PDA

View Full Version : What new features would you like to see in BoB GRAPHICS WISE



Choctaw111
02-13-2005, 10:10 AM
I for one would love to see real time shadows that are supported in DX9. For an example when you roll your plane it would be nice to see the shadows of your wings being cast across the fuselage. Also to see the shadows going across your instrument panel and cockpit when you manouver your plane. In technical terms this is called "self occlusion" where objects cast shadows on THEMSELVES and not just the ground or backround objects. Also the use of individual trees for forests instead of just a mesh that can only be seen at altitude and not at all from ground level. One BIG thing for me is bullets and tracers that bounce off things or ricochet into the air. Even if you hit the ground or water depending on the angle some of them should bounce off sometimes. If anyone alse has some graphical improvement wishes I would love to hear them and I am sure that Oleg would like them as well to make Bob an even greater success.

VW-IceFire
02-13-2005, 10:21 AM
There's a few things that I'd like to see.

1) More realistic tracers visually including distance seen, burnout time, richochet, colors and so on.

2) More advanced lighting system (probably an optional one based on hardware) for better shadowing, better surface lighting, in essence...a more realistic looking image is going to be derived from better lighting precision.

3) This is something that really needs to be done. Much better looking clouds. They have to move, they have to be big sometimes, or thin and wispy, a variety of options. I want to see dreary overcast days but when I get above the clouds it shouldn't still be all murky and hazy like it is in FB. Obviously the old has compromises based on hardware and the new one will too but surely it can be better.

csThor
02-13-2005, 10:26 AM
1.) Historically correct unit patches along with correct markings.

2.) Way better aircraft skins along with correct colours and camo scheme.

Chuck_Older
02-13-2005, 12:36 PM
Ground crew
scaffolding
equipment crates
fire trucks
damageable static objects, planes, vehicles, etc
skins for static objects
infantry ground units
trenches
objects to make runways
barges
more non-combatant aircraft


what else...I'll have to think http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

VVS-Manuc
02-13-2005, 03:02 PM
Less eye candy, more realistic and detailed flight physics and damage models

-HH- Beebop
02-13-2005, 03:24 PM
What Chuck Older said.

Scalable graphics so that "low-end systems" (like what our current "high end systems" are now) can play at a level close to the current 'Excellent' mode.

No annoying graphic corruptions (please?).

Choctaw111
02-13-2005, 03:27 PM
I would like the eye candy and detailed damage models. Why don't you think that we can have both? Don't you have more faith in Oleg and his dev team?
I would also like to see a sort of "hear the siren and quick run to your airplane" feeling. As you approach your plane the crew chief says he still wasn't able to fix the damage in the left wing from the last mission but everything should be ok and then he wishes you good luck as you start your engine and prepare to engage the enemy!!!!! I get goosebumps just thinking about it.

Stiglr
02-13-2005, 03:42 PM
How about NONE.

Take 20% of the eye candy **** and pour the time and resources into making SURE the flight models are correct, the damage models are correct, the weapons are correct, and the various systems are properly modelled.

Obi_Kwiet
02-13-2005, 03:56 PM
Sheesh Stglr, I know it's nice to have good FM's but seriously, it's just a game.

I would love to see better tracer smoke like seen in B-17 II. That had the best tracer smoke ever. Also, an option to fly with out tracers would be nice too.

I would love to see the 2D smoke exchanged for 3-D smoke, and the explosions to look more like explosions and not just fireballs. Lot's of smoke with them too.

I'd really like to the the AC vehicle/building size issue corrected.

1337 clouds.

The ability to add shiny finishes to AC skins.

LuckyBoy1
02-13-2005, 04:24 PM
I'd like to see more complex engine modelling. Take for instance the P-51-D. In real life, if you crack the throttle all at once all the way open, it will quickly roll forward and onto its right side dinging the prop.

Speaking of dinging the prop... I watched a guy in real life make a prefect, on the numbers landing in a King Air... well, prefect except he forgot to put his landing gear down! When the props hit, they made a whooping, metal bending noise that went WHAM!!! WHAM!! WHAM! How 'bout we not only hear it, but feel it and see it as well with the jolts and vibrations associated with it?

I'd like to see damage modelling improved. How about if the hydrolics go out, you can still use backup if the plane had it? How about if control cables snap, you hear it and feel it? How about if the skin is torn you feel the vibration and slapping around in the wind the loose part makes complete with the irratic behaviors of flight control?

