Civilians?

[Igo kyu]

Originally Posted by artjunky

I also remember when Flight Sims didn't have ANY ground objects

I don't.

There were ground objects in F16 Combat Pilot on the Atari ST, there were ground objects in Falcon, there were ground objects in MiG 29, there were ground objects in Snow Strike. There may have been ground objects in Anco's Jump Jet, but it was so rubbish I didn't bother flying it long enough to find them.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by artjunky

Yes, and let me continue your idea...'for things that I like.'

I totally understand that. As long as they focus on "your" areas of interest...(reports on how many bullet holes are in your plane, etc, etc...) that's where the resources should go? In another thread you said something to the affect that "This game is supposed to be about flying..." Well, that's an opinion but it's not held by everyone.

Had Oleg not thought it important, he wouldn't have bothered building all those beautiful factories and houses that the arbiters insisted would be cpu hogs.

Why should I 'let you continue'? Since you clearly can't read my mind I don't see why I should.

If you really don't think "this game is supposed to be about flying" then what do you think it is about?

[artjunky]

Yes, of course it's about "Flying." People differ in what they find interesting about this sim. Some geek out about the climb and turn rate of one plane vs another to others its about "experience" of flying. It's about feeling like you're immersed in a real world when you look out the cockpit at the objects below and feeling like you're somewhat in this world they have created.

It's bewildering to me to think that people are ACTUALLY arguing not to have more complexity to a Sim.

How dare people offer suggestions...

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by artjunky

I also think humans would help put things into better scale. When flying over cities, at times, the buildings seem somewhat out of scale and to have people near them, it might make it more natural.

agreed ! the good news is:

1) oleg seems to have listened/been-aware of the large amount of "feedback" about the problem with incorrect proportional sizes in the il2 series (buildings / vehicles / humans / pilots / objects). i think some were "out" by around 30% iirc. for BoB the rules are much stricter, and all indications are that proportions/sizes will now be correct (i have seen screenshots of foo'bar the german modeler using human figures next to the buildings he created for BoB, but cant see them on his website anymore)

2) most of us really should only fly 95% of the time in il2/BoB with the correct FoV setting for our individual monitor sizes, so it is set to the exact field of view the monitor occupies. that way you would get the correct/realistic "sensation of speed" when flying at low altitude over the scenery. with many people flying in a more zoomed view (to compensate for the severe "distant object" visibility problem in il2), this completely distorts the sense of distance to objects, and our aircraft speed in flight. by all indications this will be resolved for BoB

Originally Posted by artjunky

It would also be interesting to be able to build columns of refugees leaving battle areas.

the more i think about this, i cant really figure why modeling groups of "individuals" moving together would be such a problem (to keep it simple, lets say an infantry group of soldiers on a road). surely modern game engines for fps/driving/flying sims dont constantly draw/display each individual object no matter how close/far it is to the player/viewer.
for ex for the group of 50 soldiers marching i would have expected a game engine to use
- in close up, display/draw/calculate each individual soldiers skeletal movements
- at medium distance: have the soldiers together displayed as a single object for which only one position/movement is calculated (similar to what is done for an aircraft)
- at far distances, use the old "dot" method

iirc in the old 486 cpu days, one gfx card (powerVR) had as its great strength that it only used gpu power to draw/display what the player could physically realistically see from the position he was in on the "game map", it wouldnt waste gpu power on drawing objects and scenery "over the horizon" or out of view. most other cards at the time (3dfx voodoo etc) would actually draw the whole game world iirc, yet the player was only in one part of the map. and that is over 10 yrs ago.

surely in 2010 most modern gfx cards do something similar to that powerVR card now, so having 30 or 50 soldiers marching on a road should not be a waste of cpu/gpu when you are flying an aircraft miles away. the game engine should imho only keep track of the overall game plan and mathematical position of variables inside the game world, and objects would be grouped into a single variable once out of view.

as one poster mentioned in another recent thread here, one core of the cpu could deal with the campaign engine, another core draws the game world we see etc...


-

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Whah I am actually REALLY saying is that there are finite resources. Nothing more, nothing less. Is this so difficult to understand?

for somebody so new here to the BoB project you dont seem to know much about what detailed information oleg has provided on all of this, his plans are (thankfully) much greater then the depressed narrow world you are trying to limit it to

and can you make some effort to stick to what these forum threads are for instead of in a boring monotone keep arguing AGAINST what other people here are discussing. this OP is discussing what HE and OTHER members here find interesting, that doesnt need your approval, consent, or depressive banter. say it once you dont like it, fine, but you keep going on and on with the same negative drivel as if what others discuss here needs your approval, it doesnt. find that hard to grasp perhaps ? if you have no interest in this threads content just go and slither away under some rock somewhere and leave other forum users here to what THEY find interesting

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Why should I 'let you continue'? Since you clearly can't read my mind I don't see why I should.

