PDA

View Full Version : Il-2 grafics dated?



josephs1959
03-22-2008, 07:48 PM
I'm not big on all of the computer games, so I can't comment on the grafics of all of them for comparison. I only play WW II simulations, (IL-2-Air Silent Hunter III-sea battlefront-land.)I am only going to use the following as an comparison example. Although I realise that "Dogfights" is not a Computer Game and IL-2 is much older, 2001 I believe. I was watching an episode of "Dogfights" and noticed the detail of the grafics. There was a P-51D and you could see the ripples or uneveness of the aluminumin in the reflection. I also noticed that the Me-109 wasn't as weathered or paint chipped as what I see or have for skins. But I'll leave that to the individual grafics artists level of detail or level of work rather than the grafics limiations. Also,there was an episode of a B-24-olive drab, spinning towards earth and as she spun the aluminum in the paintchips reflected sunlight or glare from the sunlight only for an instant. I personally consider the grafics a bit too contrasted or dark in "Dogfights" as compared to IL-2. But I'd like too see that level of detail in IL-2 of the P-51 and B-24 example that I used. If anyone else has any serious opinions that they would like to share please do so. For what it's worth, I have my IL-2 game set at the Perfect or highest level. Geforce7800.Video card.

james_ander
03-22-2008, 08:27 PM
Il2 vs HC Dogfights is not really a fair comparison. "Dogfights" is computer animation that happens to feature airplanes where il2 is a simulation/game where the outcome of any action is constantly being calculated and rendered. I would hope "Dogfights" would look better, since sooo much more computer hardware is used to develop these sequences rather than one dude's PC. As far as I know there is not yet a WWII flight simulator that has comparable graphics to even the original IL2. You are right that the graphics engine of this series is way older than games like Crysis, etc. When this is considered it's surprising how good it still looks.

fordfan25
03-22-2008, 09:04 PM
yea thats true. how old is this game? what about 6 odd years old now and it still looks pretty darn good imo. alot of the older cockpits like the 109 and p-47 are very plain and just down right ugly. i wish instead of fantasy what if planes we could have gotten updates to bring thos old cockpits up to say the level the cockpit of the Tempest is at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.Also true scale for ground targets ect would have been nice.as it is a tank is just slightly larger than a 500lb bomb lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

rileyjams
03-22-2008, 09:21 PM
I updated my video card to a Nvidia 7600 last year and I could finally play the game at max with great FPS. I don't even think the Nvidia 7 series was out 6 years ago

BoCfuss
03-22-2008, 09:27 PM
Yes they are dated.

VW-IceFire
03-22-2008, 10:01 PM
A bit dated...some of the fancy lighting effects are not part of the engine that would help make it look more like dogfights. That said...dogfights is pre-rendered by series of computers for each scene. IL-2 is done in real time and it looks almost as good in a game engine that is essentially 6-7 years old.

BTW: Fordfan, tanks are the correct size in game. Some of them are apparently off by less than a meter but that was due to some incorrect information. That aside the scale is correct. That was proven definitively in another thread a while back. Some early WWII tanks were extremely tiny.

Bearcat99
03-22-2008, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
yea thats true. how old is this game? what about 6 odd years old now and it still looks pretty darn good imo. alot of the older cockpits like the 109 and p-47 are very plain and just down right ugly. i wish instead of fantasy what if planes we could have gotten updates to bring thos old cockpits up to say the level the cockpit of the Tempest is at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.Also true scale for ground targets ect would have been nice.as it is a tank is just slightly larger than a 500lb bomb lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Originally posted by BoCfuss:
Yes they are dated.

Dated though it may be... it still amazes me though that even though this sim is as old as it is.. an upgrade will produce results.. considering the age of the engine and the advances in technical hardware over the past 5 years alone.. to still get results.. and not just piddly ones.. is a great testimony to the creativity of 1C and IMO a good indication of what SoW will be like.

ffb
03-22-2008, 10:59 PM
those very good but very short CG films by Torchy..the japanese guy... show how good the CG planes can be compared to il2 ones....I doubt if even SOW will be able to match them.

http://www.k4.dion.ne.jp/%7Esuppon/

ElAurens
03-22-2008, 11:06 PM
IL2 is dated, be sure.

