PDA

View Full Version : Checkout the fire and smoke on downed aircraft in SHIII...



womenfly
03-09-2005, 01:32 PM
Flak Gun Tutotial (http://media.ubi.com/emea/sh3/videos/tutorial_flakgun.wmv)

<span class="ev_code_PINK">The smoke and flames on the downed aircraft looks better here then in PF ....</span> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

What do you think ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

UbiSoft and 1C:MG all really need to be on the same page graphics wise, just my opinion.

Looks like a super game ..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Korolov
03-09-2005, 01:45 PM
Number 1 reason why smoke and flames don't look as good in FB/PF: It's a 4 year old engine.

Da_Godfatha
03-09-2005, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Number 1 reason why smoke and flames don't look as good in FB/PF: It's a 4 year old engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That, IMHO, is just a excuse. Nothing more. Everyone seems to be happy with eye-candy. Not many care about substance.

altstiff
03-09-2005, 01:57 PM
Not to mention the damage model is the same in every instance and on every plane, it is a sub simulation after all.......

Chuck_Older
03-09-2005, 02:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
Number 1 reason why smoke and flames don't look as good in FB/PF: It's a 4 year old engine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That, IMHO, is just a excuse. Nothing more. Everyone seems to be happy with eye-candy. Not many care about substance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's very confusing...could you clarify?

Da_Godfatha
03-09-2005, 02:50 PM
It is simple Chuck, most people think a gameulation is great when the graphics are bombastic. I think most of the home PC`s out there today have a hard time handleing PF as it is now.
IMHO, most of the programmers worry more about the "ohhh-ahhh" effect that playablity of the game. That is why so many games out there today have great GFX`s, but no story.

I am from the old school were gfx is great, but I would like a real solid OFFWHINE game. One game I constantly play regularly has a graphic engine that must be at least 10 years old. I have alot more fun with this game than with the whole AEP-PF series. Guess what that game is? Believe it or not, it is Interstate 76.

Face it Chuck, what PF is lacking is good offline fun. Thanks to guys like you, E-1, and Bird Brain (just to name a few), some good user-made campaigns are breathing life into what isjust a dry technical game geared for online players. I don`t think thatwas the idea behind PF.

Again, this is just my 2 cents worth.

VW-IceFire
03-09-2005, 03:17 PM
You have a point but you're missing some of what Koro is trying to say.

Part of the performance issues and the elements of graphics that don't look so good in Pacific Fighters are related to the age of the engine. A new gaming engine written from the ground up for new features is much more efficient at doing what it needs to do...physics, graphics, etc.

SO...that ultimately means that a new engine will make the game look better and allow it to have more substance (better phyiscs). Its not a catch 22 necessarily...the trick is the development team and if they are willing to put in the time for the details.

The fact that we argue over gun belt composition suggests that we're dealing with a team that knows its salt when it comes to the details of a game...regardless of if the implementation is questionable or not...the fact that they have research on it and have it in the game in the first place suggests it.

crazyivan1970
03-09-2005, 03:31 PM
Little clarification here... this engine is really 97-98... which makes it almost 7+ years old. It was modified for IL2 needs in 1999.

Korolov
03-09-2005, 03:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
That, IMHO, is just a excuse. Nothing more. Everyone seems to be happy with eye-candy. Not many care about substance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a excuse, it's a explaination. You don't expect Space Quest to show wonderful fire and flame effects in comparison to SHIII, do you?

crazyivan1970
03-09-2005, 03:45 PM
lol Koro http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JG54_Arnie
03-09-2005, 04:24 PM
Plus, it doesnt look that great in SHIII either, its nice, but I think PF's graphics still do fine. Even more so when you take its damage models into account.

To mention another example, LOMAC's fires look really crappy and I prefer IL2's fires actually.

Obi_Kwiet
03-09-2005, 04:37 PM
Il2 uses to much fire. It seems like most of the time there should be less fire and way more smoke.

Badsight.
03-09-2005, 09:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Korolov:
You don't expect Space Quest to show wonderful fire and flame effects in comparison to SHIII, do you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>is that what it was !

all this time ive had the suspicion that its was X-Wing v TiE Fighter (no joke !)

-HH- Beebop
03-09-2005, 09:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Da_Godfatha:
.....Interstate 76..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Music backgroound**Wakka-chakka, Wakka-chakka**

Mmmm. Yes, there was a game! The game never had anything but serviceable graphics at best but what a hoot to play. There aren't may games where you can save a schoolbus full of kids from bloodthirsty outlaws.
(Too bad I-82 was such a letdown).

BaldieJr
03-09-2005, 09:44 PM
Who'd want to play a game about the boat-army?

BBB_Hyperion
03-09-2005, 11:37 PM
SH3 seems to have a max resolution of 1024x768.

Swivet
03-10-2005, 07:33 AM
Looks pretty cool regardless, the lighting effects are what make it. Especially when the plane explodes in the sky, you can see the light reflecting off the smoke and water. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LilHorse
03-10-2005, 09:25 AM
Physics first. Eye candy second.

I don't care how good a game looks if the physics are off. And since the only games I give a rats a$$ about are flight sims, physics are of particular importance.

Unfortunately for me I won't be getting any hotrod system for running BoB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. At least not anytime soon.

crazyivan1970
03-10-2005, 11:20 AM
You got AT LEAST a year to put some money aside LilHorse http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

1.JaVA_Razer
03-10-2005, 01:47 PM
it's true what Icefire said.

We keep updating the IL2 engine and it's like using an old ford from 1980 to do 180 in 4'th....

I mean it's verry stressing as is on the engine. Besides, if the IL2 engine where to be rewritten for the features it contains now, just to do those, you'd get a WHOLE lot better image quality and a lot more performance because of the structure of the engine then. it'd be builth just for those features and not for features that will be implemented almsot 7 years later http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif