Stalingrad map

[falstaff]

Freycinet said:
 

To everybody wanting more rubble, 3d building structures, more telephone poles, more smoke, more everything, I can just say that it is vey easy to suggest extras when you don't have to care about frame rates as the developers have to.

 

 

It is a question of balance, and atmosphere. To me, the city looks anaemic and repetitive (from screenshots, I dont have the early version). Some of those buildings could doubtless be replaced with other sorts of items.

 

Also, the engine appears to be efficient, and a wider variety of objects would not necessarily tax it unduly. I am guessing you have no greater knowledge of the engine capabilities than I do, or anyone else.

 

Further objects wouldn't even necessarily have to be quad mapped textures in all cases - if the going gets tough there is always our good old friend the sprite to fall back on...

 

Many people are probably well aware of freame-rate vs object-creep.

 

The suggestion of more colour is a good one. It looks too drab, and therefore one-dimensional.

[TheBlackPenguin]

The Digital Nature Engine, which was built for RoF (mid 2009) and which has now added the "new feature" called Bump mapping (which appeared in games 12 years ago....)

 

Thank you, the original text made it you meant they were using the same engine as the original Il2 lol, or at least that's how I read it .

 

BOS is using DN 2.0 I wish we could get a feature set like it is detailed here as bump mapping on the terrain may help, although to be honest I had not really noticed it in ROF.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CryEngine

 

Having said that, should we expect the same level of advancement as Cryengine? Especially considering Cryengine is much more of an FPS orientated engine made by Crytek whose target audience dwarfs our niche product. Although I do have other thoughts on ways to to attract new players beyond War Thunder...Still it comes down to money . Honestly the more successful BOS is the more likely and faster we'll be seeing improvements.

 

Back on topic, Stalingrad is rather dull, but lets not forget we're dealing with a winter map which will by its nature will be quite bland, heavy snows tend to make things really monochrome, but I hope a steady hand can make it more alive , perhaps by showing some of the red bricks without going overboard, which is likely as this is the first time we've seen the whole map in game. Is it an easy task?

 

Found some images here, scroll down to view:

 

http://incredibleimages4u.blogspot.com/2011/08/unseen-pictures-from-battle-of.html

[Jaws2002]

One thing I just noticed. Those big smoke plumes cast no shadows. It looks pretty weird without shadows.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Jaws2002

[FlatSpinMan]

Jeez there are some unforgiving, critical people here.

[Freycinet]

+1 Flatspinman.... - It is bordering on the ridiculous.

[71st_AH_Hooves]

Hey can someone fly from one side to the other. Tell me how long it takes?

[steppenwolf]

Video game design is a very competitive art. With extremely sharp looking games out there right now, and in development, gamers continually have their expectations raised. FM, AI, particle effects, models, shadows and lighting; they are all scrutinized over now. I think it's great that gamers are becoming connoisseurs, it's Darwinian.  

[JG4_Sputnik]

The point is that the digital nature engine is too limited for state of the art visual fidelity landscapes imho (no 64 bit support, limitation of static and dynamic objects).

A ten year old horse just wont win a race anymore. Also unfortunately the devs have no time to add more details (making a sim in a bit over one year, well...) so here we are.

 

The cpu power is not the issue anymore, if you compare it to CloD's London which runs (now) very smoothly with thousands of highly textured 3D houses. Its ridiculous that some people think that adding telegraph poles would ruin the fps. The average sim pc has got 8gigs of ram, come on.

The sad thing is that we will be sticking with the engine for the next few years, then it will look REALLY outdated I fear.

[Emgy]

Don't get so hung up on on 64bit Arma 3 uses a 32 bit client and has tons of detail.

 

Engines can always be upgraded. Call of Duty Ghosts (2013) engine is still based on the quake 3 arena engine (1999), of course everything has been re-written many times since Coduty 1.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Calvamos

[-JG2-SilencerBF]

I just don't like that the engine does not use the performance of my PC. For me it looks like an optimisation problem, even on ultra I get only 50% gpu/CPU load but low fps.

Maybe it's because my cpu is 5 years old, so please if you have a newer cpu check your cpu/gpu usage+fps (MSI afterburner or radeon pro) and post here.

[Quax]

The cpu power is not the issue anymore, if you compare it to CloD's London which runs (now) very smoothly with thousands of highly textured 3D houses. Its ridiculous that some people think that adding telegraph poles would ruin the fps.

