Is it possible to bring AH graphics engine up to par?

[Mister Fork]

I recall years ago (a decade ago maybe) somthing about the way ah graphics looked being tied to the physics and flight modelling engine as one package but I could be wrong.

this post isn't about textures or 3d models (which are excellent). its about the actual engine that displays all this and to some extent the terrain engine and the level of detail it is capable or incapable of incorporating while maintaining decent frame rates...

lighting and clouds. like real tactically relevant cumulous and stratus layers of billowing stuff with shadows on the ground below them.

want it all to look real with nice clouds well you need the sunlight under them and the ground beneath them to be less bright than the areas the sun shines directly.

and do it all with 60fps across the board.

right.

well just one dweebs opinion.

I think the way Dale or Doug explained it one day way back was that there are trade-off for eye candy is a more playable online experience with a wider range of computers.  All that bling is CPU intensive, as well is a physics modelling AND all that data would need to be transmitted online over the internet.  Now, if they were to start from scratch today, I'm sure we could get something that looks like DCS products, but you'd need a pretty high end machine to run it and a good internet connection.

It's also why most modern combat simulators like Battlefield 3 which is physics and graphics intensive can still only run arena's with 64 players... otherwise they could run a war on a 512x512 map with thousands of soldiers aircraft tanks and ships.  As the saying goes, your internet is as fast as your slowest connection... and the same goes for your computer.

[Ack-Ack]

If consoles ever get it together on the controllers and offer a keyboard/mouse option that isn't just a gimmick, but a really well designed setup supported by the games and the consoles, then you may see PC gaming be cut to the bone, but even then, i doubt it.

Consoles already have keyboard/mouse devices that work very well, the issue that kept these devices from seeing widespread use is the simple fact that consoles are 'living room' entertainment and as such, most players are playing sitting on a couch where using a keyboard/mouse would be rather inconvenient.  Which is why the majority of console games don't use keyboard/mouse as the primary controller.

ack-ack

[ROC]

Is it possible to bring AH graphics engine up to par?

Who defines "par"?  What is the cost of "upgraded" graphics compared to performance?  At what point does the drive for higher graphic quality affect the game for those of us who like the stability?  At what point does the focus on pushing the graphic engine to satisfy the customer who will jump to the next latest and greatest shiny thing cost more than retaining the stable customers?  Who decides what is "better" when the only argument is "they can do better than this"?
Is this a legitimate coding question, as in, is it physically possible, or a question to HTC suggesting they are lacking in their attention, such as "is it possible to get your butt up off the couch and clean your room"?

Impossible to answer your question when it's based on something so subjective.  Everyone's opinion on the graphics is different, even between those who agree they are fine or they suck.  No one has the exact same opinion.

So, what's the question exactly? 

[leitwolf]

I think the way Dale or Doug explained it one day way back was that there are trade-off for eye candy is a more playable online experience with a wider range of computers.  All that bling is CPU intensive, as well is a physics modelling AND all that data would need to be transmitted online over the internet.  Now, if they were to start from scratch today, I'm sure we could get something that looks like DCS products, but you'd need a pretty high end machine to run it and a good internet connection.

It's also why most modern combat simulators like Battlefield 3 which is physics and graphics intensive can still only run arena's with 64 players... otherwise they could run a war on a 512x512 map with thousands of soldiers aircraft tanks and ships.  As the saying goes, your internet is as fast as your slowest connection... and the same goes for your computer.

One of the reasons you have player limits is that it can become computationally hard (read: exponential cpu consumption for each new player) and possibly overtax a small internet connection.

However, while bling is CPU intensive on your end, nothing of that would be transmitted over the internet. You still only need the position updates of other players, bullets, destroyed buildings, ... just like now.

Map sizes are probably only gameplay/map making resource/download size/game engine/.. constrained. In terms of performance - for a flight simulator where you can fly hundreds of miles in any direction - this shouldn't really makes a difference.
If you fly FSX co-op.. guess how big the map is
What matters is how many people are in one place and how far you can see (has to be rendered at great cost to your CPU/GPU)

[Easyscor]

I guess the trick is to be able to run high end and low end graphics to suit the client base FE.

To some extent this can already be done.

But does a quantum leap in graphic capability really mean HTC ditch the old one? Why not let players run different graphic engines that suit their FE capabilities.

As you're a former terrain builder, I know you're not suggesting more vertices in the terrains that are visible for only those that can run with higher graphics detail. So, if you exclude higher vertice counts in the basic ground lattice, then some of these suggestions for two levels of graphic detail are already available, just not in the MAs. The situation is exactly what some in this and other threads have asked for, two levels of graphic detail side by side. Why should HTC listen to requests for graphics updates when the proof is that it won't draw people to the arena in which it's available?

Such things are available as higher resolution ground textures, extra ground clutter for GVs, custom bases and strat, and extra detail that's very immersive.

Do people flock to the arena where it's been available for some time now? No. If people preferred that arena because of its immersive graphics, then maybe HTC might consider activating higher graphics detail. Maybe then we could get ambient lighting and sound as well.

[Easyscor]

<snip>
What matters is how many people are in one place and how far you can see (has to be rendered at great cost to your CPU/GPU)

Your FE can now track and render 128 other planes, assuming that your equipment can handle it. I'd read Hitech's old post that it was 64, but someone (I've forgotten who) said he recently increased it to the larger value. Either way, that's a significant improvement over the old 32 plane count of before.

[Tank-Ace]

Per HiTech this is already the case.

Problem solved, everyone stop b****ing; they'll get to it eventually.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

However, while bling is CPU intensive on your end,

Bling is CPU intensive only if the coding is done bad. Most of the work is done using the GPU unless the engine is coded like titles from y2k.

