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

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik

IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-06-2010, 09:48 AM
Hecke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Good shots Luthier.

Could you answer me these questions?


1. Aren't the trees in picture 2 maybe a bit too high?

2. Will we have like dynamic ground so that bombs will make deep craters or is it again just texture overlay?


Thx, Hecke

Last edited by Hecke; 08-06-2010 at 09:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-06-2010, 09:53 AM
kendo65 kendo65 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hecke View Post
Good shots Luthier.

Could you answer me these questions?

1. Aren't the trees in picture 1 maybe a bit too high?
Yeah, see what you mean. Hadn't noticed that - using crappy work PC.

WIP..?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-06-2010, 09:59 AM
luthier luthier is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 284
Default

The trees are all a standard size, inside cities or outside. We can either have tall trees in cities, or tiny regulated runts in the woods. If we had to have different types of trees and check where they grow, we'd lose way too much FPS.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-06-2010, 10:04 AM
kendo65 kendo65 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier View Post
The trees are all a standard size, inside cities or outside. We can either have tall trees in cities, or tiny regulated runts in the woods. If we had to have different types of trees and check where they grow, we'd lose way too much FPS.
What struck me Luthier was in the lower part of Pic 1 the trees look a little like they're 'floating' in the air. No trunks visible (as is probably correct given perspective) but they do look a little 'high' and 'floating' above the landscape?

Edit: seems that Hecke and myself are talking about different things here. I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect visible on the foreground trees in Pic 1. Pic 2 trees look fine to me

Last edited by kendo65; 08-06-2010 at 10:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-06-2010, 10:33 AM
luthier luthier is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kendo65 View Post
What struck me Luthier was in the lower part of Pic 1 the trees look a little like they're 'floating' in the air. No trunks visible (as is probably correct given perspective) but they do look a little 'high' and 'floating' above the landscape?

Edit: seems that Hecke and myself are talking about different things here. I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect visible on the foreground trees in Pic 1. Pic 2 trees look fine to me
It's called LODs At that distance our airplanes lose their gear legs and canopy framework and flaps, buildings lose their chimneys, tanks lose their gun barrels, and so why should the trees keep their trunks?

We still live in the age where computers have limited resources. Some day PCs will become powerful enough to render a fully modeled tree with every twig and every leaf all the way to the horizon, and that'll be a very happy day for everyone in game development, but the way things are, if we were to splatter a bunch of tree trunks everywhere around the player, you'd be looking at an extremely pretty picture that runs at about 1 frame per minute.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-06-2010, 10:39 AM
Hecke
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier View Post
It's called LODs At that distance our airplanes lose their gear legs and canopy framework and flaps, buildings lose their chimneys, tanks lose their gun barrels, and so why should the trees keep their trunks?

We still live in the age where computers have limited resources. Some day PCs will become powerful enough to render a fully modeled tree with every twig and every leaf all the way to the horizon, and that'll be a very happy day for everyone in game development, but the way things are, if we were to splatter a bunch of tree trunks everywhere around the player, you'd be looking at an extremely pretty picture that runs at about 1 frame per minute.
That's understandable, yes, but will you improve it, because now it looks like green oil film swimming on the ground surface. Unfortunately, the trees don't seem to be any voluminous from that altitude.

Last edited by Hecke; 08-06-2010 at 10:45 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-06-2010, 11:27 AM
zauii zauii is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sweden
Posts: 298
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hecke View Post
That's understandable, yes, but will you improve it, because now it looks like green oil film swimming on the ground surface. Unfortunately, the trees don't seem to be any voluminous from that altitude.

Seriously give it a rest man.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-06-2010, 12:43 PM
kendo65 kendo65 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by luthier View Post
It's called LODs At that distance our airplanes lose their gear legs and canopy framework and flaps, buildings lose their chimneys, tanks lose their gun barrels, and so why should the trees keep their trunks?

We still live in the age where computers have limited resources. Some day PCs will become powerful enough to render a fully modeled tree with every twig and every leaf all the way to the horizon, and that'll be a very happy day for everyone in game development, but the way things are, if we were to splatter a bunch of tree trunks everywhere around the player, you'd be looking at an extremely pretty picture that runs at about 1 frame per minute.
I probably didn't express myself well enough. I wasn't criticising the absence of tree trunks - completely understand the situation re resources, etc.

I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect on the trees in the foreground in Pic 1 - viewed on my work pc they look slightly as if they're suspended in mid-air. As no-one else seems to have commented on it , it may be down to viewing it on low-spec machine / screen.

I'll check it later on my LCD at home.

Impressed with the pics though
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-06-2010, 12:45 PM
easytarget3 easytarget3 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Prague,Czech Republic
Posts: 91
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kendo65 View Post
I probably didn't express myself well enough. I wasn't criticising the absence of tree trunks - completely understand the situation re resources, etc.

I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect on the trees in the foreground in Pic 1 - viewed on my work pc they look slightly as if they're suspended in mid-air. As no-one else seems to have commented on it , it may be down to viewing it on low-spec machine / screen.

I'll check it later on my LCD at home.

Impressed with the pics though
no you are right it looks like thr tree trunks are missing but its still WIP so maybe with all the effects on it will look fine!

cheers
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-06-2010, 08:11 PM
kendo65 kendo65 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 908
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kendo65 View Post
I was referring to an apparent 'floating' effect on the trees in the foreground in Pic 1 - viewed on my work pc they look slightly as if they're suspended in mid-air. As no-one else seems to have commented on it , it may be down to viewing it on low-spec machine / screen.

I'll check it later on my LCD at home.
For the record, I've checked out the pics on my home PC monitor (Samsung 2232BW) and the trees in Pic 1 look fine.

Of course, the rest of you already knew that

Strange, viewed on 15" bog standard monitor earlier, the foreground trees at bottom of Pic 1 really did look like they were floating 'magic carpet'-like 50 feet above the ground

Very excited about the work being done with crew animations. Can't wait to see the videos.

Have to respectfully disagree with those who voice the opinion that graphics don't matter too much, or matter less than FM, DM, AI, etc, etc. For me graphics are just as important in creating a realistic and believable experience.

Il2 already does a pretty good job in FM, DM, AI and is being improved again in 4.10 (and beyond). Where it falls down (by 2010 standards) is graphics.

Also - at the risk of reigniting a recent discussion/argument - SOW will not be fulfilling the same function as a military-grade training simulator, where the trainee's appreciation of the environment's graphical quality is not an important issue. Let the die-hards scoff, but I and many others 'play' flight-sims and computer games primarily for enjoyment and relaxation and only secondarily as a 'serious' learning tool, though that is a great aspect of the experience as well.

To release a technically superb but graphically compromised game/sim in 2010 is commercial suicide and a mistake that the developers will not make.

Last edited by kendo65; 08-06-2010 at 08:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 03:30 AM.


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