BoS DM (moved from DD#78)

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

What is it with some of these clod guys who feel a need to come here only to slag this game?  It has never occurred to me that I should go to their site and point out that they have literally brought the phrase "polishing a turd" to life.  In fact, I think it would be very rude of me should I do so.  But here they are making the same claims over and over being rude and obnoxious to no end.

 

I'm not a "clod guy" and I'm not "slagging" any game. I enjoy BoS (actually, very much, despite what I consider to be some major [hopefully EA] issues), but that's pretty sad (and bad on the community as a whole) if that eliminates my right to criticize where I believe it is due... But if I have to pick between

 

This:

 

and

 

This:

 

go ahead and call me whatever you want. That still doesn't make it true.

Ha Ha I am just kidding with you, you got the same answer you gave another one. Just a reaction when you brought in two other simulators. I do not agree DCS got better damage models, nor effects yes pretty much anything else than pit, FM and model.

Clod is more realistic in current state in pretty much everything except physics , witch I find unbeaten in this game. 3D is also very good and the light, beautiful it is

 

I 100% agree on flight physics. Flight feels more compelling despite some nuances in the current FM... Apparently, the difference in DM goes over people's heads... Am I really that crazy, here?

Edited September 14, 2014 by FalkeEins

[-=PHX=-Satch]

Beautiful trees in the second screenshot... they look so real...

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Beautiful trees in the second screenshot... they look so real...

 

I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a wise crack, but nobody is talking about the trees. If that's an attempt to ignore the glaring differences in the DM, than that's a real shame.

 

Everybody wants to talk about every issue CoD has or has had but seems to want to ignore anything (not everything, because it doesn't...) that it has above this title.

Edited September 14, 2014 by FalkeEins

[-=PHX=-Satch]

This threads is about Diary Part 78 and no about DM only. If you want to talk about DM in other sim i want to talk about phantom trees in the same super realistic sim...

Edited September 14, 2014 by Satchenko

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

This threads is about Diary Part 78 and no about DM only. If you want to talk about DM in other sim i want to talk about phantom trees in the same super realistic sim...

 

I didn't say it was a "super realistic sim" but I'm not surprised by the dismissive attitude from this community when somebody criticizes something about this sim, either.

 

This is precisely what I mean - everybody wants to switch the subject when somebody makes an observation about CoD: when somebody points out something CoD does do better, everybody is quick to jump on its shortcomings despite the fact nobody is here to support its shortcomings.

 

So, for permanence - let's establish this now: Nobody is here to support the shortcoming Cliffs of Dover had, myself included. Yes, I agree, there were a lot of them. A lot.

 

​In and of that declaration, I am not here to argue which title is the best. However, each and every title CAN and DOES some things better than the others. We could spend all day making a list on which models what better.

 

• BoS has an incredibly convincing FEELING of flight - no FFB required to FEEL the physics of the DN Engine taking place. Digital Nature is a GREAT engine with an even better future for development.
• DCS/Modules represent the state of the art in aircraft systems modelling - if you want to learn the intricacies of engine and system management alongside accurate startup procedures, this is the place for you.
• CoD sucked at a lot of things out of the box.It's entertaining with the TF patches but doesn't capture the essence of flight the way the DN Engine does for me - however, the VISIBLE/TANGIBLE damage model with alpha layers, transparency and bump mapping is a lot more convincing to my eyes.

 

I maintain, this dismissive and combative attitude  is a shame. I only care about the quality and success of this game and simulation just like everybody else here. 

 

People migrate from lesser flight titles like WT because they desire more from their experience. It's the small things that have always made this genre great. The fire and the smoke (figuratively) is one thing, but it is really all of the small things that make our genre what it is. I care about the small things, and I hope that they are seen through - that is all I am getting at.

 

We all want this to be the best it can be.

