PDA

View Full Version : VOTE for NEW landscape!



Hptm.Keule
10-26-2004, 09:28 AM

Hptm.Keule
10-26-2004, 09:28 AM

fherathras
10-26-2004, 12:09 PM
okey, Lomac landscape SUCKS in low altitute copared to IL-2



by the way, we probably wont get better lanscape
just because we woted for it...



Not to sound to hard.



sometimes i HATE PEOPLE!

jurinko
10-26-2004, 01:49 PM
be sure the new landscape will be not introduced in IL-2. Its engine is 5 years old. Existing landscape was very good in 2001 but now it does needs more.. I think we will see completely new ground in BoB. Curious abut the development screens with it.

Lateralus_14
10-26-2004, 02:08 PM
There won't be any more major engine modifications. You'll have to wait for BoB.

Hptm.Keule
10-27-2004, 02:34 AM
I am waiting for Battle of Britain! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But the users like us can help to development team to perform his market tasks by the better way.
Better product - More happy Users - More $ - More happy Users!
Your opinion is the most important thing into <span class="ev_code_RED">The BIG game</span>, and mr.Oleg knows this.
He has My best Respects. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

LEXX_Luthor
10-27-2004, 08:34 AM
Need new New Sky landscape.

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/wea00084.jpg
~ http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/

LEXX_Luthor
10-27-2004, 08:37 AM
What Oleg's next Pacific and The Meds sims could look like if he wanted it...

http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/historic/nws/images/wea00085.jpg
~ http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/

Note what may be photo imperections...dots...but easily visible dots. Visualize aircraft dots in the Pacific Sky. Awsum stuff for flight sim.

Oleg_Maddox
10-27-2004, 08:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Hi Everybody!
Please VOTE! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we can't have the landscape like in Lockon making just one map several years....

Also in many items we have way better than there... especially in technology.
That may confirm the guys that were working there and now works for us...

LEXX_Luthor
10-27-2004, 08:49 AM
Oleg your landscape looks great. Best ever made.

"Photo real" landscape in other flight sims look like throw up puke ~~&gt; bllaaagghhh.

For BoB and Beyond look to the sky. No flight sim ever made big Towering Cumulus clouds.

http://www.toandfrom.org/lightaircraft/TCu.JPG
~ http://www.toandfrom.org/lightaircraft/clouds.html

DarthBane_
10-28-2004, 11:15 AM
The only landscape better than il2 is in bf1942, but its a new engine.

BaldieJr
10-28-2004, 12:07 PM
Hop in a jet and look at the landscape. The detail in the IL2 series is quite good.

Maybe you guys are hoping for more ground clutter?

I'm with LEXX, we need better clouds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Tater-SW-
10-28-2004, 02:12 PM
Hear, hear! Terrain for airplanes means CLOUDS.

tater

Obi_Kwiet
10-28-2004, 09:40 PM
Just because you decide that you want better graphics dosen't mean Oleg can, or will work for 6 months to get it to you for free. Just wait for BoB. Besides, no system to date could run better land. If anything, whine ot the chip makers.

Hptm.Keule
10-29-2004, 04:27 AM
Hi Obi_Kwiet!
Don't take this pool personal!
...even mr.Oleg Maddox does not takes it pesonal!
In this pool, there is place and for your opinion.
The pool gives us a view what is good, or bad, or enough or not.
Thanks to everybody who expressed his point of view...especially to mr.Oleg Maddox and LEXX_ Luthor. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Shrike_UK
10-29-2004, 09:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:

Also in many items we have way better than there... especially in technology.
That may confirm the guys that were working there and now works for us... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope the LOMAC programmers can keep up the quality and cutting edge technology that the old Maddox programmers could regarding the landscapes.

IL2 was light years ahead of its time using the best techniques available, whilst studying making terrain engines recently, i stumbled across a technique in a book which i think is used. correct me if im wrong but .. from amazon...
Real-time 3D Terrain Engines Using C++ and DirectX
by Greg Snook

thoroughly recommend that book!.

A.K.Davis
10-29-2004, 03:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Oleg_Maddox:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hptm.Keule:
Hi Everybody!
Please VOTE! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we can't have the landscape like in Lockon making just one map several years....

