Warning: Long post with many large images and a lot of incoherent babbling.
Ok, so most here probably know my hesitance to get excited by BoB coming up when it comes to graphical quality. I am appalled at the low quality of graphical demos I have seen for BoB. Yes, I know they are not final qualities, but they are almost laughable when put beside any of the new games coming out now... like original Nintendo games beside an XBox360 title. Are they better than Pacific Fighters? Sure, but should that really be the bar to which BoB is compared? No. Is Oleg Maddox aware of what is actually possible or is his team stuck in their own offices thinking this is the best that can be done? An Oleg quote, "The landscape even in PF looks incredible on any distance or altitude". Whoa.
Let's take Crysis for an example. Due out Q1 of 2008, probably before BoB. Here is the environment that Crysis plays in:
(note: all images are gameplay quality)
http://www.meyeuniverse.com/otherimages/crysis4.jpg
http://www.meyeuniverse.com/otherimages/crysis2.jpg
http://www.meyeuniverse.com/otherimages/crysis3.jpg
http://www.meyeuniverse.com/otherimages/crysis1.jpg
http://www.meyeuniverse.com/otherimages/crysis5.jpg
http://www.meyeuniverse.com/otherimages/crysis6.jpg
Now some argue "ya, but they don't have 100 AI aircraft and the flight models all loaded into memory with a vast area of topography to draw." No? How about accurately modeling every leaf on every tree including all the correct physics for each specific leaf so that they are all destructible or usable? Surely to Betsy that entails GOBS more computing power than 100 little planes. And not only that, our game example has 50 or 60 AI characters running around making their own decisions as well within this physically correct world. And not only that, our example has real-life, real-time lighting throughout. And not only that, but motion blur too boot. Why the huge chasm of difference by BoB?
"Ah, but there are much larger areas that are needed to be rendered with BoB". There is?? Look at those screenshots... those are not "backgrounds", they are part of the environment and can be reached and interacted with if so desired. And even if, yes, the areas are much larger in the flightsim, why pray tell does the 'vastness' matter anyways? Scalability should make that a non-issue when it comes to a flight-sim. When you're flying at 15,000 feet the vegetation detail is irrelevant, while the topographical detail remains relevant. If these other games can draw, render, and react to each and every leaf, branch, and blade of grass, surely a flightsim could drop the "physical leaves" and insanely detailed world of objects and throw that computing power into the topography... no? As Oleg says, "great map distances to render in relatively high details comparing say to shooters". Bull pucky.
"Ah, but look at all the ammunition that needs to be tracked in a flightsim". Pffftt... no more than the ammunition in our example game, and probably less.
And our example game does all this as well as having human characters that look like this:
http://www.meyeuniverse.com/otherimages/crysis14.jpg
http://www.meyeuniverse.com/otherimages/crysis13.jpg
Vast environments are possible, as complicated as our own physical world and video realistic... scalable, destructible, and usable... and not just "possible", but doable and playable today. Why do we get crappy Mario Brothers environments?
I know we haven't really seen any real BoB screenshots of the topography, but I don't believe it will be anywhere CLOSE to most games out there today. One problem is that it's like Duke Nukem Forever... BoB has been worked on for so long that even the day it comes out it will be of a graphical quality from 2 years ago minimum. The power is there... stop making flight sims that can play on a P3-500mhz and start creating something special... please http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common...icon_smile.gif
</end nonsensical rant>
MrVH

