Friday update and discussions 2011-03-18

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

You take the retard cake.

@Chivas- "General insults, LMFAO, you should try reading your own posts. While your at it try using sound reasoning and evidence before you declare COD antiquated for years to come. ."
.

If people actually took the time to do this we wouldnt have all these religous wackos either. And we might actually have a planet without jihads and crusades....oh well I guess I can dream..

[Insuber]

Hey you,

Hypercritics, if you are here I assume that you are interested in prop flight sims, as I am.
So, have you considered the alternatives to ClOD, if you look today for a good WWII flight sim? Zero. Nothing. Nada. No market = no investments. Only a huge passion could produce Il2 then, and CloD now.

A "thank you" to Oleg and team could be added here and there to your deluge of criticism, I think.

Cheers,
6S.Insuber

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

I never said it wasnt going to be. But you would know that if you could read....

And that's where I stopped paying attention. Heliocon, you've got to be one of the rudest posters I have seen round here.
dx11 will make the game look better, but with a significant performance hit. You think fully implemented tesselation effects wouldn't reduce th gwme to a slideshow on 95% of people's rigs? This market share you talk of is deceptive. It may be around 30% for people with dx11 capable cards, but how many run games well, hell, how many games actually use it? Quality of frame rates and number of titles would be a better indicator of market share.

Originally Posted by David Hayward

I haven't missed the point. He thinks that not implementing DX11 will make CoD so soul-crushingly disappointing that it will reach back in time and also make IL-2 less enjoyable to play. Am I close?

Lol

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Apparently CoD will be the best antiquated WW2 flight sim available. Thanks for that insight.

And lol again

Originally Posted by sallee

Do you know, I'm a 47 year old solicitor. I've got three children. I've been fascinated by aviation since I was about 5 years old. It may be even longer because I think one of my first memories is of aircraft circling around above me and my father tells me that we stopped in a lay-by to watch what was presumably the filming of the film "Battle of Britain". I read about aircraft, a lot.
I've played just about every flight sim you can name. When I was a child the closest we came to a flight sim was chasing each other on our bikes.
IL2 was an absolute miracle to me. The images, the pink sunset moving across the instrument panel, all amazing and miles ahead of the "opposition".
In the last year or so, I've been playing Rise of Flight which is as amazing to me as IL2 when it first came out. I've flown PA28s, Chipmunks, a Jodel Robin, a Harvard and Tiger Moths. Any of the people involved in serious flight sims I hold in the highest regard. They'll never make a fortune out of it. The enthusiasm and love of flight which is palpable in the teams which have created Rise of Flight and the IL2 series is a cause of genuine rejoicing to me. I'm not naive and I'm not a simpleton. I'm as critical as the next man. My reaction to this stuff is visceral, it eirher convinces or it doesn't.
Now, what is it that makes some of the negativity here so distasteful? It's not because I want to marry Oleg. It's because someone has devoted his life and huge amounts of effort and (who knows?) has struggled to persuade people, like his publishers, of the commercial viability of flight sims because of a real love for what he does. I've got a reason to admire him and his team. A real reason, not a blind stupidity and I can do without people telling me not to have that admiration or why I should not have it. This stuff is pure gold. It's amazing it exists at all. My critical faculty is impressed and overawed by it.

I think the videos are amazing. Some things are not perfect, but, good grief, this is as near as it gets.

Excellent post

Originally Posted by Insuber

Hey you, hypercritics, I assume that if you are here you are interested in prop flight sims, like me. So, have you considered the alternatives to ClOD, if you look today for a good WWII flight sim? Zero. Nothing. Nada. No market = no investments. Only a huge passion could produce Il2 then, and CloD now.

A "thank you" to Oleg and team could be added here and there to your deluge of criticism, I think.

Cheers,
6S.Insuber

Concur!

[Immermann]

Another view on the DX debate:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...l-to-directx/1

Not that it matters too much, flight sims are generally CPU-limited anyway.

[Kikuchiyo]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but didn't last weeks update show that tessellation was already implemented?

and Helicon said best himself:

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Also there is a reason why its called "cutting edge/new tech/next gen" why? Because the first few programs to use the new tech are making next gen engines, once everyone starts using them then its current gen technology...

and that my friends and fellow posters, and even Helicon is exactly what the CloD ENGINE is. It is the next/newest/next gen flight engine. Just because it doesn't (you presume) have the newest graphics hardware implemented doesn't mean it's last gen. It's the ENGINE that is next-gen.

Your brain seems to be rather antiquated, and poorly oiled. You spew vitriol and then get upset when others return it. Before you post breathe a bit, and calm down. No one is attacking you personally (well before you started doing it.) On the same note we've all gotten rather savage lately, anticipation obviously a factor, and we really need to step back and be a bit more cordial towards one another and the devs.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by Kikuchiyo

Correct me if I am wrong here, but didn't last weeks update show that tessellation was already implemented?

and Helicon said best himself:


and that my friends and fellow posters, and even Helicon is exactly what the CloD ENGINE is. It is the next/newest/next gen flight engine. Just because it doesn't (you presume) have the newest graphics hardware implemented doesn't mean it's last gen. It's the ENGINE that is next-gen.

