#3258252 - 04/03/11 06:11 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: swampthng]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 638
ATAG_Bliss
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 638
|
I disagree with you. One of the many reasons Oleg has all the followers he does is because of his anal retentiveness with regards to details. He likes perfection with everything. It's pretty clear that this was released before it was optimized. Maybe some day we'll know exactly why.
But things like trees and grass swaying in the wind, vehicles/tanks with suspension, and all those mind blowing details that people keep finding everyday, is one of the main reasons the sim will last. IL2 did it for over 10 years and it was the SAME way when it 1st came out. Too many things for the hardware of that time. IL2 has been an evolution. IL2COD is the next evolution. With patches already in the works for next week and some big ones by the end of April/May timeframe (according to Luthier) I'd say this will be running fairly smooth before the west is released.
Perfection and oleg are two things from my experience with IL2 that i'd not put together. IL2 was a mess for me. If you like to play Airquake IL2 is probably the best game ever. But as for an offline game, il2 is terrible. The AI is absolutely horrid, the missions were repetitive and predictable. Nothing about il2 was really fun offline other than just tooling around in a ww2 plane. You seriously think swaying foliage and vehicles with suspension are valid reasons that CLOD will be a lasting game? If that is the general IL2/clod fans concensus, then there is no wonder we will probably always have to agree to disagree. I personally think the main reasons for a game having longevity would be things like a good flight model, a good damage model, a great campaign system, a sim that's easily moddable. But if swaying trees are what does it for ya, more power to you. I don't see how you think CLOD is any kind of evolution over IL2. From what i've seen so far it's the same thing with a poorly performing graphics engine and a ton of new bugs. The AI seems worse, the campaign doesn't remotely feel like the BOB as the flights are all too small. The list goes on. Personally i think if you are making a BOB game your absolute FIRST priority should be creating a game engine that supports a ton of planes in the air at one time. If grass, swaying trees and vehicle suspension take one single plane out of the air to keep the frame rate up you dump the swaying trees and vehicle as this is a AERIAL COMBAT SIMULATION not a ground sim. This 6 vs 6 crap that CLOD has going is ridiculous and there is no atmosphere. I wanna see big huge flights of bombers at more than 1 FPS. Putting that minute detail in the game was a huge design decision mistake. Ground detail shouldn't even be in the top 10 list of important things in a flight sim. You clearly didn't understand the point of my post. Of course the FM, DM, etc.etc.etc.etc.etc.etc. till eternity has to be good (this is all a given) the other stuff is the extra icing on the cake. But everything else you see whether it be how the clouds work to how the ground works is immersion. The more detailed (aka life-like) it all is, the better feeling you have of actually being a part of something. That's what keeps people playing. I'm not a SP person, so I imagine SP in IL2 sucked. To me flying against robots is simply boring. So no thank you. The MP part of the game, on the other hand, is not. And it was far from airquake. Just look at SEOW or ADW for example. I'll say it again. Patience is the key. Edit: And the game was designed to have huge numbers of aircraft in it. Just because it doesn't right now due to optimization/coding problems doesn't mean that it's not gonna happen. MP is already set for 128 human players in one server. Oleg stated that 1000AI planes are capable in a single mission if the hardware is good enough (dedicated server etc.) Seems pretty good to me.
Last edited by SYN_Bliss; 04/03/11 06:14 PM.
|
|
#3258317 - 04/03/11 07:12 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: SG1_Gunkan]
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 191
lbuchele
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 191
Brazil
|
Recently the new Boeing 787 catch on fire in the cabin in a test flight. Boeing is a multibillionaire company ,has armies of the finest engineers,builds aircraft you will be seated in your trips and still has difficulties trying to do things work the way they are intended. I know,we are talking about a computer game,but my point is that maybe it's not so easy to make a piece of software with millions of code lines to work perfectly without to do some serious tweaking. The alternative is to delay the release and maybe to ditch the game in the garbage can because of the lack of money to finish it. Let's face it ,it's a niche product,if you really want it, to be tolerant and show some patience will be your part in the process of perfeting things.
