Developer Diary #322 - Discussion

[jollyjack]

So as player infanterist would have nowhere to hide ... no wonder we don't get infantry.

[firdimigdi]

2 minutes ago, jollyjack said:

So as player infanterist would have nowhere to hide ... no wonder we don't get infantry.

 

Not to mention a whole lot of other practical uses:

[CountZero]

38 minutes ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

I do see the difference, it is very noticeable that they do not look alike at all.
That's why I try to make the devs take a good look at those little details that make the difference. This is not the Rhineland, this is Normandy

From air it dosent mather as long is playable with 84 ppl and ground units, its not map made for tanks, who cares how bocage looks, i care if big citys/ports are there, all important airbases are made belivable, and few more vilages and variations in land textures then bobp, nothing extra... its air map.  If its laggy as prokhorovka map no one will use it, and youll have missions for nortmandy still be played on kuban map... and you can look at bocages and great details in mission planer and thats it.

Edited July 1, 2022 by CountZero

[BMA_FlyingShark]

I completely agree with what Mr. CountZero says here above.

 

have a nice day.

 

[firdimigdi]

On 7/1/2022 at 3:09 PM, CountZero said:

laggy as prokhorovka map

 

I have a feeling that has more to do with the destructible/physics enabled buildings than anything else.

 

IMO if they can complete the map with what they have now and later on make a different type of folliage for the hedgerows (I doubt it being tree-bush-bush-tree would have much of a performance impact versus tree-tree-tree-tree [that's two times tree so six less!]), thus improving authenticity, so be it.

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Firdimigdi
citation added

[AEthelraedUnraed]

2 minutes ago, Firdimigdi said:

I have a feeling that has more to do with the destructible/physics enabled buildings than anything else.

The "destructible/physics" part is only activated when a building actually gets damaged so I heavily doubt that. The higher poly count of the buildings might make a difference though, which is exactly the problem with more foliage...

 

2 minutes ago, Firdimigdi said:

I doubt it being tree-bush-bush-tree would have much of a performance impact versus tree-tree-tree-tree [that's two times tree so six less!]

The problem isn't replacing trees with bushes, I doubt that would matter much. The problem is *adding* foliage. So your example doesn't apply: it's not tree-bush-bush-tree instead of tree-tree-tree-tree, but rather tree-bush-bush-tree instead of tree - [empty] - [empty] - tree like it is now.

[firdimigdi]

20 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

The "destructible/physics" part is only activated when a building actually gets damaged so I heavily doubt that. The higher poly count of the buildings might make a difference though, which is exactly the problem with more foliage...

 

Precisely - the implication being that for the buildings to be destructible/physics enabled they have to have more complicated geometry.

 

21 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

The problem isn't replacing trees with bushes, I doubt that would matter much. The problem is *adding* foliage. So your example doesn't apply: it's not tree-bush-bush-tree instead of tree-tree-tree-tree, but rather tree-bush-bush-tree instead of tree - [empty] - [empty] - tree like it is now.

 

Nah, it's a mix. Some hedgerows have very few or no trees, etc. Anyhow, it's all up to the devs - I'm sure they can see the differences with the reference material and know the complications far better than we can, so far they've proven to be able to come up with creative and visual appealing solutions.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

6 minutes ago, Firdimigdi said:

Precisely - the implication being that for the buildings to be destructible/physics enabled they have to have more complicated geometry.

The destructible/physics part has nothing to do with the geometry. The destructed geometry is only loaded *after* the building has been destroyed, like with any of the "low-res" buildings. The higher geometry detail is because you're supposed to drive close past them, so it needs to be of a higher quality. There's no technical reason the physics system wouldn't work with any of the "low-res" buildings too, except that they're meant to be flown past at such a distance that you wouldn't really notice the falling walls anyhow.

 

11 minutes ago, Firdimigdi said:

Nah, it's a mix. Some hedgerows have very few or no trees, etc. Anyhow, it's all up to the devs - I'm sure they can see the differences with the reference material and know the complications far better than we can, so far they've proven to be able to come up with creative and visual appealing solutions.

It doesn't really matter whether it's trees or bushes It's rather the amount that matters. Right now, there's a tree every couple of metres. If you'd want to fill up the space in between to the extent you see in photos of the "real" bocage, you need to place at least two bushes in between. That's almost twice the geometry.

 

Maybe you're right, and the Devs can find a way to add more foliage without a huge FPS hit (would be welcome in every forest basically, not just the bocage). But knowing how hard it can be to circumvent poly count limits, I don't get my hopes up. Nor do I think it deserves too much development time/money since you only notice it when you're quite close.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

You guys ask for hedges when we don't have autobahn in BOB map ?. We need shorter grass  too or ability to bend it in ME because it looks funny when all ground units hide inside it and environment around ground objects look so sterile and unrealistic.  

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

From air it dosent mather as long is playable with 84 ppl and ground units, its not map made for tanks, who cares how bocage looks, i care if big citys/ports are there, all important airbases are made belivable, and few more vilages and variations in land textures then bobp, nothing extra... its air map.  If its laggy as prokhorovka map no one will use it, and youll have missions for nortmandy still be played on kuban map... and you can look at bocages and great details in mission planer and thats it.

The small details are what make the difference, if there is no bocage, I will not feel flying over Normandy, it is simple, it will be another map just like the rest.
Surely the devs can do magic if they want, a new batch of trees and bushes, if not with the launch, with a post review, I don't think it's a lot of graphical requirement, and if you don't want to see the ground or you don't matter you can always lower the Graphic Preset to reduce the radius of the trees.

[Asgar]

man... you have issues

[=621=Samikatz]

If I am flying low enough that I would able to inspect the exact make-up of the greenery I usually have a lot more important things to worry about

[ScotsmanFlyingscotsman]

Love that Me-410, and will be preying on Mossie's for ages, then quickly change sides and see what it's like, THANK YOU 

 

Regarding the Bocage, mentioned above....

I have enough trouble with the current Normandy map, finding the tanks,.....that I put there, so that I can bomb/rocket/strafe....and then I get zapped by that other blasted tank that I put down the road! I'm happy with what I get, and I'll get on with it. 

 

Lets all be happy with our sim as it develops

[AEthelraedUnraed]

1 hour ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

I don't think it's a lot of graphical requirement

And may I inquire where your thinking comes from?

 

My thinking when I say that the graphics requirements are significant unless a *considerable* amount of development money and time is allocated, is based on 15+ years of programming, software development, MSc-level education in signal- and image processing, a job in ICT, experience writing shaders, 3d modelling, and game development in my spare time.

 

I'm open to an educated discussion about possible ways to add more foliage without a too big graphics hit, but if the only response to the problem with poly count that I brought up is basically a simple "I disagree" without further explanations, calculations or mention of exciting new technologies, then I wish you good luck waiting for something that will never come.

[firdimigdi]

I guess if there's one thing one can learn in stories regarding shrubberies is that one must curb their expectations and never ask for the impossible.

 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Firdimigdi
introduced further impossibilities

[IRRE_Axurit]

I can't wait to have this map.
I'm sure mission designers will be very inspired to create air/ground experiences.
The missions in armored vehicles supported by aviation will be great!!

Thank you Il2 team

I hope that the monuments, the bridges, the fortifications will be present.
They had said that there would be several versions of the map, we haven't heard too much about it, I hope it will still be relevant.

It's been a long time since we've heard from air marshall mode, maybe for the normandy release?

[Guster]

33 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

then I wish you good luck waiting for something that will never come.

 

Or perhaps bon bocage.. I mean bon voyage.

[FlyingNutcase]

The amount of work on the airfields must have been immense. They're looking great, although wear/tire marks would have been a nice cherry on the top. Still, all good and looking forward to the map, and flying cross-channel sorties from the safety of mother England.

[7bhp_Mk]

15 hours ago, FlyingShark said:

Erm,...I'm sure you didn't mean it that way but you do realise that you're actually saying that they always disappoint, right?

 

Have a nice day.

 

Well spotted! No idea why I put that. Maybe it was in my excitement for the latest DD. I meant to say that they never disappoint. Best devs, right? ?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

5 minutes ago, 7bhp_Mk said:

Well spotted! No idea why I put that. Maybe it was in my excitement for the latest DD. I meant to say that they never disappoint. Best devs, right? ?

I know, there was absolutely no offence intended and I just had a laugh when I read your comment.

Great sim, great team.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[7bhp_Mk]

9 hours ago, FlyingShark said:

I know, there was absolutely no offence intended and I just had a laugh when I read your comment.

Great sim, great team.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Absolutely agree. Great sim, great team, but also a great community here, too. Lots of helpful, knowledgeable people here who I continue to learn lots from. This is always my first stop if I have any issues or questions. So a big thank you also to all the nice folk who make this forum what it is. ?

[Ala13_UnopaUno_VR]

16 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

And may I inquire where your thinking comes from?

 

My thinking when I say that the graphics requirements are significant unless a *considerable* amount of development money and time is allocated, is based on 15+ years of programming, software development, MSc-level education in signal- and image processing, a job in ICT, experience writing shaders, 3d modelling, and game development in my spare time.

 

I'm open to an educated discussion about possible ways to add more foliage without a too big graphics hit, but if the only response to the problem with poly count that I brought up is basically a simple "I disagree" without further explanations, calculations or mention of exciting new technologies, then I wish you good luck waiting for something that will never come.

I don't want the topic to be misunderstood and it would be nice to be able to understand it correctly, but understand me that this approach to bocage has been resolved in other sims, and I wouldn't understand why it couldn't be done in bos, if someone is able to explain it to me, I'm sure they'll understand better .

Example:

[BMA_FlyingShark]

12 minutes ago, Ala13_UnopaUno_VR said:

I don't want the topic to be misunderstood and it would be nice to be able to understand it correctly, but understand me that this approach to bocage has been resolved in other sims, and I wouldn't understand why it couldn't be done in bos, if someone is able to explain it to me, I'm sure they'll understand better .

You're comparing apples with pears here.

Those other sims are either much older (more bocage but less details in general), or no combat sims, where your action consists of taking off and flying from point A to point B and in the mean while do some sight seeing.

Maybe one day the team of our sim will eventually include more varied bocage, who knows but I think they have other priorities.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Asgar]

So after all the bitching... who's excited for the 410? ? 

[Fritz_X]

29 minutes ago, Asgar said:

So after all the bitching... who's excited for the 410? ? 

 

Most definitely me!

 

The 410 has turned from 'Nice to have, but not my cup of tea' when spotting it on BoN's plane list for the first time to the plane I'm looking forward to fly the most.

[Asgar]

1 minute ago, Fritz_X said:

 

Most definitely me!

 

The 410 has turned from 'Nice to have, but not my cup of tea' when spotting it on BoN's plane list for the first time to the plane I'm looking forward to fly the most.

I see, so you're a man of culture as well!

[Pozsgay]

On 6/30/2022 at 3:28 PM, LF_Gallahad said:

With a twin Mg 131 I also bet the receiveng end is going to be too really interesting ?

Yes it is ? But technically there are two single MG 131 guns on both sides (rotating vertically on one axis) and only one is firing according where you are targeting.

 

That place was my grandfather's first office ?

[Fritz_X]

7 minutes ago, Asgar said:

I see, so you're a man of culture as well!

 

Thanks, I suppose? But not sure if I'd agree myself ?

 

The 410 just looks amazing overall, both outside and inside. The wide array of different frontal amarment options plus those rearward guns are just too interesting to not to like.

 

Even though my nick name suggests otherwise, I flew only Allied and Soviet planes before, only to switch over to flying Axis planes more frequently in the recent months. Good timing, I guess.

[Pozsgay]

On 6/30/2022 at 5:22 PM, Asgar said:

Nah, i was busy with work stuff. It's thursday, not friday after all. So i had to work till 4pm.   I'm here now and I like what i'm seeing!
Also look at how advanced the 410 is

the placard below the altimeter say "tire pressure warning" in WW2!!! This hasn't become mandatory in the EU until 2014!!! ? 

 

I give the 410 cockpit a rating of 10/10 chefs kisses ? 

 

and i like this picture for one particular reason. those who know, know  

Is that tire pressure warning functional in the sim? It would be useful to know before landing if the tire is damaged.

That bird had ABS system too ?

[Bremspropeller]

On 7/1/2022 at 2:09 PM, CountZero said:

From air it dosent mather as long is playable with 84 ppl and ground units, its not map made for tanks, who cares how bocage looks, i care if big citys/ports are there, all important airbases are made belivable, and few more vilages and variations in land textures then bobp, nothing extra... its air map.

 

Given the fact the BoN was one of the most tactical air campaigns, I'm inclined to disagree.

I don't find the screenshots to look bad at all, though.

[Asgar]

7 minutes ago, Pozsgay said:

Is that tire pressure warning functional in the sim? It would be useful to know before landing if the tire is damaged.

That bird had ABS system too ?

We'll know soon, I'm sure. Didn't know about the antilock braking system

[firdimigdi]

36 minutes ago, Asgar said:

So after all the constructive criticism by people who have pre-purchaced the add-on which certain people for unknown reasons misconstrued as bitching... who's excited for the 410? ? 

 

I'm certainly intrigued by it, that cockpit looks like an interesting place to be.

 

7 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I don't find the screenshots to look bad at all, though.

 

I doubt anyone is finding them bad; they're quite beautiful, it was only pointed out that certain visual elements are extremely characteristic of the area and are notably absent at this point.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

3 hours ago, Asgar said:

So after all the bitching... who's excited for the 410? ? 

I am.

When BON was announced, it was a less interesting plane for me personally.

But after seeing the screens and looking up information, I'm super stoked for her.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[DBFlyguy]

5 hours ago, Asgar said:

who's excited for the 410? ? 

Excited to shoot it down

 

 

It should burn up real nicely ?

Edited July 3, 2022 by DBFlyguy

[the_emperor]

5 hours ago, Asgar said:

who's excited for the 410?

Very excited.

but Iam wondering what time limit they will set for WEP (Start&Notleistung). Thus far all manuals for the plane and engine I have seen, dont  mention a time limit, (so according to the game logic it should be usable indefinitely)….maybe someone has some information on that?

[Vortice]

14 hours ago, Asgar said:

So after all the bitching... who's excited for the 410? ? 

 

9 hours ago, DBFlyguy said:

It should burn up real nicely ?

 

They should make a 420 version for the more chilled out sort of German pilot.

[[CPT]Crunch]

15 hours ago, Asgar said:

So after all the bitching... who's excited for the 410? ? 

Me so Hornisse!

[Guest deleted@83466]

I think he is going to be here all week ^^^^^^^

[Guster]

On 7/1/2022 at 5:49 PM, =621=Samikatz said:

If I am flying low enough that I would able to inspect the exact make-up of the greenery I usually have a lot more important things to worry about

 

I've read accounts about Mossie pilots returning to base with bits of vegetation that doesn't grow in England and other people's underwear hanging from the rear wings. I guess that's flying low.

[simfan2015]

Bring on that 410 so my mossie can shoot at it !