PDA

View Full Version : Poll: What's more important to you? Graphs or FM?



Jatro13th
03-31-2006, 12:21 PM

PBNA-Boosher
03-31-2006, 12:38 PM
Without a good physics model what use are the graphics? If my B-25 can turn with a Zeke, I don't see any reason for good graphics.

TX-Zen
03-31-2006, 12:44 PM
Physics model 1000%

The plane models are awesome in this sim, but I couldn't more sick of looking at the same ol green terrain day in and day out. Since I'm accustomed to it being the way it is, I'd rather have a serious rework of the physics.

Stigler_9_JG52
03-31-2006, 12:46 PM
A lot of people will SAY "physics", but won't stand behind it. Everything is "how things look" in this community, it seems. And, to be fair, in most sim communities.

Even scads of people who put up a good front about wanting things to be accurate can be found flying "cockpitless" planes in the WonderWoman servers.

For the record, though, place my mark double thick in the physics column. Because there's a real lack of it in this system right now.

lowfighter
03-31-2006, 12:50 PM
Honestly the graphics of our game are very primitive, it's the thing that makes me suffer. The flight model has improved more over years than the graphics.
I'll not have much pleasure if I fly with perfect FM over cartoonish mountains, rivers, jungle etc,
like we have now.
I really hope BoB will bring some more realism to the landscape. That said, Oleg is a genius because he created a game where "eye candy" guys like me or FM guys like you can't quit even if they are disappointed. It's the balance...

stubby
03-31-2006, 01:10 PM
Give me photo realistic eye candy and THX quality sound. What good is physics if when you look outside of your virtual cockpit, you are reminded that you are flying a pixelated, lego plane.

LEBillfish
03-31-2006, 01:12 PM
lmao http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif......Your title is a bit deceptive, I expected to see Tagert posting

"Graphs be Sure!!!"

lowfighter
03-31-2006, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by stubby:
Give me photo realistic eye candy and THX quality sound. What good is physics if when you look outside of your virtual cockpit, you are reminded that you are flying a pixelated, lego plane.

Stubby, you're my buddy, couldn't say it better! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Divine-Wind
03-31-2006, 01:17 PM
I say Physics...



And graphics...


Ooh, betcha didn't think a that!


But seriously, I think physics are a bit more important than graphics. I can live with horrendous graphics (I had to, with a 600Mhz processor and 256 MBs of RAM, before I got my Dell [now customized]), but if my beautiful Warhawk turns like a 18 Wheeler on a molasses covered road, I'm playing something else.

lowfighter
03-31-2006, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
I say Physics...



And graphics...


Ooh, betcha didn't think a that!


But seriously, I think physics are a bit more important than graphics. I can live with horrendous graphics (I had to, with a 600Mhz processor and 256 MBs of RAM, before I got my Dell [now customized]), but if my beautiful Warhawk turns like a 18 Wheeler on a molasses covered road, I'm playing something else.


divine, if you would compare the present FM and the present graphics in the game? What do you think?

Jatro13th
03-31-2006, 01:43 PM
Yeah in the end I guess it's only a matter of what people are used to... I for instance have seen great improvement since MSFSII in the graphics sector, so I guess I could cope with the same old, not so cartoonish IMO green terrain (although I admit it can be very boring sometimes...). But in the FM sector things for me had been veeeeeeery slow until I started using IL2 where I saw a giant leap!

That is the reason why I voted for better FM. A good step has been made in that direction, and I would hate to see the tide turn now again in favour of better graphics...

I might be a little radical and narrow minded in this specific field, I admit, but I had many years of sadness with simulators where spins and stalls wouldn't even exist...

IL2 FM RULEZ!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

lowfighter
03-31-2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Jatro13th:

I might be a little radical and narrow minded in this specific field, I admit, but I had many years of sadness with simulators where spins and stalls wouldn't even exist...

IL2 FM RULEZ!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I understand you!
Cheers!

Daytraders
03-31-2006, 02:21 PM
if you can run this game on top settings the graphics are great and im very piccy, and i tell you now there aint many here that can,i mean 1600 x 1200, all perfect 16x af and 8x aa, looks great,you need latest card that is out there for some settings in this game.

Enthor1
03-31-2006, 02:28 PM
Graphics, I would not know a 100% FM from a tree and neither would most here so just make 'em pretty.

I think Oleg and Crew have done just fine in all aspects of this game/sim.

Every single hardware upgrade I have made since IL2 was released has resulted in a better looking game and I am still a few notches from top line stuff.

If BOB takes another 2 years no problem here, the three upcoming paid addons will suffice while I get some cash up for the cray it will need.

I guess I gotta get a part time job, for my wife.

papotex
03-31-2006, 02:34 PM
back in 1995 eagle dinamics released their first su27 flight sim and the flight model was at the time revolutionary, the graphics were fair but i remember that i loved that sim because in multiplayer some people would bring out the flight models to their advantage more than other people, even when the later have been playing 5 years.

i remember "flight sims" were released during that time. With graphics far superior than flanker use to have. but when i tried them and verified that the flight models were...idiotic,
I just went back to the real sence of flying of old flanker. and now you ask me this question
and ill say i will pick flight model over graphics any day.

today thats not even more of an issue because of
better computers and video cards Everything looks good.
its the flight models they have found limits on how to perfect.

