PDA

View Full Version : Are we better off w/ less polys in new BoB sim?



XyZspineZyX
11-04-2003, 09:33 PM
Heard that the new A/C in this sim will feature approximately 7000 polys (IIRC this is about double what we have now).

Take that into consideration with enhanced flight dynamics/physics, moveable head positions, increased weather effects, move advanced damage model, etc, etc, etc and you have to wonder, even with computer power in 2+ years, if we are going to be able to fly this puppy with more than a dozen A/C in the air at one time, in order to get acceptable frame rates.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for better graphics but I would love to have this exciting new sim allow 100+ A/C in the air at the same time and I would be willing to sacrafic a little in the graphics department in order to get there. Especially since I'll still be running my P4 3.06 computer by then.

Hopefully Oleg will consider putting a little more into the quantity department this time as its been a while since I've been in a large air battle.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2003, 09:33 PM
Heard that the new A/C in this sim will feature approximately 7000 polys (IIRC this is about double what we have now).

Take that into consideration with enhanced flight dynamics/physics, moveable head positions, increased weather effects, move advanced damage model, etc, etc, etc and you have to wonder, even with computer power in 2+ years, if we are going to be able to fly this puppy with more than a dozen A/C in the air at one time, in order to get acceptable frame rates.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for better graphics but I would love to have this exciting new sim allow 100+ A/C in the air at the same time and I would be willing to sacrafic a little in the graphics department in order to get there. Especially since I'll still be running my P4 3.06 computer by then.

Hopefully Oleg will consider putting a little more into the quantity department this time as its been a while since I've been in a large air battle.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2003, 10:00 PM
Well acording to Intel's roadmaps, which are subject to change, we will have 10.2Ghz processors runing on 1.2Ghz FSB by then. This will be the Nehalem which will be 2 processor revisions down the road. Right after the Prescott, soon, which is the next step and will scale to 5.2Ghz and the Tejas which will scale to 9.2Ghz.

Who knows what ram speeds we will be running at but Im sure it will be very high. Also if graphics cards keep up anywhere remotely close to the pace they have been going a 9800pro will be a budget card delivering a fraction of the performance of the high end and mainstream cards.

7000 polys, lots of planes in the sky and detailed terrain? No problem.


<div align='center'>
<a href='http://greatergreen.com/il2/'>
http://members.shaw.ca/corn/il2sig2.jpg
</a>
</div>

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2003, 10:27 PM
Lunix wrote:
- Well acording to Intel's roadmaps, which are subject
- to change, we will have 10.2Ghz processors runing on
- 1.2Ghz FSB by then. This will be the Nehalem which
- will be 2 processor revisions down the road. Right
- after the Prescott, soon, which is the next step and
- will scale to 5.2Ghz and the Tejas which will scale
- to 9.2Ghz.
-
- Who knows what ram speeds we will be running at
- but Im sure it will be very high. Also if graphics
- cards keep up anywhere remotely close to the pace
- they have been going a 9800pro will be a budget card
- delivering a fraction of the performance of the high
- end and mainstream cards.
-
-
- 7000 polys, lots of planes in the sky and
- detailed terrain? No problem.
-


Sure! Whats another $3,500 for an upgraded system. Just can't afford that price every 2 years.

But the point I was making was that flight sims these days push too much eye candy over quantity, always bringing the top o' the line system to it's knees in pretty graphics. Unfortunately we are again limited just to have a dozen pretty A/C in the air at once.

XyZspineZyX
11-04-2003, 10:29 PM
think your intel roadmap is a off their

here is a link to the most up-to-date roadmap right now.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=12040

Prescott is having tons of problems, so proabaly wont scale past 4ghz, I guess Tejas is supposed to be early 2005. That roadmap has been changed around a lot, it came out back when we were supposed to have Prescotts in spring 2003. With the way everything has been going with Prescotts, I would think Nehamel would be late 2005 early 2006 chip. But regardless, we will have some fast stuff by then.