Also in many items we have way better than there... especially in technology.
That may confirm the guys that were working there and now works for us... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oleg's such a lovely bastard. His sarcasm is never lost in translation. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Blackjack174
10-30-2004, 04:09 PM
hmm , i got only 1 request:
2d substitutes for the palmtrees http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
The old maps where not so powerhungry with forest=3 because the **** ugly slow trees in citys where substituted with fps friendleir ones , now every palmtree however http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

and a ******* new language filter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hans_Philipp
10-30-2004, 05:49 PM
What we need currently is a bigger variety of tile textures for each map, as well as more realistic, less vibrantly colorated ones! I mean that pacific Green!!!

Terrain is the #1 weakness of the IL-2 series IMO, followed by #2 Sound and #3 Weather.

Von_Zero
10-31-2004, 10:16 AM
i think the quality is verry good, what it would need it's a little variation between the textures.. the (supposed) "grass" has exactly the same color both on the Leningrad map as it has near Berlin. futile to mention the clime diferences and it's effect on vegetation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But if i'd have to chose between even good looking ground and sky, i'd for sure pick the latter

TX-EcoDragon
10-31-2004, 10:38 AM
The Midway Map demonstrates just what the current game engine can do, and IMHO it is the best any sim has seen to date. The island looks pretty much like a sattelite image mapped to the terrain, and unlike Microsoft's attempts at that it still manages to have depth that doesn't give it that icky photo-surreal quality. Seeing that did make me long to see it in more maps though. . .

Keep up the good work Oleg/1C!

Hans_Philipp
11-01-2004, 12:05 AM
"The Midway Map demonstrates just what the current game engine can do, and IMHO it is the best any sim has seen to date. The island looks pretty much like a sattelite image mapped to the terrain,"

Ecodragon, while I share your enthusiasm about the Midway map, it really is not an example for the standard of quality in IL2s maps. Although the terrain meshes (which is what sucks the fps in hi-fi sims like LOMAC and FS2004) are at a decent level, the textures are years below the standard that the sim community has moved into.

Photo-real that looks like puke? Definately not anymore. Check out LOMAC, which has tiles BASED on photos, but doesn't have an actual image mapped to its mesh like FIghter Ops will for example.

The terrain in IL-2 needs an overhaul, and if BoB is to be a success, this Achilles Heel of the IL2 series must be overcome. Textures are bland, boring, and with little features in order for them to be able to be used endlessly without seeming repetitive. That's got to change. We need a bigger variety, something which will have minimal system performance.

And BTW, even the tiles we do have now are far from reality. THe colours and features are simply too arcadish: saturated, bright, and just wrong. Take a look at Oahu, and then compare it to flight photography. You'd be amazed at how different it is.

The 1C Maddox crew has some unparalleled successes and has really moved closer to the holy grail of Historic Flight SIms than anyone ever has or thought of. In a WWII sim though, after physics are in place, we look primarily to the envoronment to gain immersion. Aircraft and models, cockpit, atmosphere, WEATHER, SOUND, TERRAIN and special effects are parts of makes us believe this is real. It's no Falcon 4 there is a whole avionics/electromagnetic spectrum to absorb us, and satisfy our need for realism.

THerefore, if you look at IL2 today, you must compare it to the standards of the rest of the FS community. FSGLobal 2005, that's a standard for terrain meshes. I mean, the whole friggin world with just a few meters mesh resolution? Look at the various add-ons for FS. True if Maddox wanted to make ALL his maps in such a high quality (which aren't THAT many or big compared to what MSFS offers!) it might divert resources. So....what do you do?

You outsource it! Just like you did with aircraft, provide a way for 3rd party devs to improve on the terrain and slowly heal your Achilles heel (that sounded corny-sry about that;-)

In any case, there is room for a lot of improvement, and there are many options available, I just hope it is realized as weak area by the team and worked on.

I salute them regardless!

~S~!

BfHeFwMe
11-01-2004, 01:59 AM
Here's hoping the new guy works the AI department. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

WOLFMondo
11-01-2004, 04:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hans_Philipp:

The terrain in IL-2 needs an overhaul, and if BoB is to be a success, this Achilles Heel of the IL2 series must be overcome. Textures are bland, boring, and with little features in order for them to be able to be used endlessly without seeming repetitive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They aint that bad, they beat all other flight sims. It cerainly looks allot better than M$CFS or FS2004 which looks horrible. Close up its no comparison to IL2:FB/Aces/PF. I quite like the ground with the graphics settings up high. The problem with the ground is the vehicals, there all out of scale. Check out the Crimea map, get a plane and just fly about, its very rich in terrain features.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
Hear, hear! Terrain for airplanes means CLOUDS.

tater <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% agree, while I'd like a Med map I'd rather see some really nice clouds.