Of course the GPU needs some resources from the CPU too but the GPU is there for a reason - to offload graphics calculations from the CPU.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

As you're a former terrain builder, I know you're not suggesting more vertices in the terrains that are visible for only those that can run with higher graphics detail. So, if you exclude higher vertice counts in the basic ground lattice, then some of these suggestions for two levels of graphic detail are already available, just not in the MAs. The situation is exactly what some in this and other threads have asked for, two levels of graphic detail side by side. Why should HTC listen to requests for graphics updates when the proof is that it won't draw people to the arena in which it's available?

Such things are available as higher resolution ground textures, extra ground clutter for GVs, custom bases and strat, and extra detail that's very immersive.

Do people flock to the arena where it's been available for some time now? No. If people preferred that arena because of its immersive graphics, then maybe HTC might consider activating higher graphics detail. Maybe then we could get ambient lighting and sound as well.

People flock to whichever arena has the largest numbers. Should Hitech make an experiment one day to switch numbers between AvA and MA, 99% of users would most likely happily log to AvA instead of playing in the 'empty' MA.

[Lusche]

People flock to whichever arena has the largest numbers. Should Hitech make an experiment one day to switch numbers between AvA and MA, 99% of users would most likely happily log to AvA instead of playing in the 'empty' MA.

Only for some short time, mostly out of curiosity...and then the mass would slowly migrate back to the MA. Because it's not only the numbers, but also settings and availability of planes/GV.

We had this experiment done before

[titanic3]

Wonder what sort of incentive is needed to attract more people to different arenas?

MA has all the planes and vehicles available.
DA has F3 and dueling bases.

AvA has nothing going for it, if someone wanted to fly a certain plane match up, it would be easier and funner to just DA someone. Perhaps a reward system is needed for the AvA and another arenas. A perk reward for flying in the AvA at certain time periods? So say an event starts at 4PM, from 4PM-6PM, every 20 minutes spent in the air earns you 10 perks in all categories that can be used in the MA. Just an idea.

[Tinkles]

Wonder what sort of incentive is needed to attract more people to different arenas?

MA has all the planes and vehicles available.
DA has F3 and dueling bases.

AvA has nothing going for it, if someone wanted to fly a certain plane match up, it would be easier and funner to just DA someone. Perhaps a reward system is needed for the AvA and another arenas. A perk reward for flying in the AvA at certain time periods? So say an event starts at 4PM, from 4PM-6PM, every 20 minutes spent in the air earns you 10 perks in all categories that can be used in the MA. Just an idea.

Perhaps when new planes or tanks are released they are first introduced into AvA for 1-2 weeks for testing purposes? That way that arena gets some attention at least. Then after that released to the main arenas. I don't know, just a thought.

Tinkles

<<S>>

[Slate]

Wonder what sort of incentive is needed to attract more people to different arenas?

  I was thinking with all the biching about maps that at the arena screen you would see the name of the map. Perhaps changing the names to a more WW2 theme such as "Pacific Theater" , "Europe" , "Pearl Harbor", ect.  Of course I would like maps with real WW2 areas not these fantasy land square world or dounut shaped ones. 

[Easyscor]

Wonder what sort of incentive is needed to attract more people to different arenas?

MA has all the planes and vehicles available.
DA has F3 and dueling bases.

AvA has nothing going for it, if someone wanted to fly a certain plane match up, it would be easier and funner to just DA someone. Perhaps a reward system is needed for the AvA and another arenas. A perk reward for flying in the AvA at certain time periods? So say an event starts at 4PM, from 4PM-6PM, every 20 minutes spent in the air earns you 10 perks in all categories that can be used in the MA. Just an idea.

I disagree with the highlighted statements. I know you mean well but nothing like that is needed.
The AvA isn't for everyones tastes, and some scenarios are more attractive to individual players than others. It provides a break from your usual MA experience, with better eye candy imo, vs the open planesets of the MAs. It isn't better then the MAs, it's simply different.

The AvA is also primarily for students of the history. We don't always get it right, and often take criticism for making game-play compromises, but it's the only 24/7 arena where you can find the matchups that occurred, or could have occurred in history. In the AvA, you needn't worry about interference from some late war monsters or out of theater planes. Yes, the arena settings take some getting used to, but spend some time in there and you'll find your skills much improved when you return to the MAs.

If I may, the people playing in there are a very welcoming lot. Just remember to leave your ego at the door until you become used to the settings.

[EagleDNY]

I have to agree that AH graphics need to improve if this game is going to stick around beyond us old farts.   The younger gaming crowd is being brought up on the Xbox - which might have some other game issues, but does have great graphics.   Say what you want about WoT or Birds of Steel or CFS - their graphics are nice, a lot nicer than what we see here. 

This issue relates to the terrain as well.   I'm sorry but having a tiger tank stopped by a bush is ridiculous.   The terrain needs to have some variability in it, and the players need to be able to modify it.   Trees should be able to be blown up and removed.   Wrecked tanks should remain as obstacles.  Dropping a huge bomb in the middle of a runway should make a crater.   Sitting in a burning hanger should cause you damage.

The gameplay and camaraderie are what keep me over here - cause the graphics are way behind the curve, and the excuse that they need to stay compatible with old hardware is getting laughable.   Xp is dead - leave it behind.  Even the low end $50 graphics cards are capable of full HD at 60 frames and anything new coming out with integrated Intel or ATI graphics is at least that good.   Most of us will spend more on a Joystick and Rudder Pedals or TrackIR than we need to on a graphics card now.     

If there is going to be an AH3, then things need to get updated.   

$.02