Originally Posted by speculum jockey (Post 226739)

If those models and skins that appear in the menu are the actual ones that are in the game proper (As it was in IL-2) then I'd have to say I'm a tad disappointed. Buuuuuuut! We don't know how old that pic is, and what has been changed since then.

Originally Posted by David603 (Post 226701)

Don't forget the weathering is a slider though

Originally Posted by Heliocon (Post 226541)

Wait, what? Ok before I start its apples and oranges, get your metaphores right...
1. Did I say they have the same requirments? I was specifically talking about CPU usage by software, and that currently there should not be a CPU bottleneck, its GPU. So then you put words in my mouth by saying I cannot recognise the difference, what is this drawn on? What did I say that is incorrect? Seriously, go to school and learn how to uses something called a "thesis" in your argument, then use evidence to support the "thesis".
My observation is very useful because in order to have all these units on the field, you need to not only run the AI that controls the armies, but indvidual pathfinding for soldiers and units which is one of, if not the most intensive CPU based operation that is EVER done in gaming. Not only is there 56k but they are on a surface all the time, so they are not flying around in the air where there are very few "obstacles".

But I love how suddenly out of the blue you jump from CPU's to GPU's when you said I was incorrect about CPU's, fail to say why I am wrong in any way, then completely jump topics and ramble without a point about GPU's...

Also as they are a small team of course they dont have the rescources of bigger devs, but if they cant optimize that IS NOT a hardware bottleneck, thats crappy programming/optimization and therefore all arguments about how they are trying to scale the game down to the lowest comps are invalid because they could "optimize" the engine and therefore would not need as much downscaling.

As for the computer - if you have a rubish computer why are you gaming then? What entitles you to have a right to be able to play the game with a crap computer? Either upgrade, wait, or dont buy it simple as that. If you cant afford to upgrade a computer, go buy a console... :rolleyes:

Its a question of sales, and to get sales they have to target the right market sectors.

Originally Posted by David603 (Post 226757)

These pictures were made 2 weeks ago by Luthier as a direct response to Tree spamming the update thread with complaints about all the clean, un-weathered Bf109s in the screenshots (apparently Luthier likes his 109s without weathering).

So changes are unlikely.

However, I don't see any need for more detailed models in the menu. 1) The existing models are excellent, and 2) Creating even more detailed models that will only be used by the menu would be waste of resources that even if the team had time to do, could be more profitably used to make things like more cockpits or aircraft.

Originally Posted by Tree_UK (Post 226804)

Thats what I do, just spam the forums.

Originally Posted by David603 (Post 226808)

Hey, its not all bad, we got to see the plane options because of it. ;)

In fairness though, you did ask the same two questions about half a dozen times in the same update thread.

Also in the interest of fairness, I should have said you were spamming the update thread, not the forum.

Originally Posted by Heliocon (Post 226860)

As for the weathering where it says physical and visual, is physical = mechanical? As in if you fly it and take bullets then donw repair something might malfunction? Maybe a more used aircraft engine overheats more easily or it responds slower?

Originally Posted by Heliocon (Post 226860)

As for CPU 3d space is easier - because there are little/no obstacles and over than the ground and other planes they wont get stuck. Managing pathfinding for 56k units, and they cant "overlap" is immensly complicated, so I dont know why you repeated what I alrerady said then dismissed it without addressing the specific points of why it is complicated

Originally Posted by David603 (Post 226913)

Yeah, I think it does mean mechanical wear. It was mentioned many times when a dynamic campaign was still planned that you would get a new plane and it would wear out over time. No idea if that still applies to the static campaigns.


Why is it less work because of an extra dimension? All pathfinding in a RTS can be defined as a areas a unit can move in and areas it can't. These areas could be represented as a white sheet of paper with black areas. At a slightly more sophisticated level units can be made to start avoiding no-go areas before they bump into them, and recognise other units as no go areas but it is still only a few lines of code and some basic calculations. Of course, if you have thousands of units then this will still add up.

By contrast, pathfinding for an aircraft needs to be more sophisticated. The basics are keeping a safe distance from the ground, but more accuracy and hence more calculations are required to do this, because unlike an RTS unit which can bump into the obstacle and then move on, a plane will turn into a fireball on contact with the ground.

Simple flight from point A-B is easy enough, you just need the altitude and speed, but that is still more complex than moving an RTS unit across open ground, because an RTS unit doesn't need to calculate the altitude and moves at a fixed speed.

After that, you need to be able calculate an accurate path for takeoff and landing.

Once you add combat things get much more complicated for the Flight sim. While a RTS unit only has two basic parameters added, which are the range that it will sight (and move to attack, if the units AI is set to) and the range where it can use its attack, the aircraft requires many calculations on how to position itself relative to the enemy and more to be able to lead the enemy and shoot accurately. More so if you want the AI to be able to predict the needed aiming point against a manoeuvring target. Separate calculations are required for different styles of attack, for example dive-bombing or strafing.

Of course, you can simplify some stages, IE in Il2 AI landings are simplified to a fly to this point, and then be guided in on rails down to the runway system, and AI bomber pilots do not "know" the whereabouts of other aircraft, which leads to collisions, but I believe the intention is to improve on this aspect in CoD. One of the methods mentioned was AI bubbles, where aircraft outside a certain range use simplified AI and pathfinding.

End of story, the AI and path finding in a simulation of the level of CoD requires at least several hundred times as many computing resources per unit as an RTS.