If you really don't think "this game is supposed to be about flying" then what do you think it is about?

what an absolute load of drivel, you weirdo !

where in the dark recesses of your somber mind do you now start to believe people here have to explain and justify ANYTHING to you about what THEY want to have included in oleg's flightsim project ?

[AndyJWest]

or somebody so new here to the BoB project you dont seem to know much about what detailed information oleg has provided on all of this

So you are claiming to be 'part of the BoB project' now are you zapatista? I think this is a clear indication of the usefulness of your postings, and their connection with reality.

Since neither of us is involved in BoB development, I'd say that my grasp of elementary principles on application design, whhich is evidently greater than yours, is much more relevant than how long I've been posting on this forum.

And isn't it rather infantile to use personal abuse when you don't have a better response?

-----------------

zapatista is back on ignore....

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

So you are claiming to be 'part of the BoB project' now are you zapatista?

wow jeez gosh !! AndyJWest takes what is said and spins it to its absurd extreme and pretends it was what i said, how surprising ! used to arguing in donald duck forums with primary school kids it seems.

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I'd say that my grasp of elementary principles on application design..

thats amazing, you just turned yourself into an experienced game designer of infinite wisdom and everybody else in this forum knows nothing about BoB eh, isnt the internet great ? you print your own diplomas to perhaps ?

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

And isn't it rather infantile to use personal abuse when you don't have a better response?

short attention span combined with low IQ is a real problem when facing reality it seems. right now you have with your multiple monotone posts in this thread contributed EXACTLY NOTHING, can you spot a pattern there ? remember what these threads are for yet ?

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

zapatista is back on ignore....

lol, you cant even get that right can you. wasnt i on ignore already or where you fibbing again ?

/note to lab: no increase in AndyJWest cognitive and reasoning ability despite repeatedly being given all information to solve simple clue's. behavioral pattern and genetic sequence of subject makes it unlikely they will ever contribute to the benefit of others around him

[kendo65]

Don't want to get involved in what has become a very personal dispute, but thought i'd try to give my perspective on these issues. At the risk of being accused of 'copping out' I can see merit in both your arguments.

Zapatista, I don't think any of us would say that we don't want a 'living, breathing world' to fly over and interact with in SOW, and you are right that Oleg has told us that civilian traffic (buses, cars, etc) is modelled and will be included. This is definitely something that I have little doubt will play a big part in the future of this sim. I wonder though how much will be available and usable in the initial release?

This is where I think Andy makes a good point - the word is 'resources' - both in Maddox Games development time AND in PC processing power.

We are already aware that Oleg is aiming for a release later this year and that many crucial aspects of the game remain to be tuned and added. This means that of necessity some of the desirable but non-essential extras will be pushed back for inclusion after initial release. The best examples of 'desirable but non-essential' would be things like wildlife in the fields, civilian traffic, animated civilians (farmers, pedestrians, kids playing in the back yard, etc).

The issue of PC processing power is key here too. There will not be much point in developing and including all the features of this world if no-one has a powerful enough PC to actually enable and run it.

I think given this the most realistic result in BOB will be that some minimal amount of civilian traffic, wildlife, etc will be available for use. I fear though that attempts to make heavy use of it while simultaneously having decent-sized air battles will result in low frame-rates (similar to il2 over cities).

However, one thing that I'm sure will be ruled out for the foreseeable future is the possibility of continuing the game on the ground after the pilot has bailed out. The big difficulty here is in developing realistic AI to control all of the vast number of possible interactions between a downed pilot and his environment. It is not enough having cars with open-able doors or pedestrians that follow pre-programmed routes along designated paths. That kind of 'dumb' modelled world is perfectly believable from a plane at 2000 feet, but when you are standing next to the pedestrian or when you attempt to eject a passing motorist from his car - think of all the possible interactions that will have to be modelled to make it seem real....!

The only alternative I can see to this (initially) would be having your downed pilot in an unpopulated, dead environment - not very rewarding and not very realistic.

[whatnot]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Something that might have been 'a good idea' earlier in the SoW development cycle but that only gets suggested now is unlikely to be incorporated into the release version unless it needs minimal work, I'd have thought, and many of the suggestions are anything but simple.

How I see the purpose of these forums when it comes to ideas is that the sim community (pretty hc simmers here on average I'd assume) shout out ideas they have and then the development crew are the ones who actually pick'n'mix what is feasible and suits the title / franchise.
And when talking about ideas for SOW I don't think it should be limited to the initial release since we're looking at an epic saga unfold. So they can address whatever future patches or releases too. Otherwise as the release gets closer and closer no one could type their suggestions as the RTM is imminent.

So my perception in a nutshell: open brainstorming here on the forum, validation / feasibility analysis by the Maddox crew who actually has a say on things.

But I've blabbered enough on this topic already, I guess I'll zip it and just watch the loop repeat itself.