Dutch Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Something is slowly coming out that will blast our screens, graphicaly talking Never seen something as realistic as this P47 cockpit recent update...but won't post the pictures, because it doesn't belong to this forum sadly. And...They're off!! Will Ilya manage to produce '44 before the final release of Stalingrad? Will the new cutting 'Edge' graphics blow away the 'Digital Nature' engine? Will the gamers be able to reload in mid-air? Will we finally have a Second World War flight simulator worthy of the name? Or will we all pack it in in favour of 'Star Citizen'?? Maybe we should contact some well known betting shops and ask for odds. I know where I'd put my money, even though I've put it in the wrong place, so far. And before I get banned yet again, that was supposed to be amusing. Edited December 8, 2013 by Rama removed provocative stuff
Uufflakke Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 Take away that nonsensical rear cockpit reflection, and what's the difference? I've yet to see such mirror like reflections anywhere like that other than a mirror or an Escher painting. The Escher painting, as you call it, would only work in the compass convex glass. Not in the other gauges indeed. The other flat glasses in the gauges would reflect like mirrors, so you won't see the cockpit seat etc. reflected in every single gauge. Compare it with the mirror in your bathroom. Cover it up with a piece of cardboard with a few round holes in it. Do you see yourself or the doorway behind you reflected in every single round hole? No you don't. You will see the same in the mirror as always except that some parts are obstructed by the cardboard.
Sokol1 Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 (edited) Compare it with the mirror in your bathroom. Cover it up with a piece of cardboard with a few round holes in it. Do you see yourself or the doorway behind you reflected in every single round hole? You make my curious, and since I dont have cardboard to cover the bathroom mirror (and I am lazy to do holes in one if find...) I take two DVD midia to act as mirror, and I see myself in both. What this have of "scientific" value I dont know... but at least I am not a Vampire. These boards are Sokol1 Edited December 8, 2013 by Sokol1 1
Dutch Posted December 8, 2013 Posted December 8, 2013 These boards are No. These boards are sensible. All other boards entertain insanity willingly. These boards dictate what sanity is. If you don't conform, you're out. You should know this by now Sokol1, me ole china.
Bearcat Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 No. These boards are sensible. All other boards entertain insanity willingly. These boards dictate what sanity is. If you don't conform, you're out. You should know this by now Sokol1, me ole china. Rama, you have a pole up your arse. That is precisely my point. Post deleted in 10, 9, 8..... That's right we do dictate what insanity is and by our definition insanity is partly defined as posting an insult to a mod via PM or in a post .. and we respond accordingly. Look some of you guys may not like the way we do things around here but I do not think that this board will ever be called a "Zoo" or a "cesspool" like some other flight sim boards have been over the last few years and we take a great deal of pride in that but we cannot do that without your cooperation.. so please think before you post. All of us are pretty secure in our manhood so contrary to some of the very nasty PMs some of us have gotten in the last 12 months, we don't need to "lord it over anyone" or try to "dictate the rules" , we do have lives and families in some cases and we do this because we like aircraft, enjoy sims and are willing to serve this community .. We do not appreciate, nor will we take lightly in the interests of trying to keep the peace and avoid labels of censorship and charges "dictatorship" , nastygrams filled with vitriol or open complaints and insults on these boards in any way shape or form. If anyone here has an issue with something we have done and wants to communicate that displeasure with us please consider trying to address us in the same manner in which the would if we were face to face sitting in a bar. Not as if we were their children or their b*****s. We are well aware that we are not infallible and we do make mistakes .. but there have been some pretty nasty PMs sent over the past year and frankly we are tired of it and will not take it lightly. 3
DD_Arthur Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Well I don't know about how CoD and BoS compare graphics wise but they do seem to share something in the FM department! After I took his wing off he flew around quite happily for a few minutes and even managed some gentle turns before we separated and my a.i. wingman rather unsportingly shot him down. 2
LizLemon Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Well you can rip a wing off in a biplane in RoF and fly around just fine, though it can be a bit challenging if the wing with the ailerons is the one to go. Frankly though I've never understood why people think a plane should hit the sink if part of its wing is gone. There was one account of a Typhoon pilot who lost he right wing just outboard of the landing gear. He managed to make it back over the channel just fine, and even claimed to have conducted some stall tests while in-route And there are some a few photographs of aircraft flying just fine with big chunks of their wings missing, such as this famous one of the TBF Avenger, which appears to have about the same amount of wing missing as that LaGG and some of the CloD pics that many deem as "impossible" There is even a mod for X-plane that mimics this Avenger. Its obviously a bit harder to fly then a normal avenger, and it'd be a bad idea to try it out with a full fuel and weapons load. But it does fly if you keep the airspeed up; http://forjets.netfirms.com/page5.html I'd guess that the reason why you don't hear more stories or see more pics of aircraft flying like this is because most pilots had enough sense to bail out asap rather then trying to land on 2/3rds of a wing. 2
Bearcat Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 I remember seeing a picture of a Mustang with the same kind of wing damage that landed.. A P-47 as well...
