Author Topic: War Thunder  (Read 30810 times)

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7312
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #390 on: November 01, 2013, 11:18:47 PM »
I am neither promoting nor berating.
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10


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

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #391 on: November 01, 2013, 11:37:58 PM »
I guess you guys are happy to settle and watch other games snap up the player base, while Skuzzy PNGs anyone who dares to have a voice that something need to be done?


Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #392 on: November 02, 2013, 12:00:52 AM »
No Combatsim for Old Men?  ;)
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline cohofly

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #393 on: November 02, 2013, 01:35:00 AM »
Hey Dolby, I just wanted to point out that while I cant see a dot at 15 to 17 miles, my squaddie Poppy can on his rig. We have tried to figure out why this is....... some sort of combo involving his GPU and monitor, I cant say for sure, time and again he sees cons (dots) at approx. 3/4's of a sector. So just wanted to let you know that it is possible.
<S>
Carver
Carver CO -55thFg/38thFS-
"Heinie Honking and LocoBusting"

Offline LCADolby

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7312
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #394 on: November 02, 2013, 01:44:04 AM »
I ran the film viewer to when cons were observed, 9.5k. Snail man observed 10K, 88mm range...

Poppy must have all the bells and whistles to manage 3 times the view range as the rest of us.
JG5 "Eismeer"
YouTube+Twitch - 20Dolby10


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

Offline zack1234

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13213
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #395 on: November 02, 2013, 02:57:42 AM »
Hey Dolby, I just wanted to point out that while I cant see a dot at 15 to 17 miles, my squaddie Poppy can on his rig. We have tried to figure out why this is....... some sort of combo involving his GPU and monitor, I cant say for sure, time and again he sees cons (dots) at approx. 3/4's of a sector. So just wanted to let you know that it is possible.
<S>
Carver

I have been informed you have glasses like Mr Magoo
There are no pies stored in this plane overnight

                          
The GFC
Pipz lived in the Wilderness near Ontario

Offline Skuzzy

  • Support Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31462
      • HiTech Creations Home Page
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #396 on: November 02, 2013, 06:35:57 AM »
I think WT and AH are both DX9. WTs graphics engine is from 2008.

Efficient as in, more eye candy for the same PC power. IE so that all of us can run the settings on AH higher.

I guess you guys are happy to settle and watch other games snap up the player base, while Skuzzy PNGs anyone who dares to have a voice that something need to be done?

We draw more vertices, per screen, than WT does.  We do not ship 6GB of artwork for our game.  We ship 300MB.  What we do with out tiny bit of art is far, far better than what WT could do with it.  By all engineering definitions, our graphic engine is incredibly efficient.  Just because you cannot see something does not mean it is not being rendered.  There are times when a single pixel is not small enough to display what is rendered.  That is a bit out of our control.

It does no one any good to keep people around here who continually make detrimental remarks about the game or the service.  It does not help any one.  Quite the opposite. While I am having to deal with these situations, there is a lot of positive contributions, I can make, that are not being done.

You are not helping at all.  We know, far better than you will ever know, what we need to do and what we will do.  If you want to be a part of that, I strongly suggest you find a way to become a positive contributor to this forum and stop making declarations about things you do not have no knowledge about.

Here is an opinion;

"The terrain graphics could stand some updating."

Here is you;

"The graphic engine is not efficient."

The first statement is accurate.  We agree.  It really does not hurt us.  It is the truth.  The last statement is a lie, at best.  No matter how many times I have told you there is a difference between a graphic engine and artwork, you continue to belabor a point which has no basis in reality.  You continue to promote a fallacy.  When you do, we have to stop whatever we are doing and address it.  Like it or not, this bulletin board is also a form of advertising.  The fallacy could keep away a new customer if we do not address it.  It is highly counterproductive. It does nothing to help anything, nor anyone.

We are happy to allow people here who state an opinion, even when it is stating the obvious.  We will not tolerate anyone who comes in here and spreads lies about our product and/or service.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 06:50:15 AM by Skuzzy »
Roy "Skuzzy" Neese
support@hitechcreations.com

Offline Volron

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5805
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #397 on: November 02, 2013, 08:41:05 AM »
We draw more vertices, per screen, than WT does.  We do not ship 6GB of artwork for our game.  We ship 300MB.  What we do with out tiny bit of art is far, far better than what WT could do with it.  By all engineering definitions, our graphic engine is incredibly efficient.  Just because you cannot see something does not mean it is not being rendered.  There are times when a single pixel is not small enough to display what is rendered.  That is a bit out of our control.

It does no one any good to keep people around here who continually make detrimental remarks about the game or the service.  It does not help any one.  Quite the opposite. While I am having to deal with these situations, there is a lot of positive contributions, I can make, that are not being done.

You are not helping at all.  We know, far better than you will ever know, what we need to do and what we will do.  If you want to be a part of that, I strongly suggest you find a way to become a positive contributor to this forum and stop making declarations about things you do not have no knowledge about.

Here is an opinion;

"The terrain graphics could stand some updating."

Here is you;

"The graphic engine is not efficient."

The first statement is accurate.  We agree.  It really does not hurt us.  It is the truth.  The last statement is a lie, at best.  No matter how many times I have told you there is a difference between a graphic engine and artwork, you continue to belabor a point which has no basis in reality.  You continue to promote a fallacy.  When you do, we have to stop whatever we are doing and address it.  Like it or not, this bulletin board is also a form of advertising.  The fallacy could keep away a new customer if we do not address it.  It is highly counterproductive. It does nothing to help anything, nor anyone.

