Holy crap! Have you guys seen the WB3 water effect?

[Tac]

Never mind. Got it and have the white screen of death.

Why they are making a game that only supports near-high-end graphic cards is beyond my comprehension.  

[texace]

Seems to me that iEN is like Rolls-Royce and Lambroghini. They only make cars that the rich can afford. What I don't understand is that 60% of their customer base is below min. requirements and can't afford to upgrade (like myself.)

 

------------------
Semper Fi, Do or Die! Kill, kill, kill!!!

[Yeager]

Although my sytsem is at minumum specs, and in the CPU department below min specs, WB3 have postioned themselves nicely for the next few years with this engine.

The bummer for me is twofold:
1) AH graphics have become largely obsolete
2) AH has many design features that are, IMO as a customer, better than WB3.

I can honetly say that the best sim is currently between the two and unavailable to me as a consumer.

HTC will need to do a serious evaluation of WB3.  What becomes of that evaluation is anyones guess.

If I had the system it would be a definate must to have access to both at this time.

But I dont.

Yeager


[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 03-18-2001).]

[snag]

TAC, I think this is typical of a problem in folders/files arrangement. Make sure that when unzipping the files you set the original preferences of the zip archive and that should to it. Running it OK here at 1024*768 32 bits, 24 bits z-buffer on a Celeron 400@500 with GeForce 2 MX, 256 MB.

[Ram1]

Seawulfe:

Good comments.

There are some bugs that have been identified with the 109 as you pointed out. Also the gunsight is not centered on that plane and you can't get snapshot views. All these issues will be fixed in the next update.

One thing though, on the "stubby" wings out of proportion, what field of view (FOV) were you looking at. I know there are 3 fields of view 55, 75 and 90. And that each one provides a different effect, the 55 one does make the wings look stubby and I'm wondering if its in all the views? I will have to look.
Field of view is something new to WBs and I'm not used to it just yet.

On the water thing, I'm not happy with it yet, and we have been told the water effect is not complete, nor are the clouds, tracers and a number of other things. So we will wait and see how it gets tuned up.

I'm also learning that they have recoded the Flight Model system, and that needs to be checked out. As you all know once you mess in that area, all hell can break loose. So far I've seen subtle differences in Spin control,  and I think those will be fixed soon once we get into online beta.

For texace:

As for the high end issue, that is always an issue for on-line flight sims, they will always push the envelope of graphics and computer power, isn't that the way we want it?

Ram1

[Westy]

"on the "stubby" wings out of proportion, what field of view (FOV) were you looking at"

The propblem is the 2D cockpit screen overlay from WB 2.77 combined with the new 3D-ish type of view. The cockpit frame work doesn't change where as the external perspective does. They both need to change or it look "wierd," as it does now.

 -Westy

[-Belgar-]

The water effect is a placeholder, this has been stated by the iEN team.

Yes i agree without having shadows the water does look disorientating and lack of depth, in time this will be retified.

The current water effect we are experiencing in Warbirds III beta is in no way the same as Quake or Everquest, these two games both use a game engine that are at least 2 years old.

[AKSeaWulfe]

RAM1,

I'm not quite sure which FOV I was looking through, because I did it at work for only a few minutes before I left to go home. My home system has a V5 5500, and after seeing the lucky charms rainbow effects I didn't feel it was worth 6+ hours to d/l on my ancient 56K. :-)

I will go back to work and check it out Monday, but I believe it was the view forward and left, forward and right, back and left, and back and right.

-SW

[Daff]

"I appear to be flying nowhere, Like Im motionless. "

You mean, just like flying over real water?
Honestly, though, the water does need to be worked on, which according to HS will happen.

Daff

------------------
CO, 56th Fighter Group
 www.56thfightergroup.org
This is Yardstick, follow me"

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by AKSeaWulfe:
You haven't noticed anything peculiar with the planes? Take a good long look at the 109E's wings... then at the fuselage.

Is that an OompaLoompa's plane? It's really stubby and the wings are out of proportion.

 http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/019381.html

Guess I wasn't the only one after-all.
-SW

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by AKSeaWulfe:
They just need to fix the plane's scaling.

http://lists.ient.com/ubb/Forum35/HTML/000381.html

Wasn't wrong about that one either.
-SW

[Ram1]

OK, thanks for catching those Seawulfe. I'm sure they will get corrected in indeed they are wrong. That what beta's are for.

Ram1

[sky_bax]

Some are just not seeing the big picture when it comes to the WB3 engine & water.

These things you speak of are just FX that can be changed with a few key strokes, they are minor.

What is inportant is how the water & terrian is modeled.

VERY impressive! Read up on it, great stuff.