Friday 2010-06-04 Dev. update and Discussion Thread

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Tbag

I'm not sure why, but the shots of Oleg seem to be not as crisp as for example those:

http://www.a2asimulations.com/wingso...enshots/15.jpg

Is that simply due to the lack of AA in Olegs shots or are there other reasons?

I think it is a very much higher poly-count model. FSX doesn't need to calculate AI manoeuvres and tactics, have as many aircraft in the air, calculate bullet trajectories, etc. so it can accommodate better models and still keep a high frame rate.

I remember when this B25 came out for FS2004. http://www.maam.org/flightsim/PACKAGES/BT.htm It was so much better than anything that could have been flown in FB.

I am hoping that we will see very high poly count aircraft available for SoW from third parties...I would be willing to fly them non combat if that was what was necessary.

I suspect that it will only be a few years before we will see updates with very high poly-count default aircraft like the one you posted in the game. Hopefully there will be lots of modellers out there trying to improve on the default models. After all, they would only have to make the exterior, the rest is already done!!

[Tbag]

Thanks MS, that's what I thought but I don't understand enough to really jugde. And it's probably not only the number of polys, it seems to be also the texture and the bump-map size. I'm just not sure what is the most important piece in the puzzle and if the appearence of the SOW models will significantly improve with AA and other display settings.

But I don't think that all the physics calculations are the reason for the (relatively) low poly models since they are taken care of by the CPU.

[TheGrunch]

You've also got to consider texture size, ground object density, and the fact that FSX doesn't really NEED a consistent 30fps+ framerate to be playable in addition to the things major_setback mentioned, and you've got probably the whole list. Completely different specification for models needed. I agree that the screenies could really use some AA, though.

[Zorin]

@Mysticpuma and Tbag:

I do 3D modelling myself and there is no visual improvement between the SoW models that have been shown and that B-17, at all. At least from a polycount point of view. Every poly more than the SoW models have is a waste and pretty much inefficient.

As for the textures, take a look at this shot of the B-17:

http://www.a2asimulations.com/wingso...eenshots/4.jpg

Without the polished finished it actually looks rather dreary compared to the SoW models.

Besides, why would you want to absolve a combat simulator from its very purpose, simulating combat, just to look at a plane model, which you could do better in an environment like FSX? That doesn't makesense to me at all.

[Skoshi Tiger]

Will we be able to open the sliding sections of the 109 canopy? May give a slightly better view to the front.

Cheers!

[zauii]

Originally Posted by Zorin

@Mysticpuma and Tbag:

I do 3D modelling myself and there is no visual improvement between the SoW models that have been shown and that B-17, at all. At least from a polycount point of view. Every poly more than the SoW models have is a waste and pretty much inefficient.

As for the textures, take a look at this shot of the B-17:

http://www.a2asimulations.com/wingso...eenshots/4.jpg

Without the polished finished it actually looks rather dreary compared to the SoW models.

Besides, why would you want to absolve a combat simulator from its very purpose, simulating combat, just to look at a plane model, which you could do better in an environment like FSX? That doesn't makesense to me at all.

Quoted for truth.

Well said.

[Blakduk]

The way this sim is coming together is simply BRILLIANT!
I love the details such as the individual damage modelling of the prop blades, and the 109 cockpit looks almost too good to be true.
What's really exciting for me is the view of the furball near the coast with the 109 about to dive in.
I can hardly wait to see a video from inside the cockpit of a plane diving through clouds- one thing i believe IL2 didn't do well was the transparency of clouds when going through them. In IL2 you only have to touch the edge of a cloud and you're blinded- i hope this new engine manages it better.
You're raising the standard for all other games/sims Oleg- well done.... and keep going!

[Tbag]

Originally Posted by Zorin

@Mysticpuma and Tbag:

I do 3D modelling myself and there is no visual improvement between the SoW models that have been shown and that B-17, at all. At least from a polycount point of view. Every poly more than the SoW models have is a waste and pretty much inefficient.

As for the textures, take a look at this shot of the B-17:

http://www.a2asimulations.com/wingso...eenshots/4.jpg

Without the polished finished it actually looks rather dreary compared to the SoW models.

Besides, why would you want to absolve a combat simulator from its very purpose, simulating combat, just to look at a plane model, which you could do better in an environment like FSX? That doesn't makesense to me at all.

Don't you like to model Bombs with lots of polys?

Judging by your last comment you wouldn't mind to stick to the graphics of IL2 and only improve the physics. I don't believe that you really mean that. Furthermore, you can do as much 3D modelling as you like but if you can't see a visual improvement between the different models (SoW and A2A) you must be somewhat blind. Just look at the nose section of the 109 or the engine cowlings of the Ju88 or Wellington - lots of ugly(ish) edges.

Now don't get me wrong: I can appreciate that there is a tradeoff between graphics and physics modelling and I'm happy with the SoW 3D models that we've seen so far. I'd just be a little happier if they looked more like that A2A B17.

[Zorin]

Originally Posted by Tbag

Don't you like to model Bombs with lots of polys?

Judging by your last comment you wouldn't mind to stick to the graphics of IL2 and only improve the physics. I don't believe that you really mean that. Furthermore, you can do as much 3D modelling as you like but if you can't see a visual improvement between the different models (SoW and A2A) you must be somewhat blind. Just look at the nose section of the 109 or the engine cowlings of the Ju88 or Wellington - lots of ugly(ish) edges.

Now don't get me wrong: I can appreciate that there is a tradeoff between graphics and physics modelling and I'm happy with the SoW 3D models that we've seen so far. I'd just be a little happier if they looked more like that A2A B17.

I only increased the polygon count to a pount where there was no gain for overall quality beyond it, just like the SoW models. It is easy to throw around with polys, but there is no real gain in the longrun to do it just because you can.

Besides, where are those ugly edges on the Bf109 cowling? I can't see any. All I can make out are rough contours due to the lack of AA.

[Tbag]

All the little bumps and the air filter, they don't blend in with the rest of the model but have a very sharp "edge" where you can count the polys. Also, the parts of the aircraft that you can see from within the cockpit look rather crude compared to the A2A models.