Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlackSix

Developer Diary, Part 73

Recommended Posts

Well,

If there won't be any changes, I will swap to DCS. This is just incompetence in its true shape.

 

Here we go, now all we need are a few JG squads to threaten to quit and we'll be right back where we were 10-15 years ago......or......we could just wait and see what happens when Jason speaks to the team about an aircraft that's been out just a few days but threats never worked back then and I'm hope they won't now. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a DCS thread at all. Please, use the offtopic section for this discussion (until I get it locked at least).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here we go, now all we need are a few JG squads to threaten to quit and we'll be right back where we were 10-15 years ago......or......we could just wait and see what happens when Jason speaks to the team about an aircraft that's been out just a few days but threats never worked back then and I'm hope they won't now. 

Oh year, tell me more about how you don't have any demand about correct modelling. I, and I think many JG squads won't be any threat at all. Don't worry, because as long as the crowd gives enough money, why listening on some geeks about "minor" issues. And I don't have any problem with consequences about my principles and decisions. If you now wan't to make me look like some coward or luftwaffle whiner, you won't have any fun with it. Because I don't care about that.

 

So, why are you going to DCS, then?

I want as much historical correctness as possible. I don't need a hardcore flight physic, or a hardcore simulation in terms of the gameengine. As long as it flies like an airplane and behave like one, Im comepletly satisfied.

Edited by Auva

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactely, this sounds good!

Not sure about this. If I recall right, the REVI of the external model is at its propper place (the internal and external cockpit are not the same I suppose), so maybe it would be sufficent to only cut those bars in the cockpit model.

 

 

Ah! If that's the case the problem is solved! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh year, tell me more about how you don't have any demand about correct modelling. I, and I think many JG squads won't be any threat at all. Don't worry, because as long as the crowd gives enough money, why listening on some geeks about "minor" issues. And I don't have any problem with consequences about my principles and decisions. If you now wan't to make me look like some coward or luftwaffle whiner, you won't have any fun with it. Because I don't care about that.

 

 

I want as much historical correctness as possible. I don't need a hardcore flight physic, or a hardcore simulation in terms of the gameengine. As long as it flies like an airplane and behave like one, Im comepletly satisfied.

Well you are in luck. The bos 190 flies just like an airplane and behaves justike one. Honestly though. Idle threats are not needed. They are aware of the issue and im sure are looking into a solution. Relax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I reckon they must be exhausted by now and having nightmares in lines of code, otherwise they'd not have done it the way it's been done.

 

I've re-visited the 109 G to see if the same issue exists there but can't really tell. It's not so glaringly obvious anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you are in luck. The bos 190 flies just like an airplane and behaves justike one. Honestly though. Idle threats are not needed. They are aware of the issue and im sure are looking into a solution. Relax.

And I guess, you didn't read the part with: Historical correctness... and here is nowhere stated that they are aware of the issue or that they are looking into a solution. AFAIK they are completly fine with what they did with their unknown sources. Its all correctly modeled from "Blueprints" and thats it. And they won't model refrection. So there we are..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I guess, you didn't read the part with: Historical correctness... and here is nowhere stated that they are aware of the issue or that they are looking into a solution. AFAIK they are completly fine with what they did with their unknown sources. Its all correctly modeled from "Blueprints" and thats it. And they won't model refrection. So there we are..

 

It's not over until the gold lady sings. :acute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of the guys who post so literate opinions about the IL2 BOS models and their flight behavior have ever even touched the controls of a vanilla taildrager, nothing even more complex than a Cub!

 

I have never flown such a powerful prop aircraft, that's for sure, but I've been flying for more than 30 yrs, and using flight simulators for more than 20, and honestly, there is simply no other sim that I have used ( DCS World being the only exception ) that offered me such plausible prop aircraft flight dynamics, with all of the complex aspects the prop effects just by themselves include...

