Author Topic: Phnuh... (Read 1044 times)

fscott · « **on:** June 11, 2001, 08:13:00 PM »

Tripod doesn't allow remote loading, no wonder my pics won't work..

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]

fscott · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2001, 08:23:00 PM »

Try this instead: cut and paste

members.nbci.com/corn55/pic/SShot11.jpg

members.nbci.com/corn55/pic/SShot10.jpg

members.nbci.com/corn55/pic/SShot9.jpg

[ 06-11-2001: Message edited by: fscott ]

mietla · « **Reply #2 on:** June 11, 2001, 10:28:00 PM »

Actually they do work if you "wake them up" by loading their URL directly first

Vulcan · « **Reply #3 on:** June 11, 2001, 11:47:00 PM »

Fscott how about some screenshots with framerate right on top of the groundwar?

I'm curious to see how you go. I got too the front in a Stuka yesterday and it dropped to below 1fps and shortly after CTD'd (tm CRS).

fscott · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2001, 12:07:00 AM »

Vulcan, what are your system specs?

A great post was just put up on the WW2OL boards. Guess how much RAM WW2OL uses altogether? Over 850 MB including swap file.

I recently upgraded to 512 MB. People experience a drop in fps during combat due mostly to the fact that their harddive runs continuously. That's just bad coding and handling of the combat code as it has to continuously access the harddrive on systems with less than 256 MB ram.

Now my harddrive rarely runs. It has helped tremendously during times that would normally make my harddrive light burn bright red nonstop.

Additionally, there is a bug either on our end or the server. As you play, your fps will slowly DECREASE. After 30 min or so, your FPS will normalize at a pitifully low rate for most people, and they won't see as good of fps as they did when they first started. I think it's all in the loose coding. I'm sure they will get it fixed as most people cannot run the game.

fscott

Nash · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2001, 01:21:00 AM »

Ok....

I don't wanna come off bashing anyone, or any sim... And I wish everyone involved the best of luck...

But I've seen this type of comment far too many times now without anyone seeming to question it.

Quote

I think it's all in the loose coding. I'm sure they will get it fixed as most people cannot run the game.

How can anyone be so sure of that? Because in fact - the people that you're so "sure" will have it fixed are the exact same people that created this "loose coding" in the very first place.

So if they were the ones that built it, how can *anyone* be so sure that they have the ability to fix it?

It's a very admirable showing of blind faith but it is simply that.

It seems that the second most worthy thing to brag about with this release is 15 fps (15 fps!), following just behind actually being able to play WWIIOnline, online. There's an additional long and healthy list of serious problems following right behind those.

I totally respect the Rats' "vision" for this thing, but come on...

This is starting to make everyone involved look a bit rediculous.

fscott · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2001, 02:12:00 AM »

Perhaps this one may be different. I'm sure because I *think* they see the massive potential to create monthly revenue from 20,000+ potential players at $10 per month.

Secondly, these players won't pay to play when 90% of them are demanding FPS as a key issue to be addressed.

failure to fix fps = lost revenue

Quite different from your stand alone game where once it's sold, you can just make endless promises of patches and never do it without any loss of revenue. WW2OL's only source after the initial sale is future releases and monthly subscriptions.

My guess is that FPS will be priority #1 in the coming month.

fscott

StSanta · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2001, 03:56:00 AM »

I'll check it out when it's not a beta product anymore.

Even if it ran perfectly, there are still FM issues that aren't very great, such as the gamey "full stick back turn turn tun gain speed and alt in loops" thing, which is done to create a larger customer base by making flying easier.

Perhaps it's a squeak to takeoff. That's not what matters; flying does.

Vulcan · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2001, 04:01:00 AM »

I'm running a P3-600EB (133FSB), 256Mb PC133 SDRAM, GF2MX. Nothing like yours

However, in my defence I have games with far superior graphics to WW2OL. They run at resolutions up to 1600x1200x32 without hitting terrible FPS rates.

Fscott did you ever play Microproses very last version of Gunship!? Graphics are practically the same as WW2OL, yet it cranked out the frames no problems. Or check its predecessor, M1 Tank Platoon II, slightly early but very similar (designed for Voodoos though).

I think the graphics engine they have is porked. IMHO the best thing they can do is license something ASAP.

kong · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2001, 07:41:00 AM »

Can you turn off the little heart and compass thingy? Seems like it would hurt the immersion factor.

kong

Westy MOL · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2001, 08:13:00 AM »

I've seen a few of Killers posts on AGW the last few days and while he says the fps and ctd's are the numbe rone priority now my take on what he has said is that no one should expect miracles and there may be a marginal improvement at best.

So it would appear to me the minimum and recomended system specs are the equivalent of a lie. Because they seem to know that those systems won't cut it (ghz machines barely do) and any wringing blood from the stone isn't going to ghet PIII users out and in the clear.

-Westy

p.s. Here is the most directly related post Killer made, "BTW framerate and memory requirements are now priority 1. I have 4 guys on it now, with a little attention to a couple of crash bugs as well. I don't know what to expect as far as improvements though, any major increases may require a lot of work(time), but ya never know, they may dig up a few big doh!'s."

[ 06-12-2001: Message edited by: Westy MOL ]

fscott · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2001, 10:31:00 AM »

The code appears to be filled with numerous "big doh's". If they wanna fix the fps before they continue on with gameplay features, they can and will. If not, WW2OL will suffer.

Vulcan, you need to try the suggestions they made. Run settings.exe and make those changes, specifically lower shadow size to 1 ot set it to 0. Then you need to make sure those changes made effect by checking the wwiiol.cfg file. Many people reporting that their changes weren't going through into the cfg file.

fscott

Spitboy · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2001, 11:02:00 AM »

StSanta,

Regarding the "gain altitude while looping". This one is interesting, and I'm not even a grognard on this issue. This was noted early on in beta, and folks said it was wrong. The Rats said, "yeah we thought so, too. But we can't PROVE it." So a long effort was undertaken to prove that a Spit1 couldn't gain altitude in loops to a certain point under optimal conditions. No proof was found.

Tests in WB and AH showed that you could do the same thing, to a degree (if I recall, it was easier to do in AH than in WB). There's plenty of anecdotal proof of "infinite looping given enough fuel". The world record was set in like 1930 in a Tiger Moth with like 900+ loops in a row by a woman. Since then, numerous accounts exist of pilots doing 300 or so loops in prop-driven planes.

Two likely reasons why we don't think much about it is because A., it's very hard on the pilot, and B., it's not a valid ACM move.

That's not to say the WW2OL FM isn't missing something somewhere - it is. It does retain E too well, and the Rats know this and are looking into where and how the problem happens. Several people have been working directly with Hoof on the FMs, analyzing them in minute detail, and there's some drag issues being examined. I'd expect the FMs to be tuned before the "war starts".

Spitboy -SW-