Author Topic: How about no new models for AH for a while (Read 597 times)

mrsid2 · « **on:** April 08, 2002, 06:13:53 AM »

And improvement to ALL existing models..

New damagemodel, it's time has come. Don't you agree?

If HTC is going to have to concentrate solely on bringing each and every exotic planemodel to the game while forgetting any improvements in the engine, it's not a good development in the long run.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #1 on:** April 08, 2002, 06:32:51 AM »

Agree.

- New DMG model.
- Improved graphic effects and graphics in overal (damaged but still not destroyed structures, fire, different kinds of explossions).
- Much more maps, much more textures.
- Improved hangar/mission ed interface.
- Refinement of actual planeset.
- Something for the ground war guys to play with, as well as large vehicle bases.
- Adverse weather, haze effects.

Saddly, any of the above points will make AH a much more atractive product than adding a new 190A3.

HTC may keep adding more planes, but the fact is that less than 20% of the actual planeset is really used. People keep asking for P40, as people was asking for 109E, and now that we have 109E it is minimaly used and that is what will happen with P40 after the two first weeks. They may add more versions of P38, F4F, A6M2, etc, the result will be the same except for scenarios, and scnearios represent less than 1% of the normal player play-time.

As a rule, people want to fly something that excels in at least one point. Ki67 in speed, 110G in punch power but take a look at 110C or 109E usage.

MadBirdCZ · « **Reply #2 on:** April 08, 2002, 06:55:57 AM »

Hey I fly Hurricane Mk. I for base defense

But I haven't been asking for introducing Hurri Mk. I into AH so I think this post doesnt count...

Yeager · « **Reply #3 on:** April 08, 2002, 07:07:51 AM »

If a bear farts in the forest and theres no one there to smell it, does it really stink?

In any event, good luck and remember:
Relax, its just a game

mrsid2 · « **Reply #4 on:** April 08, 2002, 07:42:42 AM »

Yeager has turned very poetic it seems.

Now all he needs is some message behind the pretty words.

Kweassa · « **Reply #5 on:** April 08, 2002, 08:47:15 AM »

New models are always the most anticipated and exciting feature with each new version released. But, if HTC decides to sacrifice a few versions(maybe even upto 4 - 5 versions..) in dedicating themselves to improving damage models, maybe trying their hand in new graphic engines, refining the strat system and etc... I'm sure I'll totally understand.

Gets my support.

Tronspir · « **Reply #6 on:** April 08, 2002, 08:51:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Agree.

- Improved graphic effects and graphics in overal (damaged but still not destroyed structures, fire, different kinds of explossions).
- Much more maps, much more textures.
- Adverse weather, haze effects.

These will force older computer owners to upgrade, leading to many to whine..whereas a new aircraft or 3 will bring much praise...which would you do if you were a developer? Just throwing this out as food for thought...I personally don't care either way.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #7 on:** April 08, 2002, 09:10:33 AM »

Tronspir, certainly the graphics engine can be improved in performance also, while adding more effects, textures, etc. I dont know where the problem is, perhaps in the number of polygons used per object, but the fact is that older sims with better graphics are less CPU/VCard dependant than AH. If the main problem is in the number of polygons used per object/plane, etc, IMO, halfving that number will give us almost the same visual effects but much more free CPU. Most of the time we are flying without external views and we normally see the enemies at no less than 200 yards (except when crashing), so, a zillion of polys does not really matter. What do we want, a plane modeling each screw or 20 fps more?
What we badly need is a system where we can choose the complexity of the 3D models. Do u have a K7 2Ghz? Ok, select the zyllionpoly mode. Do u have a PIII 500? Select a more simpler mode. That way more people will be happy with their current systems, but HTC team will need to model each plane twice (at least for close ranges).

For example, the detail that u can see from inside a Lancaster cockpit (forward view) is no much more than the detail seen from a P51 cockpit, but, for some reason, the difference in FPS is really noticeable. Too much invisible polygons or polygons that are there for nothing are being taken into account in the rendering process.

Skuzzy · « **Reply #8 on:** April 08, 2002, 09:25:15 AM »

Uh, I can see almost twice the number of polys in the Lanc cockpit as the 51 cockpit. Well,..maybe not twice as many, but probably about 50% as many.
Particle effects are expensive. I can show you a very nice explosion, one that would wow you. But it took over 5000 polys/frame and 24 frames to do it for a 1 second explosion. Oh, that single explosion requires about 15MB of disk storage. Ok,...you can save a frame at a time and play it back much like a movie, but then you have the same explosion over and over again, which people will complain about.
Then again, you could add enough bits and pieces and put it together to make it more random, but then instead of a 26MB download, you would have a 100MB download.
And I know you would wait for it, along with 5,000 others trying to get it. No one would complain about that, I am sure.

Tradeoffs are part of game design. See my other post in a simliar thread about it.

MANDOBLE · « **Reply #9 on:** April 08, 2002, 10:13:43 AM »

Skuzzy, I suppose that explosions, fire effect etc may be succesfully achieved with minimal polygon usage. I suppose that DX8 includes effects for that matter based on transparencies, multitexturing, etc, whatever but using a lot of polys.

About the P51 / Lanc cockpit, does you eye really appreciate the excess of polygons in the "dark" Lanc? Are they worth the loose of FPS? The anwser will be "yep of course" for people with 1.5Ghz machine and a GF3, but will that increase the people enjoying AH or just the opposite? Do u remember the first arcade machines using textures and transparencies? Really spectacular and inmersive using very few polygons. What do you think about "FX" effects of an old sim like Janes WWIIF?

laz · « **Reply #10 on:** April 08, 2002, 10:19:45 AM »

Yeager, You believe in the "its just a game" myth too strongly. Yes its a game, but hes suggesting ways of making it better. *SLAP*

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #11 on:** April 08, 2002, 11:12:21 AM »

WWIIFighters came on a CD, much like EAW or Il-2.... 650+MB... most of that isn't game data either, it's simply graphics libraries.

Everyone gets all excited at the prospect of excellent graphics like that... and no doubt HTC could do them.

But then we're stuck with a download like that of WarBirds III... and that is precisely one of the reasons I don't play WBIII, it's a huge download.
-SW

Urchin · « **Reply #12 on:** April 08, 2002, 12:28:42 PM »

I'm happy with the way Aces High looks. I think the planes look fantastic. I wouldn't mind seeing more immersive terrain though (Sicily- THAT was an awesome terrain).

mrsid2 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 08, 2002, 12:53:08 PM »

Let me remind you that my original thought was to revise the damage model, nothing graphic related.

That shouldn't hit fps that much.

AKSWulfe · « **Reply #14 on:** April 08, 2002, 01:19:54 PM »

Shouldn't impact the FPS too much, but as a damage model becomes more complex (and thus more room for errors in it), it also eats up CPU cycles.

Of course, as you get a more complex damage model, you need some kind of representation for it. I presume you would be satisfied with simply colors changing on the damage HUD that you can toggle on/off... Green- fine. Yellow Damaged. Red- Very damaged. Black- Part is no more.

THe only way to represent this visually is to either use decals (like all those FPS shooters, but the decals would have to be permanent instead of fade away) or have multi-skinning... which effectively increases the size of AH's textures atleast 4 times. THis in turn means a larger program.. and of course an increase in video card memory and system memory requirements.
-SW