1. #21
    GL2's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    632
    I think what we've all been saying in this thread is we hope the graphics are going to be good. Based on the screenshots (which admittedly may not be representative of the final product), the terrain is not that impressive relative to other games that are out there that push the limits. We're just hoping for something great out loud.
    Share this post

  2. #22
    I've only seen 2 different examples of terrain so far... one that shows the test map with some villages, many trees, the cliffs...looking more or less similar to what someone would expect when flying over England, and a second one where it shows the adaptive mesh example in wireframe, that gets instantly ruined by a terrible texture applied over it.

    If you completely forget about how IL2ish that texture looks, the terrain mesh (in wireframe) does in fact look fairly detailed, and that's just a simple picture. If England is flat and doesn't have any neat mountains to show off it won't be BoB's fault

    PS: Check the video at 4:15 to see the terrain example...
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9OWQ55n8ig
    Share this post

  3. #23
    The terrain mesh in IL2/PF is absolute ludicrously BAD and magnificantly undetailed. Do I need to post screenshots to prove it?

    That whole video is proof of my huge reluctance that BoB will look much different from PF when it comes to terrain detail. If one didn't know any better he'd think that was showcasing the graphics of PF. And the clouds... can you spell "fake"? Exactly the same look as PF.

    There is no reason... no reason whatsoever, that BoB couldn't look like the following screenshot. Will it? Not by what I've seen... not by a long shot.

    (FSX)





    MrVH
    Share this post

  4. #24
    csThor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    1,698
    Ah ... the notorious Apple-Orange-Comparison.

    To me the creation of a game is an excursion into the art of balance. There has to be a balance between content, features and presentation. To me all those shooters - and especially FarCry - fail at that task, because their concepts are pretty much reduced to graphical gimmicks instead of creative gameplay. Again with FarCry (the first incarnation) being the prime example. I mean some shooters I played managed to leave some memories behind (e.g. in MoH:AA the Normandy scene) but FarCry - which was grossly over-hyped here by the game mags - failed to leave any memories behind. I simply don't remember anything about playing it ...
    Secondly - and that is a personal thing - I am not one of these GFX hungry types. I have no qualms playing an un-altered "Hearts of Iron II" for hours even though most of the things happening happen only in my head.

    That is why I refuse to accept that games are being judged just for their graphical presentation. They can look as stunning as possible today, but if the GFX is not "bolstered" by content the game is for the distbin, too. So I prefer a balance between GFX and content with a strong tendency / bias towards content. My 0,02€ ...
    Share this post

  5. #25
    GL2's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    632
    Thor, I think we would all agree with what you're saying about gameplay trumping eye candy, but as people interested in the filmmaking capabilities of BOB, we're hoping for the best graphics we can get.

    MrVH, are those screenshots from FSX? If so--not to sound mutinous--then why aren't people using that engine for filmmaking? (Just until BOB is released.)
    Share this post

  6. #26
    Originally posted by MrVH:
    The terrain mesh in IL2/PF is absolute ludicrously BAD and magnificantly undetailed. Do I need to post screenshots to prove it?
    Wow, all this time thinking it was about Storm of War, and you were talking about IL2! Thanks for the info!

    Originally posted by MrVH:
    That whole video is proof of my huge reluctance that BoB will look much different from PF when it comes to terrain detail. If one didn't know any better he'd think that was showcasing the graphics of PF. And the clouds... can you spell "fake"? Exactly the same look as PF.
    The whole video, circa 2006, is showing an alpha stage development of the game, ie... before the engine has all the stuff added, and before all the art is done. If you were able to just understand that, I'm sure you would have realized that most of the art that's carried over in that video is most likely a placeholder. The "fake" clouds look is a perfect example. If you can't tell the difference between IL2 clouds and the ones shown in the video simply because the sprites used are the same then shame on you!

    There is no reason... no reason whatsoever, that BoB couldn't look like the following screenshot. Will it? Not by what I've seen... not by a long shot.

    MrVH
    So you haven't checked the video at 4:10 yet? Can't you tell what width those carvings are? Please show me a screenshot from FSX that has such precision in terrain geometry for... say... a simple river path. Nah, you'll put a shot from Crysis instead

    I'm not sure if you are just ignorant on the subject or simply want to believe that SoW BoB is going to be the next expansion for IL2...
    Share this post

  7. #27
    Originally posted by csThor:
    Ah ... the notorious Apple-Orange-Comparison.