We are happy to allow people here who state an opinion, even when it is stating the obvious.  We will not tolerate anyone who comes in here and spreads lies about our product and/or service.

BOOM!  Headshot! :aok
Quote from: hitech
Wow I find it hard to believe it has been almost 38 days since our last path. We should have release another 38 versions by now  :bhead
HiTech
Quote from: Pyro
Quote from: Jolly
What on Earth makes you think that i said that sir?!
My guess would be scotch.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #398 on: November 02, 2013, 09:31:25 AM »
I ran the film viewer to when cons were observed, 9.5k. Snail man observed 10K, 88mm range...

Poppy must have all the bells and whistles to manage 3 times the view range as the rest of us.
I wonder if this is simple resolution at play.  If a guy playing on a 2560x1440 can see aircraft dots further out than I can playing at 1440x900 because the computer determines that the dot is too small to render using one of my pixels but is still appropriate to render using one of his smaller pixels?
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Curly

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #399 on: November 02, 2013, 09:40:03 AM »

"The terrain graphics could stand some updating."


The first statement is accurate.  We agree.  It really does not hurt us.  It is the truth.

Honestly I think you'd get much more bang for your buck if you updated the lighting, tweaked the color palette a bit, and perhaps added some filtration. What gives Warthunder it's look is heavy use of saturated colors, lots of diffused light, and graduated filtration. That's what makes those graphics pop. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the poly count in the Aces Model was higher than the WT.  

Vs .

 Lighting will enhance the work you've already done and make it stand more. Computationally it tends to be less demanding than adding more vertices; It tends to be more scalable for the individual user. IE allowing them to disable specular and diffusion maps, the same way we can with bump maps. While the terrain could use a pass, I'm not sure the yield on that investment is very great.  It will be a lot of work having to remap the terrains with the new tiles too. If you just add more vertices what do you get? More models hidden by the same flat palette and vanilla lighting system.

As an example of what i mean; In Photoshop I pushed up the saturation, added some slight diffusion and an ND filter, of the aces Yak-9-t. Notice how the colors separate and everything stands out, it's vibrant with out being cartoony  
« Last Edit: November 02, 2013, 09:45:28 AM by Curly »

Offline Lusche

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23888
      • Last.FM Profile
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #400 on: November 02, 2013, 09:42:34 AM »
I wonder if this is simple resolution at play.  If a guy playing on a 2560x1440 can see aircraft dots further out than I can playing at 1440x900 because the computer determines that the dot is too small to render using one of my pixels but is still appropriate to render using one of his smaller pixels?


The 88 and 5" gun position have the greatest magnification levels in game. Thus you never see a dot at maximum magnification. Fully zoomed in you can clearly see the three bombers of a formation being rendered in fine detail @ 10k yard distance even on my 'small' 23" monitor.
But once the bombers go past 10k distance, they disappear (along with the icon), they don't even go into dot mode.

From that it's pretty obvious that it is not a GC limitation, but a game one. Which I did not found to be variable with any graphic settings I tried.
Steam: DrKalv
E:D Snailman

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #401 on: November 02, 2013, 09:52:45 AM »
Honestly I think you'd get much more bang for your buck if you updated the lighting, tweaked the color palette a bit, and perhaps added some filtration. What gives Warthunder it's look is heavy use of saturated colors, lots of diffused light, and graduated filtration.

So basically you're saying, "Real Is Brown."
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #402 on: November 02, 2013, 09:55:42 AM »
So basically you're saying, "Real Is Brown."

I dunno. The photoshop example looks like real is a green filter (though I read the cute link).  :D

Offline bozon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6037
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #403 on: November 02, 2013, 10:00:59 AM »
Honestly I think you'd get much more bang for your buck if you updated the lighting, tweaked the color palette a bit, and perhaps added some filtration. What gives Warthunder it's look is heavy use of saturated colors, lots of diffused light, and graduated filtration. That's what makes those graphics pop. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the poly count in the Aces Model was higher than the WT.  

(Image removed from quote.) Vs (Image removed from quote.).

 Lighting will enhance the work you've already done and make it stand more. Computationally it tends to be less demanding than adding more vertices; It tends to be more scalable for the individual user. IE allowing them to disable specular and diffusion maps, the same way we can with bump maps. While the terrain could use a pass, I'm not sure the yield on that investment is very great.  It will be a lot of work having to remap the terrains with the new tiles too. If you just add more vertices what do you get? More models hidden by the same flat palette and vanilla lighting system.

As an example of what i mean; In Photoshop I pushed up the saturation, added some slight diffusion and an ND filter, of the aces Yak-9-t. Notice how the colors separate and everything stands out, it's vibrant with out being cartoony  
(Image removed from quote.)
I am sorry Curly, but the AH original image looks more real to me. The WT colors look like a painting and the saturated yak pic you made looks like there is something wrong with my monitor. WT does have nicer mountains in that image, but some trees there look like they are 200 feet high.
Mosquito VI - twice the spitfire, four times the ENY.

Click!>> "So, you want to fly the wooden wonder" - <<click!
the almost incomplete and not entirely inaccurate guide to the AH Mosquito.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGOWswdzGQs

Offline Curly

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: War Thunder
« Reply #404 on: November 02, 2013, 10:19:07 AM »
So basically you're saying, "Real Is Brown."
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

and
this
is lighting effects. I dont think adding more polygons to the trees really will raise the bar as much improving the lighting.