Friday 2010-10-22 Dev. update and Discussion

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by JG1_Wanderfalke

Nice Details

Photographic textures... What a pathetic look.

[Avimimus]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

Photographic textures... What a pathetic look.

Go easy on it

Compared to Oleg's technique - yes it is dramatically weaker.

However, back in the old days - when few objects could be rendered and textures were low detail - it was a good and even superior technique. I remember Jane's IAF - you could actually recognise individual valleys by their erosion patterns! Each pixel was unique - that has got to count for something)

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks
For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW

For example look at the Switzerland x addon
its impossible to outperform that.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by JG1_Wanderfalke

Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks
For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW

For example look at the Switzerland x addon
its impossible to outperform that.

I don't have the x addon for FSX, but I much prefer SOW's developers terrain building. FSX's idea of putting trees and buildings on Satellite images looks like crap.

[JG1_Wanderfalke]

What the heck are u talking about? The trees are awsome. No sim can beat this. Pls show me otherwise!

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by JG1_Wanderfalke

Why is it dramatically weaker?
Ok cockpit sucks
For me Terrain textures look much better then what we have seen in SOW

For example look at the Switzerland x addon
its impossible to outperform that.

except of course when you get to lower altitudes you silly little man

some of the high detail scenery addons for FS-9/10 in the last couple of years look great for medium and high altitude, because it is basically satellite photography textures pasted over a fairly rough contour map.

but once you get to lower altitudes like 2000 meters and below you get major problems (for a combat flight sim), the textures suddenly look like being exactly that, just flat textures, there is no 3D detail in the contour, there are minimal real 3D objects on the ground (houses, trees, cars, trains, troops, tanks, etc..). they might give you one highly detailed airport if you buy the next addon, but everything else immediately outside that airports it again just ugly flat textures that look like martian vomit after he had a meal of carrots and parsley.

oleg's project is entirely different in focus regarding scenery, as you should have been able to realize by now by following the release of screenshots in the last couple of years (just go to foobar's website to refresh your mind and compare)

even WoP is 100x better then the high detail fs9/10 scenery addons (when seen from low altitude)

[Splitter]

Originally Posted by zapatista

except of course when you get to lower altitudes you silly little man

some of the high detail scenery addons for FS-9/10 in the last couple of years look great for medium and high altitude, because it is basically satellite photography textures pasted over a fairly rough contour map.

but once you get to lower altitudes like 2000 meters and below you get major problems (for a combat flight sim), the textures suddenly look like being exactly that, just flat textures, there is no 3D detail in the contour, there are minimal real 3D objects on the ground (houses, trees, cars, trains, troops, tanks, etc..). they might give you one highly detailed airport if you buy the next addon, but everything else immediately outside that airports it again just ugly flat textures that look like martian vomit after he had a meal of carrots and parsley.

oleg's project is entirely different in focus regarding scenery, as you should have been able to realize by now by following the release of screenshots in the last couple of years (just go to foobar's website to refresh your mind and compare)

even WoP is 100x better then the high detail fs9/10 scenery addons (when seen from low altitude)

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by brando

And that's only the drill for a single-engined fighter. Try sorting that for a twin-engined bomber + taxying to the line + waiting for the rest + taking off + climbing to a mimimum 10,000 feet over France + + picking up the escorts ...... something near an hour so far ...... and then the fun begins. Let's hope you didn't make some kind of mistake during the start-up procedure and need to abort your flight!

Exactly.. All that sounds good on paper.. but consdiering the people who will actually use features that detailed.. you have to ask yourself is it worth it to the devs.. considering that that already know what they want to do with the product .. and given the track record of 1C I for one am expecting to be wowed.. I still get wowed from IL2.. just not as much anymore..

Originally Posted by Splitter

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

Bingo... hyeck I am looking forward to having the buildings finally in proportion to the AC..

[major_setback]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Exactly.. All that sounds good on paper.. but consdiering the people who will actually use features that detailed.. you have to ask yourself is it worth it to the devs....

Well, look at all the add-ons for FSX that do actually feature complex start-up procedures. There is quite a big market for them.

There are over 30 small prop aircraft or WWI and WWII add-ons on the Just Flight site alone (not counting the shockwave products). There are lots of user made add-ons, some of them very professionally done (see PC Pilot's free downloads each month).

The people buying those at the moment might convert to SoW. I think realistic weather and turbulence etc. will win them over. Click-able cockpits too.
I am pretty sure that manufacturers of add-ons are keeping a keen eye on SoW, and that it will take no time at all after the release of third party tools before we see some add-ons, and some of them maybe with more complex start-up procedures.

Personally I enjoy both ways. Complex start-up is a different experience. But won't worry if everything is simplified

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Splitter

I can't believe this even needs to be pointed out. Again I go back to X-Plane which uses satellite imagery. From altitude, it looks fine (for the most part). Of course, the "Earth" takes 60 gigs of hard drive space to accomplish this.

However, there is nothing (or very little) in terms of 3D objects at low level unless you have an Ikea fetish....X-Plane users will back me up on the number of Ikeas in a given major city....

Even when you fly over a well know city like Washington, DC, there is no Washington Monument, no White House, and no Lincoln Memorial without add-ons.

No, give me the detail Oleg is shooting for in SoW.

Fanboi out .

Splitter

you quoted the wrong part of the text in your quote (using my reply instead of the original posters text)

i just responded to his earlier post where he claimed fs9/10 was so much better from all altitudes, and gave a list of examples why oleg's work is better for the lower altitude levels that are important in a combat sim

and me referring to "martian vomit" in low altitude fs9/10 scenery is because you just get a few spare houses (the carrot chunks) sitting on top of a textured flat satellite image map, with a few odd trees randomly placed (the parsley chunks). not really something you want to use in a combat flightsim where you might have to go hunting for enemy tank formations on the ground, or target a specific road/bridge to slow down troop movement