    To me the creation of a game is an excursion into the art of balance. There has to be a balance between content, features and presentation. To me all those shooters - and especially FarCry - fail at that task, because their concepts are pretty much reduced to graphical gimmicks instead of creative gameplay. Again with FarCry (the first incarnation) being the prime example. I mean some shooters I played managed to leave some memories behind (e.g. in MoH:AA the Normandy scene) but FarCry - which was grossly over-hyped here by the game mags - failed to leave any memories behind. I simply don't remember anything about playing it ...
    Secondly - and that is a personal thing - I am not one of these GFX hungry types. I have no qualms playing an un-altered "Hearts of Iron II" for hours even though most of the things happening happen only in my head.

    That is why I refuse to accept that games are being judged just for their graphical presentation. They can look as stunning as possible today, but if the GFX is not "bolstered" by content the game is for the distbin, too. So I prefer a balance between GFX and content with a strong tendency / bias towards content. My 0,02€ ...
    I'm with you on this one (also love playing HoI2 ) but in this case I'd say BoB is going to have the GFX pretty much covered, no matter how many people want to believe the opposite.
    Share this post

  8. #28
    Originally posted by GL2:

    MrVH, are those screenshots from FSX? If so--not to sound mutinous--then why aren't people using that engine for filmmaking? (Just until BOB is released.)
    FSX can produce the best screenshots if you have the best computer around (obviously) and have spent some time tweaking it. There's a difference though between making screeshots and capturing video as you can imagine, and since the game doesn't have time compression/slow motion (or does it?) I don't think many people can render high quality video while retaining decent fps.

    I've only seen 2 videos done in FS2004 I believe, by Lenny Wilson (posted in these boards too) about combat. Absolutely jaw dropping and no doubt, masterpieces of machinima, yet the merit is for the artist and not the game engine IMO
    Share this post

  9. #29
    "Wow, all this time thinking it was about Storm of War, and you were talking about IL2! Thanks for the info!"

    You made the comment that the PF mesh was actually "fairly detailed", I challenged that point. The reason why I challenged it was to illustrate my point that what you believe is high quality is not near my definition of high quality.

    "If you can't tell the difference between IL2 clouds and the ones shown in the video simply because the sprites used are the same then shame on you!"

    You have to realize where you are making these comments (as GL mentioned)... this is the movie makers forum. I am unconcerned with air currents around specific clouds, etc. I am only concerned with how they look and they LOOK extremely similar to IL2/PF clouds... and if you can't see that then "shame on you".

    "before the engine has all the stuff added, and before all the art is done. If you were able to just understand that, I'm sure you would have realized that most of the art that's carried over in that video is most likely a placeholder."

    Hey, if BoB is a beauty to behold I will be the first to be singing it's praises. I realize these are placeholders and "from 2006", but in the absence of actual examples of current developement this is all we have to go on! Can you not understand that? You are basically asking me to blindly accept that BoB will be a visual marvel to behold... I reject that notion and ask for proof, or at least signs of proof, that would back up that preconception... and I've seen none. Please, show me if you've seen it. You video example impresses me none... not yet. There are packages out there for FSX that give 75m resolution for the ENTIRE EARTH between 60 degs N and 60 degs S! Come on, surely BoB can do it for the relatively smallers areas of combat that are included in it. Will it? Maybe. I hope so. But I have my doubts.

    "Please show me a screenshot from FSX that has such precision in terrain geometry for... say... a simple river path."

    Here are some screenshots of terrain geometry from FSX and some from FlightSim2004 as well. While they don't show the actual wireframes you can see the general topography and they match very closely to the ONE STILLFRAME DEVELOPMENT image supplied in that video:






















    You speak like it has to be one or the other... good gameplay or good visuals. What a lazy way of creating a video game. There are many examples of games which do both well... take HalfLife2 for one example. As well, all your posts seem to give the general theme that you are scared, in a sense, of software that pushes video hardware. You make comments about needing the most powerful systems to run a sim like I would like to have.... ya?? So what? I HAVE a system like that as do many others. At least give me the OPTION of that visual quality... at least develop it! Why create a game who's visuals can top out on a P4 3ghz Geforce 6600GT. Don't be so scared of it pushing hardware limitations. It can be done, why not do it? Create it for machines BETTER than mine and then give the option of lower quality settings for people who have your type of computer.

    there's really no point in discussing it further. You seem to have no problems accepting the lower quality and are quite willing to just accept what comes out with SOW:BoB whether it is cutting edge or not. I'm not. If it IS... I will sing it's praises, but I will not just accept that it will be because a couple of people "say" it will.


