|
|
|||||||
| IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover Latest instalment in the acclaimed IL-2 Sturmovik series from award-winning developer Maddox Games. |
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
03-26-2011, 12:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Realistic depiction of certain effects should contain fast high contrast changes.
Making the flicker go away will make the effect worse, if said flicker exists in reality. This is my worry, not the temporary bad frame rates. Temporary frame rate issues is something that many games suffer from upon release and are often fixed in quick schedule, but ruining effects intentionally because of an artificial problem just makes me heartbroken and despondent. Surely the development team wishes to deliver the best possible product to the customers, but this title is just encountering so much trouble, I just wish they would get a break already and be allowed to release what they wish. If Luthier et al can confirm that the visual appearance and quality of all the effects in the game will not be damaged by the process of anti-epileptic measures, then I have no problem with it. If, like I suspect, said measures irreparably damage the effects from what the team originally wanted them to look like, then there's a real problem with not allowing people to experience the effects in their original form. In that case, I would want an optional original effect pack that returns the effects to full glory. No one would be able to claim I did this unknowingly, even if I suddenly started suffering from PSE. I can see one obvious solution to the problem - an original effect patch released in Russia that just so happens to work on the International version as well. How that could be executed is a different matter altogether. Assuming that the game retains one of its key elements (the ability for users to modify it*), then it's only a matter of time before the effects are fixed by the community itself**. I would, however, prefer a solution from the developer team directly. *I've been somewhat worried about this. The trend is for games to not allow extensive modifications, but I wish CoD does because that's essentially what has kept IL-2 alive for such a long time. But that is a concern for a different discussion... ** ...and assuming that the effects are adjustable by media changes such as textures or ini files rather than locked in code; code changes of the executable and dynamic link library extensions would be impossible unless the dev team releases the source code, which I seriously can't see happening. Last edited by Herra Tohtori; 03-26-2011 at 12:48 PM. |
|
#2
03-26-2011, 01:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
in addition to the last comment/suggestion i made, i'll add, that i do from my limited knowledge of Hardware programming beleive its possible for the GPU manufacturers to add this. It would be cheaper in every aspect for everyone to implement rather than to pass the buck onto software development houses.
V-Sync is already in all games, as we know to reduce visual artifact, (they will also flicker), and as we all know being gamers, we know that this slows the frames produced to match the GPU cycle for displaying frames. its very likeley in order to make the said epilespy filter that V-Sync is either forced on, or that the epilepsy filter will be comparing possible more Frames than it needs to. This is also another reason why Epi filter should be on the GPU because it would run faster there than in software. (unwittingly i thought of a test for people who have the game already with Epi filter, to lower CPU usage by enabling V-Sync to see if it makes a difference.) UBI are just barking up the wrong tree here. I can guess why they are enforcing this on software rather than hardware manufacturers tho. And thats because UBI sell primarily CONSOLE games. Harware cannot change on those except for a total recall, which would cost billions for all the consoles from every manufacturer ever created. As we have heard, PS3, XBOX it has been said before are likely to be the last consoles ever produced as they cost too much to produce in R&D etc... |
|
#3
03-26-2011, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Vertical synchronization prevents frame tearing. That means, it synchronizes the frame rate of the game to the frame rates that the display is compatible with. If the game FPS is out of synch with the display, it is possible for the frame to change while it is drawing onto the screen, causing horizontal tearing to appear as the frame switches on the next, but previous frame is still displayed on the top of the screen while next frame is already rendered and sent to the display to render for the bottom half of the image. For example, a display with vertical frequency of 60 Hz will be able to smoothly show image stream at 60, 30, 20, 15, 12, 10, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 frames per second without tearing up the frames, because the changes of the frames are in synch with the speed at which the display itself can switch between frames (or, in mathematical terms, these frame rates are factors of 60) As a result, if your computer cannot achieve static frame rates of 60 - VSync will reduce frame rates to 30 to prevent tearing up the frames, technically anyway. If your computer can't run at 30 FPS, VSync drops frame rate to next even number that fits into the VFreq of the monitor, in this case 20 FPS, etc. Incidentally, this is why I would want monitors to support frame rates up to 120 FPS. Even if you wouldn't necessarily notice difference during smooth gameplay, you could have a wider range of applicable frame rates without frame tearing because the factors for 120 are {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 40, 60, 120}. For example, if your computer couldn't quite render up to 60 FPS, it wouldn't drop all the way to 30, but to 40 FPS instead. Similarly if frame rates were just below 30, they would drop to 24 FPS instead of 20. Now, this issue is somewhat similar in the sense that, ironically, low frame rate will cause more radical changes between frames, which will... ...wait for it... ...cause more flickering. Which is what is supposed to be prevented by the anti-epilepsy measures. So, yeah, way to go. I bet the low frame rates and especially the stuttering is much more aggravating to even the most photosensitive epileptics than a smooth frame rate with the original effects. 'Cause, you know, low stuttering frame rates essentially turn the whole GAME into flickering mess instead of individual effects. |
|
#4
03-26-2011, 02:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
a LOT of frames. I dont think an Anti-epilepsy filter will work until we have computers powerful enough to process imagery frame by frame faster than the naked eye can read it. Its daft of UBI Soft to demand this on a game developer. They are just going to blame the Epi filter not working as a result of the game developers incompetance when they next go to court over anything similar. I think they could do with not being so stupid and investing in better (rather than cheaper) lawyers. |
|
#5
03-26-2011, 02:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#8
03-26-2011, 03:01 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Another thing that comes to mind...
In December they changed the software used for train scheduling in southern Sweden. The same day there was extreme cold and a lot of snow that continued for two weeks... At the same time they had serious optimisation problems with the software (which I know from an inside source). Guess what they blamed? And then the snow disappeared while they had not fixed the software issues. Guess if there where any change to the scheduling problems? They have still not fixed them... |
|
#9
03-26-2011, 03:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
I have a solution. How about a big warning on the package about epilepsy inducing graphics?
I guess I'll put off my purchase until this has been sorted out. WOP is getting a mission editor soon, so that will have to do for now. |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
