PDA

View Full Version : Java Guncam (from WarbirdsIII)



KaRaYa-X
09-01-2004, 02:03 PM
http://www.errthum.com/troy/warbirds/guncam/help.html


With this nice little program you can make your own guncam movies as GIF pics! Any size, any style (B/W, colour, aged, blurred, or a mix of these functions, etc.)

You might need the Java-Runtime for this however!


Have fun...
S!

--= flying online as JG52<Karaya-X =--

KaRaYa-X
09-01-2004, 02:03 PM
http://www.errthum.com/troy/warbirds/guncam/help.html


With this nice little program you can make your own guncam movies as GIF pics! Any size, any style (B/W, colour, aged, blurred, or a mix of these functions, etc.)

You might need the Java-Runtime for this however!


Have fun...
S!

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

XyZspineZyX
09-01-2004, 02:06 PM
Targetware (http://www.targetware.net) puts a guncam file in a folder for you every time you tap the trigger... comes in handy....

Korolov
09-01-2004, 02:43 PM
Interesting feature, and Targetware's guncam doesn't work with other programs.

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

http://www.mechmodels.com/fbstuff/klv_sigp38shark1a.jpg

Bearcat99
09-01-2004, 03:00 PM
Nice find....

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://www.tuskegeeairmen.org)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | Sturmovik Essentials (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=51910959) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

IMMERSION BABY!!

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2004, 12:36 PM
No, it comes as part of Targetware, not as a utility.

Just food for thought, and comparison. Actually, I'd think a better flight model would be a more interesting reason to check it out, but that's just me.

KaRaYa-X
09-02-2004, 12:55 PM
Ze Bümp

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

Tooz_69GIAP
09-02-2004, 01:49 PM
I'm just wondering how tolerant Ubi should be of people campaigning for competitive games to the level which Stiglr expounds his beliefs in the superioirty of the package of Targetware.

I'm not knocking the quality of the stuff as I have yet to try it, but virtually every thread Stiglr participates in, he brings up Targetware and how it has this feature or that feature which is far superior to IL-2.

What is Ubi's policy on this sorta thing??

whit ye looking at, ya big jessie?!?!

http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/69giap/fileadmin/Image_Archive/badges/69giap_badge_tooz.jpg (http://giap.webhop.info)
Executive Officer, 69th GIAP
Za Rodinu!
Petition to stop the M3 motorway through the Tara-Skryne Valley in Co. Meath, Ireland (http://www.petitiononline.com/hilltara/petition.html)

XyZspineZyX
09-02-2004, 03:50 PM
I've already gone over this with CrazyIvan.

Provided I don't just come in here and start new threads saying, "Look at [competing product]!" and am comparing it with a relevant feature under discussion about this system, he seems to be OK with it.

I think ANY sim should be able to stand comparison with others, particulary with regards to the Flight Model, Damage Model, Graphics, Speed & Performance, Gameplay Elements, whatever.

Many of us play multiple sims, and some of us choose to put all their time into just one. In the latter case, it seems they'd want to be sure to settle on "the best" one according to their criteria of what constitutes "best".

For my money, I'm really less concerned with which sim ends up being the best or most popular... I simply want to play a sim that has the overall best mixture of REALISM, FIDELITY and historical game play. Few of them are stepping to the plate to deliver that particular trinity.

owlwatcher
09-02-2004, 10:50 PM
Will this work in FB?

KaRaYa-X
09-03-2004, 02:22 AM
Yes it works with FB! That's why I came here to post about it http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Just install it into a folder, start the program, set up all the important parameter, then start the "session" and start up FB. When you're flying you can start a "Guncam" by just hitting the key you should have set up as "trigger"...

Afterwards tell the prog to develop the film and it will create JPEG pictures - which you can then turn into an animated GIF picture file (by using for instance Paintshop Pro, Photoshop, etc.)!

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

csThor
09-03-2004, 03:30 AM
Targetware has a few very important advantages over Il-2/FB:

a) It is not forced to be mass-market compatible.

There is no need to adjust things to make it appealing to the masses of "not-quite-simheads" and therefore it can go for maximum realism. Those who like that kind of game are not chased off by a steep learning curve.

b) There is no big publisher behind who looks out on the cash return.

Neither UBI nor Maddox Games did Il-2/FB out of love for aviation, but both hoped to earn money. And since UBI invested a lot of money into Maddox Games they prefer maximum cash return (read: more planes = more interesting for potential customers) over fixing bugs.

c) It has a limited scope and the engine is designed for that.