"Ich bin ein Wuergerwhiner"

"The future battle on the ground will be preceded by battle in the air. This will determine which of the contestants has to suffer operational and tactical disadvantages and be forced throughout the battle into adoption compromise solutions." --Erwin Rommel

http://lbhskier37.freeservers.com/Mesig.jpg
--NJG26_Killa--

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 03:35 AM
Incase you have'nt noticed poly counts have been creeping up. Even the models slated for the addons have given a bit more room. Games are the applications that push the desktop technology. If the developers just went with what worked we wouldnt get far. Take IL2 for example it gave both the candy and the feel and no matter what folks say the most accurate FM to date is nothing without the visuals. It's about immersion and accurate FM are only part of the package.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 03:48 AM
QUOTE

"Sure! Whats another $3,500 for an upgraded system. Just can't afford that price every 2 years.

But the point I was making was that flight sims these days push too much eye candy over quantity, always bringing the top o' the line system to it's knees in pretty graphics. Unfortunately we are again limited just to have a dozen pretty A/C in the air at once. "


If the computer industry did not advance at this rate we would still be using 386 SX 25's wishing we had enough cpu power to make Dynamix Aces over the Pacific run smoothly.

$3500 bux? I can build an XP3200 Radeon 9800 system for less than $800 bux with simple overclocking. An XP1700 baseline system is less than $225 now.

Lastly, don't forget that if that's the high end, the budget systems will be 4 ghz with R420 graphics computer for under 300 bux.


Don't want to upgrade? Play the original IL2 forever and those of us that choose to stay current will enjoy the new sims.


http://taipans.dyndns.org/
http://mysite.verizon.net/pmcgwire/IL2/
http://mysite.verizon.net/pmcgwire/tpn_sneakypete.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 05:27 AM
Moore's Law has been true since 1965...
http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm
/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 07:35 AM
Also note that 7000 polys is very conservative. Even LOMAC, which comes out soon, has many times that. In some CFS mod planes, there are more than 100,000 polys, and the game still runs smooth. The 7000 poly standard is very low.

FB could use 7000 polys per plane, and you would hardly notice the difference. A B-17 is 5000 poly, and with crew and bombs, it is more than 10,000. With clouds, buildings, smoke, planes, and terrain, the scene is probably half a million triangles. An extra 2000 or 3000 would make little, if any, noticable difference.

There are other advantages to having low polycount, mostly that objects are easier to model, and less resource intensive with massive numbers of 3d objects (like BoB will have).






Message Edited on 11/04/0311:38PM by StG77_Fennec

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 12:46 PM
Im sure the bob engine will be streamlined il2fb seems not that streamlined the ammount of fps for the graphic quality, look at cfs2s non lod models you have have a sky full of 20 15,000 poly models and not lag, real engine sounds, 10 meg skin,

With the small square maps fog in distance, high alt fog circle we all should be getting alot more fps

BOB will be more streamlined code, higher performance and better graphics probally



<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter</center>

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 04:03 PM
Perhaps we'll see a version optimised for 64 bit architecture, that should move the bottleneck back to the graphics card.

http://allanhall.ic24.net/images/SmallPunkGrey.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 04:05 PM
Perhaps we'll see a version optimised for 64 bit architecture, that should move the bottleneck back to the graphics card.


Your Post Could Not Be Completed Because:

This post is identical to your last post. Please check the message overview to see if you have already posted this message.

Please make any needed corrections and try again.






http://allanhall.ic24.net/images/SmallPunkGrey.jpg

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 04:16 PM
I would MUCH RATHER BoB be a game with incredible graphics. We need to move forward here, not back. If you don't wish to upgrade, fly FB. I think game makers HAVE to make games that run well on the most powerful systems available at that time.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 04:25 PM
The thing is, I will probably be running the same system I have now in 2 years time, unless I have my children working down t' pits from an early age.

It doesn't matter what the top end rigs are doing, I don't have top end wages, I mean I have only just upgraded from a P400 this year!



Cpt-Madcowz
Comsa (http://www.comsa.co.uk)



"When the hunter comes, the tiger runs with the deer."

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 07:08 PM
Madcowz, half of these guys aren't half-right, or half-wrong, but let me give you a prespective from someone on the border.


In what concerns to the advances in technology, the companys are "getting laid" with Moore's law.

