Any rumors about improving the terrain?

[The Fugitive]

I'm sure EVERYONE would love to see this game go into true 3D, with real life looking objects. Imagine the "immersion" factor!

The problem is those "other games" only have a few miles of terrain to build. HTC's has hundreds of square miles to build. To add the graphics those "other games" have would take a super computer. Heck most personal computers today can't run everything on this game flat out. Just to pre-load all the skins is too much for any video card we run. Add in all those fancy trees, buildings, bridges, and roads and your computers will be lucky to load a single frame an hour. 

[Weirdguy]

I freely admit that half the reason to ask is because of how poorly the ground combat works in AH2.  The normal engagement ranges are ludicriously long, usually well over a kilometer or even 2.  That doesn't seem to jive unless you are talking about North Africa.

I agree that for flight sims the terrain doesn't need to do anything other than kill you if you fly into it, but I still think a good map would be better.  Nothing, and I do mean nothing, compares to AH-2 for air combat PvP.  This is THE flight sim I compare all others to on how well they play, and for customizable controls.  Nothing beats the stick set 1 to stick set 2 changing on the fly.  I can't stand other flight sims that won't let me use my hat switches in two modes at the push of a button to get the 45 degree up views.

I play Planetside 2 right now, but I HATE their aircraft with their mouse and keyboard controls, and you cannot look around and steer at the same time.  Yet, we also have ground combat in AH2, but the terrain lets it down severely.

However, even if a newer map style was introduced, I doubt it would be on par with current games like my other favorite flight sims like Rise of Flight (awesome WW-1 flight sim for those who never tried it, go get that demo version with the Albatross and Spad and see).  But, if it can be improved, I want it to be improved.

[Sunka]

I freely admit that half the reason to ask is because of how poorly the ground combat works in AH2.  The normal engagement ranges are ludicriously long, usually well over a kilometer or even 2.  That doesn't seem to jive unless you are talking about North Africa.

I agree that for flight sims the terrain doesn't need to do anything other than kill you if you fly into it, but I still think a good map would be better.  Nothing, and I do mean nothing, compares to AH-2 for air combat PvP.  This is THE flight sim I compare all others to on how well they play, and for customizable controls.  Nothing beats the stick set 1 to stick set 2 changing on the fly.  I can't stand other flight sims that won't let me use my hat switches in two modes at the push of a button to get the 45 degree up views.

I play Planetside 2 right now, but I HATE their aircraft with their mouse and keyboard controls, and you cannot look around and steer at the same time.  Yet, we also have ground combat in AH2, but the terrain lets it down severely.

However, even if a newer map style was introduced, I doubt it would be on par with current games like my other favorite flight sims like Rise of Flight (awesome WW-1 flight sim for those who never tried it, go get that demo version with the Albatross and Spad and see).  But, if it can be improved, I want it to be improved.

One thing they could do with ease is add desert and winter map's,they have them in Ava and they add a lot and look great with no real fr loss.

[MarineUS]

One thing they could do with ease is add desert and winter map's,they have them in Ava and they add a lot and look great with no real fr loss.

I'd LOVE some winter maps......

[Stellaris]

Seriously, if you're struggling to run AH, its time to recognize that Y2K is now well behind us, and you can safely upgrade to post-millennial hardware.

My whole system cost about $1000 2.5 years ago.  It's my work box, so it isn't even really gaming optimized, except I got a 6950 (flashed it up to a 6970) that is more graphics horsepower than I strictly need.  I run high frame rates with all eye-candy turned on at 2560x1600.  My monitor was about a thousand too, but again it's for work.

[Karnak]

Seriously, if you're struggling to run AH, its time to recognize that Y2K is now well behind us, and you can safely upgrade to post-millennial hardware.

My whole system cost about $1000 2.5 years ago.  It's my work box, so it isn't even really gaming optimized, except I got a 6950 (flashed it up to a 6970) that is more graphics horsepower than I strictly need.  I run high frame rates with all eye-candy turned on at 2560x1600.  My monitor was about a thousand too, but again it's for work.

Exaggerating and insulting people is not a good way to gain support.  My system is well outdated and can no longer run AH at max settings even at the 1440x900 my screen runs at.  That said, my 2005 era Athlon 64 X2 4400 with a budget video card from Dec. 2010 is not about to be upgraded.  Not because I don't want to and not because I don't look with some longing at better hardware, but rather because my money is spoken for and I cannot responsibly build even a $500 or $1000 computer right now.