Edited September 14, 2014 by FalkeEins

[Dakpilot]

I am sure the graphic artists are more than capable to create the same damage effects in BoS...however it will come at a price with performance, such as no collision trees and AI which does not use real flight model etc. etc. It is all about balance and game performance at a reasonable cost that will not bankrupt the company and allow funds for further development. CLoD looks great BUT it was a commercial and financial failure (disaster)

 

The perfect sim is not possible on current hardware at a COST that the customer can pay..well some people would, but the community would be rather small and then it comes back to commercial success again...

 

It is all about balance and BoS does this rather well with the most convincing elusive "feeling" of flight and adequate graphics/performance ratio, of course we are all happy with more improvements that can be had

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[VR-DriftaholiC]

I didn't say it was a "super realistic sim" but I'm not surprised by the dismissive attitude from this community when somebody criticizes something about this sim, either.

 

This is precisely what I mean - everybody wants to switch the subject when somebody makes an observation about CoD: when somebody points out something CoD does do better, everybody is quick to jump on its shortcomings despite the fact nobody is here to support its shortcomings.

 

So, for permanence - let's establish this now: Nobody is here to support the shortcoming Cliffs of Dover had, myself included. Yes, I agree, there were a lot of them. A lot.

 

​In and of that declaration, I am not here to argue which title is the best. However, each and every title CAN and DOES some things better than the others. We could spend all day making a list on which models what better.

 

• BoS has an incredibly convincing FEELING of flight - no FFB required to FEEL the physics of the DN Engine taking place. Digital Nature is a GREAT engine with an even better future for development.
• DCS/Modules represent the state of the art in aircraft systems modelling - if you want to learn the intricacies of engine and system management alongside accurate startup procedures, this is the place for you.
• CoD sucked at a lot of things out of the box.It's entertaining with the TF patches but doesn't capture the essence of flight the way the DN Engine does for me - however, the VISIBLE/TANGIBLE damage model with alpha layers, transparency and bump mapping is a lot more convincing to my eyes.

 

I maintain, this dismissive and combative attitude  is a shame. I only care about the quality and success of this game and simulation just like everybody else here. 

 

People migrate from lesser flight titles like WT because they desire more from their experience. It's the small things that have always made this genre great. The fire and the smoke (figuratively) is one thing, but it is really all of the small things that make our genre what it is. I care about the small things, and I hope that they are seen through - that is all I am getting at.

 

We all want this to be the best it can be.

 

I can't say the damage model is less accurate in BoS then CoD but I can say it's visually less intricate. I think star citizen is a good example for how to employ visual dm properly.

 

Please stop using all my positive up-votes

Edited September 14, 2014 by driftaholic

[216th_Jordan]

I have to agree, Falke makes a point there.

Visually there is still some effort needed to make it look as stunning as other things in this sim. It would be nice if an improvement would be possible in the future.

[jaydee]

I didn't say it was a "super realistic sim" but I'm not surprised by the dismissive attitude from this community when somebody criticizes something about this sim, either.

 

This is precisely what I mean - everybody wants to switch the subject when somebody makes an observation about CoD: when somebody points out something CoD does do better, everybody is quick to jump on its shortcomings despite the fact nobody is here to support its shortcomings.

 

So, for permanence - let's establish this now: Nobody is here to support the shortcoming Cliffs of Dover had, myself included. Yes, I agree, there were a lot of them. A lot.

 

​In and of that declaration, I am not here to argue which title is the best. However, each and every title CAN and DOES some things better than the others. We could spend all day making a list on which models what better.

 

• BoS has an incredibly convincing FEELING of flight - no FFB required to FEEL the physics of the DN Engine taking place. Digital Nature is a GREAT engine with an even better future for development.
• DCS/Modules represent the state of the art in aircraft systems modelling - if you want to learn the intricacies of engine and system management alongside accurate startup procedures, this is the place for you.
• CoD sucked at a lot of things out of the box.It's entertaining with the TF patches but doesn't capture the essence of flight the way the DN Engine does for me - however, the VISIBLE/TANGIBLE damage model with alpha layers, transparency and bump mapping is a lot more convincing to my eyes.