How about some smoke in that cockpit to go along with all the fire you get scarecrow?!

How about weather that changes as the mission progresses?

Most of all, how about we ask that the game be no more demanding of our computers than the current game? For all of you who argue otherwise, I have just this to say in response...

Lock-On

Choctaw111
02-13-2005, 04:57 PM
I would again like to say that I would like to be to have control over what types of bullets (tracer,AP etc) go into the belts. I would also like to be able to place the bullet types where I want in the belt. If I want to put a string a tracers near the end of the belt to let me know that I am low on ammo then it is my choice and if the person that I am trying to shoot down sees this and knows that I am low on ammo then I have no one to blame but myself. It is all part of the strategy of being a fighter pilot. If I do not want to use any tracers at all I can do that also. If I want to put tracers in only one belt on my P51 that is my choice also. I would love to see this feature in BoB!!!! It is all part of the immersion factor that is so important in making a truly great sim.

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 05:25 PM
Not so sure Cocktaw, I mean you never see shadows pass across the fuselage. You don't even notice shadows pass across the wing when you are looking for enemy dots or tracking enemy plane in combat. Its not really a combat or warfare feature but it would be "interesting" in a civil sim. A combat sim has so much more stuff to program for.

Cockpit shadows might make cockpit modding more difficult, NOT SURE, and won't be of any use under clouds or when the sun is near or below the horizon.

Bouncing Bullets devour AMD/Intel CPU calculations needed to allow more AI planes and surface units be used in missions. That is where immersion comes from. Numbers. If Player's bullets Bounce, so must the AI's bullets Bounce, which will kill AMD and Intel cpus. A combat sim must simulate all aircraft over the frontline or readying for takeoff or landing, and surface unit movement and combat and a million other things.

However http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

BoB depends on good Contrail grafix. FB has some of the *best* ever made yet, but draw distance is too short (about 8km maximum). I think AI could be programmed to have a higher engagement range if enemy aircraft are pulling contrails and the intercepting AI is above any overcast clouds, but this can be tricky as the AI must be able to switch chosen target if needed (for example, an offline play Cheat could be made where bombers are at contrail level and escorts are just below contrail level...escorts below the bombers. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


This contrail has tip about 50km away from location of photograher...

pic~> http://www.library.ucar.edu/Archimages/9661.JPG

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
~ https://www.fin.ucar.edu/ucardil/Orders/EditOrders.jsp?searchdata1=Clouds

RogueSnake79
02-13-2005, 05:43 PM
The enviroment would have to take the top spot on my list.

Realistic weather, Sun reflections on clouds. Birds scrambling off the ground when you make a low pass. Birds in the sky, and flying low over the jungle. That would add alot I think.

And better map textures, having runways and citys better blend in with the map. Not looking like they were stuck there like a stamp.

And last, better fire and explosions http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Choctaw111
02-13-2005, 08:36 PM
I kind of agree with you LEXX about the so many other things to program for a combat flight sim as opposed to a civil sim. That being said those graphical improvements that I had mentioned are still essential and I'll tell you why. If you actually want realism then you are not just going to do "instant action" all of the time you are going to be flying around for hours at a time taking off doing your mission and then coming back to land. I have actually been in combat getting shot at and I will tell you that it is 99% boredom and 1% adrenaline and excitement. Those shadows and things that I was talking about would be so great while you are flying several hours escorting bombers just waiting for something to happen. To make the environment as realistic and believable as possible should be the ultimate goal of any developement team. It will really help sell the new sim. About the CFS3 movie that I had mentioned before: if you look at it again you will see what I mean about the shadows. The P47 actually cast shadows onto itself and when you are in the cockpit view you see the shadows from the canopy frame on the instrument panel move across as the plane changes attitude and direction in relation to the sun. It was absolutely incredible thinking that this is what the sim was going to look like. Another Microsoft blunder. But the CFS3 movie did its job. It got me to buy that horrible excuse for a combat flight sim!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Anyway back to what I was talking about. To do a combat flight sim the right way takes a lot of time and dedication and that is what we have already seen from Oleg and his team so I am expecting quite a lot from a man who has already demonstrated his commitment to persuing perfection and making it the absolute best experience possible. Oh, by the way how great would it be if Oleg actually incorporated all of the graphical improvement to Bob that Microsoft promissed us in the CFS3 movie. I would love for Oleg to humiliate Microsofts meager programming skills by doing what they told us they were going to do but never did or ever intended to do!!!! Oleg RULES and I just want him to push Microsoft to the wayside. Go get 'em Oleg... and tell 'em Choctaw sent ya... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

