EAWPRO's ''Buggy'' 3D shadows

[VonBeerhofen 63]

Let me assure you that there's nothing ''buggy'' about them, but I guess that some people just lack the skill to create them as they're not easy to create and require quite a bit of time. Sure enough they're different then the flat shadows which simply don't have a perspective view. Ofcourse they're not true shadows, just as the default shadows also aren't true shadows and are lacking certain aspects we all associate with shadows.

For instance 2D shadows are incapable of showing the tailfin because it has none, nor is it capable of showing a sideway view of the fuselage and a topdown view depemding on the viewangle, as opposed to the 3D shadow. They're just flat and boring, at least that's my view, and I wouldn't call them buggy for that reason, they're just one solution to add shadow to a game which is incapable of doing the real calculations we see in more modern games.

The 3D shadows are another solution which I and many others feel is much more interesting and possibly can be properly animated one day with the roll or dive of airplanes showing the model at appropiate angles, something which is impossible with the 2D shadows. So that leaves the question which is more buggy? Ofcourse the shadows can easily be replaced by their 2D counterparts, which are still in the game's 3D CDF, I mean you don't have to like them just because I like them but calling them ''buggy'' seems a bit over the top.

VonBeerhofen

Edited September 25, 2018 by VonBeerhofen

[Jel 37]

Real shadows on any flat surface like this runway are two dimensional, and having three dimensional mirror images as shadows may be creative, but it is pointless.

The default 1.2 shadows are much more realistic:

I leave it to the readers to decide

Edited September 25, 2018 by Jel

[VonBeerhofen 63]

The only place where the stock shadows are realistic are on the equator at exactly 12 noon, all other times and locations they're wrong in my opinion. Still, there's no reason to call either ''buggy'' if you'd leave the opinion to the reader.

VonBeerhofen

Edited September 25, 2018 by VonBeerhofen

[rotton50 19]

Actually, from the Tropic of Cancer to the Tropic of Capricorn, not just at the equator. However, that would be splitting hairs, I suppose.

I think a bigger problem is using shadow files that use texture elements rather than transparent elements.

I always try to use transparent elements because I can make the shadows less distinct. If they're less distinct they look more realistic and the "flatness" becomes a non-issue.

FWIW though, I don't spend too much time on the aircraft shadows. A basic shape that matches the plane is good enough. I mean if you're spending time admiring the shadow of your plane, you're going to get shot down.

[Jel 37]

I agree that there are limitations in the source code that always cause the shadows to be drawn as though the sun is directly overhead, ans never take into account the real direction of the sun.

I cannot see that anyone has the time to write some new shadow code to make them appear correctly. However, given that limitation I still prefer the ones that look more realistic, especially as 3-D shadows do not exist on plane surfaces.

[VonBeerhofen 63]

EAWPRO has no problems with transparent shadows, in fact the 3D shadows can have both transparent and none transparent parts. That way the cockpit glass can be portrayed tranparent while the fuselage is none transparent. However those who prefer transparent or none transparent 2D shadows have a choice. Even groundobjects can have transparent shadows in EAWPRO.

VonBeerhofen

[rwatson 26]

WOW there's shadows in EAW?? Never noticed

[rotton50 19]

Good for you for NOT noticing.

Situational awareness is the name of the game.

[rwatson 26]

Yep eye on the target at all times..And doing ground starts I always stay inside the cockpit  and in the air just use the cockpit or no cockpit view

[VonBeerhofen 63]

It's perhaps not an important detail but in EAWPRO you can jump from plane to plane and you will notice the shadows when you're 3rd or 4th on the runway or all the way at the back of the group. They're also noticable when you're diving towards ground targets or low flying enemy planes. From higher up they're practically indistinguishable from the stock shadows. Not that I care how they look or which ones are used, but they're just not ''Buggy''.

 

VonBeerhofen

Edited September 26, 2018 by VonBeerhofen

[VonBeerhofen 63]

[rwatson 26]

Decided to check things out guess it depends on the view point these look OK

[Jel 37]

Russ
From different angles they do not look good

From the position of the wing shadow there is no way that you would see the shadow of the cockpit and the tail fin
These are the 1.2 equivalents with no problems

VBH
You have provided a package of the exe, cdf and fxe files and a few additional files.
There is some excellent and creative stuff, but for me there are some files that give a poor impression and detract from the whole thing.

