Author Topic: Why The New Terrain? (Read 1276 times)

96Delta · « **Reply #15 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:17:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by hubsonfire
I saw a serious improvement at ground level

I'm confused by this statement.
Are you saying that the new version has more detail at
ground level that the last version?
I must need glasses!

I much prefer the older version.
Compare the following two screencaps.

Do people truly prefer the new version over the previous?
I am most bewildered by this.

OLD VERSION
Patchwork quit with varying terrain features, approximates real life.

NEW VERSION
Barren green moonscape with repetitive features looks cartoonish and alien (to my eye at least)

David

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #16 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:19:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by whiteman
i was getting a flicker on one of the pads at the airfields, with the luck i have i figured it was my computer.

What settings did you tweak? I get the same flicker on the concrete pads on the fields.

ack-ack

Hoarach · « **Reply #17 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:26:35 PM »

Well taking a peak in before I leave...the new terrain looks really nice. This is me using graphic sliders all the way up and high res. Its just makes the eyes drool.

VooWho · « **Reply #18 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:29:40 PM »

The only thing I like about the grass textures are the SHEEP!!!! But I think the grass textures need some thing like creeks with trees surrounding them, different colors of grass, maybe some roads, and how about more sheep?

The rest of the textures rock. I like the new forests, the new trees, the new farm land, LOVE THE WINDMILLS that actualy move, love the buildings, love the roads with the hedges on the side, love the beaches, love the tank barriers on the beaches, love how the grass fields are now flat instead of those crazy little hills every where. The new textures rock just the grass textures need some more things added to them. GJ HTC Staff!

hubsonfire · « **Reply #19 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:39:17 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 96Delta
I'm confused by this statement.
Are you saying that the new version has more detail at
ground level that the last version?
I must need glasses!

I much prefer the older version.
Compare the following two screencaps.

Do people truly prefer the new version over the previous?
I am most bewildered by this.

OLD VERSION
Patchwork quit with varying terrain features, approximates real life.

NEW VERSION
Barren green moonscape with repetitive features looks cartoonish and alien (to my eye at least)

David

I'm saying my machine ( A lowly AMD 2400 on an old socket A mobo with 512 mb ram and an Nvid GF 6200) runs the game faster at the highest detail settings, than it ran before with the settings at minimum. Where I had slideshows, I've got fluid motion. Where tanks were invisible before, I see them. Instead of those horrid trees made out of 2 flat quasi-tree looking planes, I see trees, windmills, hedgerows, grass (not the 12' high stuff we had before), roads, etc. I must not have my rose tinted glasses on, because I thought AH1 looked better than AW, and neither can hold a candle, IMO, to the new terrain.

I hated the old terrain, with it's invisible objects, framerate choking, and bushes that stopped heavy tanks, ordnance, bullets, squirrels, and lancasters. I don't see why we needed trees and bushes that didn't act or look like trees and bushes.

96Delta · « **Reply #20 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:45:39 PM »

hubs,

Can you post a screenshot of all these details so I can
see what I'm missing? To me all I see is a blurred
green moonscape with no texture or details
accented with single tress in places and
large green blobs that are masses of trees
(that look like craters from altitude).

Maybe I need to tweak my game settings?
Someone show me what it is 'supposed' to look like
so I can set my system accordingly.

Thanks.

David

frosty · « **Reply #21 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:50:14 PM »

Quote

I'm saying my machine ( A lowly AMD 2400 on an old socket A mobo with 512 mb ram and an Nvid GF 6200) runs the game faster at the highest detail settings, than it ran before with the settings at minimum.

Wouldn't the fact that it runs better for you now on your old machine support the argument that the graphics have in fact been downgraded?

I think everyone like the new windmills and so forth. The problem is the general landscape patterns are way less interesting now. To me the ideal would be the old landscape, with the new objects and runways and so forth.

whiteman · « **Reply #22 on:** April 12, 2007, 04:56:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ack-Ack
What settings did you tweak? I get the same flicker on the concrete pads on the fields.

ack-ack

i only flew around a bit to check things out since it was late and haven't played with any settings yet. I'm a graphic designer but not very smart on the technical side of how computers work and how to fix that kind of stuff. you'll probably have it figured out long before me.

96Delta · « **Reply #23 on:** April 12, 2007, 05:00:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by frosty
To me the ideal would be the old landscape, with the new objects and runways and so forth.

My feelings exactly!
Perhaps add the new forests with the new tree model
and leave the sparse "planed" trees for the unforested
areas.

kilz · « **Reply #24 on:** April 12, 2007, 05:05:06 PM »

i notice on the ports you cant climb up the ramps to the docks with out falling thru the ground plus you can shoot thru bridges and if you park a gv at the end of a runway thats next to water when you get tracked you fall thru the ground just some of lots of things that i have found

hubsonfire · « **Reply #25 on:** April 12, 2007, 06:12:04 PM »

Kilz, the ramps have been flaky for ages. The shooting through bridges was a bug, which has been patched, same deal with falling through bridges (maybe same bug).

Damn, can't link my pics, Pic Hangar down.

TinmanX · « **Reply #26 on:** April 12, 2007, 06:15:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by REP0MAN
I love the new terrain. I hope the depth perception gets better. My old eyes have trouble with the hills and it's making me fly like Betty, attacking mountains.

Hate to break it to you like this old man but a change in the terrain isn't gonna improve your flying any.

Ack-Ack · « **Reply #27 on:** April 12, 2007, 06:24:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by frosty
Wouldn't the fact that it runs better for you now on your old machine support the argument that the graphics have in fact been downgraded?

Not necessarily. It could be they made some optimization tweaks to the terrains for better performance rather than downgrading the graphics.

ack-ack

Grits · « **Reply #28 on:** April 12, 2007, 06:29:31 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by NoBaddy
The terrain tiles we have been using are the ones first "thrown together" by the artists when AHII was released. This update to the tiles is one of the benefits of the ToD project. I am also quite sure that this will not be the last update to the terrain tiles.

Damnit NB!! We want satisfaction NOW!! Stop-gap measures just will not do!

Vudak · « **Reply #29 on:** April 12, 2007, 08:34:21 PM »

While I can kind of see how people could say that the terrain looks a bit unfinished or bland from altitude, I have to say that I've had a grand old time flying around NOE just checking out all the little easter eggs and goodies on the map.

On the deck there is a tremendous improvement over the old version. At altitude, I guess is a matter of taste. It does look much less clustered. Whether or not you enjoy that is up to you.