Developer Diary, Part 151 - Discussion

[Uufflakke]

Fantastic work. It really does look great to me.

 

Looking at that top-down view of the landscape, I can't help but think what an amazing job you would do of the Markham river in New Guinea!

 

Isn't that coincidence?  

After seeing the first 3 images it reminded me instantly of the river textures you created for the New Guinea/Rabaul map for good ol' IL2:1946.   

 

online photo sharing

 

online photo sharing

[Guest deleted@50488]

Great News, as usual!  1C / 777 Rocks  

[JG4_Sputnik]

Isn't that coincidence?

After seeing the first 3 images it reminded me instantly of the river textures you created for the New Guinea/Rabaul map for good ol' IL2:1946. 

 

online photo sharing

 

online photo sharing

 

 

Interesting!

Guinea confirmed!   

[=FEW=Hauggy]

Very nice!

I'm glad torpedoes are planned ^^ Hopefully we'll get some on the Heinkel 111 too.

[Yakdriver]

YOU BEAUTIFUL B*****DSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!

YESS!!!!!

UPVOTE!

+1!!!!!

firetruck me.

I love the Type 7. Always did. Woa.

Dat Scenery. Pure Porn. Breathtaking. to be printed and framed.

Now a Tashkent, and i will Die.

You guys kick ass.

[mb339pan]

amazing job

[Custard]

Stunning.

[Frequent_Flyer]

The first screenshot looks like the Owen Stanley range....beautiful job devs. For a split second I thought the prospect of a third eastern venue was just a bad dream and on April first they will confirm Kuban was just an "April fools" joke .

[TheBlackPenguin]

I can see myself spending time just exploring the map in a Spt or A20 for sometime, looking real good!

[NoMoreSteam]

 

 

am I the only one who thinks this looks "only" ok-ish?

No, you are not.
New maps look good (and promising), but far from "incredible" or "absolutely wonderful" considering it is a 2017 game for $80.
It does not change the fact I can't wait to fly there

[Jade_Monkey]

No, you are not.

New maps look good (and promising), but far from "incredible" or "absolutely wonderful" considering it is a 2017 game for $80.

It does not change the fact I can't wait to fly there

 

Considering they dont have a AAA sized staff working on maps I think they did a great job.

[216th_Jordan]

How it would be just ok still strikes my mind though. some people here should really do an internship in a software company

[Dakpilot]

I am not sure what people are comparing it (BoK map) to....AAA multi million DX12 first person, small map, linear shooters, or procedurally generated photo landscape from civil sim, or what?

 

the whole graphics in this project have to be balanced with what can be 'flown' on a normal/realistic  computer spec with a large map with fairly intense physics/FM calculations happening all the time

there are only so many resources to go around,with a single Cessna with less sophisticated physics  I am fairly sure these same dev's could create something different

 

I don't know much about graphics/game development, but enough to say that....."Meh.. have see better"   is not an informed opinion in this instance, the very same people would most probably be complaining about 'poor optimization' in a different iteration

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[FlyingNutcase]

 

Amazing work. One question: In the first image the trees look great; in the second image they look unnatural (to me); What do you guys think?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

It's worth noting that the maps in Stalingrad are still 'handmade' as opposed to some of the sattelite imagery / auto gen scenery of other flight sim products which makes them look more artistic but not nessecarily worse.

 

In my opinion the ground texture looks a bit too graine from that height. Not sure if that's caused by the noise texture or the bumpmap, but again this map is still WIP and I'm looking forward to further progress.

[NoMoreSteam]

in the second image they look unnatural (to me); What do you guys think?

Definitely.

Uniform, flat color/contrast trees, unnatural ground shadows inside forests, rather rude ground textures.

Make 2 or 3 kind of trees, not just one multiplied 10 000 times. Object quantity will remain the same, so no effect to performance.

 

At farther distance the landscape is nice, though.

 

It looks like a good first attempt to create a beautiful landscape.

Edited March 11, 2017 by NoMoreSteam

[Freycinet]

I am not sure what people are comparing it (BoK map) to....AAA multi million DX12 first person, small map, linear shooters, or procedurally generated photo landscape from civil sim, or what?

