my Bf110 corrections seriously. As far as I can tell the loop antenna and antenna racks are now positioned correctly. I can't see the pitot tube, so can't comment on that. Yet there are still the large trim tabs(=wrong) of the 1941 E series present.

step by step.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by KOM.Nausicaa

Philip.Ed:

I am almost sure most of the shots are done in tele objective. (maybe Oleg can comment on this)
Using tele objective (or other extreme lenses) distorts your 3D world to a a point like you wouldn't believe. In the movies I worked on, some sets build in 3D were one day approved, the other day rejected -- the exact same sets! Just because they were filmed one day with this lens, one day with the other. The client thought we had build something new or so--but not at all in reality. This is very hard to understand for someone that has no experience in virtual building -- and filming it for the public.
The smoke is about right in my opinion. It's heavy, but ok. It looks massive in some shots because of image composition and lens. You should wait to judge it until you see it in game.

repeatable patterns: except a solution for this when the first quantum computer comes out

That could make sense, yes, but I am going by what I have seen in videos from the period, and I am of the opinion that it is best to go by what evidence you have at your disposal than what may be right.
For example, despite the great damage model in Il-2, usually there are a few types of smoke seen which means that each type of smoke used for each type of aircraft damage has to be the most common type seen for that particular damage. So in some cases, the smoke might be massive, but in other cases it might be a lot smaller, and if the latter happens more than the former than this should be the type used instead.
But I don't know how the damage-model works in this sense for SoW, so I'll wait for future updates for now.
Also, I am only going by a few videos so more evidence will need to be shown to give a better judgement

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

In our sim the tele position is more close to 50 mm focus leght (normal) like it is for human eye.

Very interesting -- I was not able to see this. Thanks for the insight

[Dano]

Looking awesome as usual Oleg

[Matt255]

Great update as usual. I like the shots of the Ju88 aswella s the close-up of the 109. Would love a 109 in-cockpit video for one of the next updates.

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

Howere we need to have wider than in a life angles due to limits of monitors view.

So this means that, just like in IL2, people will be able (and will have to) change FoV to different settings, like when they are aiming at something or spotting for enemy planes?

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Matt255

Great update as usual. I like the shots of the Ju88 aswella s the close-up of the 109. Would love a 109 in-cockpit video for one of the next updates.


So this means that, just like in IL2, people will be able (and will have to) change FoV to different settings, like when they are aiming at something or spotting for enemy planes?

On some diferent manner, but comparable.

[ChrisDNT]

The render engine looks to have an almost photorealistic potential, great !

Especially on both of these views :

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...5&d=1278064852

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/attachm...9&d=1278064731


Just hoping that the colors of the landscape will look like the England countryside and that a good overcast sky will be available.

[IceFire]

No questions.. just encouraging comments. Those screen shots look AMAZING!