Think about it like this. 10 months ago, the top of the line for Intel processors was the 2.2Ghz.
Now, do you realy think that they, in 10 months time, would have the technology avaiable to fork out another GHz?
Not at all, they probably allready had enough to go up to a 4 or 5 GHz easily, but that would go against Moore's law, and we (they) wouldn't want that, now would we!?

Of course, as you may have noticed, i'm pushing hard on the sarcasm, but its not without good reason.
Allow me to explain a bit further.

Following the so called Moore's law, lets the companys trow sand in our eyes, making us believe that they have to follow the pattern, otherwise things will go wrong.
They would the minority of the inteligent-enough-to-understand-how-the-market-works people, to believe that they can't reach any further.
We could perfectly have, at this time, a 4 or 5 GHz sistem, spending exactly the same money we are forking out to have a 3GHz sistem.
But no, thats not they'r way, they have to squeeze as much as they can, out of the pockets of the consumer, because if they go all the way to the limits, the market will have no need for the slower sistems, and therefore, they would loose a catastrophic amount of money, enough for them to declare bankrupcy!

The next so called big step in the tech market, will be the UV Lithography integrated sistem, wich, by concept, will have so much raw computational power, that it can even allow an integrated video chipset to be implemented as a separate process on the CPU itself, thus, eliminating any need of actualy having a video card, and "smoking" the cards performance on the spot, since it would be fully adaptable to any required need.
Is this viable? Yes, but will they ever do it? I doubth it with all my conviction.
That would negate any chance for the video card companys to compete among them, as there would be no possible competition, therefore, we would see another slice of the market declaring bankrupcy.

Unfortunatly, we have to live with what they feed us with.
We have to battle among ourselfs, to get enough money to get the latest trend, thats cost an indecent amount of money, and wich actualy is only a few hundreds MHz faster.



The video card market is similar, but they have to work with a much more contended situation.

Each of the participants, could actualy "smoke" the others performance, but thats not the goal of either of them.
They just have to make they'rs product, to pull ahead, but just enough to beat the other.
The end user (us) gets shafted hard, and have to choose the compromise, that they see as the best overall winner, not the best in all, only the best in the most, becvause he won't find a "best in all", the companys ensure that this is so.

I'l give you the most blatant example.

Nvidia screwd up hard with the NV30 chipset, but in <u>only</u> six months, they were able to bring forward, the very next in line chipset, the NV35.
This one, was probably schedulled, for the end of the last trimester of the year, or in other words, today!
But no, now we have rumours that the next chipset is allready in development.
Its funny that this news was released, two weeks after the launch of the previous installement!
What? They had enough to make two chipsets at the same time, but one was weaker than the other? Then why did they researched the weaker in the first place?
I'l tell you why, because they weren't expecting the NV30 to be such a flop, and if they didn't trow us something else realy fast, they could loose all the market to ATI.

ATI are no saints either, but speaking about them, would only make me repeat myself, on what i said about Nvidia.



I allready typed too much, alltough there is far, far, far more to discuss about the subject.
Let me leave you then, with a sugestion.



Buy a new processor/mobo, only when they've reached at least twice the speed and performance of the processor you have today.
Thats makes me ready to buy a new processor myself, but i'm still whatching the fight beetween the companys, up close and personal, until i see who will break first, and delivers the best compromise beetween price vs performance, wich in other words means, letting the prices drop, while they battle among themselfs, for the prejudicary of Moore's law, and sending out new processors, that will force the olders to drop they'r prices mighty fast, unless the companys want to look bad, having two extremely diferent processors, getting a very high price range, and not delievering the goods, accordingly to the performance of each.

Who benefits? We do, so its customers 1, companys 0.


Buy a new video card, with an interval beetween generations.
Usualy you'l have to wait 2 or 3 generations, to actualy see a <u>major</u> diference in performance.
In the meantime the prices drop, and again you'l make a good deal, without having to compromise in forking out a lot of money, for each new release, that just doesn't deliever that much of a superiority, over the card you have today.

Who benefits? We do, so now its customer 2, companys 0.



There is something else you have to realise as well.
The gaming market, is presently bottlenecked.
The vast majority of games, that are beeing released, don't have enough juice in them, to make the presently top end machine, break a sweat.
If you look at the very near future, the game that will be most demanding in any term you may consider, will be Doom 3.
Half Life 2 is out of the loop. Its impressive, magnific, terrific, whatever adjective you may want to atribute it, but instead of trowing out major polys, major lighting, w-h-a-t-e-v-e-r, they are optimizing the engine to its maximum avaiable technology, using whatever means they have to they'r reach.
This is very comendable, they are actualy thinking in the machines of today, not the machines of tomorow.
One such example, and the one that makes me more proud of, its the use they are giving to the shader units, wich instead of relying on milions of polys to make a situation, they use a very powerfull shader, to simulate the same event, using only a few dozens of polys.

But now back to Doom 3.
Nothing will kick more CPU/Vidcard ***, like Doom 3 will.
If one wants to use top absolute quality, resorting to the highest AA and AF avaiable on the vidcard, no computer in the market today, will be able to run it smoothly.
Therefore one will have to compromise, either they like it or not.

But then there's the final issue.
Does one realy wants, or putting it on a more conservative tone, needs, anything above what Doom 3 will deliver?
...............I doubth it.
If one wants more reality delivered, they might as well do it in real life, if at all possible.

My point is this.
To run a game like Doom 3, like it was a hot knife on butter, with every possible quality selection turned on to its maximum, one will not need anything above a 4GHz sistem, and probably the very next generation of video cards.

What about what will come next to Doom 3?
Well, do you realy need anything above Doom 3, when it comes to graphical quality?
One might as well tone down the settings a little bit, and still get about 3 times more what is beeing done today!


I am no fortune teller, neither do i have the need to be one, but my prediction, when it comes to the maximum possible avaiable technology needs, one will even need for the rest of his days on this earth, will be no more than a:


5GHz cpu
2 Gigs of ram
Two generations ahead of the present in Vidcards.


By the time we have this kind of setup, the prices won't be different for what we see in a top end machine today.

The market will become stale, the companys will make products we won't need.



Ai caramba, my fingers are numb and the tips are sore! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center><font color="#59626B">

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 07:24 PM
I am sure that BoB will put heavy demands on computing power, 1:C and Oleg are flightsim fanatics (and i mean that to be a positive statement) and want to do the best possible sim in any respect, graphics, FM and so on...and thats why we are so in love with Il2/FB and where fascinated from the beginning
...actually FB makes any CFS look like stoneage...but when it came out in highest quality it was too much for the fastest hardware then, even my brandnew GF3-Ti500 overclocked and my then strongest CPU, AMD 1800 overclocked couldnt get me fly fluently over Berlin...
only now we slowly have hardware at hand which can handle FB well in excellent or perfect quality and high res, AF, AA etc. ...
So expect the hardware which comes out a year after BoB comes out to be fast enough to make it shine and now high end machines will be with some luck able to run it with everything put to minimum...

But whats the problem, it will take at least another 1 1/2 year, many things can and will change...you could use the time saving some money...
And anyway, i bought my computer when Il2 came out and still paying it off, it will be paid end of the year, its still good to play FB and when the new games comes i will get a new machine and pay it off another two or three years...to have a new machine every three or four years if you want to play current games is a rule...maybe the process will slow down when we will finally have reached true filmlike photorealism...but as long as we have spinners and wheels which are not truly round but have edges and human characters have cartoonlike faces and so on i dont want the process to stop or slow down...gimme more and better !!

Plus, FB will then be a completed game with many addons, tools, Mission, skins etc. etc. and big amount of planes and it will still be fun then, it will not so easily become obsolete as it has more substance then only beautifull graphics, so whoever cant afford a new computer then rigth away still has to play something better then anything we would dream off some years ago...

II/JG54_Zent

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 09:59 PM
Oleg and crew HAVE to push the boundries to the limit or things would stagnate.
We would still be playing pac man on Amstrads if people had'nt moved forward.My regret is that i will probably be dead before we reach the stage where we literally strap ourselves into a virtual reality system where it is as real as you can get without it being real.