Not that it's bad mind you, but the engine has been stretched as far as it can go now.

After SOW:BoB comes out I'm afraid IL2 will look hopelessly out of date.

For a real shock, load up the original IL2 V1.0 sometime and have a look around.

It's just plain awful looking now.

Rebel_Yell_21
03-22-2008, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by ffb:
those very good but very short CG films by Torchy..the japanese guy... show how good the CG planes can be compared to il2 ones....I doubt if even SOW will be able to match them.

http://www.k4.dion.ne.jp/%7Esuppon/

SOW won't even approach that. Be sure.

Not a knock, just hardware limitations.

triad773
03-22-2008, 11:13 PM
I think IL-2/1946 does a decent job all around.

Some other games you look at and the ground textures or rocks (or clouds) look a little odd, but they render some things very well. IL-2 seems pretty balanced to me.

Despite being as old as IL-2's game engine is, the graphics in this sim are still among the best over all IMHO.

Looking forward to what's next in this genre.

Feathered_IV
03-23-2008, 01:09 AM
Originally posted by BoCfuss:
Yes they are dated.

Not really. I'd say they are getting better all the time. A year from now, you'll be amazed how well it will look.

K_Freddie
03-23-2008, 02:21 AM
As 'Ye olde' Oleg has always said...
This is a flight sim, not real life, He could have made thing pretty, but at the expense of other more important items.
I'm willing to say that about 0.001% of people playing this sim are looking at 'pretty items', than dodging bullets from the other guy. The nicer visuals are a bonus.

Over all I think the 'visual balance' is good, great ground terrain for navigation, great flight models for addictive aerial combat, ..etc
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Maico_249th
03-23-2008, 06:29 AM
I am sure that Oleg would give you all the detail of a Feature Film but.... You cant afford a computer that would run the game at even minimum graphic settings. I for one am glad that things like waving grass and trees are left out of flight sims. I need the extra horsepower to watch the enemy aircraft burn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Seriously, its not a good comparison

Yellow_Sub
03-23-2008, 08:42 AM
Graphics are still pretty good, but I am afraid there will be very outdated once we have played SoW:BoB.

Chris0382
03-23-2008, 09:12 AM
Some of the new games that have have just come out have been rated as having not so good graphics for their time. Just go to gamespot.com and do some searching on PC games and you will see olegg was ahead of his time.

Bearcat99
03-23-2008, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
IL2 is dated, be sure.

Not that it's bad mind you, but the engine has been stretched as far as it can go now.

After SOW:BoB comes out I'm afraid IL2 will look hopelessly out of date.

For a real shock, load up the original IL2 V1.0 sometime and have a look around.

It's just plain awful looking now.

Yeah I did that.... thats why when people would say how much better the origianl was to FB I would laugh. Even in FB 3.0 it was much better.


Originally posted by K_Freddie:
I'm willing to say that about 0.001% of people playing this sim are looking at 'pretty items', than dodging bullets from the other guy. The nicer visuals are a bonus.

Over all I think the 'visual balance' is good, great ground terrain for navigation, great flight models for addictive aerial combat, ..etc
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I totally agree with the second part.. but disagree with the first part. I think that more than .001% are looking for the eye candy. That the eye candy in this sim is so good and although it has some debatable issues in the FM DM dept as an overall package it is like you said well balanced, and that has made the whole question of eye can dy kind of moot... especially when compared to the other offerings out there over the past few years.

