Friday update and discussions 2011-02-25

[Meusli]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Hurray, somebody who knows something. Thanks for the explanation as even I understand that.

[McHilt]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



.............

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

That explains it very clearly! thx a lot for your effort!
@BadAim: you're right about the stabiliser... hence the position indicator: - 0 + I could've known....

[Skarphol]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Thanks for your explenation Mitch! I found that gap in the shadow peculiar. As this gap has not been seen on other pictures, I guess the problem occures when the light hit the joining of those to surfaces at very special angles.

Skarphol

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Originally Posted by Skarphol

Thanks for your explenation Mitch! I found that gap in the shadow peculiar. As this gap has not been seen on other pictures, I guess the problem occures when the light hit the joining of those to surfaces at very special angles.

Skarphol

It has shown up in quite a few of the earlier pictures. I've noticed it quite a lot. It shows where the aerial mast joins the fuselage (look at the big/close 109 screenshot in this weeks update), and on exhaust covers for example. You can see it on an opened spitfire door, and under the Hurricane tail too.
It looks like they (understandably) try to avoid taking screenshots from certain angles because of it.



Aerial and 'floating' engine intakes:



Exhaust cover and tail:

Originally Posted by B25Mitch

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.

Well done Mitch. You're a guy worth listening to.

[zakkandrachoff]

loock at this link.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...id=13883518665

will be great have take off in a raining day (not hazy) and that willl be wahter in the airfield.

by the way, i dont see soo much raining pics of Cliffs of Dover. !!!

will be nice fly over england whit finest rain (not strng wind)

[McHilt]

Originally Posted by domian

The thing with the shadows do not care! Such a nitpicker xxxx...

Might be domian, but bringing it up (in a positive and constructive way like Skarphol) is also a way to learn things, like in this case
Mitch explains something many people didn't know. It gains a better understanding of what Oleg and crew are doing which hopefully leads to a lot less whining... hope folks understand that.

Cheers

[Peffi]

[QUOTE=BadAim;228670]

Originally Posted by Peffi

EXCELLENT! Now that's more like it, a beautiful example of a compound whine: whiner complaining about whiner complaining about whiners.

Bad Aim; your name suits you. You just placed yourself on the wiener list togeteher with Skoshi Tiger... (don't know why I even bother 2 answer u guys... )

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I think that of all the things shown in these updates, my biggest issue is with the quality of whining being displayed. It is definitely of a lower quality that previous updates.

The whines are repetitive and monotonous. Surely we can do better than this? It is my guess that due to our poor community contribution we are the butt of many other forums whining jokes.
“That was pretty lame! But I guess it wasn’t as bad as a Il-2 Whine!”

We are dredging up and recycling issues that have been thoroughly rehashed many times without adding any new insight or progression through the whine. How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”?

To transcend the Whine/Constructive Criticism Boundary (WCCB) please back up your statements with evidence. The Yellows wrong? How about supplying a photo of the correct colour after researching what camera, film, exposure settings were used and the process that it was developed with? Can’t find that?

Then how about accepting that colour photography was and still is a developing art and that your favourite photo scanned from a 70 year old magazine cover and placed on the Internet may not accurately reflect the actual colours being depicted?

Cheers and pick up your socks community whiners!

PS Great Update Oleg! Can’t wait for the release date!

Good stuff, Skoshi Tiger. Regarding whine quality, how about some new whines? The old whines are racked on "ignore" because they've become redundant and they leave a bad after taste. BTW, what was the best year for whine? We must not forget the "where's-my-trim-on-a-slider?" variety under RBJ's label. It was certainly one of the most interesting offerings which perhaps will never be surpassed.