Friday 2010-07-16 Dev. update and Discussions about the update ONLY!

[David603]

Originally Posted by furbs

yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

Didn't Oleg switch from using trees that were made by his own team to using trees made by a company called Spreadtree since those shots were taken?

Oleg also said something about bugs in the system and how they were using the reduced detail distant models at the moment, which would explain the poor trees in the most recent shots.

[zauii]

Comparing screenshots to one and another never gives any fair results.
Just wait til you have the game in motion and on your computers until you judge.

[Splitter]

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

All I have to say about this and all similar comments: OMG

Giving critique to the developers about screen updates is not an insult.
It's just help to make everything better.
When will you people understand?

Don't you know the saying: Two heads are better than one?

Oleg and his team are not all knowing.

[Friendly_flyer]

Splitter speaks the wisdom here.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1

[zauii]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

+1 & quoted for truth.

[Tempest123]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1 from me!

[philip.ed]

I disagree slightly, if a product is future-proofed and has an excellent market like the Il-2 market the company should make the best looking product available. It may not be highly playable on full-settings this year, but give a year or two it will grow into something astounding.

[Splitter]

Well, whichever side you come down on for graphics, I think we can all agree that we won't buy the game if they put time limits on missions lol.

From what I have seen on graphics and such so far, the only things that would stop me from buying this game would be poor missions, poor campaigns, poor flight models, or a total lack of a career mode (and I am flexible on that last I guess). I don't want to be thrown into a different airplane for every mission and I would really prefer some strategic control over targets, mission assignments, and tactics.

But, as for those game play elements beyond graphics, I guess we will have to wait and see. It's just that I would hate to wait for "better trees" and fire when a game with solid game play could be released sooner rather than later.

Splitter