Jump to content
Han

Developer Diary, Part 151 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

 

 

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.

Since the haze and the artificial white wall, as well as the 9,5km visibility distance are all engine related, i guess it wouldn't make any difference in how long a map takes to build. You'd have to sort the engine out once, and be done with it. And it can't be too hard, if even such old engines like Clod and DCS 1.0 manage(d) it. 

I guess the issue is an artefact from Rise of Flight, where long visibility didn't matter, since the planes are so slow, and can't fly high. I am confident the Devs will sort it out in the future, as they did with many other issues. I am just disappointed, because in this case i expected too much, and thought the first full DX 11 map will already have severe improvements in that matter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the haze and the artificial white wall, as well as the 9,5km visibility distance are all engine related, i guess it wouldn't make any difference in how long a map takes to build. You'd have to sort the engine out once, and be done with it. And it can't be too hard, if even such old engines like Clod and DCS 1.0 manage(d) it. 

I guess the issue is an artefact from Rise of Flight, where long visibility didn't matter, since the planes are so slow, and can't fly high. I am confident the Devs will sort it out in the future, as they did with many other issues. I am just disappointed, because in this case i expected too much, and thought the first full DX 11 map will already have severe improvements in that matter...

I hear you.

I think a lot of what has to be navigated when producing assets is simply game engine related, and as you say we'll see continuing improvements over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice ship, but no humans on board. I hope that the ships will have some animations related to humans moving on board or manning the air defence guns.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice ship, but no humans on board. I hope that the ships will have some animations related to humans moving on board or manning the air defence guns.

Most of the guns and objects are manned in the current installments. I suspect they will have mixed static and animated crews aboard at release. WIP and all......

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I got so sidetracked worrying about the possible "bubble of blur" issue on that first screenshot that I forgot to mention the ship.  Pretty nice-looking so far, though it certainly looks like the flag is awfully small relative to the scale/size of the ship.

 

Oh wait, I'm sorry, is it too early to start nit-picking yet? :)

 

Semi-seriously, I would hope that the devs have better pictures/resources than I've been able to find, but some of the pictures of these destroyers that I've found so far for this type in this time period show her flying a much larger flag from the stern, with the later (1944-45) period showing the smaller flag where it's shown on the screenshots.  I don't know which is really more correct, but the larger flag would make IFF easier during an attack run so if it is historically appropriate it would be nice to see it implemented that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The developers have to make a sim that runs reasonably well on medium-sized gaming rigs.

 

They are focusing on giving us superior FM's, DM's and AI to create a realistic and compelling air combat experience.

 

They also try to enable a good amount of planes in the air (+ ground activity) to give us a living battlefield.

 

All of this competes for clock cycles with the rendering of a beautiful landscape.

 

I think they are getting the balance just about right. This sim is amazing in its entirety because all the elements are weighted pretty optimally.

 

It is easy to clamour for improvements as an outsider without responsibility for a well-functioning whole. Sure we could get better this and better that, but what would the effect be on the other elements of the sim?

 

The devs surely don't love the present render distance but you can be certain they put it in there for a reason. If they enlarged it we wouldn't have a fluid air combat sim but a clunky sight-seeing sim.

 

Let's perhaps give the devs some credit and not assume that they are completely incompetent. I think they have proven their abilities until now.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

The devs surely don't love the present render distance but you can be certain they put it in there for a reason. If they enlarged it we wouldn't have a fluid air combat sim but a clunky sight-seeing sim.

 

Let's perhaps give the devs some credit and not assume that they are completely incompetent.

 

-snip-

 

Yeah, they set the render distance before DX11 integration and it is a carryover from the now-ancient ROF. That doesn't mean that as technology (ies) change that stretching the boundaries isn't possible. That is possibly the most presumptuous thing I've read on the forums in a while.

 

And I didn't get the impression at all that Panthercules is even implying that anybody is incompetent.

Edited by Space_Ghost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would an altitude threshold be possible for targets? Say above a certain height, target objects appear through the bubble blur?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bubble draws all objects. I am sure that it is nearly impossible to implement a well working solution for exceptions like yours mentioned Scojo. With all the optimizations we have seen I am quite sure that we will see an increase in the future. 9.5km just cant stay when everything else in this game is advanced. You can spot at 9.5 km and still be competitive, so maybe it could be an option to enable different render distances selectable for the user (like: normal = 9.5km / extended = 14 km). That way a user could choose better performance or better visibility. Not sure how the implementation with multiplayer would work or if that even produces a problem.

 

One thing that could happen and that I would very much like to see implemented is that the bubble gets transferred into a cylinder.

