|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik The famous combat flight simulator. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
03-04-2011, 04:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
To be honnest, I am not really impressed... "Wings of pray" had better visuals of ground.
Generally, I was hoping for some last minute surprise in graphics of ground and clouds. This is year 2011, so these visuals are OK... but not impressive. I've been following screenshots updates for many, many months... I honestly can't see what is so new in these 2 videos - that we haven't seen so far in update screens ? This is brand new project... and should look much better than moded "Il-2 1946" but, except dynamic lightning and cockpit graphics, it is not the case. Simulation feeling will be great, Oleg is master, number 1 in that field... but I was expecting better, more realistic clouds and ground visuals... Just my calm analyses... nothing more - nothing less... ( no need to start the third wolrd war by fan-boys... or forum "inquisition" cry: to ban the member who dared to analyse the presentation ) Last edited by Sasha; 03-04-2011 at 04:51 PM. 
|
|
#2
03-04-2011, 04:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
No worries. Everybody has his own preferences.
Oleg goes for realism. Birds of Prey for fast lighthearted action with cinematic contrasts and effects. As long as you don't claim BoP to look more realistic, IMHO that's just fine. However, I prefer realism. That's why I prefer IL2:CoD over BoP any time.
|
|
#3
03-04-2011, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#4
03-04-2011, 06:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Please no comparisons to Wings of Prey, it's TOTALLY NOT a proper comparison. They are on different ends of the spectrum in terms of what type of game they are. THey share the WWII theater .. that's the only similarity they have. The terrain colours have been debated to death in here, some like it, some don't. Mods and graphic settings will be able to change the hue and saturation so keep that in mind. This is also a new engine, version 1.0...IL-2 has gone through 9 years of post development that has brought it to where it is today. The same thing will happen with this engine, but it will take time to polish the most intricate details. Growing with the times is easier than releasing a game nobody can play because their systems are just too slow. I respect your opinion of course, but yes it is 2011 and no high fidelity flight simulation has ever produced photo real graphics in a combat environment. DCS, Rise of Flight and Cliffs of Dover are all arguably inferior graphics wise to HAWKS, Apache Air Assault and Wings of Prey. <--- all of which are also console games. If it could be done, it would be done...bottom line.
|
|
#5
03-04-2011, 06:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#6
03-04-2011, 07:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
They're simple textures layered over an area a fraction the size of what we see in most modern sims. Which is the basis for my argument, not to compare games like Wings of Prey to simulations that are 1000x more complex. Rise of Flight has had some growing pains on release, but has blossomed into a spectacular sim. I would expect the same for Cliffs of Dover SHOULD it be slightly underwhelming upon release. In the end the developers are dealing with the computer science aspect. We sit here and judge on graphics (paint job) before we even look/see what's under the hood. When you sit in the virtual cockpit with your tracker IR blasting IR at your face, hotas in hand, speakers UP and about 5 and a half hours of free time (god I wish) that's the only time you can even start to comment on the graphics and how they immerse with gameplay. Obviously from a comp sci perspective, why wouldn't the team want to make the most graphically lush environment they could? It's obvious the system requirements would hinder that. If you can't see the BIGGER picture, it's very hard to take the graphical complaints seriously. Last edited by Defender; 03-04-2011 at 07:31 PM.
|
|
#7
03-04-2011, 07:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
As for the pilot falling, I dont see why there is not a rag doll effect or something, its not the posistion thats weird, its that he stays completely still (so no animation) while going upside down and all over the place... Thats what makes it look a bit strange (once he is stable then it looks ok). Another thing I do have to say is some of the ground textures look alittle low res, I wonder what settings the game is on during the video? Also noticed in some parts the AA was again low/absent. I dont want to belittle the devs, the video was nice - but its not exactly shock and awe or amazing in any way for 2011 (maybe 2 years ago it would of been). I just want to see some in action gameplay as so far the leaked footage has been the best I have seen imo. Hopefully it will end in a pleasent surprise on release.
|
|
#8
03-06-2011, 09:00 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
don't know if anyone has seen this, so in case you've missed it... stumbled upon it today so I thought I'd share:
Last edited by McHilt; 03-06-2011 at 09:10 AM.
|
|
#9
03-06-2011, 09:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It's old.
And it's already reposted in another thread.
|
|
#10
03-06-2011, 09:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Nice video, I think I saw it before on some Russian site.
However, no wonder the game is called Cliffs of Dover; the game is a slide-show over land! I know WoP has a postage-stamp map, but I can play the WoP demo at full settings on my ageing core-2 duo (2.00ghz) and ATI 4650 without any fps loss, and similarly I can fly the 352nd CCM in Il-2 (everything set to max) with tons of objects and trees on the map, and no noitceable FPS drop like that. I understand CoD has a lot more in it than either of those sims, but if the game runs like that on most systems, I can see many people shelving it for a year until it's properly playable. I hope I'm wrong.
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