Bo_Nidle
03-31-2006, 03:03 PM
Simple - Its a compromise. I don't want a sim that looks pants (stand up CFS3) but i do not want arcade flight modelling (standup Blazing Angels-and yes, I do know its an Xbox360 title but I saw the demo and..well..oh dear! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif )

To be honest I have never flown a WW2 fighter(or indeed any fighter,bomber,airliner,cropduster,microlight,hang glider....oh wait...I have flown a paper airplane but only from 3rd person perspective...does that count?) so I am not really in a position to cast judgement....so maybe Blazing Angels has got it right!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Lets be honest, the reason most of us fly IL2 is that we are armchair fighterjock wannabe's (come on, admit it,it's nothing to be ashamed of) and this is the closest we will ever come to the real thing, and if looking as real as possible was not a huge part of the experience we wouldn't be on this forum in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So yes I want a sim to look as realistic as the technology will allow but I do not want to see a WW2 era fighter with vectored thrust so a flight model that seems to fit the accounts of the time is also important.

So, as in so much in life (trust me I'm WAY old enough to know) its a compromise.

Divine-Wind
03-31-2006, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Divine-Wind:
I say Physics...



And graphics...


Ooh, betcha didn't think a that!


But seriously, I think physics are a bit more important than graphics. I can live with horrendous graphics (I had to, with a 600Mhz processor and 256 MBs of RAM, before I got my Dell [now customized]), but if my beautiful Warhawk turns like a 18 Wheeler on a molasses covered road, I'm playing something else.


divine, if you would compare the present FM and the present graphics in the game? What do you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The FM is more important, like I said in the lsat part of my post. I can stand bad graphics, but not a bad FM.

Capt.LoneRanger
03-31-2006, 03:11 PM
If FlightModell means realism in general, that is the main difference between Falcon4:AF and LoMAC.

Neither one really thrills me any longer. One cannot live without the other, for the simple reason, that you cannot simulate a perfect FlightModell without using appropriate graphics.

F6_Ace
03-31-2006, 04:03 PM
Physics over eye candy. However, 1C clearly takes ths opposite view - much better to add n planes with nice pits than fix the FM/DM on existing models.

Shame, really - hopefully, this logic will backfire.

Jatro13th
03-31-2006, 04:21 PM
Just to get myself clear on this one. When I say FM I do not mean if the Bf has a better E conserving ability over the Hurri or whatever. To tell you the truth, I don't really care if the particular FMs are historical enough, cause one way or another we are not going to find out.

When I say FM I mean the ability of the simulator to simulate the flight characeristics of an aeroplane in general and in real time. If that is achieved, then the historicaly accurate FM will come automaticaly.

I know this is far more advanced than what even the best computers can handle now (otherwise wind tunnels wouldn't exist any more), but what I would like to see is steps being made towards that ultimate goal.

Thanks for replying guys! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Daytraders
03-31-2006, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by Bo_Nidle:
Simple - Its a compromise. I don't want a sim that looks pants (stand up CFS3) but i do not want arcade flight modelling (standup Blazing Angels-and yes, I do know its an Xbox360 title but I saw the demo and..well..oh dear! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif )

To be honest I have never flown a WW2 fighter(or indeed any fighter,bomber,airliner,cropduster,microlight,hang glider....oh wait...I have flown a paper airplane but only from 3rd person perspective...does that count?) so I am not really in a position to cast judgement....so maybe Blazing Angels has got it right!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Lets be honest, the reason most of us fly IL2 is that we are armchair fighterjock wannabe's (come on, admit it,it's nothing to be ashamed of) and this is the closest we will ever come to the real thing, and if looking as real as possible was not a huge part of the experience we wouldn't be on this forum in the first place. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

So yes I want a sim to look as realistic as the technology will allow but I do not want to see a WW2 era fighter with vectored thrust so a flight model that seems to fit the accounts of the time is also important.

So, as in so much in life (trust me I'm WAY old enough to know) its a compromise.

Blazing Angels PC title also http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

carguy_
03-31-2006, 04:51 PM
As a customer I am 92% satisfied with this game.It has nearly everything I ever desired in a game.

As a flightsim enthusiast I think of so many bugs that bug the game.

1.Completely unrealistic visibility system.
2.Simplified energy retention physics engine.
3.Idiot AI.
4.Mediocre sounds to say the least.


For this game,both graphics and FM issues need to be solved for future products with the same priority.

TX-Zen
03-31-2006, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
As a customer I am 92% satisfied with this game.It has nearly everything I ever desired in a game.

As a flightsim enthusiast I think of so many bugs that bug the game.

1.Completely unrealistic visibility system.
2.Simplified energy retention physics engine.
3.Idiot AI.
4.Mediocre sounds to say the least.


For this game,both graphics and FM issues need to be solved for future products with the same priority.


Big +1

Did the D9 really sound like a lawnmower?

Brain32
03-31-2006, 06:10 PM
I think graphics in this game is very good, only LOMAC can compare(IL2 IMO still looks better not to mention performance), so FM is in this stage IMO definitely more important.

danjama
03-31-2006, 07:44 PM
Graphics and Flight model modelled equally well. Oleg has done a good job in my opinion.

Divine-Wind
03-31-2006, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by TX-Zen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by carguy_:
As a customer I am 92% satisfied with this game.It has nearly everything I ever desired in a game.

As a flightsim enthusiast I think of so many bugs that bug the game.

1.Completely unrealistic visibility system.
2.Simplified energy retention physics engine.
3.Idiot AI.
4.Mediocre sounds to say the least.


For this game,both graphics and FM issues need to be solved for future products with the same priority.


Big +1

Did the D9 really sound like a lawnmower? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No wonder I can't fly for beans in that thing; It's got a lanwmower for an engine!