XyZspineZyX
11-05-2003, 10:26 PM
And yet no one brings up the fact that the internet isn't going to see a quantum increase in transfer rates. There will still be 56k bottlenecks. Cable won't get faster, in fact, cable companies have been delivering less and less. I started with @Home which gave me 3.6M down and now I have Comcast which is giving me 800k down. It's a joke. And they claim they deliver 1.5M down, as if that's supposed to be something special.

So how will the internet be able to handle these demanding games? Too much detail makes for a crappy online experience and I don't know about you guys, but it's all about online to me.

Besides, BoB is supposed to be a battle of large flights of planes.

Barren. That's what flight simming is coming to.



IRON SKIES
As real as you want it to be.

adlabs6
11-05-2003, 10:35 PM
resev wrote:
- This is very comendable, they are actualy thinking in
- the machines of today, not the machines of tomorow.
- One such example, and the one that makes me more proud
- of, its the use they are giving to the shader units,
- wich instead of relying on milions of polys to make
- a situation, they use a very powerfull shader, to
- simulate the same event, using only a few dozens of polys.

Interesting post resev. This text I quoted above I agree very much with. My brother and I have been 3D and 2D hobbiests for nearly 5 or 6 years now, though I haven't done much in 3D lately. Something we learned early on was that properly using surface textures and effects was far better than shooting for the moon with polys. In fact, I've seen many high poly models that simply fell flat in their final implementation because the 2D artist's efforts were very poor. My brother was often amazed when I could produce a texture to be applied to a single four vertice plane, that looked better than a very complex poly modeling of the same effect.

<html>
<body>
<table cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="600" align="center">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<font face="Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><font color="000000">adlabs<font color="#ff9900">6</font></font>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td valign="top" bgcolor="#42524e">
<div align="center"><font color="#999999">
http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigtemp.JPG (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skins_historical_adlabs6.htm)
<small><font color="#ff6600">NEW</font> at mudmovers! Click the pic to download my skins from mudmovers.com!</small>
</font>
Skinner's Guide at mudmovers (http://mudmovers.com/Sims/FB/fb_skinnersguide.htm) | Skinner's heaven (http://www.1java.org/sh) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com)
<font color="#999999">
My Forgotten Battles Webpage (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/index.html) Current Wallpaper: <font color="#999999">Bf-109 Morning Run</font></font>

<A HREF="http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=zhiwg" TARGET=_blank>"Whirlwind Whiner"
The first of the few</A>
</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</body>
</html>

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 12:34 AM
essemm wrote:
- I would MUCH RATHER BoB be a game with incredible
- graphics. We need to move forward here, not back.
- If you don't wish to upgrade, fly FB. I think game
- makers HAVE to make games that run well on the most
- powerful systems available at that time.
-
-


Yes they do have to take full advantage of the current technology, but I think the original point of this thread was that there is more than one way to do that. You could have amazing quality graphics and 20 plane dogfights or slightly better than FB graphics (which are pretty amazing anyway) and historically accurate fights with formations of 100+ bombers plus escorts.

The graphics are good enough; it's time the game world caught up.

Kernow
249 IAP

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 12:37 AM
I want more planes, more objects, with high frame rates http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP

http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg

Agnus Dei, Qui Tollis peccata mundi, Miserere nobis. Dona nobis pacem

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:52 AM
Pentallion wrote:
- And yet no one brings up the fact that the internet
- isn't going to see a quantum increase in transfer
- rates. There will still be 56k bottlenecks. Cable
- won't get faster, in fact, cable companies have been
- delivering less and less. I started with @Home
- which gave me 3.6M down and now I have Comcast which
- is giving me 800k down. It's a joke. And they
- claim they deliver 1.5M down, as if that's supposed
- to be something special



Yes, you are absolutely correct.
I'm sorry i haven't mentioned this point.
I remembered it, but forgot it in the process of typing all of the above.


First things first.
I'm not at all surprised with the speeds that you are getting.
The problem is not your provider, its the technology itself.
I'm sure you are using a cable service, correct?
But do you know, how a cable service works?