Last edited by lbuchele; 04/03/11 07:14 PM.
|
|
#3258345 - 04/03/11 07:32 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: ATAG_Bliss]
|
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 605
Charlie901
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 605
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
|
I guess i look at that and wonder.
Why was all that time spent on those things? At 5000 ft going a few hundred miles per hour would you notice ANY of those details? If they had put grass only at airfields for some extra detail.
But really, who see's moving tank treads at 5000 ft? it seems alot of detail was put into things that just didn't need that detail and that time spent could have been better put to use elsewhere.
Is it cool? yeah.
was it a good design choice? Hell no, was a complete and total waste of time and whoever was in charge of allowing people to waste time working on things like this should be given lessons on productivity and priorities. I disagree with you. One of the many reasons Oleg has all the followers he does is because of his anal retentiveness with regards to details. He likes perfection with everything. It's pretty clear that this was released before it was optimized. Maybe some day we'll know exactly why. But things like trees and grass swaying in the wind, vehicles/tanks with suspension, and all those mind blowing details that people keep finding everyday, is one of the main reasons the sim will last. IL2 did it for over 10 years and it was the SAME way when it 1st came out. Too many things for the hardware of that time. IL2 has been an evolution. IL2COD is the next evolution. With patches already in the works for next week and some big ones by the end of April/May timeframe (according to Luthier) I'd say this will be running fairly smooth before the west is released. The problem is noone has any patience, and I understand people's anger in buying something that doesn't work right out of the box. But coming from IL2 of old and knowing how 1c has done things on their previous title (they are still patching the game 10 years later FFS lol), I can only wait with happyness that BoB finally got released. It will evolve. And someday we'll be flying by all those fancy things on the ground and see leaves falling out of the trees. Then you'll be thinking to yourself, just like the original release of IL2, "wow they came out with this in 2012 and 10 years later we are still playing it" Good things to come IMO. That's BS........ Oleg's main concern wasn't LONGEVITY by simulating grass moving and leaves dropping with the wind direction!!! If you believe these ground/vehicle details were put into a CFS because Oleg loves detail and wants LONGEVITY out of this game I got a nice bridge to sell you in Brooklyn. 1C is currently all about licensing and marketing their game engines PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This engine was obviously developed with a ground based WWII game in mind like TOW etc... All during COD development; Why do you think Oleg released all those still shots of meticiously detailed ground vehicles and moving grass screens and trees dropping leaves in the wind? Unfortunatley, it means that COD won't ever give us an optimized FPS friendly CFS experience that will allow dozens of planes in the air at once. This engine just wasn't designed as a CFS game engine. They can try to optimize it all they want but 6+ years of core design will only allow so much CFS optimization I'm afraid. Now the devs are running damage control by trying to wedge this game engine into a CFS... Welcome to the lonely low FPS skies of COD!
Last edited by Charlie901; 04/03/11 07:35 PM.
|
|
#3258374 - 04/03/11 08:02 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: SG1_Gunkan]
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 314
nats
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 314
Pocklington UK
|
I have to agree. Whilst I was watching that video all I was thinking was what the hells all this for when you zoom past it at 300 mph or whatever and high up in the sky. I mean you are lucky to even spot a tank never mind watch a battle. Now coming from a Falcon 4 background I can understand the joy of having battles going on whilst you are carrying out your mission - it all adds flavour, but these tanks are insanely detailed and the detailed foliage - its only really needed around the airfields.
I want to play a BOB game with lots of planes in the air, massed dogfights, and smooth gameplay first and foremost. I really really dont care a damn for detailed tanks and trees. Oleg needs to address his priorities, didnt anyone point this out to him when he was making the game sometime over the last eight years????
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!"
AMD Phenom II X6 (6x2.8Ghz Six Core) 12GB DDR3 RAM Nvidea Ti550 1Gb Graphics Card MS Sidewinder Forcefeedback 2 Joystick Windows 10 64bit
Games that I am playing: Elite: Dangerous Making History: The Great War Strike Fighters II: Europe Hearts of Iron 3 Fallout 4 Waterloo
|
|
#3258392 - 04/03/11 08:27 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: SG1_Gunkan]
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,943
knightgames
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,943
MA
|
I think the attention to vegetation and minute ground details is because of the 'evolution' of the "Oleg Engine (tm)." It's been suggested by him that he, perhaps, would like to expand this engine to third party developers for Battlefield 1942 type games. It was even hinted that players could man AAA in defense of their airfield. Who'd want a yucky barren airfield to defend? I also think this was one thing that possibly delayed the progress of Cod, thus we're in the boat we're in. It's a bit tight, but there's plenty of room for us all. I think we'll make it to port and finally have the game we've been waiting for. Time will tell, and I hope I'm right.
Last edited by knightgames; 04/03/11 08:29 PM.
|
|
#3258414 - 04/03/11 08:46 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: knightgames]
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 314
nats
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 314
Pocklington UK
|
I think the attention to vegetation and minute ground details is because of the 'evolution' of the "Oleg Engine (tm)." It's been suggested by him that he, perhaps, would like to expand this engine to third party developers for Battlefield 1942 type games. Thats fine but it isn't relevant to this game. I dont care about future developments. I want to see a decent Battle of Britain atmosphere not empty skies.
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!"
AMD Phenom II X6 (6x2.8Ghz Six Core) 12GB DDR3 RAM Nvidea Ti550 1Gb Graphics Card MS Sidewinder Forcefeedback 2 Joystick Windows 10 64bit
Games that I am playing: Elite: Dangerous Making History: The Great War Strike Fighters II: Europe Hearts of Iron 3 Fallout 4 Waterloo
|
|
#3258424 - 04/03/11 08:58 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: nats]
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,943
knightgames
Hotshot
|
Hotshot
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,943
MA
|
I think the attention to vegetation and minute ground details is because of the 'evolution' of the "Oleg Engine (tm)." It's been suggested by him that he, perhaps, would like to expand this engine to third party developers for Battlefield 1942 type games. Thats fine but it isn't relevant to this game. I dont care about future developments. I want to see a decent Battle of Britain atmosphere not empty skies. That's understandable. Sadly, by the same token it's not relevant to OUR wants, but in the business scheme of Oleg (should I be right) the game engine would supersede BoB/CoD so that future development and 3rd party development of the engine could begin. IOW, without the engine there would be no BoB. If Olegs intention was a more encompassing gaming experience, then BoB is just a portion of that development. Hey. I could be wrong. Probably am. But if CoD is only a fresh coat of paint then they spent a lot of time mixing colours. EDIT: I agree. I want skies black with german bombers and british hurricanes.
Last edited by knightgames; 04/03/11 08:59 PM.
|
|
#3258497 - 04/03/11 10:10 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: SG1_Gunkan]
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,121
sascha
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,121
Munich, Germany
|
Edit: And the game was designed to have huge numbers of aircraft in it. Err.. no, it wasn't. Even before release 1C have clearly stated that their emphasis was on the individual experience with highly detailed planes. *Not* on creating huge formations. They even said that the "hoping-around-cockpits"-option is pretty much what prevents the game from being able to render 200, 300 or 400 planes in a single mission (hopping around cockpits apparently means: no LOD-tricks possible). But I guess we don't need historical numbers of AC in the air when we can jump from a 109 into a Hurri into a Heinkel .. yeah, right. I mean you are lucky to even spot a tank never mind watch a battle. Now coming from a Falcon 4 background I can understand the joy of having battles going on whilst you are carrying out your mission - it all adds flavour, but these tanks are insanely detailed and the detailed foliage - its only really needed around the airfields. Plus let's not forget that Falcon actually has a game-mode that can actually make use of all those vehicles (dynamic campaign). CoD doesn't and probably never will have. Another thing that the dev have made quite clear early on. S.