XyZspineZyX
11-01-2004, 01:44 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif
Hello,
I love every map/landscape of the game but should it be possible to make one with south Great britain and a piece of northen France and also a big chunk of Belgium ?
Thanks for a game of this quality.

Sensei.

VF2_John_Banks
11-01-2004, 01:55 PM
Matter of fact, PF's terrain is no match compared to the CFS2 terrrain. Not only is the visibility in CFS2 much higher than in PF, so that the terrain doesn't pop up infront of you, the colors look also more realistic and there is the whole Pacific modeled, not just some small spots. Beside that, the CFS2 terrain is more detailed, geographical wise. Palau for example features all the tiny islands whereas PF only got the larger ones and most of them are leveled. The view from higher alts is also somewhat questionable. And the perfect setting is no option as it kills the fps beyond acceptance. Other sims have a nice terrain without it eeing a large fps killer ---&gt; LOMAC's terrain without the animated water is stunning and is much more playbable than the PF one.

Hans_Philipp
11-01-2004, 02:58 PM
I very much agree with John Banks.

PFs terrain is shinier than the CFS or even the MSFS series in some regards because of newer technology. The new shorelines, water and tides look awesome. It lacks substance however. It lacks variety in texturing, acuracy in colors (extremely off in every single theater), features, and accuracy in shorelines and terrain meshes. THe engine IMO is excellent, and could provide for some breathtaking terrain. Look at the Mountain map and how awesome it looks just by having an interesting mesh that's close to real life areas. Forests are terrible, period. Only LOMAC has provided in that area.



IMO if 1CMaddox worked on the following with regards to terrain, I think the game would move light years ahead of the competition:

-Better terrain meshes and coastlines for the theaters involved
-Much more texture art, variety in tiles
-Better study at coloring
-A new way to deal with forests
-City Lights at night

That's just the gist of what should be adressed IMO if this series is going to continue to thrive.

IL-2 has a very solid core in aircraft/physics modelling and a huge and growing database at that. That's a big advantage to allow them to focus a bit more on the terrain side of things.

THe CFS series has the incredible inheritance of the MSFS terrain series. What more could a developer ask for. I still can't imagine how they managed to produce such mediocre products when they had and have the resources to hire some kickass people and really start working on the areas where IL2 excelled. But, alas, I doubt we are ever going to see that as a community from a big company without the fire in the belly and passion that Oleg has, so our hope lie with him and his team.

And I sincerely hope they continue on their great success by looking at up-til-now overlooked areas like terrain.

Hptm.Keule
11-02-2004, 12:57 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gifThank You VERY much Hans_Philipp!
You said everything that I could not from the begining of this "War for quality" in Our lovely simulator!
We need more <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">constructive</span> critics.
I agree with all that You said!

Regards!

jimmie_T
11-02-2004, 11:44 AM
I know NO flight sim which has better ground texture than FB. Photos are nice if you see them from thousands meters but closing in, bluered and you can't judge altitude anymore.

In real life, the closer to the ground, the more detailed texture should be, but this seems simply impossible for our today's computer.

So I think in this regard, they have done a terrific job. Even those layer-trees, when I first time saw that, I was so impressed with the idea. I never saw ANY sim which had lots of tree "objects."

However, for the resolution of the terrain, I'm a bit disappointed...

Having said that,

&gt; -Better terrain meshes and coastlines for the theaters involved
&gt; -Much more texture art, variety in tiles

I wish, too!

-A new way to deal with forests

This may be pretty difficult or impossible for current machine. I don't think we could have forest=3 level tree for that much amount. FPS will be 0.01...

-City Lights at night

VERY NICE if there!! But I remember Oleg said he won't do...

TX-EcoDragon
11-02-2004, 05:54 PM
I agree that the underlying mesh could/should be improved, and more details and less repitition are always nice isntead of endless tiles, and I do agree that outsourcing may in fact be a viable means to do this. I do however stand by my post's sentiments. . . IMHO LOMAC is the only challenger in presenting a visual representation that is akin to what you might see in flight. Perhaps this is more to do with atmospheric effects than the textures on the ground. Also, I don' tthink what looks best in a screenshot always looks the best when in motion. CFS/FS200* and such sims have more stuff on the gorund but the textures and in particular those that are far away do not resemble what I actually observe in flight at all. There is very little similarity to actual flight visualizations in those sims, or most any of them for that matter. IL-2 changed that. Of course since then there has been little change. My initial point was that the *current* engine can clearly do more (as evidenced in some of the newer maps), of course that isn't to say that I don't think it should be improved for BoB in particular with respect to terrain mesh detail, better low altitude representations of trees, and more dynamics in the texture tiles (Microsoft FS series has seasonal variation which looks poor, but has been demonstrating the concept for some time now).

