Wondring

[Arlo]

how about these?
(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

Fisheye lens effect on the first.

[gyrene81]

Fisheye lens effect on the first.

ya well, none of them are from fsx this time... 

if it weren't for you and Dolby i may have been able to string Brooke along on that one... 

[Brooke]

     that's amazing Brooke, considering that is a real picture out the cockpit of a real airplane...i just found it on the internet. some guy at 13,000ft i think in australia, might want to check your graphics settings.     

I don't think so.  Since when do real pictures need more antialiasing.  

[Brooke]

Ah, ok -- trying to pull one over on me, eh? 

[The Fugitive]

They are OK, but in my opinion not better than AH.  The cockpit looks great.

The Dolby pics aren't horrible, but I don't like that it looks like it was painted by someone.  It puts me in mind of flying around in What Dreams May Come.  Also, everything has a greenish cast, but I don't know if that is a difference in graphics settings between his setup and mine.

Here are some pics where I think the clouds look realistic:

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

(Image removed from quote.)

The problem isn't what "we" think of the game and its graphics. It is what the other game players who don't want to play this game due to the graphics think of them.

To me each of the pictures you posted looks like a video game, to me they seem almost flat, no depth. But I'm ok with it as I enjoy flying and fighting in this game. May other look at this and say "Wow! what crappy graphics", and they move on. If HTC moved toward the "painting" type graphics these other games have would we have more people joining? I don't know, but for what I've heard of the comparisons they might.

The same goes for the "historic" comments by gyrene81 in the other thread. He said something along the line of people believing some of the planes they have in those other games actually flew in the war, at squadron strength. Who cares what they believe! If they play here and have fun I certainly don't care what they think in terms of what plane was for which country. Give them a list of 10 countries and ask them to split them into axis and allies. I'm sure a vast majority wouldn't even be close. Again, WHO CARES!

If more players try the game, and more players STAY in the game isn't that good for everyone? 

[Brooke]

how about these?

Definitely.

There are, of course, a near infinite variety of clouds.  Some games pick heavily from one particular type -- puffy cotton clouds, sparsely populated.  That happens in real life at times, of course.  If you search for "clouds" on Google images, those are the types that will pop up for page after page -- people love to take pictures of puffy cumulus.  But real weather is more commonly not only some puffy cumulus here and there.

The former AH cloud system was good at stratus and stratocumulus (like in the pictures I showed, and like the ones directly below) but wasn't well suited to sparser, puffy cumulus (unless generated in a small portion of the map, as there was a cloud-number limit).







The new system will be much better at all types of cumulus but worse (I think -- I'm still playing with it) at swaths of less-distinct cloud.

Basically, I think we'll get more like this:



and less like this:

[Brooke]

The thing that gets me with AH clouds is they look good in screenshots like Brooke posted, they look good from a distance.  When you get into them, and see them in motion and soforth you start seeing the flat textures and it completely breaks the illusion.  The flat layers at alt look good until you get up close and see they have no thickness.

True -- that was the main weakness in my opinion to the old cloud system, that inside the cloud, you saw layers, not continuous cloud.

The new system is fine in that regard (no layers -- just continuous cloud).

I've seen some decent use of clouds in AH.  Unfortunately apparently it kills a lot of peoples' frame rates.  That's a shame, as I really like the idea of weather in game.

I've been putting clouds in "This Day in WWII" events, starting with sparse ones and working up (in the case of Battle of the Bulge) to quite numerous thick ones.  It seems fine for the vast majority of people.  For the thin ones, I got no one complaining of frame rate hit.  For the thick ones, I got a couple of people only, with the rest saying that it was fine on frame rate.

[Arlo]

The problem isn't what "we" think of the game and its graphics. It is what the other game players who don't want to play this game due to the graphics think of them.

Who are they? Players quit because of the graphics? Players who have never played the game may not even know of it's existence. Granted, they may have been distracted by the eye-candy of other games they tried first. How often are they repeatedly distracted by that only to be disappointed when the pretty pics fail to salve their boredom after 6 months or a year? If they knew something existed beyond 5 key-stroke pretty picture games that are 'free to play' but cost them $40.00+/a month in purchased items and game currency might they give it a try and fall prey to the addition that the rest of us have for (almost) 15 years now?

Operation .... get the word out. I like the other thread that talked about guerrilla marketing posters. There are currently more YouTube videos for WarThunder than AHII out and about. I know there are players who make fantastic AHII YouTube videos (I'd like to learn that, as well).



 

[Arlo]

and less like this:

(Image removed from quote.)

I like the less like you're illustrating. 

