Any rumors about improving the terrain?

[GScholz]

Or they could do the sensible thing and have us pay for add-on aircraft and vehicles, thus financing their development.

[Pand]

The difference is substantial to say the least...

Agree--- most of the aircraft models and tanks look great in AHII... reworking the terrain could potentially complete this game.

[Weirdguy]

Yup, there is nothing wrong with the planes or vehicles, and definitely nothing wrong with the controls for them.  In fact I would say the controls of AH-2 are actually better than most other games.

And, as I said before, the trees and buildings actually used on the terrain seem fine to me as well.

However, the lack of fine detail in the underlying shape of the ground itself stands out.  We need terrain that has a much finer polygon count to increase the amount of hills in the game.  The gigantic, 1-kilometer squares before the terrain makes a blatantly obvious transition to the next, giant sized polygon (which you often see as a straight line, and a jump in your suspension as you drive over it) is not something to be proud of.

[Stellaris]

Here's what X-plane can do

Spitfire and 109 - to show off the planes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-xl1s7fuqo

Helicopter over Poland - to show off the terrain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ZC94HCtcg

Like AH, X-plane is a small company (really just Austen Meyer).  The great thing about X-plane is that it's a very open system, with many user-developed plug-ins, and you can build your own planes in tremendous detail.  The cool thing is you don't have to put in the flight dynamics by hand, the program actually works out the physics based on the design elements, including details like wing flex, etc. etc.  There's a huge library of user-created content.  It's also an FAA certified flight simulator, and it's been used as the design tool for at least two real-world aircraft.  Basically, it rocks.

What it is NOT is a combat simulator.  It does have weapons modeled, but it doesn't have a damage system.  Nor does it support 500 pilots in a shared WWII world, nor a bunch of other things that AH does very well.

However these things are not mutually exclusive.  If their strengths could be combined, it would be possible to have the best of both worlds.

[Shane]

I didn't read all 7 pages (my vid card couldn't keep up   )  

But did anyone suggest a compromise of sorts?  

The actual areas where ground battles are fought (spawns, bases, towns, etc) could be fancied up and maybe only seen when you're in a GV/on foot/touching the ground (well this still wouldn't work for me since even if I fly 40k my nads still drag.   ) while the miles of empty terrain in between is left as is...

<edit: and  why was this moved to the o' club? Not that it really matters.>

[USRanger]

I made this using the current terrain system.  The current system works good.  It's the amount of hours it would take a terrain maker to create what y'all are asking for is the key.  More detail=more time=less terrains coming out.

[Greebo]

Increasing the poly count of the terrain would have a major impact on frame rates. The only way it could be done without obsoleting all existing terrains would be to double the resolution, i.e. 1/4 mile squares instead of 1/2 mile. That way old terrains could be converted by the program on the fly with no extra work. A smoothing algorithm could blend the existing polys but would leave flat terrain flat in order to avoid object bugs. There could still be issues with SPs however.

The problem is that doubling the number of polys the terrain uses would probably lose more customers to frame rate issues than it would gain through smoother looking terrain. The major benefits would only be apparent once new terrains came out taking advantage of it, months or years down the line.

Personally I'd rather see a greater variety of objects cleared for MA terrain use. Bridges for example, either standalone or as part of bridge bases. Also some general clutter; villages, factories, beached ships, wrecked tanks, ruined buildings etc. These would have no strategic value but would break up the endless green wastelands between bases. New MA objects would also give an incentive for terrain designers to bring out new MA terrains. I think a lot of the problem with how AH looks is some of the older MA terrains are not very well designed, with unnatural looking mountains and roads running up steep cliffs etc. These could be got rid of if there were new better looking terrains to replace them.

[Tinkles]

I made this using the current terrain system.  The current system works good.  It's the amount of hours it would take a terrain maker to create what y'all are asking for is the key.  More detail=more time=less terrains coming out.

Absolutely beautiful, nicely done.

Increasing the poly count of the terrain would have a major impact on frame rates. The only way it could be done without obsoleting all existing terrains would be to double the resolution, i.e. 1/4 mile squares instead of 1/2 mile. That way old terrains could be converted by the program on the fly with no extra work. A smoothing algorithm could blend the existing polys but would leave flat terrain flat in order to avoid object bugs. There could still be issues with SPs however.

The problem is that doubling the number of polys the terrain uses would probably lose more customers to frame rate issues than it would gain through smoother looking terrain. The major benefits would only be apparent once new terrains came out taking advantage of it, months or years down the line.