[rabbidrabbit]

Exaggerating and insulting people is not a good way to gain support.  My system is well outdated and can no longer run AH at max settings even at the 1440x900 my screen runs at.  That said, my 2005 era Athlon 64 X2 4400 with a budget video card from Dec. 2010 is not about to be upgraded.  Not because I don't want to and not because I don't look with some longing at better hardware, but rather because my money is spoken for and I cannot responsibly build even a $500 or $1000 computer right now.

In the rest of the computer world they have these sliders and toggles to turn up the pretty stuff for those who can or want to while others can run at lower settings. 

All sarcasm aside, that does not change my above observation which is true for every computer game.  The greater the innovation, the better the prospects for growth.  The planes look pretty nice, the terrain, well...  it's seriously lacking in appearance.  They could also do a lot to improve gameplay which hasn't really gone anywhere.  The terrain improves the overall feel of the game while gameplay improvements improve retention as people don't get bored of the same old same old mechanics.

[GScholz]

Appeasing the lowest common denominator is a strategy of failure in the long run.

[Pand]

Appeasing the lowest common denominator is a strategy of failure in the long run.

Well said!

[flight17]

Hell no, some of us can barely run AH as it is - if you could get all HTC subscribers PC's that could run it then hell yea!  

Red, i have seen your screenies and videos, you just need a new computer because yours doesn't even meet PS1 standards for graphics lol

This is just like schools, they have to dumb down classes for the few dummies but end up hurting all rest who could understand it. I'm not talking about the learning disabled either, I'm talking about the ones who can but refuse to learn.

however, that being said, its already been 2-3 years if not longer since the current graphics were released and before that it was even longer. In that time, we have upgraded a few planes' models and added a few new ones, but we have only received what? One, for sure, maybe two new maps?

I too personally know 3 people that played AH before i met them that have quit because of no improvements with the graphics.

[Stellaris]

@Karnak - There's no exaggeration there.  My system cost under $1000 - granted I built it myself.  That's 2 drives, mainboard, memory, PSU, GPU and even a new DVD drive.  Case, keyboard and ancillaries I already had, but they don't add much.  Not sure how you'd find that insulting...

[flight17]

Exaggerating and insulting people is not a good way to gain support.  My system is well outdated and can no longer run AH at max settings even at the 1440x900 my screen runs at.  That said, my 2005 era Athlon 64 X2 4400 with a budget video card from Dec. 2010 is not about to be upgraded.  Not because I don't want to and not because I don't look with some longing at better hardware, but rather because my money is spoken for and I cannot responsibly build even a $500 or $1000 computer right now.

I'm running a 2006 xps410 and have AH and FSX and others all turned up high and it runs fine. All we have ever put in it is a new graphics card since tHe first one got fried when the power cord came out of the walland we increased the ram from 512mb to 2gb. Even when we were at the lower ram setting and the origional stock graphics card, it ran everything fine.

[Karnak]

In the rest of the computer world they have these sliders and toggles to turn up the pretty stuff for those who can or want to while others can run at lower settings.

That works fine as long as it is stuff that can be turned off.  The moment it is stuff that can't be turned off because everybody needs to be in the same tactical environment it ceases to be so simple.

@Karnak - There's no exaggeration there.  My system cost under $1000 - granted I built it myself.  That's 2 drives, mainboard, memory, PSU, GPU and even a new DVD drive.  Case, keyboard and ancillaries I already had, but they don't add much.  Not sure how you'd find that insulting...

The $1000 wasn't the exaggeration.  The insult and exaggeration was the insinuation that those who's systems can't run AH at max settings are still using computers from the 1990s.

My budget when I build a new PC, and I likewise build them myself, is $1000-$1500, I just haven't been able responsibly to afford that since my PC hit the three year age at which I normally replace them.

[Stellaris]

LOL!  OK, well I apologize.  That was meant to be humorous, not insulting.  However I'm not sure it's an exaggeration.  I ran AH just fine in 2000, on equipment bought in 1998.  Obviously the graphics have advanced considerably since then, but you can still turn off all the eyecandy, run at 640x480 and fly.  I just tried it and wow, does it look clunky, but it works. 

Anyway, the point is that at some point back-compatible becomes a drag on forward progress.  It costs $180 a year to play this game.  plus some fraction of your connectivity charges, so call it $200.   It's not unreasonable to expect to pay another $200 a year in hardware costs, which would give you a $1000 system upgrade every five years.  Geeze, if your hobby is jogging you pay $200 a year in shoes.

Speaking of which, time to get some exercise. 

[Karnak]

HTC does move things forward too.  This game would now be unplayable on my system that ran AH glass smooth in 2000.  We have recently had bump mapping and reflective surfaces added for example.  Terrain has only had one major revision and I agree it could use another, but we have to keep in mind that the HTC team only has two programmers and two artists.