Rendering capacities of a 2011 game !

[JG14_Jagr]

A good example of the Dev time handicap flight sims have to deal with. Falcon 4.0 was a benchmark in "Simulation" development.. but when it was being developed, the 3D world evolved from software to hardware acceleration, AFTER they had written a siftware 3D engine and spent years working on the game..

You need to aim high and hope by the time you get the horse to market it still has the legs to be relevant for 5+ years..

[GuillermoZS]

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

Just totally impressive :

http://www.cowcotland.com/news/26578...lefield-3.html

Cinematics, textures, color palette, lighting, effects, everything is so amazing !
Just hoping an aviation sim will take this way one day !

Outstanding. Thanks!

[He111]

Excellent tank sim, FPS engines are advancing in leaps and bounds ...

He111.

[White Owl]

I hate lens flares. My eyeball doesn't experience lens flares. Why do game developers insist on adding this ugly effect that doesn't match what my eyeball sees?

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by White Owl

I hate lens flares. My eyeball doesn't experience lens flares. Why do game developers insist on adding this ugly effect that doesn't match what my eyeball sees?

Because TV is standard of reality

Originally Posted by White Owl

I hate lens flares. My eyeball doesn't experience lens flares. Why do game developers insist on adding this ugly effect that doesn't match what my eyeball sees?

I'd see an oculist if I were you

BF3 is surely going to be a milestone. If some of you guys can't see its outstanding features it's because you just like to be a contrary Mary..

Stunning graphics, animations, acting voices and plot, but yes, it's a game, not a sim. I doubt someone would survive all that heap of sounds and explosions for another day of fighting

There's one thing that always annoyed me about FPSs, the little gnome in your rucksack that automatically moves your ammunition to the half emptied magazines so that you can keep on picking up fully loaded ones..

[Skoshi Tiger]

The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.

As the tanks raced toward it I wanted it to get bigger and tower up higher. It didn't.

It didn't even have any internal movement as a real cloud of smoke would have. But I gess thats because they're only modeling a map 10's of kilometres wide rather than 100's of kilometres. All that detail restricts how big the maps are.

Not long ago people were complaing about the inclusion of grass in COD. It would be fantastic to have targets with as much detail as that compound, but would it be worth having it if your bombing from 20,000 feet or racing past at tree top level at 300Kph?


Cheers!

[Baron]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.

As the tanks raced toward it I wanted it to get bigger and tower up higher. It didn't.

It didn't even have any internal movement as a real cloud of smoke would have. But I gess thats because they're only modeling a map 10's of kilometres wide rather than 100's of kilometres. All that detail restricts how big the maps are.

Not long ago people were complaing about the inclusion of grass in COD. It would be fantastic to have targets with as much detail as that compound, but would it be worth having it if your bombing from 20,000 feet or racing past at tree top level at 300Kph?


Cheers!

One of those things people comparing apples and oranges conveniently overlook and wonder why cant we have this.

"They" probably think CoD, BF etc never have to make compromises.

Those giant smokestacks is a perfect example.

As far as i can tell BF forums isnt flooded with people thinking they always know how to do BF better.

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

The thing that initially impressed me (with my flight sim hat on) was the big pall of smoke rising in the distance.

I said wow that would be fantastic rising above a city as your flying your plane towards it (or away). The I realised it was static and didn't change.

That's an excellent example of "picking your battles". FPS's can do this much easier than Flight Sims since you are usually stuck on the ground in a certain area. Flight sims don't have that luxury of being able to hide things in the distance. One thing that I was sort of disappointed with CloD was their lack of "corner cutting" graphics where appropriate instead of cutting features.

Those high density forests we see could have been replaced by "Oleg Trees Version 2.0" and nobody would have noticed and I'm sure it would have helped free up some resources for other stuff.

[KG26_Alpha]

Once again its the "effects" crowd ohhhing and aaaahhhing and wanting Il2 to look the same.

Carefully look at these shots to see the badly rendered parts and the fake back drops.
No water renders no cloud renders active weather etc etc, I really dont see whats to ask of 1c Team here by saying 2011 renders blah blah blah,
look at the solidiers arm it looks worse than a CoD pilots one.

The one thing they have done well is the smoke