drugster Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 As a long time player of WW2 air combat sims (dating back to Jane's WW2 Fighters), I am really disappointed with the landscape, cockpit and tracer graphics. I know it's in BETA stage but so are other games such as War Thunder. Devs please prioritize improving the graphical appeal of this game.
pencon Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 It looks great actually . Could seriously use a summer map though .
SYN_Vorlander Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 As a long time player of WW2 air combat sims (dating back to Jane's WW2 Fighters), I am really disappointed with the landscape, cockpit and tracer graphics. I know it's in BETA stage but so are other games such as War Thunder. Devs please prioritize improving the graphical appeal of this game. Please post your system specs. Maybe you are not running the game properly.
Original_Uwe Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Please OP specify what looks so bad cause Im not seeing anything wrong.
smink1701 Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I think it's quite extraordinary. But everyone's entitled to their opinion.
71st_AH_Hooves Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Hey OP. Welcome to the sim! I do have to say im not sure you and i are playing the same game. While BoS has its own art style, its a long long long way from disapointing. The new tracer smoke is very similar to another sim. And the terrain, well its snowy. Thats what snow looks like lol. As far as cockpits go, try flight fx. It makes a WORLD of difference for that and the terrain. Please PM me if you'd like me to help you set it up (its a cinch btw) Edited September 5, 2014 by =SE=Hooves
Feathered_IV Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Hi and welcome. Is it Il-2 Sturmovik 1946 that you are using? 2
GrieverGriever_XIV Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I'm actually going to backup the OP (I play everything maxed). I think the texture resolutions in all the cockpits are very lackluster, the landscapes and buildings are all paper, same for the trees. Most of it is just washed out in white so it doesnt show as much, but compare BoS cockpit texture resolution to DCS, and the difference is huge. I can't seem to find that many images on google but here's a simple comarison:BoS: http://www.simreviewshouse.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Il2BoS_13.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtYyCoZCUAIHoHh.jpg:largeDCS: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/images/dora/03.jpg http://gamingshogun.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/dcs-dora.jpgPersonally this is my only concern, I find the exterior of the planes look gorgeous, the fires/smoke/bullets etc all look great to me. I think the cockpit could be made crisper. 1
SeriousFox Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Warthunder has console style graphics(due to base game is console port), BoS has waaay better complex graphic and high detailed compare to WT... About the quality of texture, HD texture looks good but downside of HD texture is that it shimmers when you zoomed out and that looks very very ugly. I do think that current BoS texture resolution is bit low(same applies to RoF) but I'm not a fan of DCS style HD textured cockpits. And you can't just compare screenshots because when it comes to ingame video BoS looks much better compare to WT or DCS. In case you wonder how WT cockpit looks like.. Do you really think WT has better graphics?... Edited September 5, 2014 by SeriousFox 3
Finkeren Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Hey OP, welcome to BoS. In answer to your complaints: Landscape: Nah sorry, can't agree with you there. BoS landscape looks great with lots of intricate little details. And the new map of the Rzhev region looks even better. It's a winter map, so of course it's going to look uniform from altitude. Cockpits: you kind of have a point there. The cockpits are arguably the least impressive part of BoS graphics. They are hardly a step up from Cliffs of Dover and will never reach the quality levels of DCS. However, the new He 111 interior really does look superb, and for multi crew aircraft there's the added benefit of awesomely modelled crew animations. Tracers: You've gotta be kidding me? BoS have the most realistically looking tracers of any sim, and with the recent brush up they look even better. Overall the graphics in BoS have one major advantage over any other flight sim ever: The graphic quality of all elements fit well with each other in terms of style and level of detail, so everything seems to fit together smoothly. This is very unlike for instance DCS, where the beautiful cockpits aren't matched by the less-than-impressive rendering of external models and incredibly nasty looking terrain. Edited September 5, 2014 by Finkeren
AcesHigh Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Have to agree with OP the scenery outside the cockpit is too white, too washed out, like flying in black and white really. The snow needs to be broken up, with fields or something. The cities need some work as they all look the same, same houses, same yards, same colors, same everything. Sweetfx helped a little but I'd really like to see them do more to add some interest to the map and the cities. The feeling of flight is excellent, the airplane models excellent, the flight model good, and the cockpits better than OK but not great. 1
Finkeren Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Have to agree with OP the scenery outside the cockpit is too white, too washed out, like flying in black and white really. The snow needs to be broken up, with fields or something. The cities need some work as they all look the same, same houses, same yards, same colors, same everything. Sweetfx helped a little but I'd really like to see them do more to add some interest to the map and the cities. The feeling of flight is excellent, the airplane models excellent, the flight model good, and the cockpits better than OK but not great. You could argue, that colors in general aren't saturated enough, but as you say: That can be helped with SweetFX. As for the rest, I'm afraid it's more or less as it should be. This is no Western European winter with light snowfall that quickly disappears from some places and stay in others. This is foot-deep snow, and we are lucky to even be able to see the trees. As for the villages, the area between Don and Volga was heavily collectivized in the '20s and '30s. Villages were torn down and restructured and really did look pretty much alike. Take a look at the new map and see the villages there. Very different.