 

I maintain, this dismissive and combative attitude  is a shame. I only care about the quality and success of this game and simulation just like everybody else here. 

 

People migrate from lesser flight titles like WT because they desire more from their experience. It's the small things that have always made this genre great. The fire and the smoke (figuratively) is one thing, but it is really all of the small things that make our genre what it is. I care about the small things, and I hope that they are seen through - that is all I am getting at.

 

We all want this to be the best it can be.

Silly me ! I thought this was a thread for Dev Diary ! I am a big fan of COD but this is not the Thread to discuss it . This is how threads get Hi-jacked  and turn to OT Rubbish.

As much as I enjoy COD, When I click on a BOS Dev Diary Thread,I don't want to see any mention COD.....Buts that's only MYHO.

[Sakkay]

Silly me ! I thought this was a thread for Dev Diary ! I am a big fan of COD but this is not the Thread to discuss it . This is how threads get Hi-jacked  and turn to OT Rubbish.

As much as I enjoy COD, When I click on a BOS Dev Diary Thread,I don't want to see any mention COD.....Buts that's only MYHO.

 

There's nothing wrong..interesting topic, and help in their development.

[sallee]

Does anyone here like rhubarb?

[pilotpierre]

Does anyone here like rhubarb?

I think the leaves are over modelled and there are too few skins to choose from.

[Hoots]

I think the leaves are over modelled and there are too few skins to choose from.

Not to mention that on its own it is underwhelming, it really needs added extras to bring it to life.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

+1 for rhubarb.

 

I almost brought it back in an argument last week with an aggressive new poster, Monty Python non sequitur style, but restrained myself.

[sallee]

The rhubarb, Murf...use the rhubarb...

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

 

 

There's nothing wrong..interesting topic, and help in their development.

 

 

Correct.

 

But everybody did a great job of illustrating my point, otherwise.

 

I am OK with that because I'm not the one forcing myself to feign ignorance.

[Rama]

This topic was created to move an off-topic discussion in thread DD#78 into a more appropriate thread.

 

[Chuck_Owl]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the visual damage model in CloD looks much, much better. Personally, I'd rather have better damage model over collidable trees. But that's just me.

 

Overall, I think Falke's right.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

I dont really want to get involved in thus thread. But i have a question. The difference in that DM pic between the two sims. Isnt that just a difference texture size and count?

 

I mean sure it looks awesome in CoD. But is it DOING anything for me physically? Is this something that can be addressed later down the line by high res texture mods? Or even by the devs themselves at a later date?

[Pupo]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the visual damage model in CloD looks much, much better. Personally, I'd rather have better damage model over collidable trees. But that's just me.

 

Overall, I think Falke's right.

 

 

my problem with Clod DM was that dispite it looks visually terrifying, the planes still fly like the iwngs are in perfect conditions. I got the same feeling for BOS. Visuals are nice, but i care more about the impact it has in FM...

[Requiem]

I dont really want to get involved in thus thread. But i have a question. The difference in that DM pic between the two sims. Isnt that just a difference texture size and count?

 

I mean sure it looks awesome in CoD. But is it DOING anything for me physically? Is this something that can be addressed later down the line by high res texture mods? Or even by the devs themselves at a later date?

It does affect how the aircraft flies. I've had this sort of damage flying in Cliffs and even at full power I would be at a very reduced airspeed as a result.

 

The damage model textures, in particular where the edges of damage are, could use some attention. The Cliffs one looks better right now.

[Chuck_Owl]

I dont really want to get involved in thus thread. But i have a question. The difference in that DM pic between the two sims. Isnt that just a difference texture size and count?

 

I mean sure it looks awesome in CoD. But is it DOING anything for me physically? Is this something that can be addressed later down the line by high res texture mods? Or even by the devs themselves at a later date?