 

the whole graphics in this project have to be balanced with what can be 'flown' on a normal/realistic  computer spec with a large map with fairly intense physics/FM calculations happening all the time

there are only so many resources to go around,with a single Cessna with less sophisticated physics  I am fairly sure these same dev's could create something different

 

I don't know much about graphics/game development, but enough to say that....."Meh.. have see better"   is not an informed opinion in this instance, the very same people would most probably be complaining about 'poor optimization' in a different iteration

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Some people are obviously comparing to first-person-shooter maps of 4 x 4 km... Ignorant of the fact that flight sims have to smoothly render infinitely bigger areas.

 

- These screenies are the first I have ever seen of a river organically forming part of the landscape in a flight sim. Usually we just get weird river textures that seem glued on top of the landscape. The sand banks here are a true work of art. They really tie the water together with the banks and the surrounding landscape.

[NoMoreSteam]

 

 

flight sims have to smoothly render infinitely bigger areas

So true!

I guess a lot can be done here without impact on performance.

The example of rivers and sand banks is great, these are made almost perfectly... so can be the forest/ground, I hope.

[Blutaar]

Good looking pics.

 

I like the speed of progression here but one thing bugs me, when will we get the option to further extend the view and renderdistance?

Im waiting patiently for years now but it seems it is not important or worse, it cant be done with this engine.

All those beautiful mountains and valleys i really would like to see them more on longer distances.

 

Anyway keep going, you do a good job!

[beepee]

Thanks for the update.

 

[THERION]

Hi folks,

 

the work shown on the actual dev diary is already great and looks very good (to me), although I know and presume it is still WIP. So let's be patient and let the devs

do their gorgeous job and encourage them in doing so.

 

One thought about requests of drivable PT-Boats etc. - don't you people think they first should concentrate on essentials, meaning Kuban map, new planes and objects?

 

And if they have spare time and budget so they would better refine and augment tanks instead of wasting resources in drivable boats? Just my opinion, so don't kill me for

this - thanks.

 

Cheers

[AndyJWest]

Hi folks,

 

the work shown on the actual dev diary is already great and looks very good (to me), although I know and presume it is still WIP. So let's be patient and let the devs

do their gorgeous job and encourage them in doing so.

 

One thought about requests of drivable PT-Boats etc. - don't you people think they first should concentrate on essentials, meaning Kuban map, new planes and objects?

 

And if they have spare time and budget so they would better refine and augment tanks instead of wasting resources in drivable boats? Just my opinion, so don't kill me for

this - thanks.

 

Cheers

 

I'm not sure why you consider driveable PT boats any more a waste of resources than tanks? Neither are necessary for an air combat simulator. The talks are however appreciated as a nice 'extra' and I can't see any objection to people offering an opinion that the same would be true of torpedo boats. And nobody is suggesting that the developers stop what they are doing with the 'essentials'. They seem to have a sensible enough approach to priorities, and are unlikely to take a few posts here as an instruction to stop work on core material. They may however be interested in our opinions, for possible consideration later.

[ShamrockOneFive]

A few days late but I finally had a chance to really check out the new screenshots and the latest update and I have to say that its looking pretty great!

 

The only thing let down here is that draw distance which I think will be more obvious with the mountains than the flatter terrain we've seen so far. That aside, the way that the textures, trees, rivers, and all of the supporting geometry come together is great. I can't wait to fly on the new map. I always liked how it looked in the old one and that was a far cry from anything we're seeing here.

[THERION]

I'm not sure why you consider driveable PT boats any more a waste of resources than tanks? Neither are necessary for an air combat simulator. The talks are however appreciated as a nice 'extra' and I can't see any objection to people offering an opinion that the same would be true of torpedo boats. And nobody is suggesting that the developers stop what they are doing with the 'essentials'. They seem to have a sensible enough approach to priorities, and are unlikely to take a few posts here as an instruction to stop work on core material. They may however be interested in our opinions, for possible consideration later.

 

I consider tanks / boats not necessary in a air combat sim too. I only suggested to work on tanks instead of boats as they already did some nice work on tanks and

for all three theatres (BOS, BOM and BOK) tanks were more involved and key elements in the battle. Just my thoughts...

[Phantom-103]

WOW!! The Map pictures look Stunning...Please tell me they look at least half that good in VR?