 

I keep enjoying it, very very much, and supporting the 1C 777 team, just as I support the ED team, as much as I can. 

Edited by jcomm
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I guess, you didn't read the part with: Historical correctness... and here is nowhere stated that they are aware of the issue or that they are looking into a solution. AFAIK they are completly fine with what they did with their unknown sources. Its all correctly modeled from "Blueprints" and thats it. And they won't model refrection. So there we are..

You did not see Jasons reply? They are aware and the engine does not model refraction. So would you have them change the actual blueprints to alter the model to fake the effect? Maybe some would. But its up to them to make that descision. Trust me tbey know about it and are considering options. But please dont let me keep u from jumping off the ledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Sry for off-topic:

 

"You did not see Jasons reply?"

 

I am not that good in English but I would expect:

"Haven't you seen Jason's reply?"

 

I just want to get better in English, so please excuse my OT...

:salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reducing the thickness of the "panzerglasmount" by aproximately half would come close to what it would look with actual refractive glass in place. This would be a reasonable compromise with wich i think everyone could live.

Personally i understand that using computing powers to calculate correct glassrefraction would be overkill and no 190 jockey even would love to have that since it would be in trade off for FPS. So i dont see why  a simple (and its really a simple change 3D-modelingwise -  I am 3D artist myself. Not even the texture would require a change) change of the geometry of the glassmount shouldnt be the way to go. I hope our devs see that alike and change it so finally the countless threads can come to rest.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Les deux sont egalement possibles, mais le premier c'est un usage plutot americain...bienque, pour l'apostrophe, t'as sans doute raison!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW 190 has really think armoured glass on the front, the frame is adequately think as well. Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? Not adding refraction does not mean removing actual thickness of the frames.

Come on guys, in not in total defense here. I'm just saying that the 3D seems to be okay and modelling is definitely not what you should be troubled with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW 190 has really think armoured glass on the front, the frame is adequately think as well. Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? Not adding refraction does not mean removing actual thickness of the frames.

Come on guys, in not in total defense here. I'm just saying that the 3D seems to be okay and modelling is definitely not what you should be troubled with.

 

for me rather wrong 3D model and better view.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view?

Sounds like a perfect topic for an official poll. ;)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did not see Jasons reply? They are aware and the engine does not model refraction. So would you have them change the actual blueprints to alter the model to fake the effect? Maybe some would. But its up to them to make that descision. Trust me tbey know about it and are considering options. But please dont let me keep u from jumping off the ledge.

If the blue prints and 777's FW model aren't capable of adding refraction, then how accurate is the model? Yes, we can compare blueprints all day long and see the numbers of the released plane are all correct, but if the final FW model doesn't accurately show the pilot's view from what almost every picture and video displays then what good does modelling from the blueprints matter? The FW we have shows an inaccurate, restricted pilot's view - no matter how accurate the drawings are.

 

FW 190 has really think armoured glass on the front, the frame is adequately think as well. Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? Not adding refraction does not mean removing actual thickness of the frames.

Come on guys, in not in total defense here. I'm just saying that the 3D seems to be okay and modelling is definitely not what you should be troubled with.

I'd rather the correct view. If that means sacrificing accuracy to the reference material to attain an accurate, correct view, then so be it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for me rather wrong 3D model and better view.

 

Yeah, and rather no cockpit at all for better view! :happy:  :P

 

It's a game, so a matter of compromise. Let the devs see how to better address this in time and budget!

Cheers,

Edited by PA-Sniv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also say that if correct 3D model produces incorrect view, I would go for correct view. In the end that is the more "realistic" option of the two.

 

Our engine is definitely capable of modeling refraction (it would be surprising if it couldn't considering the ammount of other physical stuff it handles). But it takes too much resources for real time rendering. Imagine every ray of light going thru the lens and your PC rendering all that. We're not a glass simulator, and we're not adding refraction to make sure the game is playable.