Hans_Philipp
11-02-2004, 11:29 PM
Jimmy T-

Just compare these to LOMAC. No comparison. And BTW, the feeling you get from those hi-res textures down low, isn't cos they're pretty, but because they're hi-res. SO I could take a 256x256 texture, blow it up to 1024x768, and just add clever noise to give you a better sense of speed.

The challenge though is making that thing look like...well, something!

I completely agree with EcoDragon's post, and I have so secretly wished that 1C Maddox got ahold of Eagle DYnamics to get that fantastic terrain, I've been dreaming about it!

MSFS ugliness on the move is because of the engine. The textures are top notch. In that regard, I find IL-2s engine to be even superior to LOMACs. Look at how wrong LOMAC got every hour except midday which is really beautiful there.

IL-2's engine can deliver in the most difficult of circumstances...Early morning, fog, up at 35,000ft or down low, on the deck, with thunder, clouds...

If you gave it a LOMAC theater to shine on, and some MSFS weather, IT WOULD BE SO HIGH UP THERE, NO OTHER SIM COULD TOUCH IT. ;-)

Lancelot_ecv56
11-03-2004, 07:46 AM
I think that the terrain in IL-2 is excellent. I don't know how many of you have flying experince, on any kind of aircraft, until IL-2, and even after, noh simulator, not even LOMAC, give me such a good sensation of altitude and speed as IL-2 does, expecially when flying low.
MSFS have a nice terrain when you see it form medium and hight altitud, something that most of the famous simulator always did, but none of them ever reproduced as well as IL-2 the sensation of flying low, very usefull for landing that you need to visually have a feelling of how high you are.
I agree though that sometimes IL-2 terrain is a little repetitive and lack of browns areas.
The forrest are not nice from very low altitude, but forgive but i think they look excellent from medium and high altitud, and the good side is that they actually and object, not just a texture, so if you land in there you will crash, while being a texture would look nice from altitud but you could actually land in the middle of a forest, a very good and realistic detail and solution from IL-2 engine, not ideal but still i think is an excellent solution.
We still don't have the power to model forest with individual 3D trees without sacrificing other graphics areas of the sim.

"SO I could take a 256x256 texture, blow it up to 1024x768, and just add clever noise to give you a better sense of speed."

Sorry Hans, i agree with some of your points, but that just wouldn't be enough.

NIGHTBARON
11-03-2004, 09:18 AM
Well, Like it or not... We have to admit that even CFS2 got better visual for land/map, And yep... They also modelled the whole pacific theatre wich actually make flying a corsair with boyington skin feels more "right" when taking off from munda base instead of a carrier.

Hans_Philipp
11-03-2004, 11:10 AM
Lancelot, I am a private pilot and have flown over most kinds of terrain. The terrain in IL-2 can in no-way be described as excellent IMO. They use very few high-res textures on a semi-detailed mesh and on a great graphics engine. That's why you like you're sensation of speed-hi resolution on what tiles there are in the maps.

THe problem is that:

A. The mesh/coastlines are not that detailed
B. There are very textures to depiuct different terrain types in a map, not to mention different parts of the world.
C. Colours are not close to real life.

That's all doable stuff as has been witnessed by other sims of our time.

Lancelot_ecv56
11-04-2004, 06:29 AM
ok, excellent is not the right work, but i think its very good. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

A. The mesh/coastlines are not that detailed
True, but i think its a minor detail.

B. There are very textures to depiuct different terrain types in a map, not to mention different parts of the world.
Here i lost you, you mean "There are very FEW texture...." or something else??.

C. Colours are not close to real life.
Fully agree, some people prefer eye candy terrain colors, something that IL-2 gives, i, like you i think, prefer realistic colors, and you are right, they are not realistic. But i got use to them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Hans_Philipp
11-04-2004, 11:36 AM
Lancelot-Terrain mesh, (you know, the wireframe under the textures) and coastlines not important???!!!

Regarding terrain types and textures, I meant to say that there very very few textures.

I'm glad we agreee on the arcadish colours;-)