LizLemon Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I think the biggest graphics issues with BoS are thus The disappointingly low texture resolutions. This is noticeable in cockpits and external models of aircraft, but it is most apparent on buildings, trees, ect. Not quite up to current levels and something that the current crop of arcade ww2 flight games beats. But I guess this shouldn't be surprising given the budget and assets 777/1cgs were handed. The second is the shaders. The cockpits would look much better if they decided to use physically accurate shaders. As it stands now the off look to the cockpits comes mostly from the weird shaders they chose to use, imho. Oh, and some of the effects seem overdone and too hollywood so to speak, but maybe they'll change that like the tracers.
LLv34_Flanker Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 S! They could get rid of SSAO altogether and heavily tune the HDR and Bloom. Or just give us the same control panel as RoF has, very handy one.
Matt Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 The cockpit textures and the LOD of the landscape are definately disappointing for me too. The landscape just looks extremely flat and washed out further away (just look at the left side the Seriousfox' screenshot). Also pop-ups of fences etc. are pretty annoying, though that's only really noticable when flying low. Tracers could look better, but are most likely WIP anyway (they just got updated). 5
=LD=Penshoon Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 When I first started BOS I was very impressed but over time it could have degraded. I play on ultra with sweetfx@1440p and can still stay around 120fps during flight. But the biggest issue for me is the render distance. At max fov I can only see buildings very close. Smoke and trees pop in like crazy. Stalingrad can only be distinguished at close/medium distances. Far away it's ground textures looks exactly the same as everything else, gray super low res textures. The low resolution textures can be explained by the "early access", they have to make the download as small as possible to save bandwidth. Hopefully they can release a optional HD pack later.
VRPilot Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 War Thunder does look nice, but gameplay is not. back to BoS: I can't run fligth FX, game does start, but filters do not load (I set it so sepia to see if it works) any help?
LLv34_Flanker Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 S! VollautoVolker. Make sure in-game antialiasing is OFF or FlightFX won't work. Also make sure the right folders are given for FlightFX: X:\...\IL-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\bin\game\Il-2.exe and X:\...\Il-2 Sturmovik Battle of Stalingrad\data 2
3instein Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I enjoy BOS for what it is,a serious,decent looking flight sim that I have had a great experience with already and know I am going to have fun with it for a long time coming. Yeah I suppose the landscape could be better and maybe some other touch ups but we can't have everything eh? The most important thing in this type of sim is having fun flying in this setting.The way the devs come across with their enthusiasm for this time period is very noticeable,and I for one appreciate this. I have already learned a great deal about this time frame because of this sim and know this is going to continue,and I thank this sim for that. There isn't a sim on the market that shines in every area,each has it's good points and it's bad,you just have to ask yourself if that is enough for you,for me it definitely is,also TBH the game will get better with age. Mick. 1
Kling Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I find the BOS graphic really nice! Except for most of the effects(smoke/leaks from damaged airplanes) which look actually worse than most effects from original il2 from 2001. Even ROF had better effects so Im hoping thats its WIP.. For the landscape and aircraft and think the graphics is superb!