About the visibility system, if you mean not being able to do anything but turn or look up and down, hopefully that'll be changed in BoB.
If you're talking about other things...

willyvic
03-31-2006, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Monty_Thrud:
You can't beat a good graph...but you can throw it in the bin and say what a load of b*ll**x...this week its zoom climb...next week it'll be...OMGZZZ...TEH RADIO MAST IZ 2INCHES TO LONGZ...MY BFG ISNT FAST ENUFFZZ...I'M GETTIN PWNED BECUS OF OL3G PORKIN IT

Didn't read the thread again, did ya? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

WV.

Obi_Kwiet
03-31-2006, 08:46 PM
The physics are pretty good alreay. A lot of people just sit on the forums and whine because they can't shoot anyone down, and act all pureist about it. The FM's are not way off, you just need more practice flying than whining.

appulluk
03-31-2006, 11:22 PM
I'd say a compromise, but that wasn't an option. So I'm going with graphics.

My reason is, I think physics have improved well enough and while they can always be better, as long as they aren't arcadey I can usually accept less-than-perfect. If it's ridiculous physics, example say a B-17 pulls too easily out of a dive, or the AI pulls some impossible move (or would that be an AI issue? Ehh..) then I'll have a few problems.

But I really don't think flight sims have improved much within the past maybe, 7 years, graphically. That sounds like a bit of stretch perhaps. They do look better in terms of sharpness and resolution - but we've always had vast open areas. We've usually had a decent amount of ground detail even if it was just sprites. I think we need improvement on the smaller details like:

- ground-level model detail (AAA, humans)
(See how blocky the pilot and enemy humans are, yet the airplanes themselves have decent amount of detail? I don't think it matters we'll be up in the sky most of the time, because I like to fly around the ground, too)

- ground-level texturing. There hasn't been one sim that I can recall, that had ground-level texture quality that you might see as sharp in a first-person shooter. It only looks good up above and when you get down low it's a blur.

I know there are ways to optimize such things without taking major hits, or at the very least there is always a compromise. (One example is in the game Mafia, cars are detailed nicely but the farther away they are, the less polys and other details they have, so by the time you're close enough you see them looking good)

Jatro13th
04-01-2006, 02:18 AM
Obi Kwiet wrote:

The physics are pretty good alreay. A lot of people just sit on the forums and whine because they can't shoot anyone down, and act all pureist about it. The FM's are not way off, you just need more practice flying than whining.

Obi, I understand what you say and I partly agree with you, but personally I never said that my kill ratio will get better if the FM gets more realistic... I already have a cr@ppy shooting accuracy as it is, so, any improvememnts in the FM would probably make it even worse, but I don't care...

Originaly posted by Monty_Thrud:

I feel some people need to get a life and realise that this is just a wonderful game/sim, graphically beautiful, and as Obi Kwiet says the physics are pretty good already, the best of any WW2 flight sim to date and appreciate it for what it is...and not behave as if this represents WW2 as it was and that they'll never get their Iron cross because they cant zoom enough...just enjoy...have fun...its a game

Monty, I can reassure you I've got a life! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Thats why you wil very rarely find me posting in the whining threads. I appreciate this sim very much and the proof for it is that even though I used to be an MSFS player (never shot anyone down over there) I converted and changed 'religion'! Most of the times I fly offline, and even without an opponent!
So, please understand that, since the Maddox Simulator is going to evolve and get better in the future, I wanted to see peoples priorities as far as Eye Candy and FM (not specific zooming abilities) are concerned!

Cheers!

Tully__
04-01-2006, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
A lot of people will SAY "physics", but won't stand behind it. Everything is "how things look" in this community, it seems. And, to be fair, in most sim communities.

Even scads of people who put up a good front about wanting things to be accurate can be found flying "cockpitless" planes in the WonderWoman servers.

For the record, though, place my mark double thick in the physics column. Because there's a real lack of it in this system right now.
I disagree that there's a lack of physics, agree that there's a lack of fine resolution in the physics system that causes some anomylous flight behaviour on some aircraft and agree with your comments about the discrepancies between how ppl vote here and what they complain about in after receiving the new product. I voted physics (though the LOD problem could use some attention too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

woofiedog
04-01-2006, 03:52 AM
Flight modeling 100%... but can't leave out the graphics.
What good would IL-2 be with Pong graphic's.

RocketRobin__
04-01-2006, 04:09 AM
Real flight simmers focus on physics only. Even the thought of using 3D graphics is rediculous. It's all about the code. All we want to see is code, and on a Commodore 64. And don't use one of those silly CGAs. Green and white code is more than sufficient.

OldMan____
04-01-2006, 04:51 AM
Don´t agree with ALL for physics view. A game isa a compromise between things.


What would you prefer.. a game With almost perfect FM and CFS1 graphics... or a almost perfect FM ( but with litle issues like ground handling not that good, one or 2 planes with slightissues on acceleration on cetain altitudes)... but with new comming BOB graphics?

I really doubt much people would keep flying the first option when the second is available. Obviously I am not talking about arcade vs sim aproach here.

Jatro13th
04-01-2006, 05:06 AM
Oldman I agree with you 100%

But my question is purely hypothetical about the priorities of people in the simming environment and that is why I am posing this question as a dilemma, either this, or that, no in betweens.

OF course you can understand that the answers to my question could not in any way be indicative of the real situation since the third and most important option, i.e. 'balanced development' is missing on purpose!

@ Monty: No worries man, I know exactly what you mean and the purpose of your post! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

RCAF_Irish_403
04-01-2006, 05:17 AM
Physics over graphics....the good news is we will get both with BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

luftluuver
04-01-2006, 05:33 AM
Graphics takes the back seat over FM anytime. Even the pros, the military, puts graphics second. The only graphics that should match the FM is the graphics of other a/c.

There is an old expression, 'all show and no go'. In other words, you can dress your car up with all the latest and greatest body tricks, but if it don't have THE engine and suspension parts, it is just a parking lot queen.