The higher you fly the less you see from the ground: This does not make sense! Why have a bubble in a world that is rather 2 dimensional... Most objects are on the ground! There are no more objects drawn with a cylindrical shape but they can be seen from high above too and planes rarely fly over 10km altitude anyways :biggrin:

 

Sphere vs. Cylinder: On ground level both will draw the same amount of ground objects. at altitude the drawn ground objects will drastically decrease for the sphere.

 

sa-sphere1_2.png

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

All of this competes for clock cycles with the rendering of a beautiful landscape. I think they are getting the balance just about right. This sim is amazing in its entirety because all the elements are weighted pretty optimally.
 

Maybe the balance is perfectly for your prefered time of gameplay. I was fine with it too, as long as i wasn't in a squad, and mostly a lone-wolf. But since then, and compared to flying in Il2 1946 or Cliffs the current model isn't optimal in many circumstances at all.

1. Organized flying within a lose formation and let's say 8 ship is almost not possible. When you are used to having a pretty good overview about what is going on within bigger scale battles in Cliffs or 1946 (who have 16km render distance), and then transfer to BoX it feels pretty much like you are blind, and the result is often chaos and people losing each other all the time. I like a challenge, but this is just annoying.

2. Bombing from high alt: you don't even see your targets..that's pretty much unacceptable, and renders this type of gameplay almost useless. 

 

That's two massive losses in a gameplay perspective, not even talking about the visual presentation of the game. When you are flying at high alt, it just looks like shit.

 

 

 

The devs surely don't love the present render distance but you can be certain they put it in there for a reason. If they enlarged it we wouldn't have a fluid air combat sim but a clunky sight-seeing sim.

Cliffs manages a good renderdistance without blur or mist and the performance is just fine, even with rather weak rigs. It even has long distance reflections. With a less capable engine.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a cylinder? I don't recall not being able to see ground objects at a 10k out. The map render distance bubble always seems to line up with the point at which I can see stuff on the ground. Granted I haven't ever bombed above 5km though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to wait for other subsystem which game is created would be overhauled or replaced. Then changing draw distance would be possible and do not break the game. Those are big things and not easy to do, in other words - needs man-hours. As we know they produce new theaters of war that will utilize technologies which to be created, so they move forward overall but left somethings to other time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure the draw distance is high on the to do list. However, with the statements Jason has been making since he was put in charge, I think they were really close to being shut down after BoM didn't do so well. It seems BoK is the last chance to prove this can turn any kind of profit and they had to plan very carefully how to best spend the development time available to them in order to bring us back from the brink. I imagine it's like when my wife gives me $400 to spend on guitar gear and I carefully scrutinize every possibility to make sure I can get the most of every penny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In anything that we humans design, be it video games, or automobiles, or houses...  there are compromises.  These compromises are circumscribed by many things, but the main one is always the budget.

 

If Jason and the dev team in Moscow had a budget like, say, Mass Effect has, then we could have all we want and much much more.

However, that is not, nor will it ever be, the case.  The "glory days" of major studio big budget, and big player base, flight simming are over.  We are very much a niche player base, off in a very small corner of the wider computer gaming world.  As such we too have to make some compromises.

 

If we want it all and want it now, well, we can't.  So, we have some choices to make.

 

We can have the DCS model, where you have amazing in depth modeling of systems, and maps that work for very high flying jets, but the compromise is that you have to pay a high price for each and every item and the development is very slow.

 

Or...

 

You can have a more reasonably priced sim, with more content released more often, and the compromise is that the edge of the envelope things take longer and are worked in over time, but you have a playable, fleshed out scenario, out of the gate.

 

This is where we are at, and where we will be for the foreseeable future.

 

I've made my choice, and this sim is it.

Edited by BlitzPig_EL
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was a cylinder? I don't recall not being able to see ground objects at a 10k out. The map render distance bubble always seems to line up with the point at which I can see stuff on the ground. Granted I haven't ever bombed above 5km though

 

It's definitely shperic, just tested it again. It's a real problem the higher you get. At 5km altitude your ground draw distance radius is ~8.6km, at 6 km altitude it's 8 km. In the faster bombers you will travel those 8km almost while the bomb drops so you have to drop the bomb 10 seconds after the target appears in draw range. (At 6km a bomb drops up to 45 seconds)

 

But anyways, don't want to stir up the pot, I'm sure a solution is being thought about.

Edited by 216th_Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree more with BlitzPig_EL

I think I can agree a bit more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to know how many people play this game because of the nice closeup graphics, i do not.

 

I would prefer longer distances over better graphics and lets be honest, BoX is not so much better then DCS or CloD graphics wise like some suggests at least in my opinion, it has a slight edge but the bubble destroys it and looking at normandy im not sure anymore.

