4.13 development update discussion and feedback

[Buster_Dee]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

I've wondered how much it would cost to buy the "old" IL2 Sturmovik franchise from its current owners. If the sale was done right, the new owners might be able to get around the ban on Northrop-Grumman "intellectual properties."

But, I think that IL2's graphics are "good enough" and that you really don't want to improve them that much.

Things like dynamic lighting and photorealistic models and scenery are mostly eye candy which just slow down frame rates and increase development time. They make for pretty pictures and aid immersion when you're flying around, but you mostly don't notice them when you're in a dogfight.

IL2:CloD failed in part because its developers concentrated on the graphics, at the expense of the things that made IL2 great - smooth gameplay, a solid mission editor, and enough maps and a big enough plane set to keep fans interested.

While it's too soon to tell, it also seems like IL2:BoS might fail for similar reasons - too much emphasis on eye candy and not enough attention to the things that keep fans interested.

IL2 and similar flight sims have lasted as long as they have because they're graphically simple enough that it's relatively easy to add content. IF IL2 gets any graphics upgrades, they should be simple things that reflect improved computer power and which improve the COMBAT experience.

None rings true for me. If clubbing seals is most important, then 46 should still be good enough. In my opinion, CLoD failed simply because it was forced out the door against the developers wishes. I'm buying other sims just to help keep the genre alive. What keeps me away from playing them is that they are not enough like CLoD. Defending a score is fine, but I want to defend a city that looks like a historic city. The visible history is the draw for me.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Buster_Dee

The visible history is the draw for me.

Alright, I agree that some of the cities look a bit lame. Cities like Berlin should have city blocks rather than individual houses. That might also aid frame rates.

But, what I was getting at was that, as a matter of priorities, what would make the sim more "immersive" for a hard-core WW2 history geek, improvements to the flight models or improvements to graphics? Both are important, but which is more important?

It seems to me that the main things that make the newer sims like RoF, CloD, IL2:BoS which are beyond the capabilities of IL2 are the things like dynamic lighting and self-shadowing.

Below that, there are lots of little (or not so little) graphics tweaks that affect combat which might be possible:

* More and bigger clouds reflecting different weather types. Could also represent fog.

* Placeable clouds.

* Placeable smoke or dust clouds. Important for daylight bombing. Really important for desert maps, which we'll be getting with 4.13.

* Large, long lasting fires to aid night bombing and to make "pathfinder" missions worthwhile.

* Simple sun-glare effects to make distant planes more visible.

* Better contrails - can be set to appear at different levels and can be set to last longer, so we can see images like this:

http://contrailscience.com/wp-conten.../stpauls2.jpeg