Optical cable services, work on a confined cell, designated in size and number of clients, by the provider for the several areas they provide the service for.
How does this work?
Well, if your cell, reaches a number of 20.000 users, over an area of 20 squared Kilometers (sorry, i'm European, i have to use the metric sstem), that will mean that you'l actualy be sharing your single connection with those 20.000 users.
Now, if only half of the users, are connected at the same time, giving any period of the day, your cable performance will be down the drain, because the badwidth assigned for your cell, will have to be shared by all the users at the same time.
But you may ask, how the hell is that possible, my connection can't serve all of those people connected, can it?
Of course not, its not your connection that's beeing shared, its the bandwidth aassigned by the provider for your single cell.
I'm talking about hundreds of Gigabytes beeing trown around, but you can't access them, because your modem (in the technical services) is preprogrammed to not allow anything above the specified speed you signed in for.
Your modem signature, is inprinted directly on the database of the cable provider, so you can't hack it to fork out more speed, if you try to do it, not only your service will imediatly be shutted down, your modem "banned" from they'rs services database, wich in turn means that you won't be able to use the modem anywhere else, but you may also be confronted with a legal matter, for tampering with property that "its not yours".

Allright, but you haven't explained the speed issues if the conditions are favorable, what gives?

This next point is common to all and every cable provider in the world.
The speeds they promise, can actualy be achieved!
How is that since i rarely see that happen?
Well, the speeds can be achieved, but only inside the network of the service provider.
Who gives a rat's *** about my network, i want to go outside of they'r reach, can i?
Yes, but the performance won't be the same, as i said, outside of the provider's network, they don't promise any impressive speeds at all, wich means its a compromise you can't get away from.
Its that simple, if you want maximum speed, you have to surf inside the provider's network, outside of it, the speeds will get worse and worse.
However, the speed mostly deteriorate in the surfing itself, for downloads and gaming its fairly the same (<u>fairly</u>), as long as it is kept a single task at a time.

Pay a visit to this link:
http://www.dslreports.com/tools

Follow the procedures given, and give them all the info they ask for.
In the end, you'l see that your bad performance ins't all that uncommon.



I don't know if what i said is enough to explain how it all works.
Its very complicated to explain how the process is run.



- So how will the internet be able to handle these
- demanding games? Too much detail makes for a crappy
- online experience and I don't know about you guys,
- but it's all about online to me.


You have no idea how right you are.
You got the shot right in the middle of the target.
In what concerns to a flight sim like IL-2, the online support has to be very large, or it won't be fun at all.

A graphicaly heavy game, will not allow a large number of online connections at the same time.
This case is well described with the online support for the upcoming game, Doom 3.

Doom 3 will only allow 4 players to go head to head online.
What fun is that? No fun at all.
I usualy get off the servers will less than 5+1 players online, much less to say about 4.



There is a lot to talk about, regarding online experiences, but for now, i have to get some sleep, its late around here, and in a few hours will beguin another work day.

We will continue this conversation, as soon as possible, tomorow.

Goodnight.

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/resev/images/1-picture1.gif?0.8490278826190298 (http://oksquad.free.fr)</center><font color="#59626B">

XyZspineZyX
11-06-2003, 01:58 AM
Actually I believ it's AI routines that will require a major rewrite to make a 100+ plane sim truly shine. Although FB is the best yet, bomber formations are weak and there is nearly no cohesion between different squadrons of bombers in FB. Formations other than the default can not even be changed to AI planes in the Mission Builder. enemy gunner AI is way overmodeled. Enemy Fighters rarely position themselves in the best place to protect the bombers and try to maneuver to stay where they can continue to provide protection during engagements.

AI Wing man routines are getting much better in FB though. Flying against a pair of Zero's I was amazed as they took turns tag teaming me, swapping the lead as I managed to get them to break three times before they finally got me. Each time one broke his wingman was there to take over and the other fell into a trailing position. Now if only friendly AI would stop trying to shoot planes you are engaged on, and end up shooting you half the time.

So before we get all worried about high poly count and graphic cards limiting total plane count, I think we first need to hope that Oleg can apply his programming genius to make large scale battle AI seem to act as real military units would.

http://taipans.dyndns.org/
http://mysite.verizon.net/pmcgwire/IL2/
http://mysite.verizon.net/pmcgwire/tpn_sneakypete.jpg