 

 

Different people just have different demands     ...if AI planes are non-FM drones, no CPU is needed for them f.e. 

 

RoF has very nice houses, cathedrales and castles and it is the same engine. It´s not the engine, it´s the time needed to do all the little details. What´s the sense of programming 5 years,

when in the end the vital parts don´t work ? I like Stalingrad, BTW.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Quax

[Volkoff]

The Stalingrad map is neat-o. I really love sim flying very low over the buildings. I am very impressed by all of the details that went into the city, too. I think the team did a great job. MJ 

[BraveSirRobin]

CoD's trees look fantastic as you fly right through them...  Comparing BoS to the best features of every game out there is a little ridiculous.

[Rama]

the digital nature engine is too limited for state of the art visual fidelity landscapes

You don't know anything about the capacities and limitations of the DN engine. So don't spread rumors about it there.

[Tycoon]

But if the digital nature engine is object limited, how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of trees that are all collidable?

[TheBlackPenguin]

The point is that the digital nature engine is too limited for state of the art visual fidelity landscapes imho (no 64 bit support, limitation of static and dynamic objects).

A ten year old horse just wont win a race anymore. Also unfortunately the devs have no time to add more details (making a sim in a bit over one year, well...) so here we are.

 

The cpu power is not the issue anymore, if you compare it to CloD's London which runs (now) very smoothly with thousands of highly textured 3D houses. Its ridiculous that some people think that adding telegraph poles would ruin the fps. The average sim pc has got 8gigs of ram, come on.

The sad thing is that we will be sticking with the engine for the next few years, then it will look REALLY outdated I fear.

 

Sputnik, I have no idea where you're pulling numbers from, but I suggest looking here http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey as Steam have the stats from millions of PC's its arguably one of the best places to find data.

[III/JG11_Tiger]

The point is that the digital nature engine is too limited for state of the art visual fidelity landscapes imho (no 64 bit support, limitation of static and dynamic objects).

A ten year old horse just wont win a race anymore. Also unfortunately the devs have no time to add more details (making a sim in a bit over one year, well...) so here we are.

 

The cpu power is not the issue anymore, if you compare it to CloD's London which runs (now) very smoothly with thousands of highly textured 3D houses. Its ridiculous that some people think that adding telegraph poles would ruin the fps. The average sim pc has got 8gigs of ram, come on.

The sad thing is that we will be sticking with the engine for the next few years, then it will look REALLY outdated I fear.

Looks fine to me this is not a FPS on a small map this is a flight sim covering a large area that also need to be able to incorporate flight and damage modelling etc...its also only 38% complete so really to early to judge.

[FuriousMeow]

I seem to recall the original Il-2's graphics engine evolving over time to introduce further terrain draw distances, better clouds, graphically amazing water, and other items through it's course of a ten year run.

 

But this DN engine, oh it's so terrible - it runs stable, looks very good as is and is still being evolved, has every tree rendered and each one can be collided with, and is multi-core optimized rather than somewhere else that just tossed the sound processing onto a second core and left everything else on the primary core.

 

It's quite awe inspiring, in the face palm kind of way, that something could be bashed so hard for being incomplete when it's in the middle of development and of course it's incomplete - it says so right in the game menu - 38%.

Edited January 20, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[JG4_Sputnik]

Sputnik, I have no idea where you're pulling numbers from, but I suggest looking here http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey as Steam have the stats from millions of PC's its arguably one of the best places to find data.

Yup, thanks, it also it says 8 Gigs. I read it somewhere on simhq, and flight sim pc's tend to be a bit more powerful than the average gaming pc.

 

Sure, everybody has their demands which is fine. I'm just very fond to flight sim terrain, I like to fly low and it's a huge immersion killer for me when I see houses made of 2D sprites, even more in 2014. Landmarks in the city are very nicely done, but the standard houses are imho just not good enough. I wonder why they are as low res as they were in the original IL2? Others couldn't care less - thats fine. I just can't hear the argument anymore that we have to have a city look like this in 2014 or nobody would be able to play it because of low fps. It's clearly and firstly a time issue, as I stated before.

And I don't think it needs additional 5 years "to make a sim that still is unplayable", but maybe 3-6 months more to put some more love in the details. Because you can kill every argument by telling people that it's not feasable because of the business model - then why make a sim in the first place?

 

Anyway, we will see how the product turns out in the end, I just whis people wouldn't be so agressive if someone doesn't like a specific part of the game. I mean the whole reason this forum exists is to discuss things and be emotional about it and shake hands in the end and meet in the sky in an online war. I can be critical about a product and support it anyway. At least that's how it works where I come from.