FB is already over the top concerning the basic engine. Il-2 started out as study sim with some 7 Il-2 versions - compare that to the Juggernaut we have with FB and will get with PF.

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

Lt.Davis
09-03-2004, 04:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:
http://www.errthum.com/troy/warbirds/guncam/help.html


With this nice little program you can make your own guncam movies as GIF pics! Any size, any style (B/W, colour, aged, blurred, or a mix of these functions, etc.)

You might need the Java-Runtime for this however!


Have fun...
S!

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Karaya,

It's very interesting on this topic, i want to give it a try. But refer to your link , which file should i download? I'm new on this programme. Please advise!

Thanks you in advance.

"Biar berputih tulang, jangan berputih mata"
Translated:
"Let the whites of your bones, but do not show the whites of your eyes"

KaRaYa-X
09-03-2004, 08:43 AM
@Lt.Davis:

To be able to see and use Java files on your PC you need to download the "Java Runtime Environment" 1.3 (as some people seem to have problems with the latest 1.4 version).

Then download the "jguncam.zip" file (which is the Guncam program itself). There is a help file included which covers all major funtions of the program - so it is rather easy to understand!


@Stiglr and csThor: Could you guys stop with this Targetware propaganda campaign for a second? If you want to lobby for that simulation please start an own topic... thx

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

csThor
09-03-2004, 09:11 AM
Karaya - I have not made "propaganda" for Targetware, but merely pointed out that it has a few advantages over FB that are not related to code/programming. I have not even tested it as I am not an online player anymore.

Du solltest mich doch eigentlich besser kennen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

______________________________

<A HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=csThor" TARGET=_blank>
http://home.arcor.de/csthor/bilder/ubi_sig.jpg </A>

csThor's skins @ Il2skins.com

KaRaYa-X
09-03-2004, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by csThor:
Karaya - I have not made "propaganda" for Targetware, but merely pointed out that it has a few advantages over FB that are _not_ related to code/programming. I have not even tested it as I am not an online player anymore.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I was MAINLY referring to Stiglr who takes every chance he gets to support Targetware - yes it might have a better FM or DM but I'm not really interested in it for several reasons:

- retro 1999 graphics http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif
- only scenarios/planes that do not interest me THAT much (they are ok but that's it - nothing that makes me fall from my chair in excitement)
- a community not worth speaking of (Stiglr and.... rofl) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif
- development on a very very slow basis - nevermind, we might have some Bfs, FWs and/or Spits/Tempests etc. by the time our sun goes nova http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Du solltest mich doch eigentlich besser kennen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wie gesagt habe mich mehr auf Stiglr eingeschossen - andererseits muss ich zugeben dich nicht unbedingt sooooo gut zu kennen http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Ich weiß schon inwiefern du mit IL2 zu schaffen hast und womit du dir die Zeit vertreibst http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif aber das wars dann schon...

(nicht b¶se gemeint http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif)

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2004, 10:59 AM
Well, Karaya, allow me to rebut....

You've basically said that graphics are more important to you than an accurate flight model. Typical of a gamer's mentality.

Also that the scenarios don't interest you.... hmmm, they're historical for the most part, and involve more than just furballing. Again, typical gamer mentality.

Community not worth speaking of? I beg to differ, we may be much smaller than this one, but the people there tend to know their stuff much more than this community, on average.

Slow to develop: that's by plan. The goal is to "get it right", not necessarily "grind it out fast". And while Maddox has certainly produced a lot of planes quickly in 3 years, how many of them are modelled correctly? Few, according to this board.

It's as Thor hints at: Targetware is not beholden to the mass market school that says you have to make it easy for the dummies, and enable them to "win" easily, or they'll lose interest. It's for people who value accuracy, not politics.

KaRaYa-X
09-03-2004, 11:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Well, Karaya, allow me to rebut....

You've basically said that graphics are more important to you than an accurate flight model. Typical of a gamer's mentality.

