Friday 2010-10-01 Dev. update and Discussion

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

I think the terrain looks bad, now try and discuss.

I don't really understand the people who are criticising clouds' shape and colour. All of this week's screenshots look superb to me.
Aren't clouds infinitely variable in colour, shape and size?

The terrain is either not being shown in its full glory or maybe we're just not used to the way it looks.
On trawling through older screenshots, here's one of a Hurri in SoW and one of a Spit in IL2 on the map discussed earlier.
Personally, I much prefer the more realistic 'washed out' colours in SoW, including the camouflage on the Hurri, but I can't put my finger on what it is about the landscape detail that seems amiss.
And before anyone jumps on my back, I don't think there's anything wrong and I'm not complaining, I'm sure the final result will be excellent.
I'm interested in people's opinions of the relative attributes. I only ever fly IL2 and FSX so haven't got anything more recent to compare to. I'm completely ignorant of the technicalities too!
Thanks.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

I don't really understand the people who are criticising clouds' shape and colour. All of this week's screenshots look superb to me.
Aren't clouds infinitely variable in colour, shape and size?
.

Cloud shape is tricky. Generally mostly all clouds have flat bottoms. That's a definate. These clouds look like cotton balls, which really isn't realistic. But they may be WIP, so hopefully they'll be looked at at some point
Also, the clouds will reflect a lot of sunlight too. I have yet to see that effect modelled here. On a nice summer day, the clouds will look a vibrant white, whereas the area the sun doesn't hit will be a lot greyer (maybe like the ones shown, but with more texture)

Zapatista; you should count yourself lucky you haven't been banned. Name-calling like that is just childish. Women call eachother bitches. (Note, this is not a subliminal dig at you). Tree was just posting his own opinion. Your reaction was just a bit OTT. If you feel that way, then a PM will save from cluttering the forum like that.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by furbs

To be fair, Tree might post things that some people disagree with, but he never makes personal attacks on forum members here, which i thought was a banning offence?...though it seems people can post stuff like this...

"you'r a a whiny little bitch Tree, and also a coward"

...and the mods do nothing?

Anyway...back to the topic...

Myself...i agree with Tree...the landscape when compaired to the fantastic and beautifuly made aircraft and ground models, the landscape looks below par and so far to me, and nothing like England.

I made a post on Sim hq here...
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...3100294/2.html



Im hoping as Oleg has said that this will improve, im sure it will.

But as i see it right now the landscape is the weak link(visually anyway).

As others have said when we see DX11 high res videos with AA and AF we can make a better judgment on how the final landscape will look.

+1 eloquently put.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by furbs

, the landscape looks below par and so far to me, and nothing like England..

and anybody that makes a civilized statement or constructive observation should be treated accordingly by other forum participants, but are you really now going to try and pretend that this is the way tree communicates here ?

even in this thread, just scroll back and see exactly what he DOES post, and he does it very deliberately.

[philip.ed]

Zap, no matter how sarcastic his posts are, they aren't really that bad. I mean, a personal attack was a bit over the top in this case. Just ignore those types of posts. If you don't agree with them, then causing an argument won't lead to anywhere as neither of you will concede.

[phlewp]

Originally Posted by AWL_Spinner

Well yes, it looks realistic because it's photographs of real clouds

Although the library is large, you do see the same clouds (in 2D plates!) again and again and...

I would be delighted if 3D volumetric clouds looked that good, but I'd settle for any sort of 3D volumetric cloud that formed part of a dynamic, moving, shifting weather engine (and what we've seen in terms of lighting at least so far looks great, I just want to see more types of weather).

Weather is one of the great pillars of immersion, for me. Some of the most evocative bits of all those great WWII books are weather related, whether it's pilots like Clostermann or Wellum dancing around the clouds in their Spitfires, or Gibson easing in and out of the channel murk and mist in a Beaufighter or Lancaster.

Summers days and fluffy cumulus are all very well, but I want to chase Ju88s through the mist and clag of a blustery autumn dawn with 500ft ceilings

I agree that weather can be a great factor when it comes to immersion. Some of my favorite experiences in IL2 have been flying above the clouds, then diving down into them to engage the enemy, and then suddenly having a panic moment as I realize I'm right in the midst of a formation of bombers. Or flying through the clouds, only to see another plane heading straight for me at the last second.


I too would prefer 3D volumetric clouds that formed part of a dynamic system, to anything 2D. I would rather have 3D volumetric "cotton balls" or amorphous blobs than the finest 2D textures/pictures of clouds.

The rest of us... the silent majority enjoy the Friday updates and the really nice screen shots. Good enough to use as desktop wall paper. Whatever pictures you'd like to show us... show. Most of us appreciate the efforts and the work involved.

Count me amongst the silent (until now that is, what with this being my first comment) majority. While I've been waiting a long time for SoW:BoB, I'd rather have it released when Oleg thinks it's ready, rather than having a bug ridden, poor experience the first time around. I find poorly written, buggy software to be more frustrating than waiting for a proper release.

It seems that Oleg just can't win though. People bitch for news on a release date, and if they don't meet that release date, people bitch. He holds out on giving a release date until he feels confident he can make that release date, and people still bitch. I've seen the same thing in the forums for Luxology's modo software, and other places. I don't think people appreciate just how non-linear creating something like SoW is. It's not a simple progression of A to B to C to D and all the way to Z. Fix or change something in step C, and you might have to go back and tweak stuff in step A.

[philip.ed]

If he released it in two years I wouldn't care. So long as it wasn;t bug ridden, as you said
He has me hooked by the shots he posts each week. I don't think I give this impression though, but I really do feel that way

[Ernst]

Some are so much worried about graphics, clouds, terrains etc. *$#@*&%!@#$ the graphics.

My expectatives are more on SoW engine, damage models, flight models, aircraft management and the simulation features.

Graphics could be changed after in some patches or 3rd party. By the way, i am very happy about the graphics i have seen until now.

I am more curious about the aircrafts managements, but as seen i ll have to wait.

[winny]

Look.. It's not finished.

My thoughts on those who simply criticise.

I think it's rude and unfair to criticise. You don't own this game, you haven't paid any money for this game and yet you go on and on and on about silly cosmetic things without a single thought to the fact that the cosmetics come last in the list of things to do. The devs don't need someone telling them the terrain looks like it was painted by a child. Cheeky bastards.


It's a privelage to see these WIP shots, like oleg says.. he could just as easily create a big flashy movie that bears no relation to the final product. He hasn't, and for that I thank him.

According to Oleg it is finished other than the bugs.