[Finkeren]

Honestly, while visuals are somewhat important, I think we have more or less reached a point graphics wise, where it's more a question of getting the things right that influence gameplay, such as LOD. I don't need telephone poles or extra eye candy to feel immersed. The only point, where I truly think ROF and BoS falls short is in their lack of a "decal" system of markings on planes and vehicles, which force an unpleasant choice between having squadrons of clones or the extremely work-intensive and CPU-demanding solution if having one unique skin Per plane in a mission.

 

What I need is proper FM (and that's where the DN engine truly delivers) and most of all:

 

Proper AI with tactical awareness, realistic FOV and a sense of self-preservation. That I still haven't got from a CFS, ever.

[JG4_Sputnik]

But if the digital nature engine is object limited, how do you explain the hundreds of thousands of trees that are all collidable?

That indeed is a plus. Now again, I could live with nicer looking trees that are not collidable (or only every 3rd is or whatever), others couldnt. And again, thats fine.

My post about limitation of objects was about the fact that the devs stated earylier (I guess it's in the "what we know so far"-threat) that it will not be possible to make huge scale battles with the DN engine.

[Quax]

 I like to fly low and it's a huge immersion killer for me when I see houses made of 2D sprites, even more in 2014.

 

 

Which sim do you fly low then ?  Surely not a sim, where you can fly through trees. This is a real immersion killer when flying low  

 

About houses:  Did you see the nice RoF houses, cathedrals, castles etc. ?  In Stalingrad you have ruins. You can go ahead and rebuild them using 3D bricks if you like. Perhaps they will include your work, when it is finished 

 

 

My post about limitation of objects was about the fact that the devs stated earylier (I guess it's in the "what we know so far"-threat) that it will not be possible to make huge scale battles with the DN engine.

 

 

As Rama said, you have no clue about the DN engine. But I know, where your "knowledge" comes from      (you stated it yourself in another post)

 

BTW, I hate AI planes and fly almost exclusively online. But at least you have "real FM planes" flown by AI in the DN engine. What are "huge scale battles" worth, if there are no planes, but UFOs "flying" around ?

Edited January 20, 2014 by Quax

[SYN_DerHesse70]

Very nice map and update!!    I really like the map.

 

The buildings are no problem for me. I don't fly at 10m over the ground all the time. And if i'm huntig an aircraft with 500km/h i have no time to look at buildings. The main thing is smooth gameplay.

 

The smoke over stalingrad is one of the best i ever see in a game!! Absolutely amazing atmosphere.

 

On ultra and everything maxed out i have 43fps on the deck and 60fps max (fps limit is at 60fps). Everything runs absolutely smooth.

 

The toe brakes of the BF109 is fixed and the DM is much better now. No breaking gun sight in the first attack.

 

I'm very pleased so far.

[Matt]

I think the buildings in Stalingrad look too dark and black. Almost makes it look like a black/white photograph.

 

The villages, trees and the like outside the town look a bit too much aligned. The forests look unnatural.

 

But overall, i think it looks alright. Not impressive, but maybe they can still improve upon it. The smoke looks nice from afar, but the shadows are missing. I'm curious if they will cast shadows in the final version.

 

I barely notice any performance difference between the 50 km and the unlimited map btw.

 

Biggest problem i have with the look of the map right now, is the very low rendering distance of the objects and forests. That's more a general issue and not a problem of the map itself, but it degrades the impression of the map a lot.

[FlatSpinMan]

Let's all stay away from personal stuff.

 

I agree that Sputnik does post a lot of critical stuff here, and personally, it does irritate me a bit as I see this sim as developing very well - especially given the insanely short development period - whereas he seems to see the negatives more. My opinion and preferences seem quite different to his when it comes to sims, but that's just life. He also posts that he does support the sim, and, when all is said and done, he is just posting his opinion, not some ultimate, incontestable truth.

 

So feel free to refute his points, as you should anyone else's, but just leave it there.

 

Equally, Sputnik, and this isn't actually aimed squarely at you, btw, it does get tired reading posts comparing this work in progress sim unfavourably to a 'finished' sim, that, before modding apparently improved it (I say 'apparently' as I haven't tried the game since TF got to work on it), bombed massively, not just with gaming review sites but also with a large community of diehard fans who really, really wanted it to work. That's why your comments bother people, IMO.

