Graphical aspect preference ROF vs COD and other stuff

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by SharpeXB

There's no comparision
Since CoD failed it's irrelevant what it's graphics look like.
RoF strikes a good balance between performance and graphics and the overall game. both have appealing qualities but oveall RoF is the more sucessful game.

True.. but I am just speculating.. you are right it is moot.. but just for the sake of hypothesizing..

Originally Posted by Igo kyu

Why Oleg went for a rewrite rather than an upgrade we can't know, since we don't have the old code to see what was wrong with it, and I for one would probably have a great deal of trouble reading it if I did have it.

It takes a couple of years to learn C++ if you have the apptitude, which many folks just don't, it's not something that anyone can pick up over a weekend. After those years, you would then have the time it would take to learn to understand the old IL*2 codeset, which would probably be another year if you could do it at all, I doubt anyone on the team but Oleg had a complete overview, and even he probably had bits that someone else worked on that worked just fine that he didn't understand all the details of. That's just how complicated programming is these days, and it's not getting easier.

It's not a case of:

"Here are two spades, there's a mountain of earth, the two of you have got six months to shift that mountain 20 ft west, start now!"

That would be tedious, hard and annoying, but if the size of the mudpile was right, you'd know it could be done from the start. With Programming, everything tends to interact with everything else. You do try your hardest to keep the interactions limited to the ones you know about and want, but they tend to escape and run wild. Those wild interactions are called bugs.

So, since Oleg said it wasn't possible to update the original IL*2 codebase, I think we have to take his word on that.

Old code gets encrusted with additions but it depends on the original foundations, and sometimes they just can't be updated. For a hypothetical example, suppose all the integers in the original IL*2 were 16 bit, if the newer code wanted 64 bit integers, you couldn't just change the definitions, because something, somewhere, would be hardcoded to 16 bits, and it would break when you changed the definitions. It wouldn't be obvious where the break was, it wouldn't be clear what you could do about it, and in a large codebase like the original IL*2 there would probably be thousands of breakages each of which would probably take a week of somebody's time to fix.

True as well.. although.. with hindsight there were a lot of things that Oleg said were not doable.. but are now parts of the stock sim. If you count mods then like I said .. given the already almost rabidly loyal fanbase that definitely included yours truly.. Even if he had come up with something that did what the mods did.. with a working MDS and the extra planes.. people would have snapped t up.. That is not speculation..

[flyingblind]

Well, I finally managed to download and install the RoF freebie. Don't think the problem was 777's end but for some reason the download always seemed to have a corrupted file or two which prevented installation. After a week or so of frustration I finally cracked it and it is now up and running.

Haven't really flown it yet just loaded a quick mission and let it run on auto pilot to see what it looked like. I have to say it didn't look too bad at all. It seemed quite smooth on pretty high settings, the only compromise being HDR medium, although I hadn't got a fps counter running. The colours seemed fine to me and the towns looked better than I expected and I prefered the trees and grass to CloD. The ground textures seemed very bland like flying over parkland rather than countryside and the reflected glare off the planes seemed way overdone.The rivers and ponds look better and the grass is better but from what little I have seen of the clouds in RoF CloD is way ahead there. When you crash in RoF and it has gone quiet I could just hear a skylark which was brilliant. The sea in CloD is supurb although I haven't seen Rof sea myself except in video and screens and it seems poor by comparison. The load up screens and interface are far better in RoF but they don't matter so much when you are flying. I was also impressed by the look and DMs of the planes in RoF.

On the whole I think the whole look, atmosphere and feel of CloD is just more interesting and natural and to be honest if IC and 777 are going to spend another year or more of resources on developing a WW2 flight sim I wish it could have been spent on the CloD engine rather than the RoF one. But I am sure there were good sound economic and other reasons why that wasn't going to happen.

The question mark over the RoF engine is whether it can have really large maps and the level of detail, especially cockpits and the number of objects as CloD. Plus all the potential that exists in Clod for scripting missions. If it can't then in my view it will be a bit of a flop but only time will tell on that.

I also re-installed IL-2 1946 over the weekend and got it up to the fully updated HSFX mode and whilst I hadn't done all the tweaking I could do it trailed in third by a long way compared to the other two. In fact that really is the secret of all these sims - getting your system and game settings right.

Happy New Year everyone!

[SlipBall]

Its too late now it is what it is...I hope that 1C has enough success with the project, so as to stay interested with possible new flight combat projects.