 

Would it then be possible to try it out by devs? I mean check how the view would look like if refraction is added and then do possible necessary chances on cockpit to get more realistic view, or would this take too much time and resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ Sry for off-topic:

 

"You did not see Jasons reply?"

 

I am not that good in English but I would expect:

"Haven't you seen Jason's reply?"

 

I just want to get better in English, so please excuse my OT...

:salute:

I guess technically you could be correct. but holy crap are you seriously pulling the grammer police act on a forum?

 

I mean SERIOZLIEZ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW 190 has really think armoured glass on the front, the frame is adequately think as well. Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? Not adding refraction does not mean removing actual thickness of the frames.

Come on guys, in not in total defense here. I'm just saying that the 3D seems to be okay and modelling is definitely not what you should be troubled with.

 

I've now seen a dozen pics or so of a Focke 190 cockpit with thin frames.

Can please show me someone ONE single pic of a Focke cockpit with as thick frames as they are in the game? Then we could argue wheather the cockpit is right or wrong, but as long there's none, we simply can say it's wrong.

 

I believe that all the numbers are correct, but the outcome is different, because the world goes not by numbers and maths only. ;)

Still hope the devs look into this :)

Cheers

Edited by JG4_Sputnik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You did not see Jasons reply? They are aware and the engine does not model refraction. So would you have them change the actual blueprints to alter the model to fake the effect? Maybe some would. But its up to them to make that descision. Trust me tbey know about it and are considering options. But please dont let me keep u from jumping off the ledge.

And you didn't read Zak's post after that one. The engine is perfectly capable of modeling refraction, but the team DON'T WANT TO DO IT! Because it might use too much CPU power.

And, in fact the current model can't be right after the blueprints. Because there are several point's where the blueprints are showing different dimensions than the current state in game.

Wan't some pictures?

Fw190A3_cockpit.jpg

Actual FW 190 Cockpit Picture. You see what we have? Fact 1: The Revi is much to high in our current game. And this is proven in several blueprints.

Fw190RSL_zps7ec27af3.jpg

As you can see in the red circle, the Revi-Base is on the same height as the dashbord. And furthermore the top end of the bottom of the "Panzerglas" is on the same height as the screws from the engine hood. Better shown in this picture here:

0_d2902_cab92c8b_L.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the blue prints and 777's FW model aren't capable of adding refraction, then how accurate is the model? Yes, we can compare blueprints all day long and see the numbers of the released plane are all correct, but if the final FW model doesn't accurately show the pilot's view from what almost every picture and video displays then what good does modelling from the blueprints matter? The FW we have shows an inaccurate, restricted pilot's view - no matter how accurate the drawings are.

 

I'd rather the correct view. If that means sacrificing accuracy to the reference material to attain an accurate, correct view, then so be it.

I agree that sacrificing a bit of accuracy on the external model is worth the tradeoff for a better cockpit interior. What I mean is, how many people are going to complain about a slight variation in the external cockpit area to get the cockpit view correct instead of the amount of people complaining about what we have now?

Edited by SYN_Requiem
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This game is a simulation. It should simulate flight physics as close to the real-workd counterpart as possible. This is the flight model aspect. Since we are talking about a WW2 simulation ballistics are part of the simulation, that is what the damage model is for.

Every aspect of the game that is visual or audible has to be simulated as well. Otherwise we would have a sheet of paper with the aircraft specifications and could call it a pen & paper game.

 

Visuals are an important part to make this game feel realistic and immersive. If the game engine can not handle specific aspects of the real world it tries to simulate which aspect is more important? The 3D model or the actual look of the aircraft from the pilots perspective? There has to be a compromise, as much as "zoom" is a compromise to simulate the human eye. It might be not as apparent as a windscreen, but it is exactly the same issue.

 

This simulation already lacks many aspects of a proper ww2 aircraft simulation, the windscreen is a mere visual aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you didn't read Zak's post after that one. The engine is perfectly capable of modeling refraction, but the team DON'T WANT TO DO IT! Because it might use too much CPU power.