Also that the scenarios don't interest you.... hmmm, they're historical for the most part, and involve more than just furballing. Again, typical gamer mentality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice fantasy you got their mate!
About the graphics: Well actually I put realism OVER graphics any time. But after having seen screenshots from Targetware I really had to wonder... I mean even in 1999 there were Sims that could mess with it - let alone 2001 (when IL2 came out).
And afterall: Don't you think there is also some sort of graphical-realism to be met? What sense does it have to develop a very advanced DM/FM but in game you sort of feel like flying through "LegoLand" with pyramid mountains and other relicts from the late 90's?

http://newweb.targetware.net/modules/gallery/albums/TR-62-Snapshots/newzeke2.sized.jpg

Reminds me a bit of Airwarrior3 or Aces High which are both VERY low in graphical quality/realism


About the scenarios: You sort of interpreted my statement the way you wanted to be...
It's not that there is insufficient action going on in Targetware - it's just that I can't get excited about the planeset/theatre of operation... A6M, P38, P51 are all very nice but we had these in 1.000.000 games. Targetware lacks too many ground units, naval vessels, aircraft to be really immersive

I'm also MUCH more interested in the European Theatre of Operations (which doesn't mean that I won't buy PF http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif).
Oh, does Targetware (Target Rabaul) even have working carrier vessels yet? If not, then... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

XyZspineZyX
09-03-2004, 01:26 PM
While I tend to agree with you about the "overly geometrically spaced trees", they're certainly no "deal killer": they're really the same ones you see in IL-2, if you bother to look close. Same technique to generate the "depth". Anyways, I get a different effect with my poor old ATI card...I get a gnarled, thatched looking jungle texture... looks like uninviting jungle to me.

And, that's not a Lego-pyramid mountain... you can see contour lines all over it if you look close. Besides, IL-2 gets a real pass with that, given that Russia and France are pretty much FLAT. So, let's not cast stones in that direction.

Besides that, those textures are fine. It looks like a Zero to me, and has a good level of detail...

Of course, I'd notice more if the Zero didn't FLY like a Zero (see FB for that effect).

As for not being interested in the subject matter, well, that's an individual judgment...says nothing here nor there about Targetware... (er, besides bringing up the fact that the upcoming Target:Tobruk will do North Africa and the Med theatre PROPERLY).

As for CVs, nope, they're not implemented in Targetware yet, and to be honest, the ground/collision model is still incomplete, and all that needs to be squared away first. However, there's really no pressing need to take off or land from CVs anyway. It's basically eye candy itself. Much, MUCH more of the Pacific fighting was from land-based planes. It will be nice to have "landable" CVs in the future, for Midway battles, Coral Sea, etc.

Given the long distances involved in combat, most scenarios involving CV-based planes are airstarts...and the CVs themselves are there, as targets... provided you can get close enough through all that ack-ack.

Lacks too many ground units??? WhatchootalkinboutWillis?? There are MG nests, artillery pieces, tanks (the few that were there), barges, quonset huts, native huts, hangars, destroyers, cruisers, supply ships, you name it. Oh, I suppose that since "the scenarios don't interest you" you never bothered to even look for any ground targets, right?

Typical gamer behavior... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

[This message was edited by Stiglr on Fri September 03 2004 at 12:37 PM.]

LLv34_Flanker
09-04-2004, 01:57 AM
S!

About the graphics in Target:Rabaul, AcesHigh2 and other massive online player flight sims. It is on purpose. Make FB/PF a MMPOG and You would get worse warping than the new Enterprise in latest Star Treks http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I play also AcesHigh 2 along FB and there are sometimes over 500 players in the same arena and believe me, with FB graphics it would e unplayable due to the warps, stutter and other anomalies. MMPOG's are a compromise between eyecandy and playability AFAIK so do not bash TargetWare or HiTechCreations for that.

---------------------------

Flanker
1.Lentue p¤¤llikk¶ / TO
Lentolaivue 34

"Let Chaos entvine on defenseless soil!"
~Dimmu Borgir~

IIIJG53_Crinius
09-04-2004, 04:05 AM
Ӛctually I switched over to TR from FB. To be honest Iam tired of FM`s for planes all basing on one basic FM. Sure FB has some adavantages over FB but TR is still better and right now it tops over FB in FM and DM. I call myself an hardcore Simer and I prefer correct FM and DM and CEM over nice graphics. From time to time I fly with FB offline because the none existing offline play (except the offline test flights) is in my opinion a great weakpoint of TR. The one thing I love of TR is that you dont hear a "You is wrong" when people back there statements up with documents. They have also some Japanese ppl who help with japanse documents. Just my 2 Eurocents http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://www.jg26.privat.t-online.de/lumber2.jpg

I always wanted to be a Lumberjack!