Your brain seems to be rather antiquated, and poorly oiled. You spew vitriol and then get upset when others return it. Before you post breathe a bit, and calm down. No one is attacking you personally (well before you started doing it.) On the same note we've all gotten rather savage lately, anticipation obviously a factor, and we really need to step back and be a bit more cordial towards one another and the devs.

No its not because tesselation requires dx11 which is not in the release version.

Love the moronic responses, saying I said something, I ask you to show where I said that, and you just throw more insults. Seriously grow up, and their is a differance between arguing over a point and just throwing crap for the sake of it. If someone says I said something I did not say, and they keep insisting I did, despite the fact that they cannot provide evidence and its obvious they never went back to actually read the series of events as they happened, instead jumping on the bandwagon of kiddies throwing insults I reserve the right to call them lazy morons because if they cant read they should not post.

@Immerman - As for the AMD article - its an interesting read but the only thing I would point out is that AMD is ticked off at DirectX/Nvidia atm because Nvidia dx11 cards are better overall in dx11 then ati (especially tesselation).

@ Titus - no you sound stupid now. I can say this because you are making statements about something you dont know about. Tesselation does reduce performance, but it reduces performance substantially less then if you were to use other methods to generate the same detail. Over that it is much easier to use tesselation on an object then model multiple LOD versions.

So children here can keep up their attacks and absurd statements based on no substance, but I reserve the right to yet again say FAIL because all my statements for the last 5 months on windows market share, gpu share in general and graphics design have been word by word topic by topic legitimised by the devs in the more recent interviews, and that was after a similar scrap in the forum over dx11 at release. So as of know I have been the only person able to more or less "predict" or forsee what the devs would or should do to solve these issues. That doesnt mean I will always be right, but its better then others records here.

[Kikuchiyo]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

No its not because tesselation requires dx11 which is not in the release version.

Sir, this is tessellation. Oleg said somewhere around 2 months ago it likely wouldn't be in the release. You are arguing a point that makes little sense, and you are flying in the face of evidence all the while shouting insults at people. Then getting indignant about it. Calm down. Perhaps the way you are stating things doesn't make sense to others the way it does to you.

[MD_Titus]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

@ Titus - no you sound stupid now. I can say this because you are making statements about something you dont know about. Tesselation does reduce performance, but it reduces performance substantially less then if you were to use other methods to generate the same detail. Over that it is much easier to use tesselation on an object then model multiple LOD versions.

So children here can keep up their attacks and absurd statements based on no substance, but I reserve the right to yet again say FAIL because all my statements for the last 5 months on windows market share, gpu share in general and graphics design have been word by word topic by topic legitimised by the devs in the more recent interviews, and that was after a similar scrap in the forum over dx11 at release. So as of know I have been the only person able to more or less "predict" or forsee what the devs would or should do to solve these issues. That doesnt mean I will always be right, but its better then others records here.

Classy.

Did it cross your mind that the choice might be dx11, tesselation and naff performance or, and here's the ground breaking bit you ignore, no tesselation effects, no dx10 tech compensation and good performance. Basically not doing the effects you get in dx11 at all, and having a reduced, in comparison, level of detail until a later patch activates it. Much the samevway the water detail was increased in il2's lifespan.

As I said, using dx11 capable card market share as the indicator is deceptive. Few people will build a new rig and use an old gpu, and dx11 capable cards have been about for the past 18 months+. That's basically all new gpu's, and a better indicator of how useful or applicable dx11 is would be assessing how many games use dx11 and how many people actually play in dx11 mode. HD capable televisions were available for years before we saw much in the way of HD broadcasts.

A recent article in PC Gamer talked about the usefulness of dx11, using the unigine heaven benchmarker. The conclusion was yes, it makes it look great, but it would be unplayable, and having flat textures rather than tesselated cobblestones is preferable from a gaming and playability viewpoint.

I'd like to add that if you're going to repeatedly call people stupid, it's a good idea to use "their" and "there" correctly.

[JAMF]

Originally Posted by Immermann

Another view on the DX debate:

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/gra...l-to-directx/1

Not that it matters too much, flight sims are generally CPU-limited anyway.

3000 draw calls, that limits the number of aircraft to 300 (10 possible moving parts) and if you add bombs, parachutes, ground vehicles and ground objects, it will detract more from the aircraft numbers.

[BadAim]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

If people actually took the time to do this we wouldnt have all these religous wackos either. And we might actually have a planet without jihads and crusades....oh well I guess I can dream..

It really pisses me off when you religious zealots (and by that I mean Atheists) get to insult people of faith all you want but when we push back the thread gets locked because we're talking about "religion". Well you have more faith in your bogus religion than I do in mine so I guess you win in the religion game. Try staying on topic for five minutes.