Personally I'd rather see a greater variety of objects cleared for MA terrain use. Bridges for example, either standalone or as part of bridge bases. Also some general clutter; villages, factories, beached ships, wrecked tanks, ruined buildings etc. These would have no strategic value but would break up the endless green wastelands between bases. New MA objects would also give an incentive for terrain designers to bring out new MA terrains. I think a lot of the problem with how AH looks is some of the older MA terrains are not very well designed, with unnatural looking mountains and roads running up steep cliffs etc. These could be got rid of if there were new better looking terrains to replace them.

I think a few "touch ups" are needed here and there (95% of which you already said). The problem (again), is the frame rates.  Sad to say it, but I am one of the "frame rate guys" who if I'm getting 15 fps I'm doing darn good. When there is a furball or a nice battle going on, normally I can't join because I would be lagging too much.    I am getting a far better computer this spring, but what about the other gamers in the boat I'm in now?

For you guys who have nicer computers, that's cool; but don't forget you're not the only ones who play (and pay) this game.

Eye-Candy can wait until the current things in-game are polished and perfected.

Respectively,

Tinkles

 

[rabbidrabbit]

Greebo,

What is wrong with leaving the existing arenas as is and creating a new "hi fidelity" map(s) and put it/them in their own arena?  Open up the rule set so designers could implement much higher quality terrains and objects.  The primary thing holding advancement up is the restrictive rule set for current MA maps.  Entering the arena is purely optional so you are not losing any players and most would help build and test the new maps.  Given the player base who does a lot to further the game like ranger and yourself, HTC would benefit substantially from enabling those who try to help them instead of holding a hard line.

[GScholz]

I made this using the current terrain system.  The current system works good.  It's the amount of hours it would take a terrain maker to create what y'all are asking for is the key.  More detail=more time=less terrains coming out.

That looks good compared to what we're used to, but still underwhelming compared to other games. Is the terrain maker/editor easy to use? Does it have any advanced tools for creating detail with little work, like procedural/fractal terrain shaping etc.? Or do you painstakingly have to add every little detail manually?

Something like this, from FSX, should be entirely doable:

[Greebo]

Greebo,

What is wrong with leaving the existing arenas as is and creating a new "hi fidelity" map(s) and put it/them in their own arena? 

Personally I don't like any solution to a problem that involves splitting the player base. Either most players would join the hi fidelity MA and the low fidelity MA would quickly die or vice versa.

[rabbidrabbit]

Personally I don't like any solution to a problem that involves splitting the player base. Either most players would join the hi fidelity MA and the low fidelity MA would quickly die or vice versa.

It's a win win either way.  I'll bet you 80% plus would switch but the remaining still have an option.  Sticking to the middle means bleeding from both directions with no forward progress.  The terrain is markedly dated in appearance now and will become more so each passing year.  Improving gameplay and upgrading terrain would do a heck of a lot to retain current players and bring many in the door which serves everyone's best interest.

[Wiley]

It's a win win either way.  I'll bet you 80% plus would switch but the remaining still have an option.  Sticking to the middle means bleeding from both directions with no forward progress.  The terrain is markedly dated in appearance now and will become more so each passing year.

For argument's sake, we'll use your numbers.

Not being sarcastic, but looking at that from the other side, it's a win if you effectively guarantee 20% of the playerbase gets alienated?

If I logged in at prime time and the MA had 80 people in it while the HD one had 320, I probably would go do something else.  Most if not all of that 20% probably would as well.

Improving gameplay and upgrading terrain would do a heck of a lot to retain current players and bring many in the door which serves everyone's best interest.

But would it cover that 20%?  This game is niche gameplay.  Many who try it don't stick around for a myriad of reasons.  Lack of graphics is probably pretty low on the list.

A lot of people say people are going to leave because the graphics look dated, but do you know of anyone who has actually cancelled their account and said, 'I love the community, I can't get enough of the gameplay, but my god the lack of new maps and dated graphics are just something I can't get past.'  I haven't, most people I've seen leave were sick of sandbox gameplay and the behavior it fosters in people.

Wiley.

[rabbidrabbit]

Who knows if it's 80/20 or 50/50?  The point being, in my opinion, HTC would benefit from enabling a better quality product.  Making another arena to use as a sandbox without the severe limitations of the current MA's would breathe some life into those inclined towards designing objects and terrains.  Why not use the free labor to give people who want more variety that option?

Your right in saying gameplay is more of an issue than terrain but it's another topic.  I'd love to see a dynamic map where squads could fight for map space or some other ideas that expands beyond the current "sandbox" as that gets stale. 

[Stellaris]

FSO is there to get you out of the sandbox.  It's awesome.

And truly the graphics are secondary - but secondary is not the same as unimportant.  Better graphics are that much more immersive.  Actually, I'm quite sure that a terrain graphics upgrade will come at some point.  They have always evolved and I'm sure will continue to do so.  Really the discussion here is over what priority that should have, and as a secondary point, what level of hardware is just too old to be supportable anymore.