Friday update and discussions 2011-02-25

[Skarphol]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Thanks for your explenation Mitch! I found that gap in the shadow peculiar. As this gap has not been seen on other pictures, I guess the problem occures when the light hit the joining of those to surfaces at very special angles.

Skarphol

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Originally Posted by Skarphol

Thanks for your explenation Mitch! I found that gap in the shadow peculiar. As this gap has not been seen on other pictures, I guess the problem occures when the light hit the joining of those to surfaces at very special angles.

Skarphol

It has shown up in quite a few of the earlier pictures. I've noticed it quite a lot. It shows where the aerial mast joins the fuselage (look at the big/close 109 screenshot in this weeks update), and on exhaust covers for example. You can see it on an opened spitfire door, and under the Hurricane tail too.
It looks like they (understandably) try to avoid taking screenshots from certain angles because of it.



Aerial and 'floating' engine intakes:



Exhaust cover and tail:

[major_setback]

I'd say that the pilot here is the right size. I can't imagine he could be much bigger:



It looks an improvement on this:

[Sutts]

It does look better but could just be the angle of the shot. He sure looks like he's just had a broom shoved up his a$$ in the second shot.

I'd love to see some oxy masks too. Goggles down without a mask was not a common sight from all the evidence I've seen.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by Sutts

It does look better but could just be the angle of the shot. He sure looks like he's just had a broom shoved up his a$$ in the second shot.

I'd love to see some oxy masks too. Goggles down without a mask was not a common sight from all the evidence I've seen.

+1
also, few wore these mark IV goggles

[Biggs]

many pilots flew without goggles because they weren't the greatest quality back then and would distort the pilots vision. this effect was compounded when adding to the regular amount of distortion that the cockpit glass already created.

they figured it was best to have the least amount of material between the pilots eye and the sky.

I think Bob Doe wrote/said something to that effect at one point.

[stigkk]

The author of "The last enemy" Richard Hillary, always flew without goggles because it made him feel claustrophobic. Much to his regret later as he suffered severe burns to his face.

[Blakduk]

Regarding the pictures of the stabiliser shadows on the 109's- they were not fixed completely to the tail section. They could be tilted to trim the aircraft- as i understand it they were not adjustable in-flight, and could only be set by groundcrew. I think the shadow gap is overdone but it is not apparent on the models of the other planes (such as the Spits and Hurricanes).
The problem of floating elements on smaller parts such as the exhaust covers and aerial masts is definitely there, as illustrated by the excellent examples posted by Major_setback, but the 109 stabilisers shadow gaps is partly due to the design of the real aircraft and therefore the true-to-life computer model.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Caveman

Surprised noone has said more about the water in shot 3... The oil smoke is fantastic, but the water is what appears to be the best in ANY sim. Better than all the addons for FSX... Incredible.

It looks like water!

We're so busy looking at the aircraft that we miss a lot of stuff i guess. And yes, it does look like a photo of choppy seas


Another little detail well spotted:

Originally Posted by major_setback

I'm happy to see markings with weathering today!

I think that until this is experienced in motion and for some considerable length of time to allow us to digest it (either in a high-res, promotional video going over the features in some depth or on our own PCs) we won't be able to really grasp how good it looks...there's just so much detail to overload on



On the issue of pilot size

Originally Posted by Trooper117

I've just looked at about a dozen 109 photos of early 109 E3's, the dimensions don't look far out at all.. then compare pictures of a later version with the newer heavier framed cockpit, say the E4 and later variants, and then yes, you may be forgiven for thinking they have it wrong.. I don't think it's such a 'glaring' error at all.

I think you're on to something here. There's much less framing and even lack of armor glass in most of those E3s, which gives a more spacious look to it. The real life photos of early 109Es posted by others seem to give a similar impression.

To be perfectly honest with you all, i can't really decide. Sometimes and from certain angles they look a tad small, but in other screenshots they look just perfect. All in all, i'm not too worried about it and i'd rather have a bit of a smaller pilot that moves and might possibly be used to signal other players when flying online, rather than have a 100% anatomically correct one and have to choose between him clipping through the fuselage or having him as a static figure.


Finally, i'd also like to second the request for some details on multi-engined/multi-crewed aircraft. If the crew AI is good enough to make the aircraft not feel "empty" and they can be interacted with and be useful via certain commands, i'm sure i'll be spending a lot of time in heavier aircraft.

All in all, excellent progress as usual and i can't wait to fly this.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Blakduk

Regarding the pictures of the stabiliser shadows on the 109's- they were not fixed completely to the tail section. They could be tilted to trim the aircraft- as i understand it they were not adjustable in-flight, and could only be set by groundcrew. I think the shadow gap is overdone but it is not apparent on the models of the other planes (such as the Spits and Hurricanes).
The problem of floating elements on smaller parts such as the exhaust covers and aerial masts is definitely there, as illustrated by the excellent examples posted by Major_setback, but the 109 stabilisers shadow gaps is partly due to the design of the real aircraft and therefore the true-to-life computer model.

The tilting stabilizer was actually the trim control, adjustable from the cockpit. The tabs for the rudder and aileron were adjustable on the ground only iirc with pliers. I've been trying to find a picture that shows any kind of actual gap, but I've had no luck, it must've been pretty tight.