Bearcat99
04-01-2006, 05:54 AM
You should have put in more options instead of one or the other... like 5 choices on a sliding scale with the 3rd choice being equal in termns of both. Most of us here care about both. I dont care how well it flies if it looks like a 10 year old sim.. and I dont care how well it looks if it flies like one.


Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
Real flight simmers focus on physics only. Even the thought of using 3D graphics is rediculous. It's all about the code. All we want to see is code, and on a Commodore 64. And don't use one of those silly CGAs. Green and white code is more than sufficient.

I totally disagree with that. I consider myself a "real" flight simmer. IMO a "real" flight simmer is anyone who is willing to spend a large proportion of his spare time and money on the craft.

It has nothing to do with settings and graphics to a large extent.. although it could be argued that a "real" simmer's settings would not depart from what can be reasonably considered virtual flight and all the challenges that go with it.. as in as accurate as possible FM settings and engine settings and to a lesser extent view settings within thier chosen sim.

JG4_Helofly
04-01-2006, 08:22 AM
100% FM

I would have much more fun with a realistic simulation and cfs1 graphics than the other way around.

This game was good but with the time I become sick of the old FM I which great planes like ( p47, fw190, p 51,... ) don't have their energy advantages over turn and burn fighters.

OldMan____
04-01-2006, 09:32 AM
Again.. so all the physics rules guys would not apreciate a better graphic capability on seeing and identify planes at large distances? What about planes disapearing on certain lods ?

On my account this is as relevant as precise speed at all altitudes.

AKA_TAGERT
04-01-2006, 09:45 AM
It always has been and allways will be a balancing act between the two!

50 50

In that one with out the other makes for a poor sim.

That is to say you can devote 100% of your resorces to the FM, and just have numbers displayed on the PC monitor, and it will be the best FM a PC can provide.

but..

It would not be a very good selling flight sim.

Thus anyone that says it is all about the FM or all about the eye candy is just ignorant.

JG4_Helofly
04-01-2006, 10:02 AM
My thougt was: 100% real fm or 100% foto realistic graphic.

If we talk about improvement to a higher level ( not to 100% ) than a mix of fm and graphic would be the best solution.

"Again.. so all the physics rules guys would not apreciate a better graphic capability on seeing and identify planes at large distances? What about planes disapearing on certain lods ?"

Very good point http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . Better graphic would add realisme.

dhorkoff
04-01-2006, 10:30 AM
I voted for flight model. But what I really want is full support for this piece of hardware (http://www.ageia.com/products/physx.html).

Why compromise?

Stigler_9_JG52
04-01-2006, 11:08 AM
The FM is more important, like I said in the last part of my post. I can stand bad graphics, but not a bad FM.

Well, I don't know why this sim interests you, then, because the graphics are the only thing worth commending. The FM is awful. Acceleration and energy bleed constantly wrong. Canned stall and departure behavior. Changes to the general FM routinely whipsaw the behavior of invidudual planes (when, if you have the basic physics right, changes should only slightly affect individual planes, not turn worldbeaters into dogs and vice versa from one version to the next).

For all its popularity, the FM in this sim has set realism back a few generations.

And, when you get down to it, the graphics are a problem, too, when you consider that you can't use altitude as an advantage (in a no-icon environment), because the invisispecks invariably blend into the terrain; the easier-to-see "globules" don't always appear either.

Then you have the totally backward phenomenon of very, very distant (read: should NOT be visible) globules of airfields showing against the horizon, while you can't see planes much closer, and you can't see airfields half the time when you're within 5km in the air.

Other stupid Sturmovik tricks: the need to resort to "wing spotting". When you're flying over one of the invisibility maps, sometimes the only way you can see anything below you is to position your plane so that the wing covers an area. If there's a "invisispeck/globule" there, it will show as a white spot on the wing graphic. Thus, where you should see absolutely nothing, you get a visual clue.

Grue_
04-01-2006, 11:26 AM
Physics.

We play the original Counterstrike in the office because it still has the best gameplay of any FPS in our opinion.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-01-2006, 02:07 PM
Well, so far the vote is going 89% to 11% in favor of physics....

but you go online and find about the same ratio in WonderWoman servers, which is really taking liberty with physics...pretending the cockpit isn't there at all.

Also, every time anything new appears, the first comments are about how it looks, rather than if it's well modelled, or even RELEVANT.

I smell some real hypocrisy here.

Jatro13th
04-01-2006, 02:19 PM
but you go online and find about the same ratio in WonderWoman servers, which is really taking liberty with physics...pretending the cockpit isn't there at all.

God, how do people do that? if I do that I get immediately lost... I'm used to having the cockpit as reference for where my head is, especially since I use a TracIR...

No mate, I always fly from the cockpit... external views is for offline fun only, and cockpit-off views are not even mapped on my keyboard!

luftluuver
04-01-2006, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, so far the vote is going 89% to 11% in favor of physics....

but you go online and find about the same ratio in WonderWoman servers, which is really taking liberty with physics...pretending the cockpit isn't there at all.

Also, every time anything new appears, the first comments are about how it looks, rather than if it's well modelled, or even RELEVANT.

I smell some real hypocrisy here.
Nothing wrong with appreciating beauty.

Just because ppl use WWV does not mean they are not interested in the FM. The cockpit is eye candy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Anyways, if the cockpit was modelled correctly, vision wise, ppl would not use WWV.

I don't see you doing any skins. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
04-01-2006, 04:05 PM
luftluuver wrote:

Just because ppl use WWV does not mean they are not interested in the FM.