LEXX_Luthor
02-13-2005, 09:17 PM
Thanks. Sounds "good" but it adds no simming function or working feature unlike towering cumulus clouds, and AI that see them, which were used in air combat tactics much like trees and gullies were used by infantry, tactics which no combat flight sim ever simulated. Developing grafix for flight sim tactics directly develops for immersion. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You mention long range flying boredom. Follow me here. Imagine flying long range and looking out the cockpit at vastly different cloud shapes and sizes floating past, not just the same little white flak puff cloud patterns repeating themselves as seen in ALL flight sims ever made.

Flying along under the bright sun, you pass under a very large sheet of flat overcast above and emerge under the bright sun again 5 minutes later (a large 25km wide patch of flat stratus cloud for example would be crossed in 5 minutes at 300km/hr).

It gets deeper. That massive thundercloud in front, it looks dangerous so you must go around it, or can you climb over it with your bombs or drop tanks?

(1) Drop the tanks and you can climb over the storm, but you won't have enough fuel to get home.
(2) Keep the tanks and fly the long way around the storm (or storm system), and you won't have enough fuel to get home.

This is interesting situation to face... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


You are escorting bombers, and yes you are bored but you must start looking for enemy dots. The enemy is on a not quite parallel path and slowly closing on your formation but they are not aware of you yet, and your flights not aware of them. Suddenly both you and the enemy spot each other at close range, having been hidden from each other until the cloud hiding friend from enemy passes behind.

A new era of flight sim cloud grafix, combined with AI programming to match, can bring the following for long range flying...

Moving and changing sky to watch (and to watch for dots in)
Navigation challenges
Air combat challenges
possibly, airframe structural integrity challenges.

If developed properly with damage modding, thunderclouds and icing could pose airframe structural integrity thinking for the simmer at the same time as navigation thinking. Can the plane handle that storm cloud, or do I have the fuel to go around, or the performance to climb above?

I invite you to compare watching the amazingly exotic scenes outside your aircraft with watching same shadows moving over the same cockpit panel (and that only if you move the stick or rudder). Moving shadows on instrument panel cannot compare to the immersion offerend by the *external* air warfare environment.

Good point about the Microsoft movies ~~> Don't be tricked by grafix that functions purely for eye candy alone. One point though, the moving shadows, as eye candy alone, would probably be the easier "feature" to develop.

arrow80
02-14-2005, 03:54 AM
LEXX: also equipment failures would be nice to implement. For example blown tyre at hard landing, or by being too heave on landing. Drop tank failures (your drop tank won't come off, or drop tanks malfunctions), engine malfunctions dependant upon engine stress in previous missions but also some random factor. Gun jams by hard maneuvers. More precise start-up procedures...and in general having individual aircraft would be great for offline play. You would think twice before you would overheat the engine, or put too much stress on the airframe. I don't need a sim focused at eye candy without immersion...The clouds you mention is eye candy but a needed one. But things like realtime shadows, or be able to see grass, or amno ricochets don't play a role, other than taking computational power from more important things.

plumps_
02-14-2005, 04:35 AM
I'd like to be able to see:

- Canterbury Cathedral from a distance of ~50 km in good weather.
- the flashes from bomb explosions and the red sky over a burning town from a distance of 200 km at night.
- huge columns of smoke from a distance of several dozen kilometres.

That's no eye candy, that's the way the pilots used to navigate.

Choctaw111
02-14-2005, 06:15 AM
Aw Heck!!! These are all good ideas! I just want them all!!!! You put all of those togehter and WOW!!!! Microsft will be begging for MERCY!!!! I do like the idea of grass blowing from the engine thrust of by flying low over the ground. I seem to remeber that the grass feature was talked about being part of CFS3. We were all fooled by how great they were saying CFS3 was going to be. I HATE empty promises!!!! Microsoft has been good at that. Anyway Oleg has this passion for making the most realistic sims out there and the clouds are a great idea LEXX along with the many other great suggestions. If you put all of these together that would really be someting. One other thing that I have been thinking about. I remember with B172 the individual bullet holes were modeled on aircraft and objects. This would be AWESOME!!!!! If the technology was out there to do that years ago we can certainly have this incorporated in BoB. I'll write more later.

