Author Topic: Graphics (Read 1511 times)

poopster · « **Reply #2 on:** September 02, 2002, 06:46:05 PM »

Something just popped into my gourd. Which is a dangerous thing.

The second pictures graphic is all that's really required for someone "else" to see. Someone else is never really close enough for anything more detailed to exsist. Probably less than that would suffice. How close to you get to another aircraft, maybe 150 yards ??

Is there a way ( I don't know, I just fly'um ) for the wing etc. to have great detail as in picture one only for the pilot of the aircraft ?? Along the lines of the instrument panel ? And if so what's the frame hit ?? Can detail be divided up that way ??

High detail instruments and skins for the pilot, while low detail for everyone else. While keeping terrain in a low detail mode as it is ??

Is that possible ???

If so, you would have a high detail aircraft without the baggage that would come with "everyone" having to see it.

Mitsu · « **Reply #3 on:** September 02, 2002, 06:51:36 PM »

Hien does it.

loser · « **Reply #4 on:** September 02, 2002, 06:52:42 PM »

im as ignorant as you nopoop, well in in regards to this subject...im sure im sustantially more ignorant than you in general.

Maybe your idea could work. Just the way the drone bombers are far less detailed than the one that is actually being piloted.

Mitsu · « **Reply #5 on:** September 02, 2002, 06:53:50 PM »

poopster,

that's not point i think.
he just wants HTC to fix white jug.

poopster · « **Reply #6 on:** September 02, 2002, 07:14:21 PM »

That's cool, I'm just off on a tangent. Or hijack if you will

A competitive sim has put alot of work into skin detail at the price of losing players that didn't have the horsepower to run it. Amongst other...eh..problems

My question is can detail be varible ?? If the skin has ultra detail for the pilot, can it be ONLY for the pilot. In that way lessoning the hit for the other players...Ultra detail isn't coded for everything else "outside" of the aircraft ( including other a/c ) Aircraft parts are for the most part static...

Help me out here gentlemen

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #7 on:** September 02, 2002, 07:28:53 PM »

Fix white Jug, and more nice looking skins would help too. The above picture is a reskin from Janes WW2 which is a 4 year old game isn't it?
The frame hit difference wasn't noticed, I have a P1.2, 250RAM, GF2.
Anyway, at more than 200y a plane in AH is just black, at 400y, you can't even tell what type of plane it is without using the zoom.

I honestly don't care much about how the scenery looks, actuall AH ground scenery is good enought for me now. But the planes, I'm sorry to say, even the new ones, don't impress me much in their skining. I know it's just a question of personal preference, but I far as I'm concerned, my immersion factor is higher in a P47 who looks like that than in the AH one. The frame rate issue should not be that much either, I didn't noticed any in Janes WW2 and I don't have a ubber config.

Lastly, when I'm 150y in a bandit 6, I think I should be able to see him big enought to see the pilot color eyes. I tried it at Chino, I standed at about 200y from their WBs, and you could see a lot of details, but I guess that's the advantage of the human eye over a computer screen.

My 2cts

I wanted to say of this for a long time now, finally did it ... wohoo. I love AH, but the graphics are aging pretty bad, there's probably nothing they can do about it, but didn't heart to tell them my thoughts.

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #8 on:** September 02, 2002, 07:37:00 PM »

Only for the pilot is not an option either, we fly a lot in formation in the 56th, so it's nice to look around and see your wingman plane detail also... but I understand what you say, if I don't want to load the details of a 3,000y FW... But is there such a thing? In AH the 3,000y FW is a couple of black dots put together (or at least looks like it) ... even a 600y FW.

I am confident that HT knows his stuff on the subject and has some tricks in his sleeve. I also know that Nate and Superfly can produce awsome skins. What we have now is a "company policy" on what they think is best for us, I just emailed to say that I don't share their view.

