-
Senior Member
We need to move on to a new engine. I will miss the aircraft library, but we gotta move on some time. I think the BoB engine will be allot more expandable, as it is being built with expandability in mind, and Il2 wasn't.
BTW the B-29 is done and waiting to be put ingame.
It will be here soon.
-
Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Maybe by BoB we will have multiple monitors to play Pilot, Gunner, and Radio Man all at one time.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gonna need 5 monitors, Radioman has 3 guns to fire!
-
Senior Member
IMHO when most simmers see and play BOB their time flying FB/PF will dry up. Even if they have to fly BOB with reduced settings. Time will tell, but I believe BOB will improve on FB in every aspect. We've all migrated from other great flight sims that required lesser systems, and upgrade our system to run FB, so I don't see that trend changing in the future.
-
Senior Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
I love these B.S. claims of 70 frames per second in prefect 3.0. Joe at http://www.magnum-pc.com didn't get those rates on his FX powered 939 pin 64 with an Ultra card running... and that was with the eye candy turned down. Scalable?... yes, that is great to a point, but when it comes to online gaming at least, the loss of eye candy means a loss of competitive advantage. After all, those who see first kill first, especially when playing full rediculous settings. Man, you gotta work on those lies! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I can get 70fps on perfect water=3..... just not in the Pacific..LOL... What I would love to se in BoB is a sim that at the level equivalent to excellent here a sim that looks like perfect and is less taxing than perfect now. Id like to see it with similar scalable geaphics.. keep in mind that in addition to the excellent,perfect etc settings.... with the conf.ini settings the visual scalability becomes really versatile.. I mean.... there are 3 levels of perfect water!! I think this sim will be hot for a long time.... I am thinking also that the BoB engine will not be too dissimilar from this one... just that the differences in the engine will have more to do with the layering of the models themselves and the rendering of maps etc... I think that graphically it will more likely be similar to this.. just like FB is similar but not quite...if you look at it.. the same as IL2...... from a sheer looks standpoint. Can you imagine having a graphics engine where if you have hole in your side you can see the pilost legs moving.... or discernable pieces falling off?
-
Banned
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LuckyBoy1:
The average home PC at the time of FB's release was somewhere around a Pentium III with 128 MB of RAM and a 32 MB video card and onboard sound. Medium settings on that?
How soon we forget! If Oleg holds to history, he will punch the code so the medium setting people will have to have a Prescott 3.2, an Audigy or NForce sound, a 16 pixel pipeline video card and a Gig of RAM. If you think by the end of next year this will even come close to representing the average PC out there, then I'd safely say you live in a "Shoots & Ladders" game kinda world because that's just not reality.
I'm not saying I don't want the game. I'm just saying that the more you overtake the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the works.
Let's try not to whine for everything and more in the next generation code. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Guess what, gamers don't have the "average" pc. The average pc includes people who use their computers soley for things like MS word and for school and buisness purposes, which don't require state of the art technology like gaming computers do. There are many more ppl who have those types of computers than gaming computers.
Having said that, I'm with bearcat on this one. IL2 FB AEP PF is great, but it's got its limitations. It's still got room to be built on, but BoB is worth having to possibly upgrade my rig IMO. If you don't want to, fine. No one is forcing you to buy the game. I don't see why you're complaining that Oleg is creating a new game that you might not be able to run. Would you rather that no one be able to play the game just because you'd rather more IL2 addons? More Il2 addons means a later release date for BoB, and some of us are really excited for BoB. If you can't afford to upgrade your computer to at least run BoB on minimal settings, then either get a job or work some overtime. Judging by your 5000+ posts, you've got a lot of free time and it wont take very long to save up for a new rig if you convert some of that free time into some more productive work. Maybe you've got a wife and kids to feed, I dunno, sorry if I'm falsely assuming on this.
Anyway, BoB's the way to go IMO. One last big patch for PF (torpedo's, new maps that are WIP, planes that were submitted long ago, etc) and then either drop IL2 or give it to a reliable 3rd party to work on, then drive towards completing BoB.
-
Senior Member
People! It will be designed with the later hardware in mind, but even on reduced settings it will look alot better and play alot smoother than FB does now. Clam down, and quit whining about a game that you haven't even seen a screenshot of yet.
-
Junior Member
I have every faith in olegs team on this one. From the thousands of rants and raves on these forums I think they have a pretty good idea of what to do to please the majority, but there will always be some that reject what they do.
Of course they are going to be aiming the game at DirectX 9 graphics cards, so anyone with less than a radeon 9800 pro, or similar Geforce fx card will be hard pushed to play BoB at any worthwhile settings. But this is the same accross the board. Doom 3, Halflife 2 etc etc, they all demand a lot, so why should Bob not be at the cutting edge of graphics? I think Oleg has done a great job at keeping both sides happy, but you have to appreciate that time has moved on from pentiumIII and geforce3 and 128mb of ram. You wouldn't expect to run half life 2 with a spec like this so why expect to run the best combat flight sim that is in the pipeline and hasn't even been released yet?
This in my view is where Microsoft have fallen short with CFS and FS. Graphics wise, IL2 wiped the floor with anything Microsoft came up with, although FS2004 did show some potential, especially with aircaft modelling and detail. FB/PF already have the best graphics going, but I'm sure they will make tweaks to make them look and run much better, especially on high end PC's.
One of the main system drains is the number of aircraft in any one game. At the moment this is as default, a pretty low number and clearly not very realistic. Any more than 30 or 40 planes, add a bit of smoke and water effects, and even high end systems will struggle in most scenes. What BoB has promissed is a hole new engine both in terms of graphics and AI, as well as being able to allow much larger numbers of aircraft to appear in each mission.
In the battles over London, there were often over 100 aircraft so the new engine should be capable of this, and more, especially if they even think about portreying US daylight bomber raids and RAf bomber raids for that matter.