 

So i think it would be better to increase the view and renderdistance and decrease the graphics quality before BoK and if all goes well after BoK release they could maybe bring back the old graphics quality but with increased range of visibilty.

I know its not that easy and i have no clue what there situation is but its just me thinking what i would like to have, of course on price of a later BoK release if needed, i already paid so yeah. :)

 

But if the situation is really that bad i can wait after BoK and then i wanna have more view distance and better AI before any new content and i hope im not the minority because if so i have to move to another game, i dont pay for another addon with these things not adressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some framerate drop is not a problem for many of us with modern rigs.  My PC is now rendering BoS at 60 fps + nearly all the time: if it was 40 fps I would be just about as happy.

 

In RoF we had render distance on a slider and I do not recall the MP people complaining that it was unfair that this was not the same for everyone. Even if they did, it is not clear to me why this should limit SP possibilities.

 

When you get to the Pacific in particular, the current short render distance will make finding ship targets incredibly difficult compared to RL.

 

I like Jordan's idea of a cylinder - while I agree that extra air spotting render distance would be nice to have, it is seeing distant objects on the ground - or on the water - while at altitude that is essential and currently impossible.

 

Please make the bubble a cylinder (or perhaps even a cone) and give us the distance on a slider. People will then find the trade-off between fps and distance that works for them.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure I hit 250 FPS at altitude on Berloga today... I could spare a few frames for better render distance  ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like it is progressing nicely.

It certainly has potential to be a great battle zone.

 

Would be great to see the map/environment pictures without the blue fog in the background killing the draw distance (hopefully this is just because it is still Alpha) and I hope the water is improved as it develops as it looks more like a sea of shiny mercury right now than the beautiful blue of the black sea.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of us with fast rigs can spare some frames - but what percentage of the customer base do we represent?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that would be nicely solved by having proper graphics options. Slider to choose drawing distance. More advanced options are still coming, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of us with fast rigs can spare some frames - but what percentage of the customer base do we represent?

 

I agree Gambit. (Also with Blitz Pig).

Again it comes down to what we want and are we willing to Pay for It ? I don't  just mean money.

The Devs are a small team. They don't have a huge Budget. They have to write the Sim to run on all kinds of Rigs.

I am very lucky to be one of the community that can afford to have a 2017 Rig that is pretty much "Top of the Range" at the moment...(I hope I said that with Humility).

So, like you, I would be glad to lose FPS to extend the "Bubble"...I don't like the "bubble" as it is.

But one thing that annoys me is when Pilots Demand that Devs Make Improvements that "Must" be Backward Compatible. So they have a 3 year old Rig and they want Devs to improve Draw distance for them...When the FPS drops, They will call it a Slide Show.

These Pilots Don't look at their own Hardware....They just want the 2017 Software to Run Flawlessly  with 2014 Hardware.... After-all , they paid for the Sim in 2014 , they want all the Improvements in BOX going forward...They Want VR Now !

I think some Pilots need to "Get- Real".

EDIT, I have an Old Nokia phone in the Drawer...Maybe I should ask the why I cant see any Video in 1080 on it ?

Edited by jaydee
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those of us with fast rigs can spare some frames - but what percentage of the customer base do we represent?

 

I agree Gambit. (Also with Blitz Pig).

Again it comes down to what we want and are we willing to Pay for It ? I don't  just mean money.

The Devs are a small team. They don't have a huge Budget. They have to write the Sim to run on all kinds of Rigs.

I am very lucky to be one of the community that can afford to have a 2017 Rig that is pretty much "Top of the Range" at the moment...(I hope I said that with Humility).

So, like you, I would be glad to lose FPS to extend the "Bubble"...I don't like the "bubble" as it is.

But one thing that annoys me is when Pilots Demand that Devs Make Improvements that "Must" be Backward Compatible. So they have a 3 year old Rig and they want Devs to improve Draw distance for them...When the FPS drops, They will call it a Slide Show.

These Pilots Don't look at their own Hardware....They just want the 2017 Software to Run Flawlessly  with 2014 Hardware.... After-all , they paid for the Sim in 2014 , they want all the Improvements in BOX going forward...They Want VR Now !

I think some Pilots need to "Get- Real".

EDIT, I have an Old Nokia phone in the Drawer...Maybe I should ask the why I cant see any Video in 1080 on it ?

 

Quite honestly I think this is all irrelevant.

 

Probably most players are still working off a 1080p resolution monitor - I only changed to 4HD this week - but that did not stop the team providing a 4HD resolution option or indeed now 4HD skins.

