Friday 2009-11-27 Screenshots Update discussion thread

[Eldur]

Originally Posted by Mhondoz

Where I work (not game dev), we have two camps, - the C++ camp and the Java camp... me being in the C++ camp. And I was very surprised to learn that IL-2 uses Java, since we always play the performance card to the Java fans

Java isn't that slow... it was like crap before 1.42 and since 1.5 (= Java 5) it starts being quite good in competition.

Originally Posted by Foo'bar

Clean and tidy desks compared to mine

The guys should clean their keyboards and mice more often
Apparently the women have clean input devices

Originally Posted by Tanner

I just have to shake my head at this point. Will this thing ever get done? Bomb textures? CODING ships? WIP Briefing UI? Welcome to a 2012 release date.

I prefer such details. Better it takes longer than to have a pay-beta release.

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Are these pic's taken from the development of IL2?? Everything looks so dated, including all the pony tails!!

I like pony tails

Originally Posted by mark@1C

And maybe,
you can make a photo album with photos like these,and add it into SOW's bonus disc with the titile Daily life in our studio.

Great idea! Or just put it somewhere in the program, credits screen or something like that

Originally Posted by mark@1C

It touches me!Your words.
You know many of my friends like WOW's character design...
Well,I prefer AION's and LineageII's,and features like these...

I hate those "ears sticking right out of the head" elves. I too can't understand why anybody likes this
I prefer the "Spock style"

Originally Posted by mark@1C

I can not watch a CRT screen as much time as a LCD one(it is said,CRT does more harmful than LCD?) .If I were their logistics manager,at least,I will change all the CRT monitors for LCD,I think....although it is also said CRT does more good in graphic drawing..

Originally Posted by tagTaken2

As long as CRT is running at decent refresh rate, it's not an issue. I'm still using mine.

Originally Posted by Feuerfalke

Using CRTs is hardly a hint for lacking behind modern hardware. Depending on what you are working on, old CRTs can present you a better idea of realistic colors than most common TFTs do.

Originally Posted by RedToo

My 22 inch IIYAMA Vision Master Pro 510 which I bought from eBay for £15.00 sterling is brilliant. Great for gaming and Photoshop work. You can keep your flat screens for the moment.

CRTs are still the better ones. They just give a better picture and don't need to interpolate lower resolutions. Run one at 85-100Hz and it's image is rock solid, no headache. I had a 22" EIZO S2232 worth 500€ for a very short time. But it still couldn't compete against my Vision Master Pro 514, although it was ages better than those cheap TN panel displays which are less than 200€. So I gave it back, still using my 5 year old tube. It's dark compared to flat screens (I often have to increase gamma just to see something on dark photos, screenshots etc), but its colors are awesome, at any viewing angle. Even on the S-PVA, which is probably the best panel type around, colors looked somewhat artificial, just not right. Especially dark colors which are still quite bright because of the backlight. It's like a crappy energy saving lamp compared to a good old light bulb. It just feels wrong.
They still have to get better... but I doubt there will be some "any resolution" flat screens soon, which is the main problem. I run things at 1280x960 mainly, but Il-2 at 1024x768, some older games like Baldur's Gate run at 800x600 etc. I can only get a perfect image in all these with a CRT. I tried to run 1280x960/1024 on that 1650x1050 screen and it was just horrible, although EIZOs have a very good low-res interpolation. At least it didn't stretch the image to 16:10. Not all wide screens have an option for not stretching the image across the whole screen.

[HenFre]

Originally Posted by Rebel Yell

Glad those hangars are a work in progress. The shadows are nice, but the hangars themselves look like something out of Red Baron.

What in the world are you talking about

[Viking]

I’m happy to see so many young talented people working on SOW. Some can make music and other art and this “crew” can fill our computers with a history lesson never possible before. Almost like a crystal ball looking backward into time.

It fills me with envy to see them at work as I myself find it hard to handle a modern cell phone.

God luck to them all!

Viking

PS! Possible to see a He 111 next Friday?

[hiro]

thanks for showing us the workplace . . . and the crew working . . .


Good to see the game's coming along .. . . . and the mission briefing updates too.

[PeterPanPan]

Originally Posted by JVM

Why do you say so? Apart of the overdone weathering, there is almost nothing wrong on this hangar....