Picchio Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Something is slowly coming out that will blast our screens, graphicaly talking. Never seen something as realistic as this P47 cockpit recent update...but won't post the pictures, because it doesn't belong to this forum sadly. But you could simply try and read more carefully, for starters... "Good morning everyone, Let's look at a couple of cockpits today. First, here's the much more complete P-47 cockpit. Not in-engine yet (...)" Oops. Edited December 9, 2013 by Picchio
Picchio Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) will blast our screens, graphically talking never seen something as realistic oops? Yep. "Not in-engine yet". Edited December 9, 2013 by Picchio
DD_bongodriver Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Yep. "Not in-engine yet". Oh, why is that noteworthy? why would it need to be in engine yet, it's not finished and nobody is claiming it is.
Picchio Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Oh, why is that noteworthy? why would it need to be in engine yet, it's not finished and nobody is claiming it is. I know, I just think it'd preferably be in-engine rather than in another environment, in order to say that it will blast our screens, graphically talking... no? Edited December 9, 2013 by Picchio
DD_bongodriver Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Not really, DCS p-51 gives enough detail to realise it will look pretty much as given in game too.
Picchio Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Not really, DCS p-51 gives enough detail to realise it will look pretty much as given in game too. I get your point. But regardless of how much I also love the cockpit work in DCS, come on, it makes no sense to talk about it as graphically outstanding when the simulation as a whole is considered! Edited December 9, 2013 by Picchio
DD_bongodriver Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 No, even 777 have confirmed to us that BoS will be sacrificing in many ways simply to keep within budget and avoid the apparent catastrophe that Clod was, much of the blame on that apparent disaster was apportioned to over ambitious or frivolous eye candy and click pits, there is simply no comparison, BoS is making it's own ground in it's own niche, DCS and Clod are a different league.
ST_ami7b5 Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Yes, flying through trees is a different league... 1
Picchio Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Uhm, staying in the graphics department, I was indeed referring to DCS but yeah; approaches adopted by BoS/CloD/DCS are different. But from my experience, even if it confusedly seemed to seek out for the same spirit, CloD is very, very far from DCS. So there is no CloD and DCS league, I think. And leaving aside the instability of the graphics technology running CloD, I think there were much bigger problems within its own system to apportion its disaster to. That's why I can appreciate BoS a lot more. Edited December 9, 2013 by Picchio
DD_bongodriver Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Yes, flying through trees is a different league... Sure, if it's the most important thing in the world to you then it is, I guess everyone has their thing, but it sounds like the DCS engine is eventually going to cater for all the aspiring lumberjacks too. Uhm, staying in the graphics department, I was indeed referring to DCS but yeah; approaches adopted by BoS/CloD/DCS are different. But from my experience, even if it confusedly seemed to seek out for the same spirit, CloD is very, very far from DCS. So there is no CloD and DCS league, I think. And leaving aside the instability of the graphics technology running CloD, I think there were much bigger problems within its own system to apportion its disaster to. That's why I can appreciate BoS a lot more. Well Team Fusion have now blown all those theories out of the water, there was nothing inherently broken about Clod, it's working just fine now and improvements are still being made, Clod is maybe not the same league as DCS but rather a sidestep, not intended to be a study sim but still complex enough. Edited December 9, 2013 by DD_bongodriver
Krupi Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) While I am enjoying BoS I very much doubt it has anywhere near the potential that COD had, however externally speaking BoS looks quite good an improvement over RoF. Regarding trees, I don't know if it was due to the lack of collision model in COD, the fact I have not flown for a few months or that momentum is much more noticeable in BoS but ground attacks are more fun and harder... Edited December 9, 2013 by Krupi
ST_ami7b5 Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Sure, if it's the most important thing in the world to you then it is, I guess everyone has their thing, but it sounds like the DCS engine is eventually going to cater for all the aspiring lumberjacks too. Please explain "lumberjacks" - u know I'm not that good in english... I have backed DCS:WWII - but this (free tree ride) is what u called "making compromises". And this is the biggest compromise in elementary physics I've ever seen in CFSs, sry. Even War Thunder has solved it I really do hope they (DCS/RRG) will solve it too. BTW., it was you who started about "leagues" and "compromises", sry. Edited December 9, 2013 by ST_ami7b5
DD_bongodriver Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Please explain "lumberjacks" - u know I'm not that good in english... Men who cut down trees as a profession. BTW., it was you who started about "leagues" and "compromises", sry. Yes I know, I stand by it too.