Chuck_Older
02-14-2005, 07:03 AM
No worries about M$. I gave CFS3 a whirl again recently, and aftermarket guys have done a lot with the sim...unfortunately, M$ has no plans to make a CFS4, no matter how good FS2004 is (I like FS2004 a lot, but I yearn to shoot things down so I come back to FB all the time!)

Now, if the complexity of the world in FS2004 was present (you have to make a flight plan, etc) that would be something.

Picture this: you're a flight leader in the Battle of Britain. Your Spit MkIs have limited range, and radar is 'wonky' due to German attaks. You must patrol a sector. Which one? In what direction? At what height? At what speed? You take a look at the intel you have, you maybe even have an 'advise' function that will plan the route for you, but you can over-ride it. So you check your intelligence, check the advise (presumably from your officers), and make a flight plan for the patrol.

If the Germans don't happen to be intercepted by that flight plan- you never see them!

The FS2004 world has these great features like weather that FB cannot hold a candle to...BoB should have such features, without doubt

womenfly
02-14-2005, 09:06 AM
A finished game with no patches except for add-ons and such. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

FRAGAL
02-14-2005, 10:12 AM
Airbase Capture in multiplay, be so cool actually having an objective instead of dogfighting all the time, it's fun but it gets kinda boring after a while S!

Plus wouldn't mind seeing some better tracer effects not fussed wat i'll be happy with nethin

JunkoIfurita
02-14-2005, 09:25 PM
Graphicswise, I'm hard to please. Not that I don't think everything that's been done thusfar isn't fantastic, because it is, but I've been waiting years for someone to implement this particular algorithm:

That is, the reaction of dense gases or liquids as something moves through it - modelling of convection in clouds. Imagine looking out over your wing as you fly through a nimbus and seeing the eddy created by your aerofoil, and around the tips of the wings. And the 'whirlpool' effect/slipstream created by your prop. Physical modelling of wind currents that both move the clouds and, more importantly, reshape the clouds.

I already know I'm asking too much http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif, as this sort of algorithm hasn't been modelled yet in ANY physics system (I was looking for it in HL2 Source...no dice), and in fact hasn't been outside meteorological testing simulations. Still, I'd be in heaven if it happened.

After all, original IL2 was first noticed on its clouds - why not keep the tradition alive and blow their minds with convection cloud modelling?

----

Blackdog5555
02-14-2005, 10:23 PM
1. More complex engine management.
2. mechanical failures ( not as much as RL)
3. better sky (no stars at 25,000 ft.) and more varied clouds.
4. better terrain mesh, more detail and complexity.
5. TERRAIN MUST BE AS GOOD AS FS2004. HIRES tiles are a must. Please get a new terrain builder.
6. 2D cockpits with working controls.

Jaws2002
02-15-2005, 06:44 AM
When I shoot a glass cockpit i want to see glass flying allover the place. Just look at this game now. hit a bomber's nose with 30mm cannons you see wings flying, big chunks of plane flying but the glass cockpit stays intact. This kinda $ucks. Remember Rowan's BOB? it was possible then, should be possible now too.

Choctaw111
02-15-2005, 07:12 AM
I agree with the cloud effects. That is something that I had thought about quite a while back. When you fly through a cloud or even smoke it would be AWESOME to see the "whirlpool" vortice effect off of the wingtips when flying through this stuff. That would absolutely blow my mind to see this!!!!

Choctaw111
02-15-2005, 07:18 AM
Another thing real quick. I would also like to be able to shoot something and the dust and/or smoke produced by the hits gets blown by the wind. If you hit a building with your machine guns the smoke and dust made by the bullets hitting should blow over or around the building or whatever ground target you are strafing. There was something else that I wanted to say but I'll think of it later...