And, in fact the current model can't be right after the blueprints. Because there are several point's where the blueprints are showing different dimensions than the current state in game.

Wan't some pictures?

Fw190A3_cockpit.jpg

Actual FW 190 Cockpit Picture. You see what we have? Fact 1: The Revi is much to high in our current game. And this is proven in several blueprints.

Fw190RSL_zps7ec27af3.jpg

As you can see in the red circle, the Revi-Base is on the same height as the dashbord. And furthermore the top end of the bottom of the "Panzerglas" is on the same height as the screws from the engine hood. Better shown in this picture here:

0_d2902_cab92c8b_L.jpg

OK just rrad Zaks post. NO where dis he say the engine CAN model refraction, and further more nowhere did he say THEY DONT WANT TO. I dont have the blue prints. They do. I take them at thier word that they are going by the plans. They have shown no reason why i should doubt them.

 

I dont disagree that the spars look to thick. But whether they change it or not is their call. Choose accurate modeling, or accurate view. I can imagine its a tough decision if i were in their shoes.

 

But by all means continue to rage. Reading about how you are insensed distracts me from my real job for a few minutes of entertainment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FW 190 has really think armoured glass on the front, the frame is adequately think as well. Everything is true to the original reference. Or you'd rather have a wrong 3D model but a better view? Not adding refraction does not mean removing actual thickness of the frames.

Come on guys, in not in total defense here. I'm just saying that the 3D seems to be okay and modelling is definitely not what you should be troubled with.

 

Zak, please let me put it this way:

 

In a real Fw190, with 58mm windscreen, the pilot could get into the cockpit, look through the screen, and shout to the builder:

 

"Hey! You've put a 10mm screen in my cockpit!"

 

The builder would say:

 

"No, it's the refraction through the glass that's making it look like the 3D model is incorrect."

 

So yes, please, give us the 'incorrect' 3D model. That will make it look correct and also give us the realistic (correct) FoV. :salute:

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also favor a realistic cockpit view over a realistic 3D model. The present model has 3 unrealistic flaws:

1. gun sight is mounted too high because they have to compensate for the thick "bar"

2. forward view is restricted

3. because of the high gun sight the head position is too high and therefore many intruments are unreadable from the normal head position.

 

Changing the 3D model to unrealistic dimensions would introduce one flaw, but on the other hand, eliminate three others. So from my point of view, this seems to be the better way.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flaw that would not be visible, because it is not apparent in the real world due to refraction. So there is no flaw, just a comprimise in game design.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK just rrad Zaks post. NO where dis he say the engine CAN model refraction, and further more nowhere did he say THEY DONT WANT TO. I dont have the blue prints. They do. I take them at thier word that they are going by the plans. They have shown no reason why i should doubt them.

 

I dont disagree that the spars look to thick. But whether they change it or not is their call. Choose accurate modeling, or accurate view. I can imagine its a tough decision if i were in their shoes.

 

But by all means continue to rage. Reading about how you are insensed distracts me from my real job for a few minutes of entertainment.

 

Our engine is definitely capable of modeling refraction (it would be surprising if it couldn't considering the ammount of other physical stuff it handles). But it takes too much resources for real time rendering. Imagine every ray of light going thru the lens and your PC rendering all that. We're not a glass simulator, and we're not adding refraction to make sure the game is playable.

 

I think you should read more carefully, this statement is pretty clear.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the comments/feedback this should certainly be like the old IL2. The majority of gamers are more casual and don't mind the lack of utter, relentless, rivet-counting historical accuracy. The other fraction (or should I say faction?) of the playerbase yearns for exactly that.

The devs are trying their utmost to try and balance the two, just like we saw in previous IL2 iterations. I know there are some people who don't want to hear this and just keep criticising, but the devs really are trying their hardest. I'm sure.