Am I correct to believe the new Destroyer will be player controlled? i.e BoS Tanks? Thank You for the Great Update.Cheers!

[AndyJWest]

Am I correct to believe the new Destroyer will be player controlled? 

 

No. The developers haven't said anything of the sort. A few forum members (myself included) have commented that we'd quite like to see player-controlled torpedo boats, but that is just a suggestion for an extra they might consider in the future. And torpedo boats are a darned sight simpler than destroyers. 

[216th_Peterla]

Hi devs,

I really like the work you did with the mountains and river, realistic and beautiful. Just my thoughts.

Regards,

[Uriah]

Rivers that actually look like rivers!  I am deeply grateful because for me it is a major improvement to help me suspend my disbelief as I 'fly' over an area.

[TG-55Panthercules]

A lot to like in these screenshots, but one thing was disappointing to me - from the first screenshot, it looks like the "bubble of blur" problem is likely to be just as bad on the new map as it has been on the first ones.  I was really hoping that at some point they would be able to address that, but I guess not yet.  Maybe someday I'll be able to enjoy flying this game doing what I really want to do most, i.e., ground pounding.  If they can get the DM on those destroyers done well (better than original IL-2) and can tone down the "chrome" nature of the water a bit, at least maybe I can have some fun doing some anti-shipping missions instead.

 

Still, overall, very impressed with the progress being made so far and really looking forward to the new/different terrain elements of this new map.

[1./KG4_Blackwolf]

I'm not seeing the line with the blur in it. I see fog after the first hill on the left. But not the line where it became a blur like I saw before in earlier builds.

Like this:

[Sokol1]

Are we going to have torpedo loadouts on some bombers to knock these war barges down? =D

 

In answer in "Question for developers" topic is said that on release not, maybe latter.

 

EDIT - Probable the 1st torpedo planes available will be these American and Japanese  for BoMyw in their EA, before that map are ready people will use in Kuban, and why not in Volga. 

Edited March 13, 2017 by Sokol1

[TG-55Panthercules]

I'm not seeing the line with the blur in it. I see fog after the first hill on the left. But not the line where it became a blur like I saw before in earlier builds.

Like this:

 

Well, maybe I'm misinterpreting what I'm seeing, but this is what I was referring to in my post above:

 

If that's just some kind of low-lying fog effect instead of the usual "bubble", then that is encouraging.

Edited March 13, 2017 by TG-55Panthercules

[Cpt_Cool]

 

Well, maybe I'm misinterpreting what I'm seeing, but this is what I was referring to in my post above:

 

If that's just some kind of low-lying fog effect instead of the usual "bubble", then that is encouraging.

I think that is just a ridge which is closer to the viewpoint than the trees in the background. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

That the map itself has huge quality, and is up there with Clod and DCS 2.0/5 is out of question i guess.

 

But the overall picture is pretty underwhelming in my opinion. After the introduction of DX11, i was hoping that this first new map will properly use the new technology, and get rid of the annoying haze and very short visibility range we have had so far (shorter then IL2 1946). I didn't expect DCS 2.0 like quality, but i was hoping that it will at least match Clod with it's Dirext X10 graphics engine..seems i was hoping for nothing so far. Mountains vanishing in the mist at very short distances, still the graphical feeling that you move in a submarine (slightly exxagerated, yeah i know). After seeing the introduction video of DCS Normandy map, it's kinda hard to go back to this visibility.

My hopes are still up for a better graphics engine in this franchise, at the very latest when we reach pacific where aircraft used to fly quite high, we have to get rid of this short visibility range...i was just hoping for it a little sooner, and so those pictures are leaving me a little disappointed. Didn't fly in ages although they have really made a good job further polishing a lot of aspects of the game.

[Fortis_Leader]

Wow, honestly didn't expect anyone to think that (no offence of course). DCS trailers at this rate are made up of so many cherry picked and altered shots that they're basically worthless at indicating how the actual product will look. IMHO, if you look at the DCS maps currently available, they're a good decade at least behind BoX maps graphics wise (and performance, size, etc.).

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Try again Anthony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6FKoyGX4uE

[Blutaar]

That the map itself has huge quality, and is up there with Clod and DCS 2.0/5 is out of question i guess.