Chuck_Older
02-15-2005, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaws2002:
When I shoot a glass cockpit i want to see glass flying allover the place. Just look at this game now. hit a bomber's nose with 30mm cannons you see wings flying, big chunks of plane flying but the glass cockpit stays intact. This kinda $ucks. Remember Rowan's BOB? it was possible then, should be possible now too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't recall canopies being made from the same glass as in in a home window, or even an aoutomobile window...Plexiglass or Perspex is what I recall. It was often called 'glazing'. I can't agree that shards of glass should go through the air. Just because a feature was in Rowan's BoB, I wouldn't exactly use that as a yardstick of what really happened. There were things in that game I found hard to except. I could be wrong on this point, but I don't recall reading many bomber crews comments on glass flying through the air

ucanfly
02-15-2005, 08:40 AM
I hope that more attention gets paid to FMs and cockpit functionality in BOB, but two things that really bug me in IL2 - the extremely dark sky at altitude and the unrealistic difficulty at seeing other planes only a few hundred meters away against terrain. This should have been fixed properly in FB (not to mention PF), but BETTER be more realistic in BOB.

IF Oleg has extra resources , the terrain elevation modelling could use a lot of improvement as well.

LuckyBoy1
02-15-2005, 12:12 PM
As far as the turbulence effects and some of the wing tip effects go, have you guys tried running a coop with a thunderstorm going? True, it could be improved, but it makes me wonder why the bulk of coops and dogfights you see at HyperLobby are all at high noon with clear skies. I really do not think the answer is that people don't like the effect. I think the answer is that the weather effects tax the resources of the players computer, so as a result, it is not used so much.

Remember, nothing will graphically tax a game like smoke and weather, like you describe is rendered like smoke in games, so it hits the frame rates and playability as well. Try and remember that as you add shadows and smoke and whatnot, you will be asking a whole lot more of the PC in question.

Blackdog5555
02-15-2005, 12:52 PM
Well BoB is supposed to be the standard for years to come. So, to continue my list

5. Bigger bomb blast from the 500 to 1600lbers. I would love to see real monters with fireballs, smoke clouds and flying chunks. big craters. Water blast that shoot up 250ft. etc.
6. exploding trees.
7. More cockpit immersion. more stick shaking. violent stick shaking in dives more pronounced stall buffeting. stronger gun shakes and lounder engines. you get my point. More/better radio chatter.


I dont care about frame rate. Soon we will all have dual SLI FX6800GTs. right... cheers.

carguy_
02-15-2005, 02:28 PM
1.More complicated skin damage modleling.

2.Removal of oil split on Me109 windscreen.

3.All gauges working.

faustnik
02-15-2005, 03:05 PM
Easier to spot and track dots and LODs. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Or maybe an "over 40" seting in setup that increased dot size and darkness automatically.

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2005, 03:38 PM
CLOUDS do not need "particle" effects. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Better without them anyway.

Luckyboy:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Remember, nothing will graphically tax a game like smoke and weather, like you describe is rendered like smoke in games, so it hits the frame rates and playability as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Don't mix bad and good grafix methods. Classic FB clouds have no framerate hit on my ATI~9200, but the FB takeoff dust "particles" kill my framerate.

I use Detailed clouds with "perfect" mode option that draws them to the far horizon, and my ATI~9200 does not notice it. FB Contrails are another fast grafic that my ATI~9200 renders with ease. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

The problem with the coop storm grafix is the whole world is *inside* the bad weather. There is no stunning edge grafix like the outside of a thunderstorm.

J_Bigglesworth
02-15-2005, 03:56 PM
I'd like to see, more accurate tracers, contrail, richocets, cockpit damage, all the usual things that people want.

Mostly I want to see a more immersive Sim. How about interactive 3rd person customisable pilots. The ability to wander around the airbases, visit briefing rooms, hangars (to make changes to aircraft armament synchronizing etc), MO(to get any battle damage healed), barracks(for game saving),Control towers, Mess, Squadron Leaders/Wing Co office, interactive sqaudron mates who react to combat stress etc, interactive Ground Crew.

More detailed, bailout sequences, parachute landings, captures or escapes.

LEXX_Luthor
02-15-2005, 05:19 PM
Na, you do the "barracks" thing once or twice, then hit ESCAPE key to get on with the mission. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Worse, programming a game for something players use only once or twice then skip would steal time needed to programm a realistic frontline battlefield environment.


~~> environment means everything outside the cockpit, and beyond the player's plane.

You can't do "richochet" because you have to program all the AI planes to do "richochet" and that would kill the numbers of air or surface units a sim can simulate. They could make only the Player's plane have "richochet" bouncing bullets and the AI planes not have bouncing bullets....but then the claim of "richochet" being realistic is proven false by definition.

