Friday update and duscussions 2011-02-18

[Skoshi Tiger]

Also it's the angular distance that the tracer in travels in relation to the observer in that shutter period that determines the apparent length of the tracer.

If you think of the observer at one vertex (A) of a triangle, the position of the tracer when the shutter opens at B and the the position of the tracer when the shutter closes C, then the apparent length is determined by the angle BAC.

Of cource this triagngle is in the 3D space represented the simulation world, but when its plotted on our 2D monitors it will look like line of various lengths determined by the angle.

If your behind the sights that angle would be very small forming a dot in our view, If the guns to either side that angle would be a lot larger forming the laser effect.

Cheers!

[Il2Pongo]

Most stream features on the map would not be visible from such high altitude.
Most of them would not appear blue at all. They might be a shadow in the trees.
Many flight sims seem to do this, grossly exaggerate the visibility of small streams from altitude.

[phoenix1963]

Originally Posted by Il2Pongo

Most stream features on the map would not be visible from such high altitude.
Most of them would not appear blue at all. They might be a shadow in the trees.
Many flight sims seem to do this, grossly exaggerate the visibility of small streams from altitude.

+1

In fact, most streams and rivers (most UK rivers would actually qualify as streams in the rest of the world!) are visible from the air ONLY because of the lines of trees and bushes on their banks. I can see how making those continuous lines or bushes and trees compatible with a tiled landscape is hard, so I sympathise with Oleg & his team.

The rather il2ish landscape is perhaps the least satisfactory aspect of CoD at present, great damage & engine modelling, fm sounds great.

Also, some weather that is better than il2 but not fully dynamic is surely possible.

We only can hope that Oleg & team start getting some revenue in that enables improvement.

56RAF_phoenix

[Il2Pongo]

Originally Posted by phoenix1963

+1

In fact, most streams and rivers (most UK rivers would actually qualify as streams in the rest of the world!) are visible from the air ONLY because of the lines of trees and bushes on their banks. I can see how making those continuous lines or bushes and trees compatible with a tiled landscape is hard, so I sympathise with Oleg & his team.

The rather il2ish landscape is perhaps the least satisfactory aspect of CoD at present, great damage & engine modelling, fm sounds great.

Also, some weather that is better than il2 but not fully dynamic is surely possible.

We only can hope that Oleg & team start getting some revenue in that enables improvement.

56RAF_phoenix

I am not sure on the limitations of tiled landscapes, but a line of shrubs or even something green would be way more imersive then the BIG BLUE LINE they currently render when the map says "creek, stream, river, canal"
Even just shutting off 80% of them in the map would be better then where it is.
I hope at least they shut them off at 5000 feet or so. Seeing the bright glare on dozens of "creeks" at once from altitude(like the recent MS screen shot) would be a shame.

[SlipBall]

Stream's and rivers with their unique shape and flow direction, are needed for navigation. Turn off 80% of them and then wind-up in???

[Kudlius]

I can see burning Spit from mine E killing machine in my dreams already.

Is this common procedure to release the download version earlier?
Never had that before, so I can't imagine that it is this way with CoD.

[Il2Pongo]

Originally Posted by SlipBall

Stream's and rivers with their unique shape and flow direction, are needed for navigation. Turn off 80% of them and then wind-up in???

No one is navigating by streams. Rivers, sure, canals sure, but brooks and creeks and streams? they are inviisble from the air, that is my whole point.
A brook on the map that this game is based from that is never more then 10 feet wide on its highest flow day will still be 50 scale feet of shiny water visible from altitude, that is just not correct

[robtek]

Originally Posted by Il2Pongo

No one is navigating by streams. Rivers, sure, canals sure, but brooks and creeks and streams? they are inviisble from the air, that is my whole point.
A brook on the map that this game is based from that is never more then 10 feet wide on its highest flow day will still be 50 scale feet of shiny water visible from altitude, that is just not correct

Thats a interpretion of stream that isn't shared by many, i assume.
A stream is a very large river!
And brooks and creeks i haven't seen so far, only fair sized rivers.

[The Kraken]

Originally Posted by Il2Pongo

I am not sure on the limitations of tiled landscapes, but a line of shrubs or even something green would be way more imersive then the BIG BLUE LINE they currently render when the map says "creek, stream, river, canal"
Even just shutting off 80% of them in the map would be better then where it is.
I hope at least they shut them off at 5000 feet or so. Seeing the bright glare on dozens of "creeks" at once from altitude(like the recent MS screen shot) would be a shame.

Well I can see why it's not possible to line up every river with hedges and shrubs (and then roads and railroads on top of that) without any gaps. And I've certainly seen bright reflective surfaces of even narrow rivers from the air more than once (needs the right lighting conditions though).

What I don't get though is the deep blue colour for water. At best the water appears somewhat transparent from the air, and shows the darker riverbed below. Usually though it's simply some muddy brownish-greenish tone. That would also blend a lot better with the landscape.