[Brooke]

The problem isn't what "we" think of the game and its graphics. It is what the other game players who don't want to play this game due to the graphics think of them.

If more players try the game, and more players STAY in the game isn't that good for everyone? 

I'm for more realism and against less realism.  If there are a bunch of players out there who prefer graphics that are more like Hollywood movies or XBOX games, that isn't good for anyone who wants more realism.

Better, more-realistic graphics alone wouldn't drive anyone off and might cause some new players to come in.  But it has to be balanced against other things.  You have to devote development resources to that instead of other aspects of the game (new play features, new planes, updated planes, improvements to flight model, new terrains or terrain features, whatever).  You have to decide what mix of development is optimal.  Also, fancier graphics will tend to result in higher hardware requirements than less-fancy graphics, all else being the same.  Do you create fancier graphics, get some new customers but find that you lose more than that from among people playing on their old computers?  HTC has all of the info on these things, but we don't.

[pembquist]

Realism is a funny thing. When you go to the movies, (do people still "go" to movies?) You have to suspend your disbelief. You are aided by the dark theatre and the big screen among other things. You can get choked up watching a puppet show because you believe in the characters and story. 

Special effects are interesting, sometimes seeing the zippers on the suits of aliens doesn't get in the way other times it does. Personally high quality CG really prevents my suspension of disbelief.  I watched the Lord of the Rings and I kept wondering "CG or New Zealand????"  And the flying movies I simply don't believe.  This flying game thing is a little the same for me.  Its kind of nice having a painterly landscape but I find myself wondering what was photographed to make the textures and the like. I wonder if its the same as the "uncanny valley" in animation but for landscapes.

Personally what I would like is to have controls that really mimicked real airplane controls, with realistic force feedback, trim and control travel.

[gyrene81]

I'm for more realism and against less realism.  If there are a bunch of players out there who prefer graphics that are more like Hollywood movies or XBOX games, that isn't good for anyone who wants more realism.

Better, more-realistic graphics alone wouldn't drive anyone off and might cause some new players to come in.  But it has to be balanced against other things.  You have to devote development resources to that instead of other aspects of the game (new play features, new planes, updated planes, improvements to flight model, new terrains or terrain features, whatever).  You have to decide what mix of development is optimal.  Also, fancier graphics will tend to result in higher hardware requirements than less-fancy graphics, all else being the same.  Do you create fancier graphics, get some new customers but find that you lose more than that from among people playing on their old computers?  HTC has all of the info on these things, but we don't.

it's a fine line to walk. when it comes to gaming, people are willing to spend their money on what they "believe to be realistic", even if it doesn't have anything to do with the basic fundamental components of the game. and game developers are going to cater to that aspect. as long as the scenery is "pretty" people will flock to the game even if the characters look like they are humping a dog while running. in flight sims, maybe 5% of the players even know what it feels like just to sit in a plane with a single prop, the rest are clueless. for the clueless, as long as there is cosmetic appearance to reality and there is the appearance of flight at speeds that wikipedia says they should be, they don't care if the underlying physics are correct. right now warthunder is a testament to the fact that if the developers will cater to the basic desires of players, it doesn't matter if the flight models are as realistic as aces high, it looks real and they don't need to learn how fly to an airplane, just point your mouse where you want the toon plane to go and it will.

unfortunately the only way htc is going to be able to compete and be a hit with flight simmers is to change. crank up the graphics and make whatever concessions are needed for people with low end systems to play...with the most accurate flight models around and the plane set that ah has, higher quality graphics and changes in the game play can and will bring more people willing to pay $15 month.

[TDeacon]

I'm a bit out of synch with the rest of you on this.  For me, the *game* has to come first, over visuals (graphics for a computer game). 
So that means immersive tactical match-ups, the ability to have fun outwitting the opponent, at an adequate frame rate.  I am willing to sacrifice graphics detail, but do appreciate overall attractive colors and contrast. 

MH

[craz07]

I agree the game has to come first...  that being said i've played war thunder and wings of prey.. too arcadey for me...but gosh darnett those graphics were so immersive and nice to look at.. and it played what i thought was smoother than AH!  Wish Ah could just buy one of those graphics engines and just slap on AH's gameplay.. i would gladly pay more.. can't money do this.. money does everything!

[Oldman731]

I'm a bit out of synch with the rest of you on this.  For me, the *game* has to come first, over visuals (graphics for a computer game). 
So that means immersive tactical match-ups, the ability to have fun outwitting the opponent, at an adequate frame rate.  I am willing to sacrifice graphics detail, but do appreciate overall attractive colors and contrast. 

Makes at least two of us.  I'd be happy with the old AW graphics, so long as the flight models and damage models were accurate.

- oldman