Gato__Loco
02-15-2005, 05:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Na, you do the "barracks" thing once or twice, then hit ESCAPE key to get on with the mission. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. This should be a flight sim, not "The Sims". Graphics features should improve gameplay, so I'm all for better clouds and more complex weather, better damage visuals, more detailed ground objects, and so for. But computers have limits on their capability, and they will still have limits in a couple of years, so unnecesary "eye candy" (like modelling individual smoke particles or bouncing bullets) should be avoided. The extra computing power should be used for having more planes on the air, with more complex damage models.

LuckyBoy1
02-15-2005, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
1.More complicated skin damage modleling.

2.Removal of oil split on Me109 windscreen.

3.All gauges working. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey carDude, when did they move the oil cooler on that plane to a place where a hit up front wouldn't cause oil on the windshield?

carguy_
02-16-2005, 02:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
Hey carDude, when did they move the oil cooler on that plane to a place where a hit up front wouldn't cause oil on the windshield? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I mean the Me109 had a special device that spilled a liquid mix on the windscreen making the visibility barely enough to make the plane land-able.Similar to this used commonly in cars.

Chuck_Older
02-16-2005, 06:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J_Bigglesworth:
I'd like to see, more accurate tracers, contrail, richocets, cockpit damage, all the usual things that people want.

Mostly I want to see a more immersive Sim. How about interactive 3rd person customisable pilots. The ability to wander around the airbases, visit briefing rooms, hangars (to make changes to aircraft armament synchronizing etc), MO(to get any battle damage healed), barracks(for game saving),Control towers, Mess, Squadron Leaders/Wing Co office, interactive sqaudron mates who react to combat stress etc, interactive Ground Crew.

More detailed, bailout sequences, parachute landings, captures or escapes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of folks say that. They say they want things such as more immersive gameplay, and when you bail out, you can take a gun and 'escape' etc...

Well, in PF, we have some immersive things people just hate. How many times have you heard "I fly for 45 minutes just to get shot down!". That is immersion- not just in salt water. But nobody who dislikes that cares about the immersive qualities of actually haveing the means to successfully navigate to that point without aid of the autopilot. Walking around the base...which base? How many different ones? Where are the people who populate the base? How many Meteorlogical officer models would there be? How many Intelligence officres would get modelled? Do you see where I'm going...pedantic detail like this would not only bore most players after two or three tries (imagine if I got lost on the base and missed take-off time- grounded!) but also really is, right now and in the foreseeable future- something that would kill the flight aspect of the sim. Now you're doing a military life sim, not a flight sim. Imagine trying to figure out RAF rank! (Quite illogical rankings in the RAF during this time)

As far as escaping after bail-out goes...completely unrealistic. grabbing a schmeisser and taking on the Wehrmacht from your parachute harness as you begin your trek back to mother England, very exciting...but not in the least plausible. WWII games have gotten it into players' heads that this happened...it didn't. i want a sim, not a shoot 'em up. Medal of Honor is still on my harddrive, along with Call of Duty. Fun, but not very historically accurate. I wouldn't say they don't have merit as entertainment, but they are not simulating anything except fantasy in their scenarios

Aaron_GT
02-16-2005, 06:58 AM
I'd be happiest with smooth gameplay. Some improvement in graphics over IL2 would be nice but generally higher/smoother frame rates would be the biggest advantage.

Brechstange
02-16-2005, 07:21 AM
That planes that are listed on the box, should be realy in the game.
realistic flight, weapon & damage modells.

That people, exp. americans don't begin to whine if theier planes are not as good as other planes (it's the SIMULATOR factor, not the Arcade thing, read the sources ah.. yeah read.. sorry me forgott). Otherwise it should be called wargame not simulator.
That Oleg, don't listen to these people only to sell a few box'es more.
Oleg sparting from UBI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


oh .. IBTL ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Brechstange

Chuck_Older
02-16-2005, 09:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brechstange:
That planes that are listed on the box, should be realy in the game.
realistic flight, weapon & damage modells.

