PDA

View Full Version : BoB In cockpit shadows.



Viking-S
05-06-2005, 07:08 AM
!

LEXX_Luthor
05-06-2005, 05:41 PM
Why you look down in cockpit when you turn?

Shadows should not work when under clouds, or inside clouds. but, if its clear outside, you just look outside to see which way you turn...as you do. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Shadows on intrument guages:: Flight Sim Developers have enough "difficulty" trying to make readable guages now -- they always make guages too dark so you have to turn on the lights. Please, no Shadows on top of that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-06-2005, 06:16 PM
Another ideas. After the PF, opening/closing canopies are a Must Have "be sure" Feature now--especially for "Spitfire" open canopy takeoff, just like in the movies. We don't want Devs wasting time programming the Shadows to follow the canopies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Then, they could just have two (2) Shadow states -- open canopy state and closed canopy. Still, that's double the Shadows you were thinking of. Double work when the Devs need to program AI not to see clouds.

Fennec_P
05-06-2005, 10:35 PM
Shadow mapping was used to good effect in Crimson Skies. It didn't seem to hit the framerate that badly, either. Mind you, the cockpits were extremely basic.

This would be nice to see in BoB, especially if they could figure out a way to get rid of the jagged edges. (like you see in LO:MAC self-shadowing)

Capt_Haddock
05-07-2005, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by Viking-S:
If it hadn€t been for better hardware and skilful programmers ...

And skilful artists http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I completely agree with the idea of the cockpit frame casting shadows. Lighting is the key to realistic graphics, but unfortunately is often left aside in favor or just more polygons.

The current models from IL2 would look amazing with more realistic lighting, self-casting shadows, and specular maps.

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh2.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-07-2005, 05:21 AM
I was going to say that canopy strut Shadows have absolutely no effect on game play, but I was thinking that Shadows may be easier to make then programming support for realistic air warfare for online or offline play. Red Baron campaign probably took alot of effort to make--maybe too much. Pop Shadows could be the next "big thing" for flight sim Devs, after immersive gameplay water grafix. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BoB cockpits are already so high "standard" we may see only single seat Dogfight cockpits. The situation for bombers may be even worse than it was over the FB history. He~111 was the only Flyable 2 engine WW2 bomber modded at the beginning of FB, and we waited "2 years" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif for another (B~25). Something went tragically wrong.

p1ngu666
05-07-2005, 06:22 AM
imo the lighting, and sound ~made~ doom3, if its in the engine properly, like doom3 itll be great http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Capt_Haddock
05-07-2005, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
BoB cockpits are already so high "standard" we may see only single seat Dogfight cockpits. ... Something went tragically wrong.

Spot on. That is exactly why I am worried.

If it takes already a painfuly long amount of time to make an IL2-standard plane, just imagine for BOB. And forget your lesser know planes... The research needed for that level of detail means that only the very common and easily accessible planes will make it into the game.

I would have settled for just slightly higher-poly planes with vastly improved lighting and material rendition.

http://www.haddock.f2s.com/sig/F19bannerh2.jpg

Fennec_P
05-07-2005, 05:52 PM
single seat Dogfight cockpits

In BoB there will be some 2-seaters. At least Stuka, and Oleg hinted at some others for Britain and Spain. In one interview, I think he hinted at a flyable Defiant.

And if better quality means less addon planes, both official and/or 3rd party, then so be it. Especially if FM, DM and engine management can be made more accurate than is possible with the IL-2 plane horde.

LEXX_Luthor
05-07-2005, 06:33 PM
Fennec::
And if better quality means less addon planes, both official and/or 3rd party, then so be it. Especially if FM, DM and engine management can be made more accurate than is possible with the IL-2 plane horde.
You are repeating the exact same mistake that caused this "plane horde" you are wimpering about.

As the years go by, new planes will be made Flyable over all BoB+ theaters (indicating Merged theater installs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif). Now if Oleg starts out assuming certain planes "will not" be Flyable, and then later finds he can make them Flyable, they may need re~made FM and DM and complex engine modding -- re~made for Flyable Quality. I believe this happened to many FB aircraft. If we start by assuming all (or almost all) aircraft can be made Flyable, then we won't have this problem.

All planes Flyable (or almost all) is the next step higher in the evolution of combat flight sims. When that stage is reached, then they may increase modding "standards" for all aircraft...<span class="ev_code_yellow">all aircraft get equally higher modding standards</span>...a point missed by those wanting only their Fave dogfight planes having "quality" and made Flyable.

The exceptions may be Flyable 4 engine bombers. Although it is the large bombers where most modded crew positions can be cut. Oleg does not like laying off crew positions. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


plane horde
Name calling something what others enjoy always unmasks a Deceptive face on a webboard. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Although, I have done it too. mmm

Fennec_P
05-07-2005, 09:19 PM
'Horde' is hardly a derogatory term (and was not intended as such), and I don't quite understand what you mean by 'Deceptive face'.

As for AI planes, Oleg sez they will use a simplified DM as opposed to flyables. I would imagine the same applies to CEM.

p1ngu666
05-07-2005, 09:25 PM
well, i think luckly for RAF bomber fans, the rear turrets where mostly the same, so once one is done then we can transplant it onto other bombers.
so for welligton, whitley, stirling, halifax, lanc, u need 1 turret, and some small mods http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

theres typicaly 3 gunner stations on raf bombers, so oleg needs to model pilot, bomb aimer, navigator if we get all the aids and the front and top gunner http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
also if u think the turrets arent good, ud be right, there excellent http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
front and rear turrets on lanc can swing some 180-90degrees side to side, 45 down and 60 up
rear turret has 4 303, thats 80rounds a second, and its quick moving http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

need lincon, improved lancaster http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
bit faster, even nicer flying, and with 2x 20mm hispanos in top turret. with lead computing gunsight http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
and 4 303 in the back, or 2 50cals, with a lead computing sight, and gunlaying radar too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif