Author Topic: War Thunder  (Read 30812 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #405 on: November 02, 2013, 10:28:40 AM »
Um ..... I see plenty of lighting effect in the AHII. Are you saying clouds equals lighting?

Offline zack1234

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13213
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #406 on: November 02, 2013, 10:40:52 AM »
I don't have a problem with AH graphics and I play ROF which has nice graphic as well.

My PC is rater awesome which might have something to do with it.

Water effects are nice in ROF but I don't think this adds to game play.

Track IR makes a big difference in AH to how the game looks as well.

AH you log on and you play in WT you stand on your head eat a bowl of carrots and then you get a biplane to fight a 109.

WT is poo that is why 777 studies has got involved, on the ROF forums they have locked a whine thread about how 777 has left ROF to wither on the vine.

They have just a update as well :rofl

If AH was poo I would not play it, its pennies a day to play and keeps me out of the pub :)

How do I become a moderator?

There are no pies stored in this plane overnight

                          
The GFC
Pipz lived in the Wilderness near Ontario

Offline Curly

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #407 on: November 02, 2013, 11:13:21 AM »
Um ..... I see plenty of lighting effect in the AHII. Are you saying clouds equals lighting?

Look at how the WT has more of a sense of depth, the way the light reflects not just of the canopy. The way the plane pops off the background. The Aces looks flat. Where is the sun coming from in the aces pic the pilots 11 o'clock maybe? It's hard to get a sense cause other than from canopy because the light seems to be coming from everywhere at once with the same intensity. How about when you look at the sun in the cockpit, Does the light flare and defuse or does it just get bright when get within and angle of the sun. Does that brightness vary with the time of day? Other than in the clouds, does the intensity of the sunlight vary. Does it vary under the clouds? Light is more than just shadow and reflectivity.

The beauty of all that stuff is it's run client side and is scalable and can be shut off if one's cpu doesn't have the muscle for it. 

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17360
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #408 on: November 02, 2013, 03:08:51 PM »
Not at all, they certainly don't have to, nor should they copy WT's aesthetic. Though as it stands Aces has very little in the way of lighting or lighting effects. The difference between this
(Image removed from quote.)
and
this (Image removed from quote.)
is lighting effects. I dont think adding more polygons to the trees really will raise the bar as much improving the lighting.

curly the two pictures you posted are really out of context.  the wt plane looks shiny as it if it just came out of the factory.  the aces high picture looks worn out as if it has been baking in the dessert for too long.  and that is how the ah skin is supposed to look.

semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7312
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #409 on: November 02, 2013, 03:11:56 PM »
This is the observable;

con range 5.6miles
terrain objects 4miles
bases/towns 17miles
cons fade in and out when the maximum is reached.

There is no fallacy here.
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10


"BE a man and shoot me in the back" - pez

Offline Easyscor

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10899
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #410 on: November 02, 2013, 03:32:30 PM »
This is the observable;

con range 5.6miles
terrain objects 4miles
bases/towns 17miles
cons fade in and out when the maximum is reached.

There is no fallacy here.

I was expecting someone else to mention this.

Terrain (texture) ground range is 17 miles. It's set by the Arena Settings variable, FogVisibilityMiles. The default is 14 miles and I usually reduce that to 10 miles in my AvA setups because I push your hardware with custom objects and textures.

Easy in-game again.
Since Tour 19 - 2001

Offline XxDaSTaRxx

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #411 on: November 02, 2013, 09:02:13 PM »
Recently tried WT. Catalina can take cannons like a man  :noid


It's just another arcade game people are claiming as a simulator.

Not to mention the toughness of the standard armored car, takes plenty of strafes to "kill"  :noid


My honest thoughts are that it's not a bad game, but it isn't near AHII's level.

 :devil No War Thunder for me
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 09:04:43 PM by XxDaSTaRxx »
Quote from: Latrobe
Do not run.
Face your opponent with all you have.
If you die you have something to learn.


Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #412 on: November 02, 2013, 09:13:17 PM »
Look at how the WT has more of a sense of depth, the way the light reflects not just of the canopy. The way the plane pops off the background. The Aces looks flat. 







Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #413 on: November 02, 2013, 09:16:52 PM »


Offline gyrene81

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11629
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #414 on: November 02, 2013, 09:22:10 PM »
oooh, you missed with that bristol picture...cartoon city.
jarhed  
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #415 on: November 02, 2013, 09:39:12 PM »
oooh, you missed with that bristol picture...cartoon city.

Actually, it all depends on the angle versus the sun. The Bristol is a very nicely rendered plane.
You're also dealing with canvas covering on most of the aircraft. I was delighted to see the pilot's
head dip and raise and move side to side in relation to the elevators and rudder (I know, such
has been seen in the sim world before). It's one of my favorite tee designs.

Offline Curly

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #416 on: November 02, 2013, 10:18:48 PM »
curly the two pictures you posted are really out of context.  the wt plane looks shiny as it if it just came out of the factory.  the aces high picture looks worn out as if it has been baking in the dessert for too long.  and that is how the ah skin is supposed to look.

semp
The purpose of posting that picture was to illustrate that the polygon count of both models was similar. Poly-counts use to be the go to standard on how graphical fidelity was judged. Adding polygons won't make the game necessarily look better. It's really the most brute force approach to graphics.

Just from playing with graphics settings, I think there still a ton of overhead to play with in both the pixel shading and the geometric shading. Pixel shading and geometric shading combined is where you're going to get the most bang for your buck. While lower end GPU's don't handle geometric shading well. I think its more scalable than a vertex approach because you're not using render distances as the control of performance, ie FPS.

 It also allows the player to customize the graphics more to their liking. IE they can say, I will live with short render distances, but have more eye candy in those short distances. I think that's where part of the false allegation of inefficiency in Aces' graphics engine comes from. In that if you cull the view distances there isn't much more atmospheric enhancement you can do. The only enchantments beyond the vertex shades are the bump, and specular maps. The function of which is binary as its either totally on or off.

When people go for max graphics, they go shadows, bump maps and max textures and view distance. What kills the frame rate is the view distance. You end up rendering so many vertices they fill that graphics pipeline so fast that the frame rate drops, while all the other parallel pipelines remain mostly idle. Which why even modern rigs can be very taxed when running aces at max settings. If one simply adds more vertices to the terrain textures view distances have to drop exponentially in relation to the number of vertices added to the terrain. The engine becomes better suited to being run on workstation optimized to render vertices rather than a desktop card which tends to optimize texture fill rates.


Which is why I say you get more bang for buck by looking into lighting effects as a means to enhance graphics. Ambient occlusion, Anisotropic Filtering, and some post processing would go all further to enhance the graphics.

Offline guncrasher

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17360
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #417 on: November 02, 2013, 10:30:49 PM »
curly the polygon count has been shown as not being almost equal by any count.  as for the rest of what you are saying, I just take skuzzy's word that ah does a better job than any other game.  and that is because i trust skuzzy more than I trust you.

not saying you are wrong but skuzzy somehow has a track of actually knowing what is going on unlike you.


semp
you dont want me to ho, dont point your plane at me.

Offline Curly

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #418 on: November 02, 2013, 11:10:10 PM »
curly the polygon count has been shown as not being almost equal by any count.  as for the rest of what you are saying, I just take skuzzy's word that ah does a better job than any other game.  and that is because i trust skuzzy more than I trust you.

not saying you are wrong but skuzzy somehow has a track of actually knowing what is going on unlike you.


semp

Not the total count per frame rendered, the count per model. Aces renders more models with the same or higher count polys per model than WT per frame. That's exactly what Skuzzy has stated.  Where WT is getting is looks from is slightly higher resolution textures, lighting effects and post processing. Further more I'm not in disagreement with Skuzzy anywhere. Skuzzy never stated we're upping the poly count to enhance the graphics.  All Skuzzy said is the terrain is hurting us. What I've been saying  if you want to look at enhancing the graphics these are ways to do it. I'm certainly not looking for your approval or consensus on the matter. As you clearly have no idea what your talking about. I'm just offering my two sense on how to improve the game while your commentary as usual adds nothing to the conversation.

Offline Curly

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #419 on: November 02, 2013, 11:17:05 PM »
Actually, it all depends on the angle versus the sun. The Bristol is a very nicely rendered plane.
You're also dealing with canvas covering on most of the aircraft. I was delighted to see the pilot's
head dip and raise and move side to side in relation to the elevators and rudder (I know, such
has been seen in the sim world before). It's one of my favorite tee designs.

The difference is aces uses bump, opacity and specular maps. There is no ambient occlusion, hdr effects, post processing, anisotropic filtering ect. Aces has very limited effects, mostly as function of the number vertices rendered simultaneously.  

Simply put here are aces high lighting effects
http://www.reallusion.com/iclone/Help/iClone3/15_Multiple_Channel_Texture_Mapping/Types_of_maps.htm

This is cryengine
http://mycryengine.com/?conid=8

There is no way to run a full balls to the wall cryengine game with scale of Aces. Though it's probably possible to run it on the same scale with a few of the lighting enhancements. Though there isn't even an option to do that.