 

Like Requiem said, there is a significant difference in both airspeed and generated lift too. I once flew a bomber that had its right wing completely wrecked (both engines still intact though) and I had to apply a constant left aileron and right rudder to keep the plane flying relatively level. There is an aerodynamic effect to the damage model as well.

[sallee]

Well, rhubarb aside, I think CloD is visually stunning. Quite the dog's doo-dads. But look at what it did to its users. It was self-evidently over-ambitious (not a bad thing in many ways) but what a catastrophe. BoS seems to me to be a conscious effort to balance those amazing effects with commercial reality. Thank goodness.

[Kling]

Beautiful trees in the second screenshot... they look so real...

whats wrong with the trees?!? I cant see what you mean!??!

[Leaf]

Yes the damage model does look better in CloD. So do the cockpit models, aircraft models, ground units, vegetation, buildings and textures. 
But how many years and how many delays did it take to get there? How many promises were made, only to be broken? IL2 BoS was made in what, just under 2 years? In that short amount of time, I think it looks fantastic. In the future I want to to look better, obviously, but for now, I'm totally pleased with it.

To put it another way, I'd rather support an already great game now, for it to be better in the future, than to wait for an eternity and in the end be bitterly disappointed. 

As for the rhubarb, I've eaten it once in cake form, where it was only tasty due to vast amounts of sugar. So I'm neither here nor there with it.

Passionfruit, now you're talking!
 

[Praetor]

It says a lot about the quality of both sims that people are quibbling over alpha channels.  I think it's safe to say that both are excellent, highly realistic, and differences are minor and often environmental. 

[sallee]

Up arrow...but with reservations regrding passionfruit...

[LoneMerc]

I do liked the visual DM of CLOD and one of the first things I remember noticing the difference between the two. I gave up on CLOD soon after release we all know the buggy mess i was and then not work on Win8 later when I tried I forgot about it. I soon just recently that a fix for Win8 was out got it and all the TF updates and although I like it I still prefer BOS for alot of reasons. Now if that visual DM was added to BOS it would just send it over the top for me. I love the bent broken metal.

 

But best of all everything so GREEN!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPSOzFjgcZY

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 BoS DM feels at times simplified with it's hitboxes, especially wings. It should matter where you hit the wing, not just anywhere, to cause catastrophic damage with a single bullet for example. On the other hand the gun damage again feels more or less realistic, not requiring an insane amount of rounds to make a plane fall, if hitting right places. Realism vs. playability I guess Can't have it all on a desktop application

[AbortedMan]

@op:You're not referencing the difference between damage models, you're simply referencing the difference in textures.

 

If you wanted to compare damage models, talk about CloD collision model vs BoS collision model, CloD weapons damage effects vs BoS weapons damage effects.

 

...or better yet, just enjoy both games and keep this "my game's better--no my game's better" argument fuel off the forums.

Edited September 14, 2014 by =SE=AbortedMan

[Vaxxtx]

It doesn't take a genius to realize that the visual damage model in CloD looks much, much better. Personally, I'd rather have better damage model over collidable trees. But that's just me.

 

Overall, I think Falke's right.

 

Ditto.

I'm not a "clod guy" and I'm not "slagging" any game. I enjoy BoS (actually, very much, despite what I consider to be some major [hopefully EA] issues), but that's pretty sad (and bad on the community as a whole) if that eliminates my right to criticize where I believe it is due... But if I have to pick between

 

This:

 

and

 

This:

 

go ahead and call me whatever you want. That still doesn't make it true.

 

I 100% agree on flight physics. Flight feels more compelling despite some nuances in the current FM... Apparently, the difference in DM goes over people's heads... Am I really that crazy, here?

No, you are right on point. People that don't agree are loyal to one brand for some odd reason.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

@op:You're not referencing the difference between damage models, you're simply referencing the difference in textures.

 

If you wanted to compare damage models, talk about CloD collision model vs BoS collision model, CloD weapons damage effects vs BoS weapons damage effects.

 

...or better yet, just enjoy both games and keep this "my game's better--no my game's better" argument fuel off the forums.

