Friday 2010-08-13 Dev. update and Discussions

[Skarphol]

Originally Posted by BadAim

BadAim falls off chair..........

What is wrong with you people and Tree_UK?

I can agree that he is repeating himself too much on the "this sim will not be released in quite a while yet"-theme, but he is allways down to earth when it comes to evaluation of the pictures released from Oleg or Luthier. And he has (unfortunately) been correct in most of his predicitons..

Originally Posted by louisv

End of discussion about trees !!!

I'm not so sure about that. The SpeedTree trees looks magnificent up close, but might look weird from a distance when the tele lense is used (not that I understand how this actually works) But I'm quite sure that I won't spend many thoughts on the size of leaves when I fly around in my Bf 109 looking for prey..

Skarphol

[hellbomber]

yeah its pretty clear that oleg intentionally cropped the photos so no trees would be seen form the air, the ground shots in no way end the argument as all the fanboi's have wet their pants over, up close speedtree looks great thats not the issue, the issue is how many polygons its reduced to at a distance, i hope theirs an option in game to change the draw distances that polygons are removed at for those of us that have the latest and greatest hardware to take full advantage

also being that were still getting static screen shots and its still WIP, and were not getting a video for the next few weeks clearly, if they cant even show the ground, there's no possible way this will be release on sept 15th they will need at least a month after finishing probably 2 to get it distributed and ready for launch, i think at best you could hope for is Christmas at this point but most likely well be seeing 1st quarter 2010 release, which im in favor of i hope they take as much time and vacations as need be to make the perfect game

[airmalik]

Originally Posted by hellbomber

up close speedtree looks great thats not the issue, the issue is how many polygons its reduced to at a distance

I agree. Up close, where you can afford to have detailed objects, the trees look awesome and this was never an issue. It's the LOD scaling when viewed from a distance that appears to be challenging to implement.

For distant trees, Speedtree seems to 'thin out' the foliage using clip maps which doesn't look as nice as the trees shown in older screenshots where the foliage is represented by dense green 'blobs' which look more realistic from a distance.

Not sure if there's a way to combine the two approaches or if they're mutually exclusive and we either have to live with nicer trees up close or more realistic ones farther away.

[zapatista]

Oleg $ Co,

excellent update, thx for he new screenshots

trees and leaves up close look very good and is amazing detail for a flightsim, there is no "tree debate there" when at airfields, or doing forced landings etc that amount of detail really adds to the immersion and quality of the sim ! the aircraft on fire effect looks good to, cant wait to see a video of it in action.

when can we start giving you our money ? looks like it is very close to release time now, and good to catch the world wide publicity in the media right now about the Battle of Brittan anniversary celebrations to increase sales momentum.

[ATAG_Dutch]

I think one problem this community may have in critically assessing these screenshots is that many people seem to compare game graphics to cinema graphics and say ‘well that’s not realistic enough’.
Well obviously, cinema graphics are a fixed view and don’t have to move around in infinite ways in a three dimensional virtual environment. Four if you count time.
Personally, I’m still gob smacked by films (movies) made in IL2 when they’re in motion, but take a screenshot of one, without photoshop embellishment, and compare it to these weekly posts. Then try to imagine Storm of War in motion.
I’ve got a feeling that all talk of leaves and flames will look a bit embarrassing when that happens.

On the topic of whether 8 x .303 Brownings could cause that fire, it was calculated by Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley that a two second burst at a convergence of 400 yards (metres) would deliver 6lbs (3Kg) of lead in the same spot. Given that half of this was DeWilde incendiary bullets (actually an improved British copy), have a think.
What would 6lbs of burning lead travelling at the speed of sound do to your car?

[BG-09]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

On the topic of whether 8 x .303 Brownings could cause that fire, it was calculated by Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley that a two second burst at a convergence of 400 yards (metres) would deliver 6lbs (3Kg) of lead in the same spot. Given that half of this was DeWilde incendiary bullets (actually an improved British copy), have a think.
What would 6lbs of burning lead travelling at the speed of sound do to your car?

Hmmm...interesting calculations. I agree about the volume and the mass of projectiles from 8 x .303 Brownings fired per second, but: the fuel lines are relatively small object/target/, also the target/aircraft moves, the shooting fighter moves, the machine guns did not shoot at one point all the time, and the projectiles will be more dispersed - not enough to cause total tear off of the fuel lines of Ju-88. That is my point of view. Fire - of course! But not total fuel leaking out of the tanks in just one or five seconds. That is what I mean. Such massive fuel leak have to cause rather explosion, then big flames.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Hi BG,

Yes, I know what you mean, but fire spreads, so if the initial 'hit' is in the fuel tank, the fuel in the tank is on fire due to air in the tank, it leaks and spreads, setting fire to other flammable materials, runs along the outside of the fuel pipes, burns away the fuel pipe from the outside, then there's an explosion that rips a gaping hole in the tank, etc etc.

We've all seen archive footage of engines on fire and saying 8 Brownings couldn't cause it is simply underestimating them.

One incendiary bullet penetrating the induction manifold where there is a pressurised fuel / air mix would probably cause a big enough explosion to rupture the fuel lines / carburettor / injection system in any event. Certainly the fuel / air mix would burn very nicely.

In practice the RAF soon learned to get in much closer than 400yards too. Guns were then harmonised at 250 yards or less. The Poles particularly harmonised their guns to very short range.

[BG-09]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

Hi BG,

Yes, I know what you mean, but fire spreads, so if the initial 'hit' is in the fuel tank, the fuel in the tank is on fire due to air in the tank, it leaks and spreads, setting fire to other flammable materials, runs along the outside of the fuel pipes, burns away the fuel pipe from the outside, then there's an explosion that rips a gaping hole in the tank, etc etc.

We've all seen archive footage of engines on fire and saying 8 Brownings couldn't cause it is simply underestimating them.

One incendiary bullet penetrating the induction manifold where there is a pressurised fuel / air mix would probably cause a big enough explosion to rupture the fuel lines / carburettor / injection system in any event. Certainly the fuel / air mix would burn very nicely.

In practice the RAF soon learned to get in much closer than 400yards too. Guns were then harmonised at 250 yards or less. The Poles particularly harmonised their guns to very short range.

Fully agree with you Dutch_851. As I remember from my serving in to the army, 7,62 mm machine gun can do a tremendous damage indeed over metal datails. It really shred off steel plate of near 1 cm thick.

[Insuber]

Originally Posted by Dutch_851

On the topic of whether 8 x .303 Brownings could cause that fire, it was calculated by Squadron Leader Ralph Sorley that a two second burst at a convergence of 400 yards (metres) would deliver 6lbs (3Kg) of lead in the same spot. Given that half of this was DeWilde incendiary bullets (actually an improved British copy), have a think.
What would 6lbs of burning lead travelling at the speed of sound do to your car?

Good point Dutch, we often underestimate the lethality of 8x.303 guns. Just one note, DeWilde *was* British, AFAIK, with a fantasy Belgian name to deceipt Nazi intelligence.

Regards,
Insuber

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Just one note, DeWilde *was* British, AFAIK, with a fantasy Belgian name to deceipt Nazi intelligence.

Thx Insuber, I think it depends what you read!

'The B. Mk VI 'De Wilde' incendiary (named after the original Belgian inventor but in fact completely redesigned by Major Dixon)'

see http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/BoB.htm

However, we might be in danger of getting off topic!

My opinion is that all development screenshots of flames are looking fantastic, however they were caused!!