 

But the overall picture is pretty underwhelming in my opinion. After the introduction of DX11, i was hoping that this first new map will properly use the new technology, and get rid of the annoying haze and very short visibility range we have had so far (shorter then IL2 1946). I didn't expect DCS 2.0 like quality, but i was hoping that it will at least match Clod with it's Dirext X10 graphics engine..seems i was hoping for nothing so far. Mountains vanishing in the mist at very short distances, still the graphical feeling that you move in a submarine (slightly exxagerated, yeah i know). After seeing the introduction video of DCS Normandy map, it's kinda hard to go back to this visibility.

My hopes are still up for a better graphics engine in this franchise, at the very latest when we reach pacific where aircraft used to fly quite high, we have to get rid of this short visibility range...i was just hoping for it a little sooner, and so those pictures are leaving me a little disappointed. Didn't fly in ages although they have really made a good job further polishing a lot of aspects of the game.

I 100% agree with all you said.

 

Sure the caucasus map looks kind of ugly but it will get overhauled for free and the new normandy map looks so nice to me, i dont think its bad looking comapred to BoX and will have far superior viewdistance and i guess renderdistance too.

That alone is a huge plus for DCS and i really hope that BoX will get both, view and renderdistance far better then now, i mean as far as my machine can do with good enough fps, i think of an stepless slider like ArmA 3 has, that would be really nice.

 

Anyway BoX is still a really nice game and i play it alot more then DCS, the kuban map looks great from these pics and i cant wait to see it live.

 

edit: Is that kerbal space program music in the posted video above in the beginning, best game ever.

Edited March 13, 2017 by Ishtaru

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Sure the caucasus map looks kind of ugly but it will get overhauled for free and the new normandy map looks so nice to me, i dont think its bad looking comapred to BoX and will have far superior viewdistance and i guess renderdistance too. That alone is a huge plus for DCS and i really hope that BoX will get both, view and renderdistance far better then now, i mean as far as my machine can do with good enough fps, i think of an stepless slider like ArmA 3 has, that would be really nice.   Anyway BoX is still a really nice game and i play it alot more then DCS, the kuban map looks great from these pics and i cant wait to see it live.

 

Yeah i don't want people to get me wrong. I wasn't talking about the map itself, meaning the "visible assets". They are definitely top draw, and look very realistic and homogenous. I was talking about the whole visual experience, and this one is seriously hampered by the haze/artificial white wall. It's apparent in all screenshots Han showed, even the third one looking top down. Whole landscape hazed from what is probably not more then 6 or 7k. It completely destroys the look of this game, getting worse the higher you fly. I'd prefer crappy "close up" graphics like DCS 1.5 over this 100 times, when you get a realistic visibility range instead. Be assured, the day BoX get's the visibility and rendering from even Clod, i'll cut capers all day. Because that's by far it's biggest shortcoming to date - it's only big shortcoming by now i'd say. 

I don't play both currently. DCS has no proper WW2 gameplay, BoX graphics put me off currently. Stay with my racing Sims until something changes

[Fortis_Leader]

Try again Anthony

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6FKoyGX4uE

 

Sure, it looks nice from very, very far away. But "she looks great from a distance" is hardly a compliment...

Fly low and you'll see gross satellite photography copy pasted terrain, razor sharp edges, 2D trees, etc. And keep in mind that the NTTR which looks somewhat better is a tiny map, and a staggering +30GB large. All of BoX times three, for a single small map.

[Gambit21]

The DCS maps look extremely nice no doubt.

You can also say the same thing about their AC and ground units.

 

However look at the rate in which that content is being created and released - I can best characterize it as glacial.

This would not be sustainable for BoX.

 

As I've said before I think we have a good balance here.

Yes I'd like to see a bit more time put into a few things where I know it would have been no problem.

The low polys and low res texture on that center Ju52 engine for instance that you have to stare at outside the cockpit.

That's a little early 90's in execution imho. Cockpit textures need a more time and pixels.

 

By and large however until DCS starts cranking out content at a much faster rate, or until this team slows WAY down, then it's a bit of an apples/oranges scenario. I think that map looks gorgeous - can't wait to fly on it.