System: Asus P5Q-E - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300@ 2.5 GHz (currently @3.0 GHz) - Gigabyte GF GTX460 1GB OC - 2x2 GB OCZ DDR2-RAM - Samsung P2370 23'' - MS Sidewinder 2 FF (red trigger, baby!) - Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals - TrackIR 5 + Pro-Clip - Windows Vista 64 Home Premium
|
|
#3258546 - 04/03/11 10:38 PM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: I B Spectre]
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,364
Freycinet
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 13,364
|
Oh well, a video produced for marketing purposes often overlooks such details opting instead for eye candy and wow factor. Great way of thanking a fan for the video he made... Thanks Gunkan, fantastic video! As for the critics: if it looks too good they hate it, if it looks bad they hate it too.... Yawn.
|
|
#3258819 - 04/04/11 04:15 AM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: Freycinet]
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 917
I B Spectre
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 917
Florida, USA
|
Oh well, a video produced for marketing purposes often overlooks such details opting instead for eye candy and wow factor. Great way of thanking a fan for the video he made...As for the critics: if it looks too good they hate it, if it looks bad they hate it too.... It looked so good, I did not realize it was fan-made! Good job, Gunkan. The Stukas level precision bombing and the delayed bomb detonation have nothing to do with the quality of the video production, do they? You've really got to get over this love/hate thing Freycinet. It'll shave years off your life. Comments are not always the struggle between good and evil, even for this sim.
Last edited by I B Spectre; 04/04/11 04:19 AM.
|
|
#3258856 - 04/04/11 05:17 AM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: sascha]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 638
ATAG_Bliss
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 638
|
[quote] Err.. no, it wasn't. Even before release 1C have clearly stated that their emphasis was on the individual experience with highly detailed planes. *Not* on creating huge formations. They even said that the "hoping-around-cockpits"-option is pretty much what prevents the game from being able to render 200, 300 or 400 planes in a single mission (hopping around cockpits apparently means: no LOD-tricks possible). But I guess we don't need historical numbers of AC in the air when we can jump from a 109 into a Hurri into a Heinkel .. yeah, right.
Err.. Yes it was. If you read one of the last interviews with Oleg here's what was said on the matter: WOW, Oleg talks about every aspect of the game in this interview. We are in for a real treat here. He sums it up by saying if you like flying you will be glued to the cockpit. Ilya hints at the possibility of western eastern and african theaters in the future. If this game will be anything in terms of add ons and updates like IL2 we will have something for everyone in this one. There is mention of hardware as well. Oleg talks about how theoreticly it will be possible to have a 1000 planes in the air in multiplayer If your hardware can run it.There are more details on the engine modeling and damage but I dont understand it that well. Im gonna ask a friend at work who is a web master to translate it for me.Sounds like a whole bunch of planes at once to me.
Last edited by SYN_Bliss; 04/04/11 05:18 AM.
|
|
#3258979 - 04/04/11 09:26 AM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: SG1_Gunkan]
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,121
sascha
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,121
Munich, Germany
|
From official Ubi-FAQ, released shortly before game's release in Russia: Q: Did you take specific measures to increase the maxumin number of AC in a single mission? A lot depends on configurations, but did you use any tricks to improve this aspect?
A: There have been endeavours WRT this aspect but the main focus for us was clearly the game-experience WRT the individual planes. Our concept of replayable mission recording and the ability to instantly jump into any plane are incompatible with LOD-tricks. If we would equip flights of planes that are further away with simple physics and simple AI, the results would look horrid up close. Furthermore, this could lead to weird situations in game once the player switches into one of these planes. Stating that *theoretically* it's possible to have 1000 planes in the air doesn't say anything. Theoretically, I could shag the living daylights out of Natalie Portman tomorrow. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. Yes: There's apparently no hard limit coded into the game, but that doesn't mean the game can handle large formations unless you're running a home-version of Skynet. Remember how IL-2 used to go all haywire once you've put in a few too many planes in the FMB? No theoretical upper limit in that game either IIRC, but practically, the reality of what hardware can do set that limit. S.
