A thought about ground units, graphics and performance

[Tiberius]

Just a quick thought about the number of ground units in this (or any other combat sim):

Why go through the hassle of giving the units 3d models, damage models, individuals bullets and shells? Sure, it looks cool in close-ups, gives an impressive display and adds to immersion, when very close. It is resource intensive though, and most players/pilots rush by at speeds of 200 miles an hour, drop a bomb or shoot them, and are gone in a heartbeat.

So why not go back to really well made bitmaps or simple hit boxes that can move? It could enable to simulate a whole big battle, a front, bigger scenarios and make the whole thing feel like a real battlefield. And it would not cause server lag in multiplayer.

I guess it is a bit of a philosophical question: why max out the technological possibilities in every aspect of the game in detail, increase hardware requirements in every detail of the game, when instead the one could increase the scale of the scenarios massively, by going back to less spectacular technologies for parts of the game, that are rarely visible anyway, and amp up the map meta game?

[YoYo]

I agree with that to some extent. We certainly need to move forward and why not make improvements(?) but sometimes "the new is the enemy of the good." If a change significantly impacts performance, lowering it and causing issues for the user, then it’s not the ideal path. It’s cool that in IL-2 Korea you can, for instance, shoot out a truck's tire, but... is that really all that important to me as a virtual pilot? It looks great in screenshots and videos, and the effort put into it is certainly worth appreciating, but honestly, I’d be just as happy seeing a simple explosion followed by a 3D wreck model with smoke rising from it. However, the damage model and the accuracy of the "flyable" aircraft and AI-controlled planes are a different story; there, I would expect a high level of realism. The rest can always be handled by simplified units. The level of detail for units in IL-2 GB suited me perfectly 100%. There is another side to this, however. Bear in mind that the developers might want to replicate the Tank Crew experience for IL-2: Korea at some point. I don’t know for sure, but that might be what dictates a certain level of accuracy, even though, as a pilot, you fly over the target at 300 mph and see targets for only a split second.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Just a quick thought about the number of ground units in this (or any other combat sim):

Why go through the hassle of giving the units 3d models, damage models, individuals bullets and shells? Sure, it looks cool in close-ups, gives an impressive display and adds to immersion, when very close. It is resource intensive though, and most players/pilots rush by at speeds of 200 miles an hour, drop a bomb or shoot them, and are gone in a heartbeat.

So why not go back to really well made bitmaps or simple hit boxes that can move? It could enable to simulate a whole big battle, a front, bigger scenarios and make the whole thing feel like a real battlefield. And it would not cause server lag in multiplayer.

I guess it is a bit of a philosophical question: why max out the technological possibilities in every aspect of the game in detail, increase hardware requirements in every detail of the game, when instead the one could increase the scale of the scenarios massively, by going back to less spectacular technologies for parts of the game, that are rarely visible anyway, and amp up the map meta game?

How resource intensive is it really, if you're not too close? The lowest LOD is probably not much more than a few tris. The most expensive part of many units when seen from a distance is very likely the AI and physics, and that's something you'd also need if you'd use "really well made bitmaps". Also, even a bitmap would need to be rendered in 3D space: it needs to take lighting, fog etc. into account or it's going to stick out like a sore thumb. And then this bitmap effectively becomes just another LOD level, saving perhaps 10 or so triangles.

I agree with your general opinion that you don't need maximum fidelity for things you're not likely to see from up close, but in this case I think the added detail is welcome when you are close (e.g. while taxiing) and probably comes at relatively little extra cost compared to 2D sprites.

[Xtremist]

These details doesn't worth too much when some vehicles pop in during an attack run from 1km. The convoys on the road are fine, but sometimes vehicles and static airplanes near a runway are not visible from shooting distance...

[nachinus]

Or AA nests that look empty but then they start a-shooting your way.

[Husar]

14 minutes ago, Xtremist said:

These details doesn't worth too much when some vehicles pop in during an attack run from 1km. The convoys on the road are fine, but sometimes vehicles and static airplanes near a runway are not visible from shooting distance...

Static objects are generally less demanding on performance and can still be destroyed, which is why I can't understand why their draw distance is lower than that of full-fidelity objects. However, even the draw distance of full-fidelity objects is inconsistent. For example, AAA units can also have a surprisingly short draw distance.

[kmo1619]

Well, before the Game was published we all went crazy on the new damage models. We were really excited about the teasers and trailers. We happily threw our money on the bench for what we thought would be the most sophisticated combat flight simulator so far. Not knowing that no consumer grade PC could handle the thing in VR. That's proper marketing.

 

End of the day, to me the only things that are a step forward from GB are the ambient FX like low fog and the weather. That I really enjoy and it adds to the immersion in VR. The rest is basically a step backwards, cause it makes the game unplayable I. Single player,so I'd have to enjoy the ambience in an empty multiplayer server... Or just go GB