1. #1
    Share this post

  2. #2
    LEXX_Luthor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ussia
    Posts
    8,824
    Why you look down in cockpit when you turn?

    Shadows should not work when under clouds, or inside clouds. but, if its clear outside, you just look outside to see which way you turn...as you do.

    Shadows on intrument guages:: Flight Sim Developers have enough "difficulty" trying to make readable guages now -- they always make guages too dark so you have to turn on the lights. Please, no Shadows on top of that.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    LEXX_Luthor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ussia
    Posts
    8,824
    Another ideas. After the PF, opening/closing canopies are a Must Have "be sure" Feature now--especially for "Spitfire" open canopy takeoff, just like in the movies. We don't want Devs wasting time programming the Shadows to follow the canopies. Then, they could just have two (2) Shadow states -- open canopy state and closed canopy. Still, that's double the Shadows you were thinking of. Double work when the Devs need to program AI not to see clouds.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Shadow mapping was used to good effect in Crimson Skies. It didn't seem to hit the framerate that badly, either. Mind you, the cockpits were extremely basic.

    This would be nice to see in BoB, especially if they could figure out a way to get rid of the jagged edges. (like you see in LO:MAC self-shadowing)
    Share this post

  5. #5
    Originally posted by Viking-S:
    If it hadn’t been for better hardware and skilful programmers ...
    And skilful artists

    I completely agree with the idea of the cockpit frame casting shadows. Lighting is the key to realistic graphics, but unfortunately is often left aside in favor or just more polygons.

    The current models from IL2 would look amazing with more realistic lighting, self-casting shadows, and specular maps.

    Share this post

  6. #6
    LEXX_Luthor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ussia
    Posts
    8,824
    I was going to say that canopy strut Shadows have absolutely no effect on game play, but I was thinking that Shadows may be easier to make then programming support for realistic air warfare for online or offline play. Red Baron campaign probably took alot of effort to make--maybe too much. Pop Shadows could be the next "big thing" for flight sim Devs, after immersive gameplay water grafix.

    BoB cockpits are already so high "standard" we may see only single seat Dogfight cockpits. The situation for bombers may be even worse than it was over the FB history. He~111 was the only Flyable 2 engine WW2 bomber modded at the beginning of FB, and we waited "2 years" for another (B~25). Something went tragically wrong.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    p1ngu666's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    11,199
    imo the lighting, and sound ~made~ doom3, if its in the engine properly, like doom3 itll be great
    Share this post

  8. #8
    Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
    BoB cockpits are already so high "standard" we may see only single seat Dogfight cockpits. ... Something went tragically wrong.
    Spot on. That is exactly why I am worried.

    If it takes already a painfuly long amount of time to make an IL2-standard plane, just imagine for BOB. And forget your lesser know planes... The research needed for that level of detail means that only the very common and easily accessible planes will make it into the game.

    I would have settled for just slightly higher-poly planes with vastly improved lighting and material rendition.

    Share this post

  9. #9
    single seat Dogfight cockpits

    In BoB there will be some 2-seaters. At least Stuka, and Oleg hinted at some others for Britain and Spain. In one interview, I think he hinted at a flyable Defiant.

    And if better quality means less addon planes, both official and/or 3rd party, then so be it. Especially if FM, DM and engine management can be made more accurate than is possible with the IL-2 plane horde.
    Share this post

  10. #10
    LEXX_Luthor's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Ussia
    Posts
    8,824
    Fennec::
    And if better quality means less addon planes, both official and/or 3rd party, then so be it. Especially if FM, DM and engine management can be made more accurate than is possible with the IL-2 plane horde.
    You are repeating the exact same mistake that caused this "plane horde" you are wimpering about.

    As the years go by, new planes will be made Flyable over all BoB+ theaters (indicating Merged theater installs ). Now if Oleg starts out assuming certain planes "will not" be Flyable, and then later finds he can make them Flyable, they may need re~made FM and DM and complex engine modding -- re~made for Flyable Quality. I believe this happened to many FB aircraft. If we start by assuming all (or almost all) aircraft can be made Flyable, then we won't have this problem.

    All planes Flyable (or almost all) is the next step higher in the evolution of combat flight sims. When that stage is reached, then they may increase modding "standards" for all aircraft...<span class="ev_code_yellow">all aircraft get equally higher modding standards</span>...a point missed by those wanting only their Fave dogfight planes having "quality" and made Flyable.

    The exceptions may be Flyable 4 engine bombers. Although it is the large bombers where most modded crew positions can be cut. Oleg does not like laying off crew positions.

    plane horde
    Name calling something what others enjoy always unmasks a Deceptive face on a webboard. Although, I have done it too. mmm
    Share this post