 

• Collision modelling is on the level of game physics - not how damage is being rendered against a frame. I am content on the mass and inertia being represented within the DN Engine.

 

• Nobody is talking about weapons/ammunition modelling, either. I am perfectly content on how this is being modeled. Damage is dealt meat'ly by the ammunition in the game, but lacks the expected visual oomph once its damaged an air frame.

 

Please realize (or remember... whichever is the case), Beta Tester, that these titles are built on multiple systems operating against each other under an engine.

 

And... (Imagine that...) in repetition... again... for those of you who only want to read half of the context of this thread:

 

"​In and of that declaration, I am not here to argue which title is the best. However, each and every title CAN and DOES some things better than the others."

Edited September 14, 2014 by FalkeEins

[Willy__]

I dont really want to get involved in thus thread. But i have a question. The difference in that DM pic between the two sims. Isnt that just a difference texture size and count?

 

I mean sure it looks awesome in CoD. But is it DOING anything for me physically? Is this something that can be addressed later down the line by high res texture mods? Or even by the devs themselves at a later date?

 

^^ This.

 

I really prefer having my mg's and cannons do actually some damage, even though the damage decal texture are not too beautiful, than having what happens in CoD: you shoot all your cannon at a spitfire, it is visually full of holes, but it still flies like nothing happened, only a little slower.

 

I feel that albeit a little bit simplier DM in terms of hitboxes, BoS has one that is actually more convincing and enjoyable. So, I would rather keep this line we have than going over and switching to the way CoD does.

[Alibaba]

What's this topic about,    graphics, dmg, or both, and that's matter?

 

I fly 1946 clod bos dcs, every night I’m in other sim, but hey, I don't get this topic at all...

Edited September 14, 2014 by Alibaba

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

What's this topic about,    graphics, dmg, or both, and that's matter?

 

Not sure. Moderation decided that my pointing out that there were no improvements to the DM in the recent update was not on topic in the DD's thread.

 

Both. And yes, it does matter. I, and I am sure a lot of others, did not buy this game to play it as a "tree collision simulator" (though more... "immersive" if that is what you are here to play this title as) or to practice crash landing (even though I love that small detail that is the "skid trail" left in the snow) - insofar as it being an air combat simulator, I wouldn't think it a stretch that properly representing the physical damage to an aircraft might be a priority at some point... And that is honestly all I am asking for.

Edited September 14, 2014 by FalkeEins

[SharpeXB]

I am sure a lot of others, did not buy this game to play it as a "tree collision simulator"

Tree collisions are an extremely important and magnificent feature. As the DN engine originated with RoF, can you imagine how ridiculous a WWI sim would be without them?! It's about the most beautiful flight sim experience to hit a tree with your wing in RoF and watch it splinter away as your plane cartwheels on the ground!

[unreasonable]

In all fairness to the trees, if you spend some time in the IL-2 flying nap of the earth trying to avoid detection by the german fighters, having non-collidable trees would be a huge immersion breaker.

[Bussard_x]

My suggestion would be to create more hit boxes. Let's say a wing breaks off when 3 or 4 hitboxes are hit. Not just one. Furthermore it would be nice if we get also small dynamic fires, which means small fires that get bigger or disappear. I think this more complexed damage model will make sim even better.

[SharpeXB]

You all do realize the 3D modeling was the ONLY thing Cliffs of Dover did well, right?

 

It's pointless to use CoD as any basis of comparison as it went out of business. Any decision or feature if it is therefore irrelevant.

 

The best combat flight sim today, without a question, is Rise of Flight (I only left out BoS cause it's not finished yet ;-) )

It's the sum of the parts that counts. It's not about one feature. It's about ALL of it.

FM DM AI single player, multi player, graphics

No other flight sim has that all as well done as RoF.

[Bussard_x]

I am not sure about the good damage model in Clod, you could spent all your ammo on a stuka and it won't break. The damage graphics looked nice but that are just the visuals and say nothing of the DM.