World Airforce

Im not sure exactly what kid of Jets those are ( let's just say they are F-16's ). But would not all F-16's be essentially EXACT copies of all the others?

 

video with clip of World Airforce in it

I suggest watching it -- it shows the terrain a lot better (doesn't look like a just a sneakily made flat texture like the second shot).

A flying game with the amount of planes that the War Hawk (ps3) video had would be nice. But I have a feeling the detail wouldn't remain as high as they are in the screenshots if that was the case.


PS: BenQ -- Games don't exist in a vacuum per genre. It isn't as if certain games can only be compared, graphically, to other games in their genre. (I misread your original post and apparently missed the word Type, though). I posted in response to you to explain why I thought that -- I'm not saying the game doesn't look good, it does, but there is more to a game looking good than just putting a high poly model in a screenshot. If I compare this game to games out I think there are quite a few I'd rather look at than these screenshots (although I've never been much of a fan of flying games). Don't get so defensive/offensive when someone, apparently, disagrees with you.

In summary: the game looks good, nobody is saying otherwise (I don't think?) -- the second screenshot looks funny but it seems to be just that screenshot and not the entire game.

 

Well.. Aren't all planes just a copy of each other?

A bit of dirt and maybe different symbols on them wouldn't hurt i guess, but the models should really all look the same.

It would be a bit like a race with all Ferrari F-something's in PGR3.

 

Tell that to the devs not me..
If you are showing details like wear, numbers, symbols coloration and all you have to know that people are gonna notice these things. In sport games you also see different facial features even though people can almost look the same.

 

When you're playing the game, you won't be seeing these kinds of perspectives anyway except in replays. I think saying they all look alike is rediculous to begin with...of course they're going to look alike.

 

I'm not sure whether this title should get the attention it's getting here. Taito's sims efforts have always ranged from poor to mediocre to 'OK'.

And 'OK' for the hardcore fans only.

 

While the screens and video look good, I'm not sure what's the big deal - very few actual polygons are visible at the same time, so obviously you're gonna be able to put a LOT of polygons & texture detail on the planes - nothing amazing going on here, people. Still, nice looking planes indeed

Uttar

 

Just imagine what a next gen Ace Combat game will look.

 

Whata funny thread.
1) The planes look great - could they be any different? The entrie system polycounts and shader budget goes on a couple of planes! There's nothing else. If anything I'm inclined to think these planes don't look as good as they could, because with the resources available they can squeeze SOOO much into a couple of plane models they should be photorealistic. So call me hard to please, but I'm not, probably ever, going to find a couple of plane models against a blue sky impressive, unless I can't distinguish it from a real photo.

2) THe planes look identical - As has been raised, that's kinda the point of planes. They're all made alike so look the same. Of course you may want some random dirt, but strangely enough most airforces wash their planes. Have a look at these...

Not agreat deal of variety. It won't take much for the final game (and not work in progress) to add some different textures to different aircraft.

3) The area to impress in a flight sim IMO is in the terrain. I rememeber flight sim many years ago where a key marketting gimmick was the Golden Gate bridge. In a sim I wantto be able to drop to 100ft and skim the tops of the trees. Blue skies and clouds aren't hard to render. If they want to impress they need to show more than a couple of models against a blue ground.

 

you didn't bother with the video did you

 

No. Am on quota'd BW service don't do most vids.

 

thats what I thought too but after looking closer the ground is far from flat and it does look pretty realistic as long as it's nice in motion.

there's no reason why flight games can't all lok this good next gen, that and they have to have good draw distance.

 

Am i the only one having seriosu problems with IGN videos, ever since they switched their player thing? The not-working kind of problem.

 

The quicktime ones are all save-as. Look closer, ou also may need Flash.

 

Ace Combat looked great, so I think they can get that looking even better(and keep in mind I HATE MS). SO the screeens are no surprise to me.

By the way, when is that win an x-box every ten seconds is gonna take place. Hey, if I can get one free, i already have my wish list(im kinda shallow...........DEAL WIT IT)

 

LOD is more forgiving in a flight sim than a FPS, so the hard drive should come in real handy to cache the terrain with hi-res textures.

I'm curious to know if a game like World Airforce is a case where you would want the unified shaders on the Xenos GPU to do nothing put pixel shading, and use the CPU for all the vertex workload? Also wouldn't procedural synthesis be useful on things like ground textures and terrain features?

 

alright you got me.

but I assure you I'm the biggest Xbox fan in east Tokyo.

 

I guess I bothered the hive by saying the terrain looks like ass.

Hard to tell much difference in that short trailer, and it isnt direct feed. Clouds look nice though.

Compare AC5 (ps2) terrain with the World Airforce capture.





Like I said I hope its just a placeholder. I agree with Shifty, I'd like to see a huge jump in detail on the environment itself on next gen flight games to go along with all the other expected advancements. Personally I cant wait to see how next gen Ace Combat is going to turn out.

 

Surely you mean the only one?

 

Personally I think this makes it look more realistic. There should be a good depth of field in a game like this. Have either of you seen the movie True Lies? Remember when the camera was looking down on the Harrier, and you could see the street below? The latter was focussed too sharply, so it looked too obviously superimposed.