NUTTZ · « **Reply #9 on:** September 02, 2002, 08:00:54 PM »

Frenchy, soon as HTC releases the new editor ,planes can be reskinned. The terrains consist of tiles whick are 256x256 pixels at 8-bit. The tiles whether graphic intense or not has no bearing on the final tile imformation size. they are all 66k in information, I'm not positive but would bet the plane skins are the same. The Information size of the tile of skin would not change. So it should have no bearing on anyones computer. Bottom line.... i think anyone with some knowledge of a graphics program would be able to make skins like the first pic from Jane's and incorporate it into AH, with NO aditional frame rate hits, since the file size would still stay the same size:)

NUTTZ
P.S. thats not a slam to HTC's plane skins now.

poopster · « **Reply #10 on:** September 02, 2002, 08:23:02 PM »

I'm saying that even in formation, your looking at 5-600 yards. Just an opinion but the detail now is ok for that range.

If you could get the detail in the first pic, without sacrificing frame hit, which would be involved if "everyone" had that detail, you'd have the best of both worlds.

If that's possible..

Is it ??

brendo · « **Reply #11 on:** September 02, 2002, 08:39:55 PM »

Guys over the last few months, Ive been wondering about the AH graphics engine.

Scanning the boards, from what I found, I think that the AH graphics engine is a 3rd party product. Someone once posted a link to a company called Multigen or similar.

In the last release, there has been some graphical tweaking ie smoke effects. I think that stuff may be like 'plug ins' or similar to the graphics engine.

Just in my opinion, I think that getting improved graphics is not really a Hitech Creations creation, but finding a company that will licence an engine that can be turned into the AH world.

Personally, I think that AH art work and modelling is very good, in terms of the technology of the engine. What is necessary probably is a new 'version' of the graphics engine or a new graphics engine from another company.

- - - - - - -

What would in my opinion be the best development?

If the multigen people released a new DX8.1 graphics engine... that looks as least as good as WBIII or IL2...... and Hitech Creations licences it

Thats just a wild thought.... not a prediction.

- - - - - - - -

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #12 on:** September 02, 2002, 08:46:21 PM »

I'm not a techy, but I thought same as Nuttz mentioned. I don't think massive frame hit come from how you reskin a plane. I think it comes from things like how many polygons you have in a 3D model, or stuff like Clouds and smoke.

First time the clouds were realized, or the smoke ... geez my TNT2 crieds for help. I switched to a Gf2, and it was greatly improved FR wise.

akak · « **Reply #13 on:** September 02, 2002, 09:05:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
I'm not a techy, but I thought same as Nuttz mentioned. I don't think massive frame hit come from how you reskin a plane. I think it comes from things like how many polygons you have in a 3D model, or stuff like Clouds and smoke.

First time the clouds were realized, or the smoke ... geez my TNT2 crieds for help. I switched to a Gf2, and it was greatly improved FR wise.

I thought the customized plane skins that are coming with the new terrain editor are tied into the terrains, which means that whoever makes the terrains also would have to create the custom skins for that terrain. Or would the terrain editor have the option like AW's SAC program where you could create the custom skin for your FE only?

ack-ack

poopster · « **Reply #14 on:** September 02, 2002, 09:06:37 PM »

I think some of the terrains in AH are FAR superior to WBIII. Just my opinion but some of the players have done terrains using this format that blow WBIII out the door. Nuttz being a contributor.

The terrains in those cases are wonderful. If they could be incorporated into the graphics card instead of the CPU you'd have better frame rates now.

I'm in waaaaaay over my head here, believe me. But AH is CPU intensive, not taking advantage of the latest cards..

I get better framerates in WB.

Am I wrong here ??

As far as bottom line, the engine determines what is CPU based and what is graphics card based correct ??

A rearrangement would require a different engine. More than a weekends worth of work

Akak that was a blatent useless quote...

Good point though.

( slapping the nightstick into the palm of his hand )

I've got my eye on you.