 

 

 

Matt - some of those woods struck me as fake looking too,but presumably they're based on pics of planted woods in the area.

[Picchio]

Back to the topic!

Of course it remains to be seen if and how it's manageable performance-wise, but I really hope that the team finds a way to make those black smoke columns rising from the city visible from much further away!

 

Also, like Matt says, to improve the rendering distance of buildings, but that will probably come... as for the "aligned" villages and trees in the vicinity of the city, isn't it possible that they are just because they actually were arranged like that?

Edited January 20, 2014 by Picchio

[JG4_Sputnik]

Let's all stay away from personal stuff.

 

I agree that Sputnik does post a lot of critical stuff here, and personally, it does irritate me a bit as I see this sim as developing very well - especially given the insanely short development period - whereas he seems to see the negatives more. My opinion and preferences seem quite different to his when it comes to sims, but that's just life. He also posts that he does support the sim, and, when all is said and done, he is just posting his opinion, not some ultimate, incontestable truth.

 

So feel free to refute his points, as you should anyone else's, but just leave it there.

 

Equally, Sputnik, and this isn't actually aimed squarely at you, btw, it does get tired reading posts comparing this work in progress sim unfavourably to a 'finished' sim, that, before modding apparently improved it (I say 'apparently' as I haven't tried the game since TF got to work on it), bombed massively, not just with gaming review sites but also with a large community of diehard fans who really, really wanted it to work. That's why your comments bother people, IMO.

 

 

 

Matt - some of those woods struck me as fake looking too,but presumably they're based on pics of planted woods in the area.

 

No it's ok, though I think irritation is not nescensarely a bad thing as long as it doesnt get personal (which I sincerely try to avoid).

 

And yes I support the sim and always will and I just started to post some more critical statements when they showed us the map. I was always very positively about the FM, DM, AI, look of the plane etc. The map (and maybe the cockpit) is the only thing I don't like so much in the sim so far. And since the map gets discussed in this particulary threat I sound off about it. It's just what a dedicated customer does

 

And as soon as they show us the FW190 and other planes later on, I will switch side again and defend the sim against all appearing nay sayers who find that the antenna is 5mm too short or whatnot. That's just how I am and it's my passion to read and talk about stuff I love but I don't think it has only to be praises and base flattery but also critical and sincere.

[unreasonable]

I like the map and the new effects, but a little bit of colour  on buildings would not go amiss.

 

The one thing I did notice is that if you climb to 3-4 km the mist/fog effect becomes very disconcerting. I do not know if this is due to the time of day, or the draw distance, but certainly compared to RoF the murkiness seems much greater, which was a bit of a surprise since the weather is clear and I have always associated clear weather + snow with very good visibility.   Will be interested to see how this changes when weather and time settings in a mission builder are released.

Honestly, while visuals are somewhat important, I think we have more or less reached a point graphics wise, where it's more a question of getting the things right that influence gameplay, such as LOD. I don't need telephone poles or extra eye candy to feel immersed. The only point, where I truly think ROF and BoS falls short is in their lack of a "decal" system of markings on planes and vehicles, which force an unpleasant choice between having squadrons of clones or the extremely work-intensive and CPU-demanding solution if having one unique skin Per plane in a mission.

What I need is proper FM (and that's where the DN engine truly delivers) and most of all:

Proper AI with tactical awareness, realistic FOV and a sense of self-preservation. That I still haven't got from a CFS, ever.

 

I agree 100% about the lack of markings in RoF which is a serious shortcoming for campaign purposes: but is it true that BoS will have the same limitation? This seems such an obvious improvement - even IL2 classic had it - I find it hard to believe that BoS is intended to be finished without it!  Are you sure about this?

[Finkeren]

I agree 100% about the lack of markings in RoF which is a serious shortcoming for campaign purposes: but is it true that BoS will have the same limitation? This seems such an obvious improvement - even IL2 classic had it - I find it hard to believe that BoS is intended to be finished without it!  Are you sure about this?

 

The problem, as I understand it, is, that the DN-engine was never built to use decals in the first place, and as is obvious to anyone who has tried early access, the engine isn't at its most efficient when it comes to handling skins. Modeling decal markings isn't just a question of slapping them on. They have to be built fluently into the LOD system. Otherwise they might cause a pop-up issue, which would look horrible.

 

There's a whole bunch of issues with implementing something like this as an afterthought. I have no doubt that the devs would love to fix the issue with "clone-planes", but right now they are busy just getting an enitre new sim to work. 

