Friday 2010-10-15 Dev. update and Discussion

[Sutts]

Couple of questions if I may Oleg....

Will the waves move in the direction of the prevailing wind and will house smoke react to the wind too?

I love the densely populated towns you've shown us but I can't understand how it is possible with today's technology to model London in such a way. There are literally hundreds of thousands of homes spread over a huge area....
"Greater London stretched for a twenty-mile radius from Charing Cross".

Will you be making London smaller or less populated as you move away from the centre? Perhaps the suburbs will be a texture only??? Would be nice to know what we can expect.

Thanks

[swiss]

.

[swiss]

.

[swiss]

Originally Posted by Sutts

Will you be making London smaller or less populated as you move away from the centre? Perhaps the suburbs will be a texture only??? Would be nice to know what we can expect.

Thanks

Do you remember the game "Driver"?
They had a (quite small one) London map too.
And they also wanted to get it right.

They spent 1year and $1.000.000(or was it £?) just to get pictures for the textures of the houses along the road.

I jjust mention this so people understand the dimension of such a task.

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

Good question, I've never heard anything until now about the energy model : has it be improved from Il-2, or said in another way will the energy fighters be able to be used in the sim as they were in real life against turn-and-burn fighters ?

So what you say is, energy fighters can't be used against TnB fighters real-life like in IL2?

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

and that the game would be cinematic.

Ever thought about that your vision of cinematic is not coherent with his?

Strike commander for instance was also cinematic.

[NLS61]

[QUOTE=Tree_UK;190135]the game would be cinematic.QUOTE]

In that case Oleg is both right and ready I still have to see one film that has all the colouring just right.
Further more when I’m flying my glider over Europe the sight (distance) is less than what I see in de screenshots.
But what I see I like a lot I'm somewhat of an illustrator and these pics while being rendered look fantastic it would be hard to get as good an result with an artist rendering.
So, Oleg, my hat of to you.
Niels

Just so that people have an idea what my reference is you can have a look at some of my work http://www.dbag.nl/pagina13.php

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by Oleg Maddox

I think you don't take in account much more details that are in calculation to get just "a bit better" overal picture.

Lets begin from polygon count.

Compare details of tank in Il-2 and in BoB. This was cost several times increment of using power for each unit.
Now compare cars.
Now compare bridges.
Now compare roads
Now compare ships
Now compare planes. The last one is the most important in the fligth sim and here again like it was in Il-2 we have not compromisses for the ratio how it looks.. modelled functions and its damage model and modelled internals with all the listed above things alltogether...
Instead of some using our old models from Il-2 for their own sims with the little bit increment of polygons and size of textures (and repeating the same things that we did oursevlves with no info for details, some time even known for us wrong details(!) we are going with another goal - we try now to recreate planes outside and inside so close looking to real, that never was done before in any sim (even in add-ons for MS FS). And the masterpice is that its already used as a reference in some sources.... yes some time we are making non principal mistakes, but most are eliminated... or some tiome especiall make "mistakes" due to limits of technology
And we don't use some overdone effects that to represent them as used technology and show full illiteracy in some real laws....
And lets say that from the beginning we will offer more than others... its not just 2 or six planes flyable...
Did you count the amount of already shown ground units with its quality? Ah... maybe you don't like our wheels cars? Ok.... then just imagine Kursk Battle and its common polygon and textures count...
We think already now (or really much earlier) about future battles in a series. We think about common development in future of online gameplay together with thrid party....

Continue counting:

new more complex calcualtion for FM not just for several aircraft in air simultaneously
new way more complex AI not just for several aircraft in air simultaneously
new way more complex AI for the ground units.... for the hundres visible at once. The war continues on the ground... massive war if to compare to any other sim... (however I still can say it about Il-2 as well)
New features of the ground units...
Special AI for the AA defence on the ground...

Ok, I'm tired... there is something more to count.... that maybe isn't going in final release but will be as addition in future.

All these things recall increment by exponent of power that we need to use.... Just think about it.

Il-2 inspired at least 3 other sims... with continues... more or less directly based on our Il-2 source code or learning our source code.... Il-2 created some amount of new teams and even new companies...

Should I say that we are thinking about future, about our experience with Il-2 (superb, good and sometime bad....)

Who remember how was developed Il-2 and its series I think understand what I would say now. Hint: we are not making one season game...






You like Il-2. Thats good. You like the amount of things that is done there by us and third party? Thats also good But please take in acount that all these things were developed after the first original Il-2....

Now will be the first new original sim that will be more open for increment....

This message isn't just for you... Its for all who doesn't see the difference now...

We see the difference, don't worry Mr. Oleg ...

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

+++++++++++++++++++++++
wow guys, you really need to get you're monitors calibrated.
Nealy all of furbs photographs need some adjustments.
some even have a purple magenta cast LOL.

Certaily teh Isle of Wight one is all wrong

Reread oleg's comments about colours and perception.
+++++++++++++++++++++++

It's right, some of theses pictures have too vivid colors (but from the right shades of green), but on the other hand, the colors of the screenshots have become, this week, from too much vivid to too much pastel, and still with a wrong palette for the described area.

Btw, any medium capturing photons, either human eyes or a camera sensor, gives by definition its own rendering of reality (just compare for instance the differences between the Canon rendering and the Nikon rendering, or even more impressive the differences between the Bayer technology and the Foveon technology). At the times of the film technology, the rendering between Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome 64 were different too, so were different the renderings between Velvia, Sensia and Provia.

That's to say that absolute veracity of a rendering is by definition a non-sense question (any medium is an aspect of the reality, not the reality), but what can be nevertheless attained is a common accurate probability of what is rendered. As an example, among photographers, it was commonly accepted that Provia gave a more realistic rendering of the reality than Velvia. But was Provia rendering the reality in an absolute exact way ? of course not.

Nice comment. And right comment. I would add diffent compacts from which most of the shots we ussually see looking in exif of the shot

[Sutts]

>>Do you remember the game "Driver"?
>>They had a (quite small one) London map too.
>>And they also wanted to get it right.

>>They spent 1year and $1.000.000(or was it £?) just to get pictures for the >>textures of the houses along the road.

>>I jjust mention this so people understand the dimension of such a task.

I don't remember that one Swiss, I'll have to look it up. I agree it is a huge undertaking, even if the technology is capable of rendering such a large number of buildings.

I hope the city boundaries aren't shrunk since I like historical accuracy. I think I'd rather live with texture suburbs than an inaccurate map.

[Oleg Maddox]

[QUOTE=NLS61;190154]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

the game would be cinematic.QUOTE]

In that case Oleg is both right and ready I still have to see one film that has all the colouring just right.
Further more when I’m flying my glider over Europe the sight (distance) is less than what I see in de screenshots.
But what I see I like a lot I'm somewhat of an illustrator and these pics while being rendered look fantastic it would be hard to get as good an result with an artist rendering.
So, Oleg, my hat of to you.
Niels

Just so that people have an idea what my reference is you can have a look at some of my work http://www.dbag.nl/pagina13.php

Nice site!

[Oleg Maddox]

Originally Posted by Sutts

Couple of questions if I may Oleg....

Will the waves move in the direction of the prevailing wind and will house smoke react to the wind too?

I love the densely populated towns you've shown us but I can't understand how it is possible with today's technology to model London in such a way. There are literally hundreds of thousands of homes spread over a huge area....
"Greater London stretched for a twenty-mile radius from Charing Cross".

Will you be making London smaller or less populated as you move away from the centre? Perhaps the suburbs will be a texture only??? Would be nice to know what we can expect.

Thanks

No textures only.
The size of London is the same as it was in 1940