KaRaYa-X
09-04-2004, 05:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
As for CVs, nope, they're not implemented in Targetware yet, and to be honest, the ground/collision model is still incomplete, and all that needs to be squared away first. However, there's really no pressing need to take off or land from CVs anyway. It's basically eye candy itself. Much, MUCH more of the Pacific fighting was from land-based planes. It will be nice to have "landable" CVs in the future, for Midway battles, Coral Sea, etc.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're so right - CVs are total eye-candy... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
After all the whole war in the PTO was started by a carrier group (Pearl Harbour) and some of the fiercest, most important battles (such as Midway) were taken out by carriers (1/2 of the japanese carrier fleet was taken out in about 15min IIRC)! But yes... CVs are only eye-candy!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

TYPICAL GAMER BEHAVIOUR http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Given the long distances involved in combat, most scenarios involving CV-based planes are airstarts...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Airstarts - how "realistic". Especially when keeping in mind that you fight your own crusade for 150% realism... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

IIIJG53_Crinius
09-04-2004, 05:51 AM
Well Karaya, the IJN had in 1937 563 aircraft based ashore and 332 aboard its carrier fleet. With the ongoing of the war the carrier ac were fewer and fewer so I think theres some justification in putting the most part of the missions on landbases. TR is mostly based on mission flown in August 1942 till mid 1943 in the Rabaul and New Guinea area. Most Japanese ac in this area where landbased!
Regarding realism. The Zero had a range of 1675nm max. So it makes absolut sense to start the missions in the air and let them fly only 5-10 minutes to the target. I guess nobody wants to fly, lets say, 3 hours to the target fight for 10 minutes and fly back for 3 hours http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

http://www.jg26.privat.t-online.de/lumber2.jpg

I always wanted to be a Lumberjack!

IIIJG53_Crinius
09-04-2004, 05:57 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KaRaYa-X:


You're so right - CVs are total eye-candy... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif
After all the whole war in the PTO was started by a carrier group (Pearl Harbour) and some of the fiercest, most important battles (such as Midway) were taken out by carriers (1/2 of the japanese carrier fleet was taken out in about 15min IIRC)! But yes... CVs are only eye-candy!
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/crazy.gif

TYPICAL GAMER BEHAVIOUR http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/88.gif

Youre right. The most IMPORTANT BATTLES where fought from carriers but THE GREATEST PART of the airwar in the pacific was fought with ac from landbases. Do you know Saburo Sakai? One of the greatest Japanese Aces. He was an IJN pilot but he never flew from a carrier. He flew mostly from Rabaul landbase http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

http://www.jg26.privat.t-online.de/lumber2.jpg

I always wanted to be a Lumberjack!

Aaron_GT
09-04-2004, 06:25 AM
Targetware is interesting (as in the Linux support , if I could get Linux to support my ATI graphics card!) but it has a way to go yet. The big problem s are that it is online only, but with not that many people online, unfortunately.

KaRaYa-X
09-04-2004, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IIIJG53_Crinius:
Regarding realism. The Zero had a range of 1675nm max. So it makes absolut sense to start the missions in the air and let them fly only 5-10 minutes to the target. I guess nobody wants to fly, lets say, 3 hours to the target fight for 10 minutes and fly back for 3 hours http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes nobody wants to fly for that long... but that doesn't change anything about the fact that it still is unrealistic http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Read with me: "Especially when keeping in mind that you [Stiglr] fight your own crusade for 150% realism..."

So why does he fight for absolute realism when he then plays airstart missions!? Some kind of split-personality, isn't he...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Youre right. The most IMPORTANT BATTLES where fought from carriers but THE GREATEST PART of the airwar in the pacific was fought with ac from landbases. Do you know Saburo Sakai? One of the greatest Japanese Aces. He was an IJN pilot but he never flew from a carrier. He flew mostly from Rabaul landbase<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I know about him - so what? You agreed that some of the most important combat actions were taken out by CVs - and yet you don't feel that it is necessary to have fully useable CVs? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif



To make a conclusion I will again repeat what I already wrote in here:
"Could you guys stop with this Targetware propaganda campaign for a second? If you want to lobby for that simulation please start an own topic... thx"

This topic was intended as a simple Guncam thread - turned into a "Targetware ownz you all" campaign by you fanboys... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/51.gif

Now tell me, why do you even care to post here if your so happy with Targetware, huh?
Just leave this thread alone, will you.

http://users.hol.gr/%7Eerler/luftprof/jg52/bf109g108jg52-1_1.jpg

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2004, 11:09 AM
Karaya, the point you fail to 'get' (or just have decided to be too obstinate to get) is that ANY sim (or any game for that matter) is always some kind of tradeoff between playability and realism.