Well, that may be true, but if they were interested at all in REALISM (which is why one would be interested in physics and the accuracy of the FM too), the very idea of WWV would be completely unpalatable to them. People use that view solely for convenience and to duck the challenge of dealing with a cramped, restricted cockpit.


If the cockpit was modelled correctly, vision wise, ppl would not use WWV.

That part is NOT true.
The cockpit is eye candy to some degree, but partially a part of the PHYSICAL MODEL as well. Yes, our computer views are a bit compromised, but you can't make an honest case for it not being there at all; that's just delusional. Again, WWV is a self-servng choice to use the realism features that they can deal with easily...

SnapdLikeAMutha
04-01-2006, 05:35 PM
Graphics

If I'm going to get shot down, I might as well look good doing it

Jatro13th
04-01-2006, 07:13 PM
At least you'got style man!! ^^^ http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Guys, don't forget, when I say I would prefer the FM over the graphics its because in this particular moment I 'm looking at the sim from a purely flight simulating and not combat simulating POV. (that's what got me hooked in the first place, and not the ability to shoot people down).

That's why I would rather see the same graphics in BoB, but with a proper weather generator with winds, gusts, windshears, icing on the wings, propeller hubs and carburators, more realistic stalling, stress on the aircraft that takes its toll even before braking up, better brakes, unevenness in the airmass, wake turbulence from other aircrafts, better and more complex damage models, vibrating and fluttering airfoils, up and downdrafts and oh so many other things that could provide more realism.

Of course now, since we are talking about a combat flt sim, other factors come into play that are as equal to the game as the physical factors are, i.e. the ability to hide in the fog and not stick out like a sore thumb, much refining of the LODs, the incorporation of a G-meter since the seat-off-the-pants feeling is missing, a better system for viewing out of the cockpit for the people who haven't got a TrackIR, or have a TrackIR 1, some variety in the landscape, since visual flying and landmark recognition was of great importance back then, the more realistic visual damage of the structure, and the list can go on and on...

I think that some of the aforementioned characteristics are going to be included aren't they?

VW-IceFire
04-01-2006, 08:13 PM
The FM is very important to me....its important the aircraft fly with the right handling, the right weapons, the right weight, power, turn, speeds, and so forth.

That said...the game does have to adequately convey what is going on. PF does this in spades...

Part of the experience is more than just the feel of the flight model but the whole thing. The flight model can't really just stand on its own. You do have to have a mix...you need the one to convey the other.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-01-2006, 09:34 PM
Well, I don't think it will ever be the case that the graphics will ever be so realistic that they'll convince you it's realistic. So, eye candy can only go so far to create realism.

However, the illusion created by aircraft that behave like you have read about can be much stronger. I'm not talking about the physical sensations, like G forces.... I'm talking about some of the little details and the feeling of being able (or unable) to do things with an aircraft that ring true with first person accounts.

When you first experience something well simulated, like a carb cutout in certain early planes...things like this really reinforce the fidelity; while the canned stall behavior and the early onset of stick stiffness in "ahem" selected aircraft detract from it.

Finally, the irony of the graphics themsleves detracting from the most basic facet of aerial combat (VISIBILITY), historical tactics (like having alt advantage to look down upon the scene and use it to improve your odds) and truths of air combat... those are a double insult to those who crave more realism in their sims.

AKA_TAGERT
04-01-2006, 09:44 PM
Hey look Stinkler found thread to hijack and use it to put down IL2 and premote Targetware.. WOW Didnt see that comming.

Tully__
04-01-2006, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
Real flight simmers focus on physics only. Even the thought of using 3D graphics is rediculous. It's all about the code. All we want to see is code, and on a Commodore 64. And don't use one of those silly CGAs. Green and white code is more than sufficient.

I totally disagree with that. I consider myself a "real" flight simmer. IMO a "real" flight simmer is anyone who is willing to spend a large proportion of his spare time and money on the craft.

It has nothing to do with settings and graphics to a large extent.. although it could be argued that a "real" simmer's settings would not depart from what can be reasonably considered virtual flight and all the challenges that go with it.. as in as accurate as possible FM settings and engine settings and to a lesser extent view settings within thier chosen sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BC, how's that hook feel in your mouth? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

liveforflying
04-01-2006, 11:18 PM
I am just wondering why physics and graphics should be separated, can we have them both?

lowfighter
04-02-2006, 01:44 AM
I think if one is a devouted high altitude fighter the graphics is ok. But how about the ground pounders?
1. Drawing distance too small for most objects?
2. Fly over a town, how does it look? Fly over a destroied town, again how does it look??!
3. Fly over a river, where is the vegetation one see in real life on shore off 90% of the europoen rivers?
4. Strafe a column, do the explosions convince you?
5. Sink a ship, is the "sinking" model convincing you.
6. Bomb a factory, in 3 minutes the factory firemen manage to extinguish the fire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


The game engine is old, and clearly one needs a new engine to get the above graphical points (and many others) solved, and possibly better PC power, that's BoB I hope. But I agree that Oleg has found an acceptable balance between FM and graphics.
Ah yes, it's really nice some map makers like Ianboys and Juriko have been trying to squeeze the last drop out of the old graphics engine, hat off for the last maps and the coming ones! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

OldMan____
04-02-2006, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Hey look Stinkler found thread to hijack and use it to put down IL2 and premote Targetware.. WOW Didnt see that comming.

This is a very good example. Targetware may have good Fm. But it has so horrible graphics that completely spoils the fun. No way I would drop IL2 to play that. But also no way I would drop IL2 to play the new next gen console arcade games.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-02-2006, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by AKA_TAGERT:
Hey look Stinkler found thread to hijack and use it to put down IL2 and premote Targetware.. WOW Didnt see that comming.