That people, exp. americans don't begin to whine if theier planes are not as good as other planes (it's the SIMULATOR factor, not the Arcade thing, read the sources ah.. yeah read.. sorry me forgott). Otherwise it should be called wargame not simulator.
That Oleg, don't listen to these people only to sell a few box'es more.
Oleg sparting from UBI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


oh .. IBTL ! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Brechstange <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you can't even keep national prejudice out of your thinking? When you say things like "people, especially Americans, don't begin to whine", not only are you exposing yourself as ignorant, you are failing to even come close to addressing the point you want to make. Don't like America? great. Find a political forum. I don't know, or care where you live, but I hope the other folks there aren't a bunch of prejudiced reactionaries like you. Maybe later in life, you will come to understand that nationality has nothing to do with human nature. Happily, though, that is not one of my bigger worries

Giordani
02-16-2005, 01:16 PM
Support for more than 3 displays.currently I am using 2 ATI pci videocards and 1 ATI agp card. I can run game in surround mode.
All my videocards have dual display capability for 6 total displays but the game's CONF folder only supports 3 viewports

Choctaw111
02-18-2005, 06:24 PM
Bump

Darkbluesky
02-20-2005, 12:41 PM
Agree, generally with Choctaw.

And one thing: Support for 3D Stereo with polarised glasses and 3d drivers (Nvidia ones, as minimum)

IL2 (the original) ran well in 3D, FB and PF only in Perfect mode and with important gfx glitches.

You guys, talk about immersion, and I agree some of your opinions, but I would like you to test only 2 minutes of FB flying in true 3D, nothing is comparable to the immersion that this gives you! It boosts the immersion factor kilometres ahead. Literally "you are in the cockpit".

Sad that see so much people who do not know it...they do not know what they miss... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

So, please Oleg, design the BoB engine to support 3D play.

Darkbluesky
02-20-2005, 12:58 PM
Grass!! if possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I heard that in the FB development, Maddox GAmes tried to put grass but this killed the machines, maybe it is possible now for BoB. Of course, it should be selectable for high-end pc or not

Mispunt
02-21-2005, 05:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
CLOUDS do not need "particle" effects. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif Better without them anyway.

Don't mix bad and good grafix methods. Classic FB clouds have no framerate hit on my ATI~9200, but the FB takeoff dust "particles" kill my framerate.

I use Detailed clouds with "perfect" mode option that draws them to the far horizon, and my ATI~9200 does not notice it. FB Contrails are another fast grafic that my ATI~9200 renders with ease. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd like to comment on that. The slowdown you experience between different particle effects (classic clouds, takeoff dust) is laregly down to the difference in image resolution used for said effects.
I don't really see any other way of doing realistic clouds BUT using particles. CFS3 and FS2004 both use particles for their cloud effects and to great effect.
The trick with particles is to find the right balance in the ammount and size. Since particles are almost always used for volumetric effects you want to avoid excessive "overdrawing", drawing overlapping particles that do not add anything to the effect( a white fluffy cloud puff will not show up on a white opaque background)
What happened with FB is that they dramatically increased the resolution of the bitmaps used for the takeoff dust and water splashes, it would therefor be great to allow users to specify their own particle resolutionin a config menu.

Contrails are using the same basic transparency effect as particles, but in this case the effect is only layered twice instead of tens or hundereds of time. And it works great because it's a simple visual element.

pourshot
02-21-2005, 06:30 AM
I want differant joystick profiles for differant planes.

WOLFMondo
02-21-2005, 09:02 AM
100 agree with you there pourshot, different key configurations would also be nice.

I'd like more accurate cities and ground scenery rather than the generally sparse cities and towns. The south of the UK is very hilly with lots of little river valleys which i'd like to see.

stubby
02-21-2005, 10:12 AM
Pie in the sky stuff being thrown around here is all fine and dandy but once you factor in stuff like development budget, average PCs in the mass market, how many folks will actually purchase the flight sim, etc.. a much different vision fo what is realistic will emerge. W/ limited funds and the need to have the game run on a mid range PC, do you waste resources on grass, JPL approved ballistics model or modeling in the earth's gravitational pull on planes? The current Il2 is pretty good in my opinion. They would be best served beefing it up and then used the saved resources from having to develop an engine from scratch to add immersion bells and whistles. Improve damage models, flight models and fluff that would give Battle of Britain life. If they attempt to be a jack of all trades (ie great graphics, sound, physics, weather, etc..) the game could be a bust.

CyC_AnD
02-23-2005, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by carguy_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
Hey carDude, when did they move the oil cooler on that plane to a place where a hit up front wouldn't cause oil on the windshield? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I mean the Me109 had a special device that spilled a liquid mix on the windscreen making the visibility barely enough to make the plane land-able.Similar to this used commonly in cars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well actually it was deiceing device not oil remover. But icing plane on high alts and in clouds should be number one of weather effects, as it is number one enemy of every pilot...