There are not many people who would want to fly a virtual Zero 300 miles each way from Rabaul to Guadalcanal for a 15 minute window of opportunity to fight (needing remaining fuel to get back).

Air starts (and disengagement circles) allow you to do such scenarios, yet maintain a little bit of playability in the bargain.

================================
Now, let me explain why I said that landable CVs are mostly eye candy.

It's already been covered about how much more of the Pacific was fought by land-based planes. I'll only add that because of Midway, both sides' CV strength was badly sapped, and it wasn't until later '44, when the Commonwealth forces were rolling the Japanese back to their home islands, that CVs really came back into their own...at least for one side. So, the competitive part of the war was basically a land-based war. As for Pearl, sure that was a CV strike... but not much for anything but a solo scenario, as there's no balance in it.

Secondly, due to the long distances involved, again, few people are going to want to actually launch complete sorties from CVs. It's not going to happen when the ship is under attack (unless you really go arcade) because the CV is evading divebombers and not turned into wind; or in the case of damage, it would be listing, have fire on the deck, etc, and not going to be launching aircraft. So, the only reason to have to take off and land from the CV is for eye candy purposes. Sure, it's a nice thing to have, but most people are not going to gauge their abilities or how much fun they have with a Pacific sim based on their carrier traps and launches.

Really, all that's necessary is to have flattops as TARGETS.

Kartveli
09-04-2004, 11:31 AM
I have just recently tried TR, and yes, the graphics are not quite the same level as FB, but the first thing I noticed was that torque really does exist!

FB is nice, but does fall short in SO many areas...areas that should have never been in question in the first place

FMs, DMs, point system, chat interface, to say nothing of lag, stutter and pauses that really ruin an otherwise enjoyable experience...not to mention the incidental behaviour of a lot of the players, eg. kill stealing, team killing...

As an ex Janes player, I feel FB takes the genre to the next level....but compared to Janes, FB has NEVER delivered to pure FUN of that great ole game....

I will certainly be looking into TR further, regardless of "1999" graphics, and also Aces High 2...

I again want to enjoy flying those warbirds I love so much...and without having to shell out $$$ for a super sys to run a game such as FB/PF or upcoming BoB...

"be sure", for all the good things FB has, or has brought, it also has glaring issues that do not seem to be addressed....

DO not knock those that "put down" FB, this is often the only way things are improved....

Do not laud FB as the be-all-end-all...another game will do to it, what it did to Janes....one day....

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2004, 01:30 PM
I still found it quite humorous that Karaya chose to lampoon Targetware's graphics by pointing out the exact same technique both sims use for forests. The only difference is, the individual tree/bushes in TW are a bit too straight and geometrically patterned. Hehehhe. It appears even the eye candy freaks can't really tell what they're looking at.

KaRaYa-X
09-04-2004, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I still found it quite humorous that Karaya chose to lampoon Targetware's graphics by pointing out the exact same technique both sims use for forests.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe it's the same technique, maybe not - I don't think neither me nor you can judge that... However (!) the difference in quality is immense. And for the mountains: You can't really call them mountains in TW - they are more pyramid like then in any other "modern" simulation. Furthermore the mountains have so many edges that they hardly look natural (as most other stuff in TW)

just have a look at the pic I posted...

oh and lets take a more concentrated look at what Stiglr posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Karaya chose to lampoon Targetware's graphics by pointing out the exact same technique both sims use for forests<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd be happy if you could point me to the phrase where I was actually doing what you said... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
Again you're imaging things that aren't there - poor you!

