SoW: Battle for Moscow and other Igromir news

[150GCT_Veltro]

Originally Posted by Richie

We're looking at all of these videos 2nd hand threw camcorders some of witch aren't that high in quality.

Think of an external of this quality.

Yes, totally agree.

We have to look at the video taken directly from the game to better evaluate colors ecc. ecc.. Dover looks great from Moscow, i would like a video from the game too as for the Emil cockpit that is insane to look at, really great.

[Richie]

I took that post down you must have caught it just in time Veltro...good for you


Some of those web cams were fine and some were terrible but I don't think you can judge too much by then either than the basic game it's self if you get my drift.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Stranzki

please delete, misreaded it

Sorry, must be language issues at your end....

Swiss; I completely agree. Can the amount of young people (and families) playing the sim at the event be useful evidence for the games success? I mean it surely looks promising, and the gameplay seemed great, especially considering the amount of time some people were playing the game for.
I do, however, agree that the best feedback will come from people who are simmers themselves there. If only we could read Russian! translating the russian forum gives some feedback on the event, but as Stranki said before me, it's easy to 'misreaded' it

[winny]

I agree that the phone camera pics are horrid colour wise.

Here's the same pic in B + W

[Stranzki]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

Sorry, must be language issues at your end....

Swiss; I completely agree. Can the amount of young people (and families) playing the sim at the event be useful evidence for the games success? I mean it surely looks promising, and the gameplay seemed great, especially considering the amount of time some people were playing the game for.
I do, however, agree that the best feedback will come from people who are simmers themselves there. If only we could read Russian! translating the russian forum gives some feedback on the event, but as Stranki said before me, it's easy to 'misreaded' it

I've wrote a response to your original posting, but missed your smiley in the hurry. Therefore your posting had another touch and my answer was plainly false.
I wanted the mods to delete my posting, not yours

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Sven

then bombing a runway would be usefull..

Hecke are you reading too?


Ever dropped a bomb right at the spawnplace and tried to spawn again the same place?
Il2 has already craters which FU your gear, ergo you dont need high polygon 3d craters for this feature.

And it would be a funny feature for online gameplay(which the only thing I care about):
Bomb both strips - mission over.

Then again I think i've heard the sow landing gear will have suspension - so maybe we still can takeoff wherever we want.


edit: Hecke, you want the deep craters so planes can almost disappear in them, only the tail sticking out?
ok.
fun: 9pts
immersion: 3pts

[Skoshi Tiger]

Originally Posted by addman

You do know this picture has been taken with probably a smartphone or a digital camera so there's no way you can judge colours/saturation or any other aspects of the image quality from that picture. Of course the spitfire isn't as bright as it seems in that pic. We also don't know what settings the monitor has and anybody with any LCD/LED monitor knows there are tons of settings to tweak the image with.

Your response suggest that I am commenting on the image being produced by SOW. I am not!

I am commenting on the image being produced by the camera, which too me, looks over exposed. It is not a fault with the simulator it's the recording process.

When I've converted the image to greyscale without any other alterations it looks like this.


It still looks over exposed and grainy. As said many times before, dinky cameras in mobile devices are not very good at representing this sort of information.

When I adjust the shadows and highlights I end up with


We start to get detail in the white areas and more depth in the dark. To me this says that the image captured the camera was over exposed.



Winny, did you do any other processing to your image?

Cheers!

[addman]

Simple misunderstanding then and I agree with the camera shot, it's over exposed so no judgment on the games visual quality can be made

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Stranzki

I've wrote a response to your original posting, but missed your smiley in the hurry. Therefore your posting had another touch and my answer was plainly false.
I wanted the mods to delete my posting, not yours

Sorry mate I hope you'll find it in your hear to one-day forgive me

[Ploughman]

Originally Posted by julien673

Come on...

And Oleg you see this house in that coner... the roof was pink not red.. mdr

How much time did you think its take to create London in the exact same think...... and the other city.... and all this think. Try to be close as possible.. but hey... you wanna wait for 20 yrs

Seriously...

Seriously, it's a poor quality shot of a work in progress. That's why I didn't directly refer to the image rather pointed out what the Isle of Dogs looks like. We've already seen models of dockyard cranes, warehouses, rail heads.

Details? I've already seen sub-urban semis terraced in inner city urbations but haven't commented on them because I couldn't care less.

As to details. The Isle of Dogs is the docklands. It's one of the most significant targets for the Luftwaffe's raids on London during the BoB. It is acres and acres of warehouses, docks, wharves, rail heads, factories and workers' housing. It's the heart of a maritime empire, it's not a little detail.