ST_ami7b5 Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Oh, I thougt it's something nasty (lube spelling!, jack..), LOL! Must improve my English. Anyhow, game that allows planes fly through trees cannot be called simulator. Edited December 9, 2013 by ST_ami7b5 1
ST_ami7b5 Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Sry, but 'different leagues' and 'compromises' just provoked me... Will behave All this thread is useless until Spring 2014 anyhow.
DD_bongodriver Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Anyhow, game that allows planes fly through trees cannot be called simulator. Why? as long as it simulates the flying qualities of the aircraft in all it's detail it's a simulator, tree collisions are irrelevant and are purely for gaming immersion......guess it's no coincidence War Thunder has it then. 1
LizLemon Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Its worth noting that CloD allows end users to completely disable trees. I'd imagine that this was the reasoning for having no tree collisions. Just imagine the MP problems it would cause. 1
Krupi Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Its worth noting that CloD allows end users to completely disable trees. I'd imagine that this was the reasoning for having no tree collisions. Just imagine the MP problems it would cause. Yes, speedtree was a bad decision, or at least having it implemented like that was
ST_ami7b5 Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) Why? as long as it simulates the flying qualities of the aircraft in all it's detail it's a simulator, tree collisions are irrelevant and are purely for gaming immersion......guess it's no coincidence War Thunder has it then. OMG! No use to go on... Edited December 9, 2013 by ST_ami7b5
Krupi Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 As much as it pains me to say this, trees are needed, if only to stop the whimps from flying in them to get away! GRRR.... 1
ImPeRaToR Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 I guess any sort of terrain elevation is also irrelevant
ATAG_Slipstream Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Makes no difference to me, I usually fly at 5k plus, with a hard floor of 2-3k in combat, and always try to take off and land on runways, avoiding trees. Even in CoD I have never flown through a tree.
Fifi Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Anyhow, game that allows planes fly through trees cannot be called simulator. Ah, ok, so DCS isn't a simulator... More seriously, i wouldn't go so far...it's missing for sure, even cruelly missing for some (as you apparently), but it remains a minor issue to me, as far as the rest is top noch. Furthermore, tree top fighting is in ROF, not in WW2 simulations! I'd rather have plenty of aerials opponents than collisionable trees in fact... 1
BFsSmurfy Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 "Furthermore, tree top fighting is in ROF, not in WW2 simulations!" That would have come as a welcome surprise for those stuck in the Falaise gap, it`s alright Hans those Typhoons won`t come in low and shoot at us this is WW2 you know.
ImPeRaToR Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Not to mention that the typical altitude for air combat on the eastern front was 0-2000m, which is what we are simulating here.
DD_bongodriver Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Maybe the sky should end at 100', clearly it is irrelevant beyond that.
ATAG_Slipstream Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Excellent, makes sense to have collidable trees then.I will still carry on avoiding them.
ImPeRaToR Posted December 9, 2013 Posted December 9, 2013 Maybe the sky should end at 100', clearly it is irrelevant beyond that. Pretty sure 2km is higher than that medieval scale you are employing
Recommended Posts