JVM

I agree, the hangar looks virtually perfect.

However, there is definitely something not quite right with the grass. Look at it - the blades are ENORMOUS!! Quite the wrong scale. Still, I'm sure this is WIP. If not, I'd love to see the lawnmower that can hack through that stuff

PPanPan

[mark@1C]

Originally Posted by HenFre

What in the world are you talking about

HAHA...
His meaning is that,
the hangar itself looks outmoded,just like a one built in WWI,when the well-known ace Manfred von Richthofen lives.
and fortunately,it's not a Work in Completion one.

[JVM]

Originally Posted by mark@1C

HAHA...
His meaning is that,
the hangar itself looks outmoded,just like a one built in WWI,when the well-known ace Manfred von Richthofen lives.
and fortunately,it's not a Work in Completion one.

May I laugh heartily? Yes? Aaaah, thanks, it always feel so good...

1) The WW1 (fighter) hangars were mostly canvas over wood structure, sometimes wooden constructions, but not often...

2) The hangar shown is a very faithful reproduction of a Bf-110/Ju-87 class german hangar, as still (partially) existing in Rely/Norrent-Fontes airfield in North of France.

3) Its only caveat is the fact that it is weathered too much: this was not the case when this hangar was in use: it was brand new (camouflage paint instead of rust, no "old" interior paint...) and possibly that there was no white paint or whitewash in this class of hangar (usually the brickwork was apparent), but this could be construed as poetic licence...Nobody will come forward to say the opposite with any manner of certainty!

Many german fighter hangars are variations around this theme (and they were really many, many variations: out of my mind, only for France, at least 15/20 types just for concrete/masonry T-based hangars for Bf-110 or lower aircraft classes)...
Add to this fully wooden hangars, U-based hangars, simple revetments...then we could look into the bomber hangar variations then the workshop hangars variations...

These hangars were the real thing!

JVM

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by JVM

May I laugh heartily? Yes? Aaaah, thanks, it always feel so good...

1) The WW1 (fighter) hangars were mostly canvas over wood structure, sometimes wooden constructions, but not often...

2) The hangar shown is a very faithful reproduction of a Bf-110/Ju-87 class german hangar, as still (partially) existing in Rely/Norrent-Fontes airfield in North of France.

3) Its only caveat is the fact that it is weathered too much: this was not the case when this hangar was in use: it was brand new (camouflage paint instead of rust, no "old" interior paint...) and possibly that there was no white paint or whitewash in this class of hangar (usually the brickwork was apparent), but this could be construed as poetic licence...Nobody will come forward to say the opposite with any manner of certainty!

Many german fighter hangars are variations around this theme (and they were really many, many variations: out of my mind, only for France, at least 15/20 types just for concrete/masonry T-based hangars for Bf-110 or lower aircraft classes)...
Add to this fully wooden hangars, U-based hangars, simple revetments...then we could look into the bomber hangar variations then the workshop hangars variations...

These hangars were the real thing!

JVM

This is the second time someone has brought up the issue of something looking too weathered for what is suposed to be new equipment/structures (the first being cockpit interiors). I wouldhave to agree this is a concern I share. Just saying.

[fuzzychickens]

Originally Posted by AdMan

This is the second time someone has brought up the issue of something looking too weathered for what is suposed to be new equipment/structures (the first being cockpit interiors). I wouldhave to agree this is a concern I share. Just saying.

That hangar has clearly been nerfed. I bet the Brits get nice shiny hagars.

I won't stand for this. I will bomb the Brit hangars first chance I get.

[mazex]

Oleg or Luthier... I understand you get annoyed by the embarrassing off-topic discussions about how your office looks etc, but is it possible to get some comments regarding the C# code we've seen on the shots? When did you start using that? As MDX is deprecated and does not support Dx10, are you using XNA (or even SlimDX), or does the render loop run on C++? What are your experiences? After writing some C# test game in Dx9 MDX way back when I gave up after they rewrote the API every release, with obvious lack of management backing. However, they seem to put a lot of effort into XNA now - and it feels like it has more internal backing etc...

I understand if you are not interested in commenting on this, and I suppose you regret releasing that shot where the code is visible Just curious as the rumors about just some percent or two in performance loss compared to C++ on the latest iterations of managed DX sounds really interesting...

/Mazex