Friday 2010-07-16 Dev. update and Discussions about the update ONLY!

[Tbag]

Originally Posted by Tree_UK

I have to say that im not feeling much love for the landscape that Ive seen so far, to me it looks like a water colour painting, i would like to see a comparison screenshot between WOP and SOW landscape i seem to remember Oleg mentioning that he may do this. Also I honestly think that the Il2 trees look better although i appreciate that it is all still WIP's. The detail on the aircraft is incredible though and the water looks stunning.

I think we've seen much better landscape shots than those in recent updates already:

Quote: I think we've seen much better landscape shots than those in recent updates already:


yeah a bit better.

But especially the trees (shape and) colour look much nicer than in the latest updates.

[furbs]

Originally Posted by Tbag

I think we've seen much better landscape shots than those in recent updates already:

yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

[=XIII=Shea]

IMHO people should pass judgement until we see an actual gameplay video,showing smoke,fire,ground detail,I think Oleg and the team know what they are doing

[David603]

Originally Posted by furbs

yep...those trees look much better...so i wonder why they dont look as good in the last few updates?

anyone have a idea?

Didn't Oleg switch from using trees that were made by his own team to using trees made by a company called Spreadtree since those shots were taken?

Oleg also said something about bugs in the system and how they were using the reduced detail distant models at the moment, which would explain the poor trees in the most recent shots.

[zauii]

Comparing screenshots to one and another never gives any fair results.
Just wait til you have the game in motion and on your computers until you judge.

[Splitter]

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

All I have to say about this and all similar comments: OMG

Giving critique to the developers about screen updates is not an insult.
It's just help to make everything better.
When will you people understand?

Don't you know the saying: Two heads are better than one?

Oleg and his team are not all knowing.

[Friendly_flyer]

Splitter speaks the wisdom here.

[KOM.Nausicaa]

Originally Posted by Splitter

Not to offend anyone, but I can't believe the nitpicking on the scenery.

I have bought software since it came on cassette tape. I have seen good graphics (for whatever time period) on bad games and "OK" graphics on very good games. Poor games don't get played for very long. Good games with OK graphics were (and are) played for many hours.

The are many things that go into actual "game play" that are more important than being able to take photo realistic screen shots.

I know from competing that most people have to sacrifice some aesthetics for frame rate. People are bringing up RoF as an example of what happens when a product is released too early but looked pretty. I would also point out that Crysis was a good game, and gorgeous, but many end users couldn't play it on their systems. The graphics were too good for all but the most powerful systems. So I would say that the greater danger is in SoW becoming another Crysis....stunning but unplayable for many.

In the US we have an expression: boondoggle. Programmers chasing their tails tweaking graphics and delaying release dates equals a boondoggle. Games staying in development for years on end equals a boondoggle (Team Fortress 2 anyone?).

Releasing a solid, great game that is used as a platform on which to improve further updates and releases equals a WIN for the end users and the publisher.

We're talking about the tree shade colors? Seriously? Were I Olegg I wouldn't be publishing these updates at all. I am waiting on the release of a new version of my favorite flight sim and the owner of that company gives almost no details so as to avoid discussions like this. That sim is still getting buzz in their community....especially because the current customers are hanging onto every rumor and tidbit of information that leaks out.

The fire has too much red in it? Seriously? The graphics look almost good enough for release, if the gameplay is outstanding then we won't be griping when it is released. The expression "you can't have everything" comes to mind, especially when we are talking about a $50 product.

Splitter

++1