Author Topic: HTC!!! Don't let FA3 beat you.... (Read 971 times)

streakeagle · « **Reply #45 on:** March 03, 2002, 11:52:20 AM »

If pretty didn't matter, we would still be playing wireframe games like Battlezone.

If performance didn't matter, we would just stare at a photo on the desktop: 0 fps permits the ultimate in pretty

I reserve the right to demand pretty eye candy with high performance, its up to the hardware and sofware people to deliver the best possible compromise.

FA3 has a different balance compared to AH. Of course, different is only better or worse based on personal taste. I prefer photorealistic images at 40+ fps to jaggedies at 80+ fps. I prefer poor graphics at 30+ fps to great graphics at 10 fps. Having tried nearly everything I can find, AH with the Voodoo5 gives me the bestest

But FA3 gets the same comment our cook used to get on the submarine, "Nice try, VR1!"

If nothing else, it sure does look pretty and it has so many planes.

I am always going to keep hoping that all the best aspects of all the flight sims that have ever existed are somehow rolled into one giant uber program. HTC seems to have taken it several steps further by simultaneously addressing land and sea aspects as well. But in the not too distant future (as will all pc games), the graphics engine for the current version of AH will look as backwards as the Atari 2600. It does't make it any less fun, but I currently play AH rather than my Atari 2600 games (which coincidently include Battlezone).

Vulcan · « **Reply #46 on:** March 03, 2002, 01:02:01 PM »

Something isn't right about that picture.

Either the cockpit transparency is wrong or its been cut and paste onto that background.

And the lightsourcing looks wrong. It appears the sun should below the wingline which doesn't match up with the rest of the pic or the ambient light levels.

streakeagle · « **Reply #47 on:** March 03, 2002, 02:21:37 PM »

While I didn't take that screenshot, I can say it looks almost identical on my screen. Anything that looks funny is a result of poor coding or DirectX design failures.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #48 on:** March 03, 2002, 02:28:09 PM »

Yes Vulcan,..good eye. There is a reflection of light on the left fuselage, above the left wing, but the left wing is absent of much light. Looks like either the normals are whacked or the materials were not set up correctly for any of the upper wing surfaces.
I bet they used a Blinn material for the fuselage, but forgot to move from a Lambert material on the wings to Blinn.
The reflectivity is way off on the wings, as compared to the fuselage, making them look as though they were made of completely different materials.

The cockpit glass appears to have lost its alpha, as you should be able to see the terrain through the glass. Hmmm,..I bet they did not make the poly face for the glass double sided (i.e. face normals only pointing outward instead of 2 face normals for both sides of the poly. Could be an error in the graphics card/driver that this shot was taken from as well.

The seams in the fuselage are too pronounced as well.

I will give them credit for nice usage of bump mapping textures on the fuselage though. Notice how the reflected light breaks up. Nicely done, but a bit too harsh. Kind of makes the fuselage look like it was made of a really rough wood.

AKIron · « **Reply #49 on:** March 03, 2002, 03:04:52 PM »

The difference in texture appearance is a matter of lighting. As you can see in this screen shot the wings do reflect light if the light source has a higher angle of incidence.

The screenshots look pretty good. Unfortunately, the game in motion doesn't do the screenshots justice.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #50 on:** March 04, 2002, 09:43:29 AM »

Uhmm. the reflection of the light off the wing surfaces is still wrong as compared to the fuselage.

Kieran · « **Reply #51 on:** March 04, 2002, 09:58:10 AM »

I tried it for a bit- I don't know, I thought it was ok. Reminded me a lot of the WWIIOL flight model. The graphics were mixed, but you guys have talked about that already. What was definitely cool were the explosions. Dropped a big bomb from a stuka and saw the best mushroom cloud I have seen in any sim. Truly awesome!

K West · « **Reply #52 on:** March 04, 2002, 10:08:37 AM »

"the game in motion doesn't do the screenshots justice."

No MMPOG does unless you fly in a 3rd person mode. I love some of the screen shots of planes from WB III and these from FA3 look ok (gross panell/seams/antena lines to say the least) but AH is not slouch at all either. I put many (if not all) of the aircraft modelled by HTC in the last year on par with them.

Westy

Biggles · « **Reply #53 on:** March 04, 2002, 11:45:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by SOB
Just for the record: After seeing the title of the post and who posted it, I was 99% certain what the content of the post would be. (Get an F4F in AH, puhleeese). Really, it's the only thing that SW begs for. OK, well that, and sex from prostitutes at a discounted rate.

SOB

I guess that must mean that pimpjoe is an AK now...

Those damn AKs get all the perks

Wotan · « **Reply #54 on:** March 04, 2002, 12:03:04 PM »

if they were folks in the full real rooms (and if they were to make them just that) I would have given a better look.

I just dont care for the no cockpit rooms. The cockpit povs are bad imho and the tracers and dm are bothersome as well.

Zipper9 · « **Reply #55 on:** March 07, 2002, 10:57:11 AM »

Take a look at this: http://fa.vr1.co.jp/

Click second last button on the left.

mrsid2 · « **Reply #56 on:** March 07, 2002, 11:22:51 AM »

It's a shame that the great engine is crippled by a poor FOV implementation and rubber-band FM aircraft.

None of the aircraft have any stability whatsoever, allowing the pilots to yank about twice the AOA compared to AH. The problem is even worse as there is no way to progressively setup your stick sensitivity. Just one slider..

This results in a bouncy ride and also to the fact that the ACM we're used to in AH no longer work in FA. If someone gets to your tail, he's going to damage you with 90% certainty. Turn radiuses are so small that a tailing plane has no trouble pushing the AOA enough to make guns solution. In the intermediate g-force levels are also setup so that it's not practically possible to blackout. I never experienced 1 redout during my couple days of testing. I'm not sure if this is realistic or not, but it was the thing that bugged me most in flying FA.

I found out that there were two commonly used ACM options: Wingman

or flying at deck, causing enemy to crash due to confusing padlock and FOV limitations making it hard to tell which altitude/attitude the plane is.

P47 and 190 series sustain turned with or outturned n1k2 if they used flaps..

The full realism arena was empty, intermediate (no cockpit, even more bs FM) about 50+ players.

There were also players in FFA (airstart, the most relaxed realism)

If the FOV wouldn't force everyone to use padlock (big blind spots between different views makes you lose the enemy in turns) I probably would have stayed to practise it more.

I could barely maintain 1:1 k/d in the ffa or intermediate arena as my usual acm didn't work there - so I got frustrated and left.
Full realism seemed much more fun, but I only got a chance to fight once against 1 another player LOL.

K West · « **Reply #57 on:** March 07, 2002, 11:34:49 AM »

As the films show, from Zipper9's link, the huge yellow "cone of direction, glass cockpits and other arcade concessions pretty much asure FA's rep as simply a "gamers" game. Otherwise the aircraft, gunfire and ground/aircraft explosions look very nice.

Westy

Kieran · « **Reply #58 on:** March 07, 2002, 12:09:51 PM »

I for one wish they would put out a stand-alone. I could turn off all those features I dislike and have fun. I don't have the time to fly online right now, and the graphics/performance combination is about where I like it on my rig. As far as the f/m is concerned- hey, I don't have to have realism in everything I do. This game looks like it could be a nice diversion when I need a break from work.