Promote what, now? You brought that up, not me.

As for "hijack", consult a dictionary. I wasn't ever anywhere near off topic. Your post, however, comes the closest of any to veering away from the relevant discussion. You should find a good outlet for your anger issues.

Oh, and you misspelled "promote", by the way. All kinds of errors in that post, plus your thinking, too...

Jatro13th
04-02-2006, 01:57 PM
Guys please please dont get personal... it's just a thread for what priorities we have... and priorities are something personal, no matter what the other person will say they wont change cause its only a matter of what each one of us is looking in a sim.

...Maybe it was a mistake from my part to limit the choices in the poll... hmmm...

JSG72
04-02-2006, 02:11 PM
Being a WWII Luftwaffe enthusiast and certainly Never flown any plane in real life.
I am not in a position to question FM.(Other than Hunches) Data/Specs mean. Hee Haw. If the pilot doesn't Know what hes flying.

However. I do know what a plane/mountain/house/tree looks like.
Would therefore like to see them portrayed more realistically.

Don't think FM ingame is Arcade-like, at moment.However like many have said. Overall graphics can at times look cartoonish.

Betting the guys who would like a better FM. Skip those briefs and want to be above 20,000ft where Graphics don't matter so much.So as they can zoom about in No cockpit view.Trying to outfly Historically incorrect victims.

Just my Cynical view anyways.
Love this sim(Childhood dreams and all that!)

Stigler_9_JG52
04-02-2006, 02:18 PM
That's the thing, OldMan: nobody says you have to play ANY sim exclusively, at the expense of all others.

I think what we're arriving at is that it would be great not to have to give up one for the other.

For me, it's the other way around: I like IL-2's graphics (to look at, not to have to deal with in a tactical manner), but the results of actions you get are so frustratingly BAD, it ruins the entire experience for me.

Targetware's graphics aren't so bad as to "ruin" any immersion; I can still remember playing a 256-color Warbirds, and even worse, the wireframe original Falcon and MFS. In Targetware, the ground does look like ground, the sky does look like sky (and clouds don't "suddenly" cease to exist, either), and targets and aircraft render fairly convincingly, just not with the eyecandy of IL-2. The plausibility of the combat, however, more than makes up for the fact that it doesn't have Myst's graphic richness. And the graphics don't get in the way of the combat and ths simulation, the way they definitely do in IL-2. IL-2's graphics would lead one to believe that the player lowest to the ground and in the tightest turning plane is the aircraft with all the advantages...and history tells us otherwise.

JSG72
04-02-2006, 04:39 PM
Yep! Another thread I've come in too late on.(CornerTurned).
Another Kill?

Bearcat99
04-02-2006, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
Real flight simmers focus on physics only. Even the thought of using 3D graphics is rediculous. It's all about the code. All we want to see is code, and on a Commodore 64. And don't use one of those silly CGAs. Green and white code is more than sufficient.

I totally disagree with that. I consider myself a "real" flight simmer. IMO a "real" flight simmer is anyone who is willing to spend a large proportion of his spare time and money on the craft.

It has nothing to do with settings and graphics to a large extent.. although it could be argued that a "real" simmer's settings would not depart from what can be reasonably considered virtual flight and all the challenges that go with it.. as in as accurate as possible FM settings and engine settings and to a lesser extent view settings within thier chosen sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BC, how's that hook feel in your mouth? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What hook.. I'm swimming swimming swimming..... For me there is no other WWII sim.. warts and all.... at the moment anyway.... FB4.04 gives me all that I want in a sim.. even if my favorite bird is not what I think it should be.... I'll still fly it because its may favorite bird... and as far as all this speculation about what is better.... even thiose who scram the loudest about the FMs still fly here.. so that says more than anything else. I just ate the worm missed the hook all togther.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, that may be true, but if they were interested at all in REALISM (which is why one would be interested in physics and the accuracy of the FM too), the very idea of WWV would be completely unpalatable to them. People use that view solely for convenience and to duck the challenge of dealing with a cramped, restricted cockpit.


I disagree Stig.. there are all kinds of reasons why people use an open pit.... and icons for that matter.... I however could not stomach an open pit with icons... but an open pit without them.. or a closed pit with them are all viable options that have no refection on a simmers skill or needs. To me the whole issue of realism in the FMs and views are two totally seperate things..... until someone comes up with a wraparound screen or a TIR type viewing solution becomes standard fare.. something that 90% of the simmers can afford... and use like say a better Cam 2 Pan... the issue of views will always be seperate. Even then.... you have guys who would have never qualified to fly in WWII... due to eyesight... so just because they may need icons doesnt mean that thier appreciation of a realistic FM is any less valid....

SnapdLikeAMutha
04-02-2006, 07:01 PM
...and then you have people like me who are generally so drunk when they play that they struggle to hold the stick straight let alone spot a little green dot on a little green background http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

LT.INSTG8R
04-02-2006, 08:09 PM
Well I think this Sim has gotten to a point where the FM has reached its limit(okay sure someone will ALWAYS be whining "Plane X is 4km too slow yada yada") but overall I like the "realistic feel" of it and think it should cease with any "major" FM overhauls like we have had as of late and consider giving the GFX a nice spit and polish . We know its capable just by looking at the latest AC and maps we have(NWE and the Tempest come to mind as "more polished") and the next batch of maps we are getting are looking stunning and show there is the possibility to make it a bit more visually pleasing and would tie up this series and add a bit more visual immersion to the IMO already well immersed FM

Stigler_9_JG52
04-02-2006, 09:00 PM
Well, Bearcat, I'll counter with the idea that it doesn't matter if your cockpit is there or not if you can't see the frickin' "dot" or "invisispeck" anyway. This is the ONLY sim I know of that penalizes altitude visually (by making dots nearly invisible to a determined search unless you blow all your alt and dive in amongst 'em). And then it's bass-ackwards enough to show you dots of objects on some field 50km away, against some clouds (the clouds, by the way, will at whim, simply up and disappear from your FOV when they're within tactical effect range.)

