1. #31
    Codec error , anyone have a fix or link please post .

    Bartman.
    Share this post

  2. #32
    Share this post

  3. #33
    Well 3D models are fantastic the lights should be very good as well, the ground is just aweful, the village are as bad as il2. will see more i hope.
    Share this post

  4. #34
    cockpit and vehicles looks perfect. clouds also not bad except the overcast. But the landscape such as cliff Dover is still not very good, something is like cartoon. Look the pic below. i think it should be more livelily than what presented in this video. keep up good work. thank you very much Oleg!!!
    Share this post

  5. #35
    The Alpha version is build upon the old engine.
    I would not jump to make any conclusions right now.
    Share this post

  6. #36
    F6_Ace's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    739
    Originally posted by Ploughman:
    Reality doesn't extend to your environment looking as real as possible then?
    Yes, it does but only those items which you are seriously bothered about. Like I've said before, it's nice to be able to switch to external views and 'marvel' at the attention to detail of things which don't really matter in a combat flight simulation but nice is all it is. For example, it would be nice to have the effects of winds moving crop fields about but is that at all necessary? Exaggerating a little, would it be necessary to have the steam coming off someones freshly cooked dinner on a table through a house window in Manston being modelled?

    Always assuming finite resources being available, I'd prefer to see the desire for attention to detail (and CPU resource) being focused on the aircraft and associated systems, physical effects on the pilots and weaponry than a bit of foam on the shoreline or some truck suspension.


    Real aircombat in Il-2's P-47.

    Red 2: "Break left! Tracers above my wing!"
    Red 1: "Never mind about that, look at the primitive rendering of my gunsight and the lego-land layout of the rest of the pit."

    (Apologies to Gib.)
    That's just the P47's poor modelling; the 110, Gladiator and Tempest pits provide the benchmark for what is possible given the time and effort. Realistic cockpits are, though, another matter as they are something that is part of the aircraft involved and they should be modelled well.


    Someone will come along and tell me that it's quite possible to have all these things but until I actually *see or try* something that suggests that to be true then I'm afraid I'll have to remain sceptical.
    Share this post

  7. #37
    Originally posted by F6_Ace:
    Yes, it does but only those items which you are seriously bothered about. Like I've said before, it's nice to be able to switch to external views and 'marvel' at the attention to detail of things which don't really matter in a combat flight simulation but nice is all it is. For example, it would be nice to have the effects of winds moving crop fields about but is that at all necessary? Exaggerating a little, would it be necessary to have the steam coming off someones freshly cooked dinner on a table through a house window in Manston being modelled?

    Always assuming finite resources being available, I'd prefer to see the desire for attention to detail (and CPU resource) being focused on the aircraft and associated systems, physical effects on the pilots and weaponry than a bit of foam on the shoreline or some truck suspension.
    Share this post

  8. #38
    Originally posted by HQ1:
    cockpit and vehicles looks perfect. clouds also not bad except the overcast. But the landscape such as cliff Dover is still not very good, something is like cartoon. Look the pic below. i think it should be more livelily than what presented in this video. keep up good work. thank you very much Oleg!!!

    Actually that's a very good photo. It shows that the amount of detail isn't the issue. Those field couldn't be simpler, and would be easy to model. Also there are just a couple of houses. What is important though is that the cliffs are quite complex, and that the oversimplification that we see in the work-in-progress needs to be avoided.

    I would also prefer to see a few well modelled smaller towns/villages that are realistically modelled rather than larger, badly planned ones.
    Share this post

  9. #39
    Originally posted by Fighterduck:
    nice....but presonally nothing that impressed me at the moment.
    Same here. I could actually tell it apart very little from Il2, though the video was poor qualitiy, and if I am not wrong it was simply a MkVB 3d model from old Il2 engine that was flying. I am not to impressed graphically, and also the behaviour of the plane seemed very much the same. Some new additions like more ground detail, but I fail to see the next gen feeling coming out from the BoB sim...
    Share this post

  10. #40
    Thats because the MKVB flying around WAS the old engine...


    It was just IL-2 4.0X with the new clouds added (you can do it yourself, there was a .txt config file floating around the forums a week ago)


    The Spitfire 1's were the only ones in the new ingame engine, and it looks just fine to me...


    Remember, the closer we get to photorealism the smaller the jumps are, we all remember the maxis rsims, RB3D and such, and in just 5 years there was a massive jump. but that wont happen anymore...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig
    Share this post