Friday update and discussions 2011-02-25

[fireflyerz]

If its wrong its wrong, and it is , the creator has said as much , what more can be done?......thats up to Oleg and team , but i hope they do put it right cos it looks even worse in the spit , like the pilot is watching AVATAR on a 42 ' screen.

[zapatista]

yes the aircraft crew are still a little to small, but currently this is a relatively small error (much less severe then when first raised many months ago)

for those who havnt payed attention in the past 2 or 3 years of updates and discussion here: pilots are modeled a little smaller because..... initially there was a problem with their limbs sticking out of the aircraft during some of the movements they made, and keeping that WOULD have been very odd !

it has to do with object collisions, the pilots should bump into the walls and not go partially through them, but right now with the articulated skeletal movements they have implemented (see pilot climbing out of cockpit video) the limb movements are a little larger then desired, and they could sometimes poke outside the limited space they are in

so right now as a compromise the pilots are a little smaller then they should be on average, and it is a priority fix to be released in one of the early patches.

note: oleg already confirmed the 1e person view inside the cockpit has the pilot eye level at the correct hight, so for the players themselves it is not a problem

[Sauf]

Doolittleraider i think Zapatista's post explains it pretty well, the developer's are not ignoring anyone, its comparable to when you restore a bike/car or build a model, you tend to know all the little mistakes that no-one else can see. Pretty sure Oleg knows his stuff and if we have some small errors in release version it will be because there are more important issues that need looking at first.

Originally Posted by zapatista

yes the aircraft crew are still a little to small, but currently this is a relatively small error (much less severe then when first raised many months ago)

for those who havnt payed attention in the past 2 or 3 years of updates and discussion here: pilots are modeled a little smaller because..... initially there was a problem with their limbs sticking out of the aircraft during some of the movements they made, and keeping that WOULD have been very odd !

it has to do with object collisions, the pilots should bump into the walls and not go partially through them, but right now with the articulated skeletal movements they have implemented (see pilot climbing out of cockpit video) the limb movements are a little larger then desired, and they could sometimes poke outside the limited space they are in

so right now as a compromise the pilots are a little smaller then they should be on average, and it is a priority fix to be released in one of the early patches.

note: oleg already confirmed the 1e person view inside the cockpit has the pilot eye level at the correct hight, so for the players themselves it is not a problem

[FG28_Kodiak]

For me, nothing wrong with the pilot size:

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think that of all the things shown in these updates, my biggest issue is with the quality of whining being displayed. It is definitely of a lower quality that previous updates.

The whines are repetitive and monotonous. Surely we can do better than this? It is my guess that due to our poor community contribution we are the butt of many other forums whining jokes.
“That was pretty lame! But I guess it wasn’t as bad as a Il-2 Whine!”

We are dredging up and recycling issues that have been thoroughly rehashed many times without adding any new insight or progression through the whine. How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”?

To transcend the Whine/Constructive Criticism Boundary (WCCB) please back up your statements with evidence. The Yellows wrong? How about supplying a photo of the correct colour after researching what camera, film, exposure settings were used and the process that it was developed with? Can’t find that?

Then how about accepting that colour photography was and still is a developing art and that your favourite photo scanned from a 70 year old magazine cover and placed on the Internet may not accurately reflect the actual colours being depicted?

Cheers and pick up your socks community whiners!

PS Great Update Oleg! Can’t wait for the release date!

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I think that of all the things shown in these updates, my biggest issue is with the quality of whining being displayed. It is definitely of a lower quality that previous updates.

The whines are repetitive and monotonous. Surely we can do better than this? It is my guess that due to our poor community contribution we are the butt of many other forums whining jokes.
“That was pretty lame! But I guess it wasn’t as bad as a Il-2 Whine!”

We are dredging up and recycling issues that have been thoroughly rehashed many times without adding any new insight or progression through the whine. How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”?

To transcend the Whine/Constructive Criticism Boundary (WCCB) please back up your statements with evidence. The Yellows wrong? How about supplying a photo of the correct colour after researching what camera, film, exposure settings were used and the process that it was developed with? Can’t find that?

Then how about accepting that colour photography was and still is a developing art and that your favourite photo scanned from a 70 year old magazine cover and placed on the Internet may not accurately reflect the actual colours being depicted?

Cheers and pick up your socks community whiners!

PS Great Update Oleg! Can’t wait for the release date!

Hehe. You have hit the nail on the head here. My forum refers to it as Sperglording. The attempts made by a lot of this community to find (what seems like a competition for) the most minute things to go nuclear over is astounding. I've tried over and over to point this out, but it never seems to get through. Being the biggest whiner isn't a good thing, and it must be understood that most people that are going to play this aren't going to care that the 3rd screw from the left on the instrument panel being misplaced by a millimeter doesn't really matter to most CFS enthusiasts. We aren't as worried about that as "is the FM accurate, and is the damage model accurate? Is the plane being flown the correct model?" To be perfectly honest a lot of the stuff that gets harped on I think damages the IP more than it helps. If all an outsider sees is complaining from what they percieve to be the biggest and most informed fans then they will avoid the game because it gives an impression that the game is not going to be worthy of their time.

That seems to be what is really lost on this community. The issue over absolute perfection to the letter over what is possible or relevant.

[Peffi]

[QUOTE=Skoshi Tiger;228505] How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”? bla bla bla
QUOTE]

Question for Skoshi Tiger: How many times has Oleg said that "the color is dependent on the lighting conditions" ? Do you know how many times or are you just in a mood to criticize people that voice their honest opinion because you are whiner yourself?

[BadAim]

[QUOTE=Peffi;228663]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

How many times does a developer have to say “The colour is dependent on the lighting conditions”? bla bla bla
QUOTE]

Question for Skoshi Tiger: How many times has Oleg said that "the color is dependent on the lighting conditions" ? Do you know how many times or are you just in a mood to criticize people that voice their honest opinion because you are whiner yourself?

EXCELLENT! Now that's more like it, a beautiful example of a compound whine: whiner complaining about whiner complaining about whiners.

[FG28_Kodiak]

First, the comparing of a Emil with a Gustav is worthless.

Second other Pictures of Emils:

[B25Mitch]

Hi everyone. I see there's been some discussion about the gap in shadows, close to the base of the object casting them.



This is an inherent limitation of texture-projection type shadowing. Here is a quick example I did in Blender, also using a low-resolution texture projection shadow:



Notice how the light creeps underneath the wall (yes, the wall is attached to the ground). This can be reduced using a 'bias' factor, however this of course will drain more resources from the system. The simple fact is that this sort of effect will always be present to some extent when using texture-projection shadowing.

Now take another look at the first screenshot. The planes that are further away have a worse gap in the shadow and lower shadow map resolution than the plane in the foreground. This indicates that the team are well aware of the issue and have done everything they can to minimize it.