Oh, and I've learned a new "tactic" that only works in IL-2: wingspotting. When you're cruising at 3.5km over a terrain that shows you absolutely nothing below (it all blends into the 'purty' terrain), if you look out your 3:00 or 9:00 and let your wing glide over an area, if there's an invisispeck below, it'll show against your wing graphics. Even Targetware, with its supposed "poor graphics" doesn't allow this kind of graphic anamoly. IL-2 is so bad, it's laughable.

=========================================

Icons of some sort are pretty much necessary in ANY sim, because of the limits of monitors vs. the scale of dots you should see. I find it kind of ironic how the so-called full real fans decry icons, and in so doing, basically cast a vote for flying around with the visual acuity of a septuagenarian.

So, I find IL-2 grossly unrealistic in both FM and in graphics. It "looks good", but everything else about it is pretty rotten. The physics have been proven suspect, if nothing else by how they whipsaw the abilities of planes version to version. Basically, something is always WAY WRONG, otherwise an adjustment here and there would have mostly minor effects on any one plane.

tagTaken2
04-02-2006, 09:59 PM
Hey, stigler...

got Maalox?

http://pics.drugstore.com/prodimg/88665/200.jpg

CyC_AnD
04-03-2006, 04:50 AM
I vote for physics, Ill always do.
But. Like always, the poll is simplified.
f.e. Do better graphics means that planes can be spot like in reality (f.e. shaders come into my mind)? They wont be prettier, just more real looking from distance. So better graphs is more real representative, or better looking? I dont need 2 times polys for plane that we have now. How many times I fly closer then 50m and have time to looking into details of an enemy, or even wing mate?
So for me, graphics should represent what we have in real, but doesn't need to be beautie.

Second thought. You talk about FM, or all physics? For me phisic in game means, that engine, all objects, guns, instalations work in laws that we know from real. They should be simplified sure. Not so simplified that we have now. Flames are where is nothing to burn, bombers behave like fighters etc.

So I vote for physics, more complex and more solid. physics = FM + DM + athmosphere + plane managment.

I can bet, that some percent ppl from here will vote for FM, but will spend last money on new graphic card, just to have more AA and AF, and eye candy... whell I played this game untill aep on pIII machine with gf2mx. Even some time on 13 inch black and white monitor, and had still fun on virtual fronts. So I can stand graphics, untill it is complex sim in therms of physics http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cheers

rnzoli
04-03-2006, 09:22 AM
I voted graphics (not graphs...the title of this thread is a bit misleading, ya?)

at least we can be more objective about graphics using screenshots http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

but as pointed out already, the maximum immersion level for a certain amount of of development cost comes from a good balance of a good FM and good graphics. Focusing on only one thing while ignoring the other is surely going to break down the appeal.

So I guess in practice, one development cycle is for one area, the next one is for the other.

Since the IL2 series have no real development anymore, that's why we get only new eye candy from 3rd party modellers at this stage - no need to touch the FM.

By the way, I wondered what would have happened if you had polled FM vs. DM improvement. It's like asking 'do you want to give up breathing or drinking'? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Megile_
04-03-2006, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by RocketRobin__:
Real flight simmers focus on physics only. Even the thought of using 3D graphics is rediculous. It's all about the code. All we want to see is code, and on a Commodore 64. And don't use one of those silly CGAs. Green and white code is more than sufficient.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Star of this thread, be sure!

horseback
04-03-2006, 10:39 AM
Obviously, I'd like some graphics issues resolved, but they've already been clubbed as thoroughly as an baby seal, so I'll say that in general, the visual quality is better than most 'graphic novels' out there.

I've done a little sketching and Ive made literally thousands of scale models, and I know what the aircraft should look like, and Oleg's team has been absolutely brilliant in the eye candy in general. The breakdowns in visibility and distance have more to do with the laws of physics than with the physical appearance of the game, IMO.

The game engine simply doesn't have the firepower to calculate the reflectance of an individual object's surface when viewed from above on a clear day (or any other day, for that matter). Oleg's system (or maybe it's just Oleg) doesn't permit a lot of compromise, like going to lighter dots when viewed from above, and dark dots when viewed from below or level, instead of staying with the colors of the aircraft (even the frickin' blue icons tend to blend into the high altitude sky).

But overall, it LOOKS pretty good, and that's what I think graphics are.

The representation of physical properties-action, reaction, that sort of thing- is a bit wanting, even in the context of a game engine that was developed for the bleeding edge of PC technology four or five years ago.

I would like to see the best FMs possible, with an 'open book' as to the sources for the FMs as modeled. I'd like to see things like a faster dive acceleration for heavier/smoother aircraft, I'd like to see a better 'weighting' for the kinetic damage done by solid or armor piercing rounds, I'd like to see realistic limits placed on the ai and gunner's positions (far too easy for a human, and the ai are just ridiculously accurate-I say, make the Player stick with his joystick to control the guns' crosshairs and add some random vibration) and I'd like to see a more accurate means of depicting stick forces vs throw (currently, we have to adjust stick sensitivities for some aircraft-I keep a chart of preferred settings for each aircraft type-every time we enter the game and select that aircraft type). As for pilot viewpoint, adding a button for Lean Left, Lean Right, Raise Seat & Lower Seat (some a/c could do this in-flight, some had to be adjusted on the ground) would not be out of order. Jane's WWII Fighters had those options, as I recall, before the original Il-2 Sturmovik.