 

Now to this light refraction business (because we all can't f****** get enough of it, right?).

 

Jason's comment:

"Plus we don't have a way to model "refraction" or whatever optical illusion folks claim makes the window look bigger than it is."

 

Yes, you do. Your engine is capable of it. Is it worth the time and resources to add it to the engine? Furthermore, is it worth the required resources to model it to your [high] standards? No. Definitely not. In my opinion, at least. I'd much rather have the frame a bit thinner to give us the "illusion"/effect that refraction has on the glass of the cockpit. 

 

"Refraction" or whatever optical illusion? Really, Jason? Not to be too personal, here, but you don't need a major in Physics to understand that the refraction of light is no finnicky little non-issue. It's certainly no bloody illusion! It's all around us. Just stick you hand in a bowl of water and see what happens. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 So a question. They did for sure KNOW that modelling the cockpit like it is would cause a stir. Did they not learn from the previous version of IL-2 with the hot debate on it? It was initially made they way people ask, maybe a bit incorrect modelling wise but offering the more correct view out of the cockpit. If old IL-2 can do it and some "other" games as well then why not BoS?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone started the poll yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 So a question. They did for sure KNOW that modelling the cockpit like it is would cause a stir. Did they not learn from the previous version of IL-2 with the hot debate on it? It was initially made they way people ask, maybe a bit incorrect modelling wise but offering the more correct view out of the cockpit. If old IL-2 can do it and some "other" games as well then why not BoS?

What I was thinking. In the grand scheme of things, remoddeling the "bar" would be the most straightforward thing to do. But hey, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

Anyone started the poll yet?

 

Not to my knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Acctualy - I understand refraction makes the lower part of the bar not visable - due to the angle.

However I dont understand how refraction would make the side bars less visable. There is no angle on that surface - not the way it is on the lower bar. So how would that work?

Edited by hqPeterZvan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone started the poll yet?

I was hoping that Zak would start the poll in order to get maximum feedback. I'd wait and see...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the comments/feedback this should certainly be like the old IL2. The majority of gamers are more casual and don't mind the lack of utter, relentless, rivet-counting historical accuracy. The other fraction (or should I say faction?) of the playerbase yearns for exactly that.

The devs are trying their utmost to try and balance the two, just like we saw in previous IL2 iterations. I know there are some people who don't want to hear this and just keep criticising, but the devs really are trying their hardest. I'm sure.

 

Now to this light refraction business (because we all can't f****** get enough of it, right?).

 

Jason's comment:

"Plus we don't have a way to model "refraction" or whatever optical illusion folks claim makes the window look bigger than it is."

 

Yes, you do. Your engine is capable of it. Is it worth the time and resources to add it to the engine? Furthermore, is it worth the required resources to model it to your [high] standards? No. Definitely not. In my opinion, at least. I'd much rather have the frame a bit thinner to give us the "illusion"/effect that refraction has on the glass of the cockpit. 

 

"Refraction" or whatever optical illusion? Really, Jason? Not to be too personal, here, but you don't need a major in Physics to understand that the refraction of light is no finnicky little non-issue. It's certainly no bloody illusion! It's all around us. Just stick you hand in a bowl of water and see what happens. 

 

 

Here we go parsing every single word we say for debate class. Our engine as it currently stands does not model "refraction". Maybe I should have said model "refraction easily". As Zak says we might be able to build it somehow, but that would take time and money we probably don't have at the moment. Until I sit in an actual 100% authentic 190-A3 in level flight I don't know the totally correct answer and what if anything is done about it is up to Loft. Users have made several suggestions so we'll see what is decided. I will share what I think should be done to Loft privately.

 

Jason 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback and the update Jason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 ...but that would take time and money we probably don't have at the moment. 

Jason 

Too much project creep can kill. Spend the dev money on new maps and planes.

 

Thus far well done 777, Loft and team.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...