Friday 2011-01-21 Dev. update and Discussion

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

Adman, what game is that 2nd shot taken from, it looks gorgeous?

it's just called Gloster Gladiator, many of the games graphics leaves a whole lot to be desired but you can tell they dedicated most of their time on the terrain and the sky although it is likely a satellite image



still, I think satellite texture gives that look you simply cant achieve by placing objects. Maybe a combination of both techniques can be developed at some point.

the new engine does have tremendous lighting, maybe it will be the games strongest feature next to the planes themselves, and lighting can work wonders, it really is the key to realism. I'm sure at high res with full lighting and a good altitude/angle you will still be able to get some fantastic looking screenshots that come close to tricking the eye

However It seems it will continue to be one of the weaker aspects of the il-2 brand, not due to lack of trying. The moving grass is a great innovation, the attention to laying out towns very similar to how they were at the time, and the detail of the objects themselves are all great but laying them out by hand to make a realistic terrain is just too daunting of a task. Too hard to replicate the organized chaos that is nature and human civilization

[ElAurens]

Satellite imagery is a major failure in a WW2 combat flight sim for a couple of reasons.

1. There are no satellite images from the WW2 period. Any photos from space are just plain wrong in details.

2. Satellite image ground textures only look good from a distance. If you are taking off or landing, or involved in low level work of any kind the obvious pitfalls of this approach are all too obvious.

[AdMan]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

Satellite imagery is a major failure in a WW2 combat flight sim for a couple of reasons.

1. There are no satellite images from the WW2 period. Any photos from space are just plain wrong in details.

2. Satellite image ground textures only look good from a distance. If you are taking off or landing, or involved in low level work of any kind the obvious pitfalls of this approach are all too obvious.

that's why you do a combination of both, you can take a satellite image, edit those images to remove things that dont pertain to the period. You can then use it as a template to lay out your 3d objects, trees etc. You could even just use it as a template pulling general layouts and textures from it then scrap the image itself or keep parts in certain areas. This is basically what was done for the towns/city, they had maps/satellite and were arranging streets and houses on top of the image. It doesn't look like they used the same technique as much for rivers, trees, and land plots.

also I think using individual trees has major limitations and is a performance hog.

[tintifaxl]

Originally Posted by AdMan

that's why you do a combination of both, you can take a satellite image, edit those images to remove things that dont pertain to the period. You can then use it as a template to lay out your 3d objects, trees etc. You could even just use it as a template pulling general layouts and textures from it then scrap the image itself or keep parts in certain areas. This is basically what was done for the towns/city, they had maps/satellite and were arranging streets and houses on top of the image. It doesn't look like they used the same technique as much for rivers, trees, and land plots.

also I think using individual trees has major limitations and is a performance hog.

And we would never be able to afford that. But then I'm quite content with the eye candy in COD.