    MrVH
    Share this post

  10. #30
    Originally posted by MrVH:
    "Wow, all this time thinking it was about Storm of War, and you were talking about IL2! Thanks for the info!"

    You made the comment that the PF mesh was actually "fairly detailed", I challenged that point. The reason why I challenged it was to illustrate my point that what you believe is high quality is not near my definition of high quality.
    Nope, I never mentioned PF terrain, I was commenting on SoW mesh ONLY. Just to make sure you get it "fairly detailed" was in regard of SoW mesh, NOT PF's.


    "If you can't tell the difference between IL2 clouds and the ones shown in the video simply because the sprites used are the same then shame on you!"

    You have to realize where you are making these comments (as GL mentioned)... this is the movie makers forum. I am unconcerned with air currents around specific clouds, etc. I am only concerned with how they look and they LOOK extremely similar to IL2/PF clouds... and if you can't see that then "shame on you".
    The only thing that looks "extremely similar" in the clouds (infact, it looks exactly the same as IL2's ) is the textures used. Hey it's too bad that the texture means maybe 80% for the LOOKS. Can we agree on this?

    "before the engine has all the stuff added, and before all the art is done. If you were able to just understand that, I'm sure you would have realized that most of the art that's carried over in that video is most likely a placeholder."

    Hey, if BoB is a beauty to behold I will be the first to be singing it's praises. I realize these are placeholders and "from 2006", but in the absence of actual examples of current developement this is all we have to go on! Can you not understand that? You are basically asking me to blindly accept that BoB will be a visual marvel to behold... I reject that notion and ask for proof, or at least signs of proof, that would back up that preconception... and I've seen none. Please, show me if you've seen it. You video example impresses me none... not yet. There are packages out there for FSX that give 75m resolution for the ENTIRE EARTH between 60 degs N and 60 degs S! Come on, surely BoB can do it for the relatively smallers areas of combat that are included in it. Will it? Maybe. I hope so. But I have my doubts.


    "Please show me a screenshot from FSX that has such precision in terrain geometry for... say... a simple river path."

    Here are some screenshots of terrain geometry from FSX and some from FlightSim2004 as well. While they don't show the actual wireframes you can see the general topography and they match very closely to the ONE STILLFRAME DEVELOPMENT image supplied in that video:
    Very cool screenshots, it's too bad that none of those are showing the true beauty of FSX's bare terrain from low altitude! Don't worry, I've taken some shots myself:

    All the details are set to minimum except the terrain detail, that's set to max. Obviously the textures are going to look bad, just ignore the textures and focus on the geometry

    From high up it looks really good!





    Getting closer to the ground...


    And this is what the terrain looks like from low altitude!






    Certainly, it doesn't look much better than this:


    Here are my settings for the terrain:

    Everything else was turned off/set to minimum

    EDIT: To me it's fairly obvious that the light brown paths are that: dirt roads. If it was representing the same scale that your pictures suggest we'd be waiting for a game that would actually look A LOT worse than its predecessor...

    You speak like it has to be one or the other... good gameplay or good visuals. What a lazy way of creating a video game.
    Excuse me when did I say that?

    As well, all your posts seem to give the general theme that you are scared, in a sense, of software that pushes video hardware.


    You make comments about needing the most powerful systems to run a sim like I would like to have.... ya??
    YAA?? NO! I make comments about needing the most powerful system to run a sim in FULL DETAIL. DUH! As long as it's not exclusive (as in... the best computer being the MINIMUM requirement) for those with the best system around, it can have all the eye candy in the world and I'll be very happy for them and you.


    So what? I HAVE a system like that as do many others.
    Congrats!

    Why create a game who's visuals can top out on a P4 3ghz Geforce 6600GT. Don't be so scared of it pushing hardware limitations.
    Why do you keep coming back at this? It's just plain stupid to say such a thing, really. Why is it that you feel that every single game developer but Maddox Games can produce a game with the best graphics available with the best hardware in mind?

    there's really no point in discussing it further. You seem to have no problems accepting the lower quality and are quite willing to just accept what comes out with SOW:BoB whether it is cutting edge or not.
    HAHA! Man you are hilarious I swear!

    I'm not. If it IS... I will sing it's praises, but I will not just accept that it will be because a couple of people "say" it will.

    MrVH
    Ok. So if it is, then that's ok, but before we know it you have already decided that it is going to suck, that it will run on a P3 1Ghz and that the graphics are going to be just as simple as IL2. Ok! Got it at last!

    Cheers mate
    Share this post