So my vote is for physics. The game we have looks great.

cheers

horseback

faustnik
04-03-2006, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Well, Bearcat, I'll counter with the idea that it doesn't matter if your cockpit is there or not if you can't see the frickin' "dot" or "invisispeck" anyway.

I agree with Stigler's point here. We can argue about FMs all we want, they are minor realism issues compared to visibility problems.

Jatro13th
04-03-2006, 10:49 AM
Originaly posted by Rnzoli:

By the way, I wondered what would have happened if you had polled FM vs. DM improvement. It's like asking 'do you want to give up breathing or drinking'?

Well said Rnzoli!!

CyC_AnD said that "physics = FM + DM + athmosphere + plane managment."

This is a big truth, so... are we asking too much? God, I wish there was a simulator that combined every good aspect of the current available simulators and a rig that could handle the whole caboodle... wet dreams... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

Stigler_9_JG52
04-03-2006, 11:58 AM
Me too, jatro, which is why I work the problem from both ends.

I know I can't read people's minds, but I still feel a lot of "lip service" and hypocrisy here.

Most people "say" they want physics, but they don't HOWL very often at the ridiculously poor modeling here: the UFO planes, the pivoting on CoG, the completely off-kilter acceleration, the godawful attempt at modeling energy bleed. And, partly due to graphics issues, the horrendous spotting of distant objects, which is totally backwards in many instances:

Clouds accentuate, rather than hide dots beyond them, while they often fail to conceal planes that fly into them.
Wingspotting: see other post for details on this phenomenon.
Inability to see planes consistently from altitude.

Doesn't it bother any of you so-called realism hounds that altitude is punished in this sim in favor of brawling down low in the weeds? This is a major, MAJOR factor in aerial combat in the pre-missile age (having an altitude advantage and using it to control engagements) and it is absolutely the opposite when you fly!

I see so many posts that argue the minutae of a few extra horsepower, half an "atmosphere" in a model of Bf109 that produced about 50 examples, and 2 mph speed variance in a deck sprint... and the stuff i mention above, all core factors in aerial combat and physics...you gladly abide that being wrong.

I don't get it.

Enthor1
04-03-2006, 03:14 PM
So, I find IL-2 grossly unealistic in both FM and in graphics. It "looks good", but everything else about it is pretty rotten.

So, I find IL_2 grossly realistic in both FM and in graphics. It "looks good" but everything else about it is not pretty rotten.

So who is right? I think me, you think you and the world continues to revolve.

One thing that I do not understand is why some people, especially those who find IL2 so grossly unrealistic and pretty rotten, are here and not off flying Target Something or Other?

I guess some people just cannot function without something to be irritated over, eh?

arcadeace
04-03-2006, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by Enthor1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So, I find IL-2 grossly unealistic in both FM and in graphics. It "looks good", but everything else about it is pretty rotten.

So, I find IL_2 grossly realistic in both FM and in graphics. It "looks good" but everything else about it is not pretty rotten.

So who is right? I think me, you think you and the world continues to revolve.

One thing that I do not understand is why some people, especially those who find IL2 so grossly unrealistic and pretty rotten, are here and not off flying Target Something or Other?

I guess some people just cannot function without something to be irritated over, eh? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Yeah, its kind of a mystery to me. I think Stigler is very knowledgable with this game (especially the shortcomings) and makes some good points. But I've never understood why he plays it. Talk about being immersed in nonimmersion, because its a bummer.

Stigler_9_JG52
04-03-2006, 06:17 PM
Well, I paid for the sim, just like all of you did. For that reason alone, I have the right to criticize it. and, because the sim is popular and successful, well, there's more incentive for it to actually be a superior product on top of it...you know, be popular AND good at the same time.

Those who say, "Love it or leave it", or "why do you play?" or even, "Shaddap already" are simply trying to deflect the criticism by changing the subject or attacking the messenger. I sure don't get many people arguing the points I make. Because they know I'm right. And it just bugs the h3ll out of 'em.

Enthor1
04-03-2006, 07:40 PM
So basically you are saying that although IL2 is popular and sucessfull that it is also no good?

Oh man, that Oleg sure put one over on us, eh?

AKA_TAGERT
04-03-2006, 09:07 PM
Originally posted by Stigler_9_JG52:
Because they know I'm right. And it just bugs the h3ll out of 'em. Actully I have proved you wrong on everything you have ever said.. you just dont realise it.

arcadeace
04-03-2006, 09:23 PM
Stig you're a character. I believe you have all the right in the world to criticize and I think a lot of your points on its shortcomings are insightful. One doesn't have to deflect any of your criticism or put you down to draw a rational conclusion. Its been obvious for a long time you've taken this extremely personal. To continue, concluding Oleg is ill-willed and intentionally a bad man, and play this sim which is just plain "rotten" makes it easy to wonder why you haven't chalked it up as a waist, and moved on?

Do you really think at this point in time you're gonna make a positive affect for change?

You can't claim to know the hearts and minds of those involved with its creation. You cannot continue pointing your finger at the boogie man, and expect him to give one damn.

panther3485
04-04-2006, 05:14 AM
I'm inclined to go for FM and other aspects of physics as a priority but having said that, if graphics fall below a certain level of acceptability to me, then I still won't play it.

IMHO, by today's standards, FB/AEP/PF does make it in the graphics department but without a lot to spare. To be fair, the basic game is starting to show its age. Still love it, for all its' faults there's little around right now that can come close.

Roll on BoB!


panther3485