PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible in patch 4.09 to have the propellor look like the original game?



Mysticpuma2003
02-03-2008, 02:04 PM
Just wondering if this could be included as this looks much more realistic than the spinning disk we now have.

I thought I'd post this correctly rather than get it locked, which I fully understand, but now the question has been put in the right manner, is it possible?



The original Il2 Sturmovik had prop shadows that looked like this.

http://www.gamespaper.com/images/gamescreens/il2-sturmovik-pc-preview2.jpg

The game Il2 1946 has this style of prop shadow.

http://static4.filefront.com/images/ataedarndq.jpg

I think the original looks much more convincing.

MP.

stalkervision
02-03-2008, 02:12 PM
I think so too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Klemm.co
02-03-2008, 02:44 PM
Yes, of course, but only if you are filming propellers. As you guys may know (but do not seem to understand), video cameras record a specific number of frames per second. If these coincide with the rotational speed of the propeller, then it seems to stand still or move in the oppesite direction. Have you ever watched a real propeller? The thing is rotating so fast that you only see a blur, of course the picture you percieve with the naked eye (at least mine lol) has a bit the same effects like described above, but it is far less able to produce such effects because of the image-processing that is taking place in the brain.
So Oleg got it just right IMO. You guys watch too much movies.

And lastly, if anybody thinks that i am wrong with the above assertion, tell me.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-03-2008, 03:00 PM
Now don't come here with science, Klemm.co. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

You are right, of course, but since many people here think that lense-flares are more realistic, what do you expect?

Klemm.co
02-03-2008, 03:27 PM
What i forgot to say: I would like a change to the propellers, but it's not very likely that it will be done in THIS game.
When viewed from the side, the profile of the spinning propeller can be seen. You know, the shape of the blade from the side. That was always missing in IL-2 and badly so. I once saw a vid (from KotS or so) where that effect was visible and it added sooo much. So those flat shadows are indeed ugly, and they deserve changing. Everytime i look at them i am reminded all the more that i am playing a game. I hope that Oleg is thinking of this fact for his next iteration of his flight simulator.

NOTICE: I am not promoting modding here, just voicing my opinion and hoping that Oleg will do something about this, although i know he will not read this anyway. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

mortoma
02-03-2008, 03:27 PM
I don't have 4.09 so I don't quite understand what you guys are talking about. Did they change the prop animation? I thought 4.09 was just some extra maps and skins!! Am I missing ( or not missing ) something?

Klemm.co
02-03-2008, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by mortoma:
I don't have 4.09 so I don't quite understand what you guys are talking about. Did they change the prop animation? I thought 4.09 was just some extra maps and skins!! Am I missing ( or not missing ) something?
Nooo, he didn't mean 4.09, but rather the whole IL-2 FB series. The shadows were the way as in the first picture in the original IL-2, in FB they then changed it to what we have now (as seen in the second picture). So you aren't missing something. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SeaFireLIV
02-03-2008, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:


I think the original looks much more convincing.

MP.

I really can`t agree.

Something should not be changed in a simulation because it looks more convincing. Is it realistic? If that`s how it looks then that`s how it looks.

Also, it looks more convincing to you, but to me it looks just as convincing as the original IL2. Put them both together and I couldn`t tell which were more convincing.

Now, I`ll admit, when I depict aircraft prop spinning I tend to do it like the original IL2, but that`s only because it`s far easier than trying to draw full circles or elipses around an aircaft nose.

Nah, certainly not enough to change the prop imho.

zardozid
02-03-2008, 06:18 PM
(this comment is a branch off of the "tree" & is not completely unrelated to this topic)

I wish that the "effect" of the propeller (on the world around us) was "visually" modeled...example: cloud swirls (as you fly through) and dust trails (or even the sound of pebbles pinging off the fuselage as they are blown around the field)...It always seems that the effect of these "big" metal blades of steal spinning around with tremendous torque was under "modeled" in the visual "immersion department"...

The propellers are responsible for moving the fighter through the world (air/sky) and you get no visual information to suggest the power at work...in the "real world" those things are scary...

leitmotiv
02-03-2008, 06:51 PM
The current effect grays-out the view forward, and in bad lighting conditions (night, cloud, rain) blinds you to details so, for example, you can't see a carrier for which you are looking (happened to me the other night). This is, of course, ludicrous. Whatever is thought about the old effect, it was not patently unrealistic. Needless-to-say, as with dozens of things believed to be set in stone with this game, it will be happily fixed elsewhere, thank God.

LEBillfish
02-03-2008, 08:33 PM
Personally and due to an old discussion here, I took a long look at the props a while back....To me they look good, are 3 dimensional actually showing a screw as part of the effect, and even show what is requested above yet not so rediculously (as you can see it yeat as part of the entire package just like r/l photos.

Mpre so, it actually changes as in the look and direction of that affect due to rpm....

So I'm happy with what we have.

Lurch1962
02-03-2008, 08:45 PM
I too think the current "disk-like" rendering is preferable. The older rendering was chosen to be more representative of familiar appearances in photographs, or movie shots.

If you've ever observed real spinning props (fixed wing or heli), you'll see that they blur out into a basically unresolved, smooth blur. Photos partially freeze the prop, and hence show a shorter portion of the arc captured during the (typically) quite short exposure time.

Rjel
02-03-2008, 08:54 PM
To me, there are planes that show the blade images more clearly than others in the game now. Whether in real life it's an optical illusion due to camera speed or not, it looks more convincing to my eye.

mortoma
02-04-2008, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The current effect grays-out the view forward, and in bad lighting conditions (night, cloud, rain) blinds you to details so, for example, you can't see a carrier for which you are looking (happened to me the other night). This is, of course, ludicrous. Whatever is thought about the old effect, it was not patently unrealistic. Needless-to-say, as with dozens of things believed to be set in stone with this game, it will be happily fixed elsewhere, thank God. What? You think that's not realistic? Ever flown or been a passenger in a small plane? Looking through the prop certainly does not afford one as clear a view as not looking through the prop and it's noticable. Especially at night. Worse part is the reflection of the beacon in the prop at night, so I used to turn off the beacon and use only nav lights and strobes for night flights. But the prop does dim the view somewhat in real life.

R_Target
02-04-2008, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The current effect grays-out the view forward, and in bad lighting conditions (night, cloud, rain) blinds you to details so, for example, you can't see a carrier for which you are looking (happened to me the other night). This is, of course, ludicrous.

I know. Prop + smoked glass canopy + smoked gunsight = blind. Not to mention some planes go invisible at about 500m. Some of the Japanese planes have the gunsight smeared with vaseline too.

Hopefully we'll have dimmable sights in the next iteration, which would remedy the problem somewhat.

SeaFireLIV
02-04-2008, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The current effect grays-out the view forward, and in bad lighting conditions (night, cloud, rain) blinds you to details so, for example, you can't see a carrier for which you are looking (happened to me the other night). This is, of course, ludicrous.

I know. Prop + smoked glass canopy + smoked gunsight = blind. Not to mention some planes go invisible at about 500m. Some of the Japanese planes have the gunsight smeared with vaseline too.

Hopefully we'll have dimmable sights in the next iteration, which would remedy the problem somewhat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, this is new to me.

I think some of you guys allow yourselves to become obsessed by these perceived `problems`. The prop has never obscured my view. And this `Prop + smoked glass canopy + smoked gunsight = blind` wow.

I really cannot agree.

At this rate y`all may as well jsut fly WW view.

R_Target
02-04-2008, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

At this rate y`all may as well jsut fly WW view.

Lol, point taken. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I hate the WW view though. I don't use padlock, so without the pit I lose my frame of reference and have no idea where I'm looking.

jarink
02-04-2008, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by R_Target:
Some of the Japanese planes have the gunsight smeared with vaseline too.

On some planes, the entire cockpit glass is smeared.