Apart from the shadows, it seems that the terrible 1.2 forests are included, and I know that you have your own much better versions

The wave-crests are creative, but they look wrong when you see them running in random directions due to the tile orientation.
I recall your providing a removal too with Pactide III.
If you are flying low over the sea with water tile after water tile being loaded the seaweed keeps continually generating in front of you because of the "EAW_TTD.dat" file.
It is not a nice effect.

Jel

[VonBeerhofen 63]

Yes it's true, I have better stuff then what you portray, better waves, better trees and forrest, runways, ground objects etc. etc. but I've not heard anyone complain about models which are in nearly every addon I've seen and which anyone can replace with what ever is available. The procedure is quite simple, if you want to replace the pillboxes you download a .ZIP with for instance Per Von Oben's version and you extract it into the folder and voila. Per has the Supertrees mod on his website, which works exactly the same.

There's a huge range of objects available, to add them to EAWPRO would only unnecessarily increase the package and eat my time which I need for other things. I only added a few things because there were no objects in EAW for the new slots, and it was done in the same way as described above and anyone can do it. These objects came from various sources, when not there EAWPRO may not work properly.

It's been done like that for ages. Whatever I have is not important, as I explained several times before, the good stuff is for the Final Cut addon and other addons I'm working on since I do not want to use the same things that everyone else uses. The Basic version can be dressed up just like we did with EAW in the past and as you're doing with v1.60

VonBeerhofen

[VonBeerhofen 63]

Here's an idea, I'll take the shadows, waves and seaweed out of the CDF and put them into the gamefolder again. I'll add a list of the 3D slots and write an instruction on how to erase them and how to add new models. I think everyone already knows but it's easy enough for me to do. That way people can experiment as much as they like (or not) and have fun again building their own EAWPRO world and be happy.

It's a bit of a shame really because after your initial complaint of a messed up folder and finally cleaning it all up, it's going to be a bit of a mess again but maybe some people will find it easier this way after all.

VonBeerhofen

[rwatson 26]

I figure the shadows aren't what I would call a bug.A bug is something that messes up game play..I really don't worry over the shadows ,trees or whatever ..I fly different versions of EAW for different reason ..Some versions offer different features and I fly the ones I choose to Seems most guys do air starts and the shadows aren't an issue.I usually do ground starts but always from a cockpit view,,some times toggling the cockpit off and never noticed the shadows ans frankly don't care about them...Or the trees and water If I want top notch graphics I fly IL-2 1946

Edited September 26, 2018 by rwatson

[Jel 37]

Fair enough, they are not bugs in that sense. However, with the releases of the 1.28 series people would report occasional graphics issues such as cockpit needles in the wrong places, and refer to them as bugs, so I had used the term "minor bugs" in the broader sense. They were not problems with the exe, but problems with support files

Edited September 27, 2018 by Jel

[VonBeerhofen 63]

Welcome to the ''buggy'' world of EAWPRO, in which you're very likely to hear certain people describe the addon as such, inspite of it's intentional differences with v1.2.

All I can say that in this respect EAWPRO has boatloads more of such ''bugs''. Illuminated airfields, streetlights and searchlights, which come on at night. Glass and transparent shadows on groundobjects, new cockpits, bullet flyby sounds, relocating enemy positions, double length animations in 8 times higher resolution, just to name a few.

It stands to reason that due to the difficulty of reprogramming EAW, certain issues are unavoidable and often take time to solve, but the 3D shadows don't belong in that category. Still, this shouldn't hold back any releases, because if it did there wouldn't be any.

I'm willing to make it easier to control any annoyances but EAWPRO will not be turned into a custom version for each person who has a problem with what I've created. As has been customary throughout the years of EAW, the motto is still the same, if you don't like it, don't play it.

My goal is to introduce even more of such ''bugs'', which reflect my view on the game and how it can be improved.
I'm sorry if it's not what you expect or think what should change, but perhaps the next release has more for you to like then to dislike. You can please some people sometime, but you can't please all people all of the time.

Warning! When you're afraid of getting hammered or being bothered with 3D plane shadows, it is adviced to NOT ENGAGE in flying EAWPRO, there's plenty of much less dangerous, less ''buggy'' and much more cumbersome versions of EAW available.

VonBeerhofen

Edited September 27, 2018 by VonBeerhofen