PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: Please get rid of dark blue med/high alt Sky



XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:13 AM
Salute Oleg

With aircraft such as the P-51 and 190D9, 109K4 and possibly the B-17 we are going to see more and more COOPs designed with missions at 25,000to 30,000 ft.

The dark blue sky makes spotting enemy aircraft above very difficult and aiming worse.

Perhaps at 40,000 the sky does go a darker blue, but not at 25,000. Please adjust this so it is more transparent to a higher altitude.

Thankyou for your excellent work on FORGOTTEN BATTLES.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:13 AM
Salute Oleg

With aircraft such as the P-51 and 190D9, 109K4 and possibly the B-17 we are going to see more and more COOPs designed with missions at 25,000to 30,000 ft.

The dark blue sky makes spotting enemy aircraft above very difficult and aiming worse.

Perhaps at 40,000 the sky does go a darker blue, but not at 25,000. Please adjust this so it is more transparent to a higher altitude.

Thankyou for your excellent work on FORGOTTEN BATTLES.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 07:20 AM
Another thing that really needs fixing is the damn horizon when u get over 4000meters.. plz oleg and the team try to find a way around this because it is wrong. I wouldnt mind "less eye candy" if the horizon wasnt a ring of fog.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 10:58 AM
Certainly the sky remains pretty much normal at 35 000 ft or so.

The blurring of the horizon seems more reasonable, although it depends on vizibility and weather conditions.

It would also be good to be able to set the amount of cloud, as well as its base height. At the moment you can only have more cloud by setting worse weather and you can never have a full overcast.

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 11:20 AM
A full overcast would be cool. the one is Strike Fighters for instance is not bad at all! Yes, this would be a great addition to FB which already has the best 3d clouds!

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 12:15 PM
I couldnt agree more, the sky is darker past 12,000 feet but noway near the color oleg has it

http://www.batnet.com/mfwright/halo27.jpg


Heres a shot of 30,000 feet above.


Another problem is the fog circle while looking down from high alt. Im not sure there is anyway around it since il2 sturmo and fb was orginally a low alt sim feat ground attack, and use very small maps compaired to other sims having a scaled globe or complete continent, Something like gta would solve this going into another map segment when reaching the the complete edges of a map,


Just a thought but something needs to be done about this



Message Edited on 07/17/0311:24AM by LeadSpitter_

XyZspineZyX
07-17-2003, 02:00 PM
TurboPorsas wrote:
- Another thing that really needs fixing is the damn
- horizon when u get over 4000meters.. plz oleg and
- the team try to find a way around this because it is
- wrong. I wouldnt mind "less eye candy" if the
- horizon wasnt a ring of fog.
-
-

Whenever the design team makes an engineering decision about how best to represent the 3D world, it's neither "right" nor "wrong". It is simply the end result of the analysis of trade-offs on how to get good software performance from limited computer resources. The "ring of fog" shrouds the area of the 3D space which is clipped (i.e., does not get drawn). The higher the altitude, the smaller the "ring". Here are two observations:

1) No matter what the altitude, the circular area of visible terrain below the aircraft stays somewhat constant; therefore, the number of terrain polygons and textures which must be "visited" (by the drawing routines) inside the computer data structure that represents the clipped view volume remains fairly constant. The "clipped view volume" is the visible part of the 3D space after clipping out the unwanted/unneeded points/lines/polygons within the 3D world volume. So, a much larger map surface area outside the visible "ring" gets clipped, and is not drawn. Detail/complexity of the terrain appears to be optimized to decrease with altitude/distance (that is, small detail polygons and textures not visible with higher altitude are not drawn).

2) Curvature of the earth effects and view horizon do not have to be modeled--also, the maps are kept to a reasonable size and can represent a limited size area of the world;

Both of these design compromises do so at the cost of expansive views to the horizon. This design choice significantly lowers the drawn terrain polygon count in a region of the 3D view volume in which the terrain becomes less and less important with increasing altitude. A flat world model makes the math less complicated. Relatively small maps (with accompanying file sizes) need only show a limited extent of the regional geography. The aggregate benefit of these compromises and others means faster overall sim drawing performance which does not require the resources of a supercomputer.

In simulations of air combat, frame-rate is King. Sacrificing expansive views at high-altitude makes high- altitude combat fast and enjoyable on our lowly PCs (given all the other high-detail graphic features present in this sim). That most Eastern Front air combat occurred at lower altitudes may have also influenced the trade-offs that were made in IL2:FB. A BoB/Western Front air combat simulator would probably require different choices. Future + better technology will allow sim software engineers additional choices with fewer compromises.

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_henry_blake.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>