Finkeren Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I think the smoke, vapor effects are nicely done (as nice as particle effects can get when used on such a massive scale) The one thing I think could be better is the thick, black smoke from fires. It's just a little too opague and doesn't seem to fade out in the correct fashion.
Mastermariner Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I hate to agree with you. BoS is not bad but there is nothing new or mindboggling here. And don't expect any cookies for saying the Emperor have no clothes in this forum. I have on my computer CoD, better graphics, and DCS with better graphics, 64 bit and DX 11 support so it has a future. The rest have not. I'm sort of hoping that the remaining 30% will make a mayor change but... Master 2
unreasonable Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Having not updated from about 40% upto now, my impression is that the overall graphics quality is excellent. The spotting problems are mostly gone, and it is hardly surprising that collectivized villages in an impoverished country should look the same, especially when covered in snow! Room for improvement in "pop-up" distance of buildings and forests, but apart from that graphics quality is good and would be even better if we could be trusted to make our own adjustments!
taffy2jeffmorgan Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I think what a lot of people don't realize when they compare BoS with other sims is that BoS is set in the grip of a Russian winter, what sun light there is, is fused and fails to high light objects near or far. I have never experienced a Russian winter but have lived through some cold and depressing northern ones, and i would say that the developers have got it right, and they should know being Russian ! I know that many have asked for summer maps me included, but we do know that most of the desperate fighting for Stalingrad took place during the 1942/1943 winter. 1
Finkeren Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) I hate to agree with you. BoS is not bad but there is nothing new or mindboggling here. And don't expect any cookies for saying the Emperor have no clothes in this forum. I have on my computer CoD, better graphics, and DCS with better graphics, 64 bit and DX 11 support so it has a future. The rest have not. I'm sort of hoping that the remaining 30% will make a mayor change but... Master To each his own, but to say that DCS currently has better graphics is patently absurd. EDGE might bring a change to that, but currently DCS has very, very nice looking cockpits, high poly count external models (but with poor shaders) and pretty much nothing else. The rest is 10+ years old technology, and it shows. Edited September 5, 2014 by Finkeren 3
=LD=Hethwill Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 There is always room for improvement graphics wise. I wouldn't exchange the simulation of ww2 combat flight in BoS for others other than BoB TF CLoD, in which they pair up nicely. Graphics are good for the purpose of the game - Flight and Air Combat. The buildings do their purpose. The vehicles as well. Plus this is the 2nd most harsh winter during the XX century with more than 7 feet snowfall. If we get an autumn map will you start complaining everything is brown because of the mud ? No joke man, but I think we are both in different frequencies. Give me less graphics and more flight physics. And WT ? Seriously ? You like all the noisy background textures underlay with high res planes and squint your eyes all the time to adjust to the difference of resolution ? I am an all out gamer but I think you missing the point of BoS. We have a good ww2 air combat SIM and with high standard graphics. We don't need Arma3 ground details to simulate combat at 3000m altitude ( number thrown at random ). 1
Schwalbee Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Wow i never would have thoght a thread like this would've popped up a year ago when army access was first released. But yea my two cents bos is the best all around sim along with to clod and I don't think bos tops clod yet but will soon enough. The cockpit textures in bos are great and hold there own against clod cockpits and bos cockpits are only going to get better with time. I don't think we should compare Dcs land textures with bos, here bos wins by a land slide. And Dcs plane spotting is horrible. Prop plane combat in Dcs is a nightmare with the current sporting mechanics(edge may change this). To sum it up bos and clod and even rof are some of the most fun and beautifully flight Sims out there and last it checked wt was An arcade flying game aimed towards guys who fly with mouse haha(no offense to anyone who plays wt)
Livai Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 What disappointed me with BoS --> Custom Graphics Settings gone. Blue cirrus clouds. Snow sometimes white and sometimes green/blue tinted, sky color sometimes cyan, Blurred landscape, LOD, pop-ups, trees that not look like trees at high altitude, blurred texture, waterpainted graphic. RoF looks much more better. RoF has Custom Graphic Settings, white cirrus clouds, Snow is everytime white tinted, better looking sky and is everytime blue tinted, much more better Landscape that is not blurred out, better Draw Distance, better looking Trees at high and low altitude, better looking texture, the graphic looks better and is not waterpainted, the Menüs looks better and the Loading Screens, too. I like RoF more than BoS. Looks like that this is the Game Engine from BoS [What disappointed me with BoS] because I tested some texture and files with RoF and this not happend there.