Last edited by sascha; 04/04/11 09:31 AM.
System: Asus P5Q-E - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300@ 2.5 GHz (currently @3.0 GHz) - Gigabyte GF GTX460 1GB OC - 2x2 GB OCZ DDR2-RAM - Samsung P2370 23'' - MS Sidewinder 2 FF (red trigger, baby!) - Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals - TrackIR 5 + Pro-Clip - Windows Vista 64 Home Premium
|
|
#3258996 - 04/04/11 09:53 AM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: sascha]
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 638
ATAG_Bliss
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 638
|
From official Ubi-FAQ, released shortly before game's release in Russia: Q: Did you take specific measures to increase the maxumin number of AC in a single mission? A lot depends on configurations, but did you use any tricks to improve this aspect?
A: There have been endeavours WRT this aspect but the main focus for us was clearly the game-experience WRT the individual planes. Our concept of replayable mission recording and the ability to instantly jump into any plane are incompatible with LOD-tricks. If we would equip flights of planes that are further away with simple physics and simple AI, the results would look horrid up close. Furthermore, this could lead to weird situations in game once the player switches into one of these planes. Stating that *theoretically* it's possible to have 1000 planes in the air doesn't say anything. Theoretically, I could shag the living daylights out of Natalie Portman tomorrow. Doesn't mean it's going to happen. Yes: There's apparently no hard limit coded into the game, but that doesn't mean the game can handle large formations unless you're running a home-version of Skynet. Remember how IL-2 used to go all haywire once you've put in a few too many planes in the FMB? No theoretical upper limit in that game either IIRC, but practically, the reality of what hardware can do set that limit. S. Thanks for changing your mind and saying the game was designed for large amounts of aircraft in it. Also, thanks for agreeing with me that the hardware is what sets the limit and not the software. The software was designed for huge formations - just wanted to reitterate that point. Btw, someone already posted a video of 250 AI from his personal machine in a single mission. They were running i7 and a 5870. Pretty impressive IMO. We have a 12 core xeon dedicated server with 48gigs of DDR3 and a 1gbps (1000mbps upload and download bandwidth). I imagine we'll be able to easily host that upper limit if the game is optimized and takes full advantage of the cpu power of the server.
|
|
#3258998 - 04/04/11 09:56 AM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: sascha]
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,836
DaveP63
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,836
Indiana, USA
|
Err.. no, it wasn't. Even before release 1C have clearly stated that their emphasis was on the individual experience with highly detailed planes. *Not* on creating huge formations. They even said that the "hoping-around-cockpits"-option is pretty much what prevents the game from being able to render 200, 300 or 400 planes in a single mission (hopping around cockpits apparently means: no LOD-tricks possible). But I guess we don't need historical numbers of AC in the air when we can jump from a 109 into a Hurri into a Heinkel .. yeah, right.
S.
Then it's just an online dogfight simulator and has nothing to do with the Battle, does it? I mean, other than having the main types thrown in with several fringe types, moving blades of grass, swaying trees and tankable tanks...It's like they took a big "what do you want to see" thread from the zoo and tried to do it all. I just hope they can fix what's broke, it looks like there's a lot under the hood, but I'm not convinced "amazing ground detail" has a whole lot of bearing on it surviving or not.