 

I have some hope, that it's something we might see added someday. But I'm not holding my breath and neither should you. At least not untill after the sim is released.

 

I'm sorry devs, if this is not correct. I would be love to be told that I'm wrong about this.

[unreasonable]

Well the alternative to decals for campaign use, as you say, is to be able to assign a specific skin to a specific AI pilot, whether it is your own flight or spawned enemy flights. Vanilla RoF does not allow this either, but I see that Pat Wilson is incorporating this feature into his campaign generator. (Just as DCG could for IL2). If he can do it in a mod it should be easy to do in the core game code.

 

I was hoping that this is the kind of thing that the rebuild of the engine for BoS would have sorted out.  Attaining the nth degree of accuracy with respect to aircraft performance is only a single factor in building a realistic simulation of air combat operations (as opposed to an "air-quake" MP game) - something that vanilla RoF failed to do, although it is now getting a lot closer with mods.

[Georgio]

The bottom line is that for a 38% finished sim it is fluid, relatively bug-free and most importantly the flight 'feels' right.

Everything else can be added but if the sensation of flight is not there then it's not a flight sim in my book.

 

The only other thing that I hope is got right in the final release is the intensity of the action; Stalingrad was a meat-grinder on every level and then some and this needs to be reflected in the missions/campaign.

We need to have flights of aircraft buzzing all over the shop at all heights, tanks and vehicles clashing in the city, boats crossing the river (summer/autumn) intense AAA, artillery barrages. All of this at the same time so that you have the feeling of being part of this crazy battle.

 

If we have RoF levels of air activity at release I for one will not be impressed, sorry but this needs to be right otherwise it's just not Stalingrad. 

[FlatSpinMan]

I'd love a decal type system in BOS. Not on the cards now though, I believe.

[Matt]

Matt - some of those woods struck me as fake looking too,but presumably they're based on pics of planted woods in the area.

 

 

Also, like Matt says, to improve the rendering distance of buildings, but that will probably come... as for the "aligned" villages and trees in the vicinity of the city, isn't it possible that they are just because they actually were arranged like that?

 

The trees around the roads in and out of Stalingrad could of course be alligned like that, but i doubt the whole woods were planted like this?

 

The villages or buildings can be moved around freely in the mission editor and i plan to spent most of my time in MP, so that will probably not be an issue anyway (if the mission designers care about that). They were very "alligned" of course, but it's tad bit too even, when compared to photographs of the area.

 

That's all minor critism from my end though, i wouldn't mind if it would stay like this, as there are more important areas in a flightsim for me.

 

A decal system would be great, it would be a pleasant surprise if they would add it. But i guess there'll be plenty of skins coming out when we get the templates, so atleast most historical squadrons will probably get covered anyway.

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Can you use custom skins in ROF? I've not played it that much.

 

Personally I love the look of Stalingrad especially from a little altitude.

[LukeFF]

Can you use custom skins in ROF? I've not played it that much.

 

Of course you can.

[J4SCrisZeri]

Besides the gtaphic quality of the city of Stalingrad - which disappointed me, too, at least a bit - is it me or I find it way too small?

Maybe I expected it huge, not like CoD's london but still a large, large city.

 

 

I will just stick with the good old 38‰ theme, and wait.

 

For sure I notice two levels in this Project look: plane is awesome, but when it comes to landscape and scenarios (including the boring snlw deserts), well I have to admit it is a big turn off for me.

[ParaB]

London at that time had a population of 8-9 Mio, Stalingrad ~500,000. We're talking about vastly different sizes here. Stalingrad in game seems big enough, although it currently lacks a bit of the "sprawl" of smaller, wooden buildings surrounding the city centre.

[FuriousMeow]

For sure I notice two levels in this Project look: plane is awesome, but when it comes to landscape and scenarios (including the boring snlw deserts), well I have to admit it is a big turn off for me.

 

I'm sure the desert will be much better. Many want the med, but are they prepared for endless sand? Obviously not if desolate snow is a big turn off.

[FlatSpinMan]

Ah, but the Med would have sexy paintschemes.

[LLv44_Mprhead]

I don't understand this problem some people seem to have with snowy map. It's just winter, all the same stuff that is there in the summer, but covered in snow... About the Med, it doesn't have to be endless sand. Tunisia, Sicily and Italy are what I have in mind when talking about Mediterranea. Tunisia campaign could use all the axis planes from BoS, so there would be some synergy benefits also.