Friday 2010-08-20 Dev. update and Discussions

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by nearmiss

It never bothered me to have non-moving clouds. WHen I was moving it wasn't even noticeable.

WHen I was getting ready for take off it wasn't a biggy either.

So, moving clouds vs better FPS with non moving clouds, I'll take the latter.

Just like the leaves rustling on the trees. WHo gives a flip. I recall running the various graphic benchmarks over the years and how rustling leaves killed any high FPS rates.

I'm definitely for clouds, but however Oleg wants to handle clouds I'm OK with it.

I agree; for me, as long as the clouds look right I'm happy. No offence to the team, but at the moment they don't....

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by philip.ed

I agree; for me, as long as the clouds look right I'm happy. No offence to the team, but at the moment they don't....

We know. You mention it almost every week.

[philip.ed]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

We know. You mention it almost every week.

Nice to see it's been noted then.

[furbs]

And the landscape looks fantastic in that video too

[Insuber]

Well this means that they spent the last 4 years to remove the nice clouds and degradate the landscapes

[BadAim]

Russians! They do everything backwards!

[WTE_Galway]

Just get the turbulence and atmospheric conditions right, who cares about the visuals

[kedrednael]

Originally Posted by Insuber

Well this means that they spent the last 4 years to remove the nice clouds and degradate the landscapes

The landscapes are better now, if you see them in HD. The landscape in the video is the same as il2.