i5-4460@3.2ghz, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte GTX1050Ti 4GB, 2TB HDD, 500GB SDD
|
|
#3259001 - 04/04/11 10:02 AM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: DaveP63]
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 314
nats
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 314
Pocklington UK
|
Then it's just an online dogfight simulator and has nothing to do with the Battle, does it? I mean, other than having the main types thrown in with several fringe types, moving blades of grass, swaying trees and tankable tanks...It's like they took a big "what do you want to see" thread from the zoo and tried to do it all. I just hope they can fix what's broke, it looks like there's a lot under the hood, but I'm not convinced "amazing ground detail" has a whole lot of bearing on it surviving or not. Yeah I really hope its not just a dogfight sim with a BOB 'background'. Thats very lame. I certainly hope Oleg has big plans for this game re continuing campaign elements like bases and groups of pilots experiencing stress and tiredness, and massed flights of planes. When I am flying a plane and am immersed in the game I dont care about moving between planes at all. In fact it is detrimental to the game in Rowans BOB - means you never have to bother landing or taking off you can jump right in and move around innanely, which means you never get involved in the plane you are flying. If this was his concept for the game (like Rowans BOB - although that has both massed planes and it allows you to move around), and it limits the no of planes around, then that is a fundamentally flawed idea for a BOB game. I remember when Pacific Fighters came out without torpedo bombers - what a joke that was. hope this isnt going to be the same bad joke. Being English I am bloody proud of the whole BOB and I want to see it done properly in this game otherwise I wouldnt have bought it. About time we had something from the developer on this I think.
Last edited by nats; 04/04/11 10:04 AM.
"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it!"
AMD Phenom II X6 (6x2.8Ghz Six Core) 12GB DDR3 RAM Nvidea Ti550 1Gb Graphics Card MS Sidewinder Forcefeedback 2 Joystick Windows 10 64bit
Games that I am playing: Elite: Dangerous Making History: The Great War Strike Fighters II: Europe Hearts of Iron 3 Fallout 4 Waterloo
|
|
#3259011 - 04/04/11 10:16 AM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: SG1_Gunkan]
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,169
WernerVoss
Member
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,169
|
If you have a server running the full map, 24/7, you have the perfect online sandbox for people to drop into any time they like and do either group stuff or lone-wolf stuff. I don't think it can get much better than that, especially so if it's hardcore full-real and CEM is mandatory. The air-quakers can do their stuff elsewhere while the full-real chaps meet the challenge of mastering their planes and surviving missions (hours/sorties more important than kills).
Asus P8P67 Pro Mobo 2500K CPU @ 4.5Ghz Antec H2O Kuhler 950 Water Cooler 16Gb DDR3 DC RAM @ 1600mhz EVGA GTX780 Classified GPU Dell U3014 30" Monitor xFi Titanium HD sound Corsair Force 250Gb SSD Corsair RM850w PSU W7-64 INTJ
|
|
#3259017 - 04/04/11 10:28 AM
Re: The amazing ground detail of the sim
[Re: SG1_Gunkan]
|
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,121
sascha
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 1,121
Munich, Germany
|
^You know, the funny thing is that when it comes to tools to make an interesting campaign, it all seems to be there. So far, I have only scratched the surface of the FMB, but even I can see this thing is pretty powerful. Now all we'd need would be an AI-routine to use the FMB and generate missions in real-time and keep track of unit-movements, vital installations (radar, etc) and so on. Probably not gonna happen with current hardware.
But at least someone with sufficent knowledge of the FMB and enough time on their hands should be able to program a string of fixed missions to "simulate" a more dynamic campaign. Would have to be like a tree of single missions. If you "win" mission 1, the script then branches to mission 2a and runs it. If you lose mission 1, the script branches to mission 2b and runs it. If done proplery and with enough attention to detail, this could be the next best thing to a true dynamic campaign.
Of course: All this could only really work if the game engine itself is capable of displaying more than 50 planes (+ ground objects) in a single mission without grinding to a halt every 2 or 3 seconds.
S.
Last edited by sascha; 04/04/11 10:28 AM.
System: Asus P5Q-E - Intel Core 2 Quad Q9300@ 2.5 GHz (currently @3.0 GHz) - Gigabyte GF GTX460 1GB OC - 2x2 GB OCZ DDR2-RAM - Samsung P2370 23'' - MS Sidewinder 2 FF (red trigger, baby!) - Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals - TrackIR 5 + Pro-Clip - Windows Vista 64 Home Premium
|
|
|
|