Nage Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) ROF looks much better, clouds, landscape, cockpits,...it even has a custom graphic settings like every other freakin game on the market, except BOS...and..ROF doesnt have that ugly blur in the skies and on plane shape (not talking about cinematic "thingie").... btw, If you need to compare cockpits then compare BOS with DCS or Cliffs Of Dover, not with that comic - Warthunder Edited September 5, 2014 by tikvic
Bullets Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Those complaining about the washout out whiteness of the scenery, set up SweetFX.. With proper settings (Fifi's are good) it completely fixxes the problem and makes the world look even better than it does already. Thanks! Also OP, maybe you have not set up the graphics properly? On Ultra I would argue everything looks pretty good, look though some screenshot posts on the forums I would say some are quite breathtaking! Thanks!! 1
1./JG42Nephris Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) BoS Grafix are surely not what actually to expect in a year 2014. In that point I ve to agree with the OP. The cockpit textures look some kind of dull (using highest settings). Maybe ,if we will get anytime the freedom again to adjust the grafix by ourselves, it can be tuned. Aswell something was imho changed with the Lods? Maybe due performance tuning ,coming in with the grafic presets.Used to look much better months ago imho.The tracers still look like lasers. I cant see the dogfighting aircrafts but the lasers. Grafix should be fine with ultra by default and not by using another third party tool. Edited September 5, 2014 by 1./JG42Nephris
Tektolnes Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Nothing wrong with BOS graphics. Plane models look very nice for the most part. The landscape is done accurately and although I don't care for it hugely it does look nice enough. I am looking forward to a landscape that's not covered in snow and almost completely flat I have to admit though. The cockpits are decent - they get the job done without detracting but don't wow by any means either. They're probably the weakest point of the game graphically speaking in my opinion. They're not terrible by any means but I think they could do with a bit more love to sharpen then up a bit. We spend virtually all our time in cockpit view so would be a good investment of time if possible. Also please let us turn of SSAO as that's clearly not helping how sharp things look in the cockpit.
=LD=Hethwill Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 I cant see the dogfighting aircrafts but the lasers. Definitely something wrong then on your end. Running on 1080p at High preset and not having issues with seeing them. Actually the sun glints are pretty good and you can perfectly see what direction they turn for. And this is from 4 - 5 Klicks away. One thing the graphic engine has good, as it was proven in RoF is the stereography ( no idea if the term is correct ) but the sensation in depth between the elements. Easy to guess distances and estimate closure rates.
1./JG42Nephris Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 (edited) Maybe I wrote it wrong. Before I can see the aircrafts at 4 or 5 km I am able to notice their lasers. (R9 290 x2 / 1920x1200) Edited September 5, 2014 by 1./JG42Nephris
Finkeren Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 Maybe I wrote it wrong. Before I can see the aircrafts at 4 or 5 km I am able to notice their lasers. (R9 290 x2 / 1920x1200) That's a general problem with rendering light sources at distance under different light conditions. It's not a specific BoS problem No sim I know of, has got a satisfying solution for this.
SYN_Mike77 Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 So we have one thread saying that the Dex's have spent too much time and resources on graphics and they are "to high" in quality and now this one saying the graphics are lower quality than expected in 2014. I pronounce this BoS' Goldilocks moment; "Just right". 4
1./JG42Nephris Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 God thx we can not argue in flavour.
=LD=Penshoon Posted September 5, 2014 Posted September 5, 2014 So we have one thread saying that the Dex's have spent too much time and resources on graphics and they are "to high" in quality and now this one saying the graphics are lower quality than expected in 2014. I pronounce this BoS' Goldilocks moment; "Just right". Well it's the problem they will face if they keep the presents. People complain that they can't run it smoothly with bad machines and people with beastly machines complain that they can't squeeze the last drop from their GPU. People are obviously not content and we can see that if affects people on both sides of the processing power spectrum.
Recommended Posts