Friday 2010-08-06 Dev. update and Discussions

[tourmaline]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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.

That's because the trees are casting a shadow, hence they appear to be floating in space...Especially from that height.

[tourmaline]

Originally Posted by NSU

we talk about last LOD3 size 1000 to 10000m
not LOD1 the 3D Tree

i think he will make 3 LODs for the Tree


close LOD1 ca. 100 polygones
medium LOD2 ca. 20 polygones
far LOD3 ca. 4 polygones

for LOD3 i think Storm of War have no more than 4 poly`s, the point is the Texture, it must look like a Big Tree.

sorry for my bad english

They are using speedtrees for the tree and grass animations, if i recall correctly.

http://www.speedtree.com/

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by tourmaline

That's because the trees are casting a shadow, hence they appear to be floating in space...Especially from that height.

Absolutely, yes. It's just that on one screen it looks believable and realistic, while viewed on another it looked really off and bad.

May have hit on a reason for some of the disagreements going on around here - ie people viewing the same shots on different quality monitors

[kendo65]

Originally Posted by kendo65

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

Quoting myself here , but wanted to make an overlooked point: the people on this forum may not be representative of the average punter who will buy SOW - in fact who will HAVE to buy SOW if it is to be a commercial success.

For many of us enthusiasts - those who actually know (or care about ) the difference between the E3 and and E4 sub-variants of the 109, or what kind of propellors the Hurricane used, or the precise layout of the instrument panel in a Spitfire Mk 1 - there will be many more (hopefully !) buyers who don't know and don't care (at least initially). They may buy the game because of a general interest in the Battle Of Britain; they may not know or care that it is Part 1 in the new, state of the art flight-sim series.

For these people what will matter is the BOB gameplay experience and graphical quality.

Maybe we overlook the importance of the standalone aspect of this game? I, and I'm sure most here, are firmly fixed on SOW as being PART 1 in the great new flight-sim scheme - we are already casting our eyes excitedly to the North Africa / Korea follow-ups and thinking about the improvements that Oleg will add as it progresses.

An overlooked question? - will SOW:BOB cut it as a standalone gaming experience? Will it recreate the Battle of Britain experience in an exciting, fun way or will it be mainly of interest to diehard, technical afficionados?

[furbs]

Landscape looking better, but and i know its WIP but the colours still look nothing like england to me...too bright, too much yellow and vivid green... to me when you look into the distance in england the colours seem to blur into dark green, brown and purple...here the look all wrong....too light and bright....esp at the horizon.

people have been saying just this about the colours for ages and we keep getting told its WIP dont worry...but ive not seen one pic yet of a english coloured landscape...just hope they will get the colours spot on for release.

planes, cockpits and other details looking fantastic as normal

[Tbag]

Are those also speedtree?





Look like the perfect flight-sim trees if you ask me!

I may be wrong but I dont think they are using these Trees anymore, these were the good tress.

[imaca]

My 2c worth:
The foreground trees in pic 1 look strange because the position of the shadow relative to the tree gives the impression of a flat plane of branches/leaves suspended with a large gap to the ground. (most) Real trees have greenery with a larger vertical aspect than horizontal .
Also the trees at near to medium distance appear to have a dark outline. This makes them look hand outlined and coloured in, giving ,I think, the impression some have of "cartoonishness".
I guess at these distances each tree is only a few pixels, so the complexity of speedtree offers little advantage over a simple 2d shape, for, you have to think, quite a big performance hit.

Originally Posted by NSU

the Trees look like to hard, make a little transparens so look like softer and better in the landscape.

Exactly.


The trees in the second picture look strange NOT because of their height, but because the size of the leaves (look close to (1/2m2) makes them look scaled up relative to everything else.

Originally Posted by dali

if anyone of you is going to notice the exact height of the trees during the flight or even fight, I buy him a pint.

I probably wouldn't notice the height, but definitely would notice the enormous leaves.

Things looked a whole lot better here:

Sorry for what seems like a terribly negative post.
Cockpit interiors look fantastic. Everything looks fantastic.
Except the trees.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

What few things i do know about commanding a crew has to do with the B-17. Correct me if i'm wrong but most of the multi-crewed planes like bombers had separate channels for voice communication and i can't imagine a 1940s era bomber without at least an intercomm.

Communication is not the problem - the different sight is.

The gunner would have to describe the situation to the captain.
Now Imagine 4+ gunners simultaneously ...

I hope the captain was female, talk of multitasking.


I'm still referring to the fire at will thing...

[MikkOwl]

Things have a pretty surface but seem to be made out of empty paper..1. 'Floating trees' in the foreground explained.

• The sun is shining.
• Buildings cast shadows on other buildings.
• Trees do not fully cast shadows. They seem to cast something but seems to be the center trunk + something thin.

Ground objects lacking shadows in a sunny environment gives impression that they are not standing anchored on the ground. EDIT: Can see in the other screens posted above that they fully cast shadows, so certainly it is just a graphic setting.

2. The cockpit in the Heinkel and the Beufighter(?).

The reflections on the fancy instrument dials appear to be missing so it is probably a lower graphical setting.


3. Crew animated.

Exciting! Makes a large difference for me in the appeal for flying non-fighter planes. Physics and animations is what is missing more than anything else in 3D games since a very long time ago. Hope to see this sort of effect on the own body rendered in first person view at some point.