GAU-8
03-23-2008, 09:51 PM
i dont see the graphics being dated.


if SOW. kept the exact same poly count/graphics for the planes, and updated graphics, performance in OTHER areas. i would say that its cool. i dont have to see every rivet, every button move, or moveable function in the cockpit. explostions, damage modeling, bulluts/tracers, wind and such,..i would like that.

i am perfectly happy with poly count/looks from EUROPEAN AIR WAR. to be honest

mbfRoy
03-24-2008, 02:33 AM
Dated or not it still amazes me that not even FSX's water effects can come close to what this game has. The maps are indeed visually too simple by today's standards (ie: they use very few textures), the clouds leave much to be desired compared to newer games, but the water effects are still the best I've seen in any aircraft sim/game. It also looks pretty darn good down low!

BWaltteri
03-24-2008, 04:14 AM
The graphics may be partially dated but there was already a large upgrade from FB to 1946 when you look at certain planes. I-16 has totally been upgraded, but P-36 is still rather ugly.

Because the graphics are bitmaps you can basically get them as kewl as your pencils allow.

M_Gunz
03-24-2008, 05:09 AM
P-51 skin had ripples? Before some record setting dive?

Pluto8742
03-24-2008, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
i wish instead of fantasy what if planes we could have gotten updates to bring thos old cockpits up to say the level the cockpit of the Tempest is at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.Also true scale for ground targets ect would have been nice.as it is a tank is just slightly larger than a 500lb bomb lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Yes, the a/c models are a mixed bunch. Some real beauties like the Tempest and Ki-84 mixed in with some real horrors like the P-47. It's a shame 1C doesn't revisit older content and refresh it every now and again. I guess they were hoping to have BoB finished a bit earlier and didn't want to undermine its potential market by having top-end Bf-109s etc already available in IL-2.

One thing, though - I've never understood comments about the scale of ground objects. I put these tanks and aircraft together in the FMB and they look OK to me. WWII tanks weren't all that large. Are there any particular items out of scale?

Cheers,

P8.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/il2fb2008-03-2412-29-33-26.jpg

Pluto8742
03-24-2008, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by Maico_249th:
I for one am glad that things like waving grass and trees are left out of flight sims.

Actually, we've already got waving trees in perfect mode. Very nice they are too.

Cheers,

P8.

SeaFireLIV
03-24-2008, 07:03 AM
Originally posted by Pluto8742:


One thing, though - I've never understood comments about the scale of ground objects. I put these tanks and aircraft together in the FMB and they look OK to me. WWII tanks weren't all that large. Are there any particular items out of scale?

Cheers,

P8.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v402/RocketDog/il2fb2008-03-2412-29-33-26.jpg


Those sizes look pretty good to me. If you just think of the pilot getting into one of those tanks then the scale looks very good. thanks for the pics.

As for graphics, well, it`s pretty much as most have said already. Dogfights the series has only to deal with pre-rendered scripted `events`, the (obviously top of the range) computer only has to focus on graphics.

IL2 not only has to render graphics, but the whole `world`, ie ground objects and the full map of the area. It has to then use AI to figure out what other aircraft and ground stuff (such as AA) are doing, which is quite a lot. Finally, it has to figure YOUR aircraft into all of this, with YOUR input affecting everything (such as a dogfight).

This is way, way more than any pre-rendered program needs to do for a tv program.

Dogfights has it easy.

What you really want to do is go to the military simulation centres where whole battlefields are simulated, you`ll see graphics tend to be a secondary consideration to the tactical AI needed.

IL2 looks damn good considering and after all this time too. I wouldn`t be surprised if people are still flying IL2 well after SOW is released. Like many old Classic games they still endure a long life even after the Devs have long forgotten it.

Skoshi Tiger
03-24-2008, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by M_Gunz:
P-51 skin had ripples? Before some record setting dive?

Flying Officer John 'Slops' Haslope (165 Sqn RAF) was on a mission on April 10th 1945 over Leipzig in a Mustang III, when he decided to engauge a Me163. He dove on it firing as he went. He tried to follow the Komet as it pulled up and blacked out. When he came to his Mustang was handling badly.

On the ground they found that he had 'severe wrinkling' of the wing skin and several extra degree of dihedral of the wings.

He was also credited with downing the Komet! one of 7 shot down during the war and the only one from a non-American (Him being an Australian!)