It was you who startet about the trees with this:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>While I tend to agree with you about the "overly geometrically spaced trees", they're certainly no "deal killer": they're really the same ones you see in IL-2, if you bother to look close. Same technique to generate the "depth". Anyways, I get a different effect with my poor old ATI card...I get a gnarled, thatched looking jungle texture... looks like uninviting jungle to me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd suggest: Buy a new pair of glasses... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/53.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It appears even the eye candy freaks can't really tell what they're looking at.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Freak? Me? http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/354.gif
You need glasses!? (oh I already mentioned that) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Take a look into the mirror if you want to see a freak http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/34.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Karaya, the point you fail to 'get' (or just have decided to be too obstinate to get) is that ANY sim (or any game for that matter) is always some kind of tradeoff between playability and realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's actually true - but the point YOU fail to understand is that it is YOU who advertizes Targetware as "best at everything" - I'm so sorry for people like you who actually believe what they are saying... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/52.gif

Oh, and another task for you: Please find me a phrase where I actually praised FB/AEP to be perfect at anything... might keep you busy for quite some time

http://users.hol.gr/%7Eerler/luftprof/jg52/bf109g108jg52-1_1.jpg

--= flying online as JG52&lt;Karaya-X =--

Kartveli
09-04-2004, 06:34 PM
Frankly, I couldnt give a sheit about terrain, or forests, or anything to do with anything but FM, airbourne objects or specific ground tgt objects...

Who cares how the trees looks when in real life they are mostly just a blur in the periferal vision anyhow?

Will FB graphics be "pathetic" or lame or crude, or however you want to call it when the next gen sim comes along and resolutions become even higher? (requiring that much more of a system, of course)...

At least for myself, TR provides "adequate" graphics...

Are FB graphics SO far ahead of anything else, anyhow? No.

Janes graphics are still almost up to FB levels, and even better with the hi-res stuff....and the Janes cockpits, certainly in the case of the 38, still outstrip FB's...

One of many points Janes still, IMHO, holds a lead far and above FB...(which include sounds, chat interface, scoring sys, mission builder, etc., etc., etc.)

XyZspineZyX
09-04-2004, 07:35 PM
I never said "best at everything" about Targetware.

I said "better than IL-2 at modeling, fidelity and attention to historical detail". THAT'S what I said.

I fully admit that IL-2's graphics are better than Targetware's; always have. But, my point is that, a good sim has more than just eye candy (which is what many a sim and a throwaway game all seem to have in common; heck, even console Playstation and X-Box games are getting pretty graphically intense).

I believe a *sim* should have the physics and damage modeling at A+ before eye candy. I also believe the design should have a bit of structure, so that play doesn't just become "what ueberplane can I jump into to have an edge against everyone?"

Those are the two main reasons why 1) I think Targetware is a better sim and 2) why I am at times so bitterly disappointed at IL-2. It really is *so* close....but yet so far.

lil_labbit
09-04-2004, 07:50 PM
Well - I just did d/l the targetware stuff - even got as far as seeing the triangular mountains http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
lol
I'll try to fly it too http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but hey a new sim takes time lol

And I very much doubt it will be anything like Il-2 series http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

...but you never know...

http://members.home.nl/lil.labbit/lilseesya.jpg
Question: Did you back-up your files?
Answer: I didn't know they had a reverse...

LW_lcarp
09-05-2004, 07:04 AM
The ground terrian in IL2 is so much better then TW for 1 reason. IL2 was to only feature the IL2 series of planes (ground attack)when development started. Sure there were going to be fighters and such but they would of been AI. But then Oleg and company said we can get a bigger fan base if we impliment flyable fighters and such.


So if IL2 would of started out as a Air combat sim i dont think the ground terrian would be as detailed as it is now. So Olegs Origanal idea turned out to be a blessing for all in the terrian area.

"If winning isnt everything why do they keep score"
Vince Lombardi

RevvinUK
09-05-2004, 08:08 AM
Apples and oranges, why the pissing match instead of enjoying both sims for what they provide.

Revvin

The CH Hangar - Profiles, scripting ideas and discussion for CH users (http://www.ch-hangar.com)

FI WILLIE
09-05-2004, 10:40 AM
Has anybody actually made the GUNCAM thing work in IL2?

Virtus Junxit,
Mors Non Separabit.
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RQAAAGcT2og50!y1f7NgYX4rH0SBKAJ0*TnOdC3*WtgnO6hGP KX5PiB5W62XzquB*!VrAP7Zdv0N0X0XoOghYlsdCNgJc9MWMJg aWb0iiKk/109g2%20small.jpg
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati


(When all else fails, play dead.)
http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0QADWAvYSnGZaJjyZNeiWgIEGvdX5tvNMbEyaBCk7k0umnkdtM fvXk7UORkarzGe3nPMS77RyIzTPhfsJQW!gr!MM82pBzaYVzoz WAgBwaSg/******ss.gif