[startrekmike]

Originally Posted by zapatista

we already know the answer to that, RoF cant, and BoS will use the same game/gfx engine so it wont either.

but here is the real kicker, they dont see it as an objective to match or better Cod-il2

1c has simply decided to stop pouring money into MG-CoD, and are funding the 777 team to make a completely different ww2 aircraft game instead. and what 1c really loved is the jason's 777 cash cow method to keep milking his teen crowd for more money every month. the sturmovik product name has just been given to 777 project in an attempt to increase sales appeal. a bit similar to saab cars a few ears ago coming out for the first time with a v6 engine in some of its models (after it had been bought up by GM), the only problem was the engine wasnt actually made by saab, it was a GM engine the brand badge matters very little in both those cases

the funniest part in all this is that all the whiners and trolls here who had still been whinging here the last few months that CoD didnt meet their childish expectations, they are now all of a sudden happy with the much inferior product teflon jason is cooking up up for them

lets see, compared to CoD, the RoF-ww2 reskinned game
- wont have the level of cockpit detail
- wont have the same detailed plane damage models
- wont have the same complex engine and aircraft system modeling
- wont have the same realistic advanced flight models (which has been THE great strength of the il2 series and has built its reputation)
- wont have anywhere near the same amount of flyable aircraft
- wont be able to have the same high aircraft count in the air, either human flown or combined with AI
- wont be able to handle 100 players on a online server with additional high counts of AI planes at the same time
- wont have anywhere near the same amount of static ground objects (buildings etc)
- wont have anywhere near the same high amount of ground AI activity and active ground objects, be this moving collums of vehicles, trucks/tanks, AA batteries or civilian traffic
- ...... and the list goes on and on.............

so forget about the RoF-ww2 project, it just aint in the running

the only viable alternative for ww2 flight simulation enthusiasts is going to be the p51 project from DCS, but they havnt even announced any other ww2 aircrafts to be in the making, so anything there is a long way off.

I know you will just label me as a insidious, sneaky spy for Jason if I ask but I don't really care anymore.

Do you have any proof (documented or otherwise) to back any of your assertions up or is it just pure speculation?

I think this is a valid question, your post not only slanders a company but also it's players (calling them "teens") so I would hope that you have something more than hearsay and speculation to back it up.

Keep in mind, before you file another report on me, I only ask because you are throwing a lot of heat at a project that does not even have screenshots yet, you are going to get another IL-2 and instead of going to that forum and asking honest, polite questions to address your concerns, you are sitting in this forum and fuming about how you just KNOW that it won't be what you want.

Tell me, is it just out of bitterness and spite? where does it all come from?

So, I ask again, do you have any proof (documented or otherwise) that backs up your claims that the new IL-2 will just be a reskinned ROF?

[Skoshi Tiger]

Do you have any proof (documented or otherwise) to back any of your assertions up or is it just pure speculation??

Nobody on this forum knows with any certainty what Battle of Stalingrad will be like, so it is all speculation. Hey I don't even think the developers "know"what the sim will be like, how can they? They haven't built it yet.

All I can say is that if they intend to make money they had better do a good job and meet the expections of enough of it's target audience to make money or it will get shelved, just like Cliffs of Dover.

1C has shown on a number of times, that they can be ruthless when it comes to non-performance. They don't take prior history into account. Two changes of management in two years.

Lets hope it's not three in three.

[Stublerone]

Jep, there are some shots in the dark but generally spoken with reference to ROF actual engine, he is mostly right.

Only thing to mark is the DCS thing. Noone ever requested into deep, how the flight modelling is done in the DCS series. My guesses to that: It has also no sufficient up to date flight models. I know of helicopter pilots saying something about incorrect FM at blackshark. But DCS is not having the priority on fm. It is all about learning and using the systems. So I really doubt, that the p51 is modelled right!!! U most also see, that a ww2 combat series within dcs is not really in discussion and would take about 20 years to deliver enough planes, not mention the VERY bad ground details and LODs. This will never happen and they will stick with modern fighters to combine more planes to what they began with a10 and blackshark.

But again: No discussion possible on graphics. Clod has better graphics and more powerful engine. There is nothing to discuss about it. Graphics are never subjective. You can measure it and you cannot mention the graphics together with performance issues, as this is another topic.

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by Stublerone

Only thing to mark is the DCS thing. Noone ever requested into deep, how the flight modelling is done in the DCS series. My guesses to that: It has also no sufficient up to date flight models. I know of helicopter pilots saying something about incorrect FM at blackshark. But DCS is not having the priority on fm.

You made it sound like DCS is like FSX. Nah, FM is very important and complex in DCS, however some bugs creep in sometimes.

Regarding Ka-50. The main concern about its FM is "easy" autoration. However, it is concern and not really a blame, because almost all concerned people have experience only with single and/or light rotor helicopters, which are very different. In other words, there are no one qualified enough (someone who has experience with such helicopter) to say surely if it is correct or incorrect.

[Wolf_Rider]

DCS seem to have enough genuine sources of input to have their FM's appear quite accurate

[Fjordmonkey]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

DCS seem to have enough genuine sources of input to have their FM's appear quite accurate

This. From what I remember from the dev-letters about DCS:Black Shark, they had both testpilots and Kamov engineers in to quality-assess and -assure the FM's on the Shark. They ended up with the best possible FM they could hope to get on a desktop-system, as far as I remember.

[ZaltysZ]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

DCS seem to have enough genuine sources of input to have their FM's appear quite accurate

Yes. Black Shark was created with some help from Kamov. A10C with help from USAF (ED was doing military version of sim). P51 was created with access to live pony and people working with it (The Fighter Collection). Unfortunately, it would be very hard to create BF109 or FW190 for them as available information is too scarce.