I guess it did happen at times! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sillius_Sodus
03-24-2008, 09:10 PM
Right now the only thing I'd like to see is the ability to have more a/c on screen, a la EAW, where you could have up to 256 aircraft on screen at once. Oh and maybe a little tweak of the AI.

tagTaken2
03-25-2008, 03:16 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:

For a real shock, load up the original IL2 V1.0 sometime and have a look around.

It's just plain awful looking now.

I loaded it up a couple of days ago, and it might look a little shaky, but I think it's still more fun than the current game. Great sounds, great feel, great vibe. It doesn't feel stretched... Wish it supported TrackIR.

WOLFMondo
03-25-2008, 10:25 AM
IL2's graphics are very dated these days. The engine is very old now in gaming terms so its doing well for a gaming pensioner.

Compared to Aces High II it looks great though.

Aaron_GT
03-25-2008, 11:34 AM
The main thing that is lacking in the graphics area is true 3D cockpits and the ability to have natural head movements in conjunction with TrackIR. Hopefully what will be in SoW.

TgD Thunderbolt56
03-25-2008, 12:09 PM
Yup. 6dof and exponentially more detailed DM is all I'll ask for.

Well, that and full-bodied trees that I can see from ground level.

Aaron_GT
03-25-2008, 01:03 PM
yes, better trees would help, especially near airfields.

WOLFMondo
03-25-2008, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
The main thing that is lacking in the graphics area is true 3D cockpits and the ability to have natural head movements in conjunction with TrackIR. Hopefully what will be in SoW.

I'd probably get more out of il2 graphically it was better at dealing with scaling level of detail.

Kaptein_Damli
03-27-2008, 07:07 AM
When flying the new Slovakia map and even flying with water=0 I still get involved with the game. The immerison is high. I think for flight simmers, graphics comes second. FM and plane behavior is more important. What annoys me a bit, is the no mod thing. Look at Lock On FC and look how good the game has become because of modding with scenery, textures etc. I downloaded the reload mod for Lock On FC and the scenery is fantastic for a game from 2003!

Oh, one more thing. What really annoys me is the sound from the guns in 1946. When you fly the P-47 with 8 .50 cals the sound is too weak. I will not download any mod or hack as it is not allowed, but is this gonna be better in 4.09? I also habe BOBII and the gunsounds there is really nice!

Kaptein_Damli
03-27-2008, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
yes, better trees would help, especially near airfields.

Better trees, means less fps. The trees low look 2D (and are in fact 2D object to look as 3D object up high) to save your fps. The good thing about IL-2 1946 is that you can run it with perfect settings and water=0 or 2 if you have a 3 year old PC.

Airmail109
03-27-2008, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by Kaptein_Damli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
yes, better trees would help, especially near airfields.

Better trees, means less fps. The trees low look 2D (and are in fact 2D object to look as 3D object up high) to save your fps. The good thing about IL-2 1946 is that you can run it with perfect settings and water=0 or 2 if you have a 3 year old PC. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

BOB is a new next-generation flight simulator not a reiteration of what we have currently got. I get 120fps in Il2 1946, I really don't care for having double the FPS I actually need.

Bring on the better graphics. I for one find the view distances, fog and odd looking maps at height immersion killers.

BTW, Lomac has some nice easy to get hold of online cheats because it can be modded easily. I think I'll stick with olegs suggestion, modding for offline and servers that allow it and locked code for everything else.

Phil_K
03-27-2008, 07:53 AM
With regards to scaling, I believe that everything is to scale except buildings (which are 2/3 scale), pilots (20% too big) and the F6F and N1K1 (both 20% too big due to modelling errors).

I think the graphics are still fine for everything introduced since FB, but the planes carried over from the original IL2 should all have had re-skinned pits. Also a few of the crappier ground objects (esp. Russian 25mm) should have been re-done.

Visibility distances for older building objects and smoke/fire should be increased.

If these things were done, IL2:1946 would be good for a few years yet....