Rendering capacities of a 2011 game !

[Space Communist]

It's not that a simulation cannot look like this theoretically, but nobody making simulations has the budget, and even if they did, nobody has the hardware to run graphics like that at the same time as a complex simulation.

We can dream of the future though. Just wait for the mind/machine interface :p

[LoBiSoMeM]

Originally Posted by Space Communist

nobody has the hardware to run graphics like that at the same time as a complex simulation.

Why not?

[Specht]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Why not?

Complex physics are very hardware intensive, so are complex graphics, one has to find a balance between both in order to not rape consumer's computers.

Being a fan of Battlefield 1942, I can't wait for this game, I love simulations and realism, but I can live with games like this, it's a shame, however, that the game will not be moddable, I just hope they release a DLC or a pack with WWII theater.

Then again, modding could easily make it closer to a simulation, like Project Reality did to Battlefield 2.

[Space Communist]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Why not?

Well I suppose an argument could be made that as long as your gpu is up to the task then everything else can fall to your cpu. It could be that I am simply too used to thinking in terms of what has been true of gaming in the past.

But even so I think it would be a monumental task. Like in that video for instance, the game area appears to be quite large but I am willing to bet almost anything that a huge amount of what you see is not actually part of the game's world. Those mountains are almost certainly the edge of it, and I doubt they are navigable.

Take that smoke in the distant background in this video. Definitely amazing looking. However there is no way in hell that is some kind of volumetric fog. That is an animation that was rendered pretty much by hand and will play out the same way every single time. You can never actually get close to it or go into it, so it never really has to be simulated. It only takes a few resources from the GPU.

Once you provide that you might actually be able to interact with it though, suddenly you can't just use a graphical shortcut. you must now compute both its physical properties, and how those properties will translate into a visual. Herein lies the real problem: translating an effect that is simulated and variable into a visual is an order of magnitude more complex than simply using a stock visual that comes with a stock effect.

Anyway I will concede that it may be possible to get a simulation to look like this and still run on a top of the line machine. However it is pretty much going to involve having a budget that allows for things like "ok you are the shrub guy. Your entire job is to ensure that shrubbery looks good at any distance, from 3 inches to 10 km, with seamless transition in between, and that this shrubbery also interacts with all possible environmental objects and effects. Oh and make sure it is perfectly optimized as well."

[ChrisDNT]

Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM

Why not?

I don't buy this argument anymore.

In the past ten years, our PC's and our graphic cards have seen their computing power greatly expanded.

If a flight sim is probably more computer-intensive than a FPS, a 2011 flight sim must nevertheless show more than a "last decade style" sim !

Originally Posted by ChrisDNT

I don't buy this argument anymore.

In the past ten years, our PC's and our graphic cards have seen their computing power greatly expanded.

If a flight sim is probably more computer-intensive than a FPS, a 2011 flight sim must nevertheless show more than a "last decade style" sim !

Lets say you have a 4 core system and Cliffs of Dover is able to perfectly allocate resources to each one.

Flight model for all aircraft involved
Damage model for all involved (aircraft, buildings, ground, vehicles)
Friendly/Enemy AI (pilots, gunners, ground gun emplacements, vehicles)
Graphics
Object locations/collision detection (aircraft, vehicles, buildings)
Tracking all projectiles (bombs, shells) their size, their paths, their effects.
Fuel and ammo amounts remaining

Take all that, plus the resources to run your OS in the background and you're asking for a hell of a lot from that poor little i5 processor.

Even the best top of the line FPS only has to do a fraction of those things, and typically they are limited to a more or less 2D plane, meanwhile almost everything in Cliffs of Dover is constantly changing location, speed, and altitude. For most FPS the damage model is pretty much "Damage=1/3 hits" while CloD has to think about controlled surfaces, engine temp. . . Another thing is the AI. For most FPS 90% of the AI enemies you will encounter have a few waypoints and 3 types of actions, "advancing attack, retreat, cover fire". Effects in FPS are also simplified in some cases. The static smoke column is a good example, and explosions in many cases are 2d and designed to always be facing the human players. Limited map sizes, lo-rez backgrounds, etc.

Well you get the idea. The amount of number crunching involved in CloD is miles more than most any other type of game.

[DarthElvis]

Originally Posted by speculum jockey

Lets say you have a 4 core system and Cliffs of Dover is able to perfectly allocate resources to each one.

Flight model for all aircraft involved
Damage model for all involved (aircraft, buildings, ground, vehicles)
Friendly/Enemy AI (pilots, gunners, ground gun emplacements, vehicles)
Graphics
Object locations/collision detection (aircraft, vehicles, buildings)
Tracking all projectiles (bombs, shells) their size, their paths, their effects.
Fuel and ammo amounts remaining

Take all that, plus the resources to run your OS in the background and you're asking for a hell of a lot from that poor little i5 processor.

Your not asking it to do any more than what you asked a little dual core to do with FB in 2005. And FB only used a single core. Your argument is irrelevant.

[Liz Lemon]

Originally Posted by DarthElvis

Your not asking it to do any more than what you asked a little dual core to do with FB in 2005. And FB only used a single core. Your argument is irrelevant.

Uh, yes you are.

Many of those things are much more complex in CLOD then FB, so it is asking the CPU to do a lot more. Take the engine modelling, for example.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Liz Lemon

Uh, yes you are.

Many of those things are much more complex in CLOD then FB, so it is asking the CPU to do a lot more. Take the engine modelling, for example.

If that extra modeling makes the "game" (which in the end it still is, even if its a sim game) unplayable, then its not worth it. End of story.

Maybe they should add it in incrementally and focus first on foundations like the graphics, AI and physics engine which the whole future product is based on.