 

They are working on VR - which I expect only a minority of people will use for the foreseeable future. The graphics quality settings go up to far beyond what an older PC can handle.

 

Changing the render range in RoF is done by a simple GUI slider - basically it is one number in a formula, the radius of the circle. Hardly needing huge programming resources to make this variable by the user.

 

BoS is currently inferior to RoF in rendering in certain respects - rendering in RoF affected all placed objects, but in BoS try looking at static aircraft etc: they vaporize at far less than the render range for flying aircraft, making even simple strafing runs tricky, let alone medium altitude bombing.

 

IMHO this is all just a hangover from the "all players must have the same experience" mentality that wrecked BoS as an SP game on it's launch and is now - hurrah! - being done away with.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want more draw distance, expect framerate drop.

 

Jason

 

Sounds good to me :biggrin: would of course be nice if It could be an option so players who don't have the computing power don't suffer from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good to me :biggrin: would of course be nice if It could be an option so players who don't have the computing power don't suffer from it.

 

I agree, and it would be cruel to rob us of a good reason to spend more money upgrading our rigs. That would mean that i would be stuck with this GPU for more than one year... The horror....

 

Grt M

Edited by I./ZG1_Martijnvdm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd welcome render range to become a option just like the grass display range (even if just for ground objects). Would make bombing from high altitude a lot easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's definitely shperic, just tested it again. It's a real problem the higher you get. At 5km altitude your ground draw distance radius is ~8.6km, at 6 km altitude it's 8 km. In the faster bombers you will travel those 8km almost while the bomb drops so you have to drop the bomb 10 seconds after the target appears in draw range. (At 6km a bomb drops up to 45 seconds)

 

But anyways, don't want to stir up the pot, I'm sure a solution is being thought about.

Ok, thanks. I'll keep that in mind

 

You want more draw distance, expect framerate drop.

 

Jason

Would moving render distance from a sphere to a cylinder be a good solution since at ground level, you'll get the normal render distance, while getting a "longer" one at higher altitudes where framerates are usually higher anyway?

Edited by 71st_AH_Scojo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You want more draw distance, expect framerate drop.

 

Jason

Yes please! I have got a high end computer...and like to use bombers ( need more draw distance).

And thanks for your good work (and the team) on this sim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make rendering distance a premium option.

 

USD 1.OO per 1 meter extension cap at 20km

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds good to me :biggrin: would of course be nice if It could be an option so players who don't have the computing power don't suffer from it.

Wouldn't multi-player then devolve into "pay to win" where those with the best video cards have a significant competitive advantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't multi-player then devolve into "pay to win" where those with the best video cards have a significant competitive advantage?

 

Pay to win is maybe a bit exaggerated, but yeah it will give players with a better rig an advantage.

 

Grt M 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't multi-player then devolve into "pay to win" where those with the best video cards have a significant competitive advantage?

 

Is that the case in any other game with custom graphics settings?

Pay to win is maybe a bit massively exaggerated

 

-snip- 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

40 FPS is not really acceptable or a standard to even consider aiming for in 2017

 

Dumbing down graphics quality in 2017 is not a recipe for commercial success either

 

In a combat flight sim where identifying your enemy first is the biggest advantage, having a situation where owners of mid range equipment are at a disadvantage and people with $700 GPU and latest and fastest CPU can spot targets earlier will lead to disaster, and only owners of top range equipment playing online, of course online is only a part of the big picture, but if the majority are constantly out flown because of better spotting not better flying/tactics the backlash will be justifiably huge

 

currently owners of mid range equipment can turn down many graphic niceties, but still get the same core experience/equal playing field at acceptable frame rates

 

having a slider or option allowing for enhanced view distance only for 'some' with playable frame rates is not a good idea at all, it is no different than having a "beneficial Hack" available for use by only a select few

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-snip-

 

having a slider or option allowing for enhanced view distance only for 'some' with playable frame rates is not a good idea at all, it is no different than having a "beneficial Hack" available for use by only a select few

 

-snip-

 

Like Sshadow claims to have..?

 

I think it's also a poor idea to limit customers who have made the capital investment to own the latest hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will it give players an advantage? Yes maybe to a point. But it has always been like that:

 

I bought a gtx 1070 last year, I overlocked my cpu heavily, I can run my 2k monitor with DSR and have fantastic results that let me be better at spotting than others. Thats a decisive advantage.

 

BUT: Right now it is hard to spot fighter planes form further away than 7 or 8 kilometers anyways! Only big bombers or If you look for targets very specifically will you be able to spot at ranges further away.  On the other hand bombing will get a lot easier as well as CAP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would leaving the maximum draw distance 'fog' as is and increasing the pop-in range for planes have a serious effect on performance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...