Graphics

[715]

Originally posted by brendo
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.

...
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.

...
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.

- - - - - - - -

I checked out the Multigen web page, especially the application example images at http://www.multigen.com/news/gallery/index.shtml.  They are of extremely high quality* and must be DX8.1 T&L enabled if they are real time (which they are).  I'd sure like to be flying around in that terrain in the helo image.  If HTC uses a Multigen graphics engine, it must be a very old version.  However, I don't think they do as only the latest version, Vega Prime, supports D3D instead of OpenGL only.  Nevertheless, I suspect that HTC understands the economics of MMPOG flight sims and knows that it probably can't afford to upgrade the graphics engine (Multigen, for example, or others, probably charges an arm and two legs for their latest technology).  Other MMPOG flight sims try to be more detailed, but they aren't particularly profitable are they?

715

*well, OK, the train one is pretty lame

[Easyscor]

I'm in the dark about this stuff too but since you're talking about the graphics engine...

Here's an excerpt from the wargamers interview at the CON, hope it helps.
You can read the whole thing at

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/aceshigh_interview_2002/

Sabre: When do you see that there'll be a need for a major upgrade to the graphics engine?

HiTech: That would be in about a year's time frame when we'll need to start on that. The cool stuff you can do with the new video cards out there hasn't really been a big deal…until they came out with pixel shaders. Pixel shaders were introduced in DirectX 8.1, but hardly any hardware out there supported them. So it really wasn't worth implementing in the game. As we approach about a year from now, TNT-2's will pretty much be out of date and we'll be into all GForce2 stuff.

Some guys I know without the GForce2 are already nervous.

[715]

Originally posted by poopster
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 agree that the textures used in some AH terrains are better than those in WBIII, and that the AH terrain designers make very clever use of those textures.  But AH terrains have way fewer polygons than WBIII terrains.  That doesn't have much effect on flight, especially at high altitude, except for getting tired of seeing pyramidal mountains, but it does have a big effect on the ground war.  In WBIII higher polygon count terrains there are more places to 'hide' and traversing the terrain feels more realistic.

I have to admit, however, that I appear to be the only person that likes detailed terrains.  Most people pine for detailed aircraft- but I never get close enough to other aircraft for that to make a difference (or, more accurately, I never get more than one frame of detail before I collide).

[poopster]

I'll put my steeeenkin "quote" police badge away or there won't be anyone left on this thread

I know WBIII is using the Winter Wolf engine currently. And from what I can glean from posts, they purchased the rights to use it "in it's present form" from Winter Wolf. The designer of the engine is no longer with WB,

That would go hand in hand with what your saying 715 with the multigen engine.

Buy in at the current state and you have rights. As the engine is revised you have to buy in again.

Wholesale, retail..

You have the game, we have the engine to drive it.

Too deep in now..

But AH terrains have way fewer polygons than WBIII terrains.

Your correct. That being said, WB has the ability for better detail right ??  Why is it then with the level of detail available, the terrain looks like green jello

There must be "issues". There always is there

[AKSWulfe]

Did you see the lines that Multigen carries?

I see no mention of a "graphics engine"... in fact, HiTech said in one of his first interviews, and several more times on this board, that the AH graphics engine was built "in house."

They use Multigen to create the models. Big difference.
-SW

[NUTTZ]

WB3 uses Bumpmapping
AH tiles are 1 mile square and have 9 points which the Altitude can be changed.

heres an example:


Heres an example of 2 tiles , they are the same tile the first is regular, the second i added a little bitmapping.

With WB3 theres many more than 9 points a single tile can be raised, I believe it's limitless.





To "simulate" bumpmapping within an AH tile is easy i do this all the time, But it is only a simulation and doesn't effect the flatness of the tile, nor does it change the SIZE of the tiles, so whether it's there or not has absolutly no effect on Frame rates.

NUTTZ

[Hristo]

Player developed 3D models would be nice. What is there to it except LOD propositions and UV mapping ?

Not to mention, it would allow Superfly and Natedog to spend more time with gfx engine.

[poopster]

so whether it's there or not has absolutly no effect on Frame rates.

So in effect, this engine is long in the tooth, and by using the techniques you've explained it rocks with no hit on FPS.

On the other hand, an engine that supports increased variation and detail looks like green jello simply because it's not being utililzed to it's potential.

Along with a FPS hit that excludes a sizable portion of the potential clientel.

Why doesn't that surprise me.

This game rocks

[NUTTZ]

I have NO IDEA how WB's does their tiles, from looking at the game I would have to say theres probably nobody that could make seamless/lifelike tiles. OR they just want the green jello look.

NUTTZ

Originally posted by poopster


So in effect, this engine is long in the tooth, and by using the techniques you've explained it rocks with no hit on FPS.

On the other hand, an engine that supports increased variation and detail looks like green jello simply because it's not being utililzed to it's potential.

Along with a FPS hit that excludes a sizable portion of the potential clientel.

Why doesn't that surprise me.

This game rocks

[AKSWulfe]

Originally posted by Hristo
Player developed 3D models would be nice. What is there to it except LOD propositions and UV mapping ?

Not to mention, it would allow Superfly and Natedog to spend more time with gfx engine.

More like, Superfly and Natedog would spend more time debugging and fixing player made models.
-SW

[SFRT - Frenchy]

The 3D look of the planes are pretty good I think, it's the skining who bugs me out.

[Sancho]

well the skins would need to be much higher resolution to get the results you showed in that EAW pic Frenchy.  Just look at how thick the panel lines are in the AH jug compared to the EAW one.  If the plane skins are 256x256 in AH, there's not much more detail that can be added.  

The skins we have now are pretty good considering that limitation.  But it would be nice if there was an option for 1024x1024 skins, or all skins were made in that size with an option for downsizing it to 256x256 for those with older video cards (like in IL2).   I'll be happy just to see some different skins on different terrains (especially in TOD) once the terrain editor comes out.

[Hristo]

Originally posted by AKSWulfe


More like, Superfly and Natedog would spend more time debugging and fixing player made models.
-SW

Your statement sounds like underestimating people's talent. Il-2 and WB accept player made models. Do you think AH players are uncapable of doing the same ?

IMO, hi-res textures would be on top of the list. Still, planes like 190 show low poycount. Just take a look at 190 canopy and you'll see. What is the polycount on AH planes anyway ?

As for engine, go try WB for a minute. Take p47D, p51D or P38L and watch the reflections an plane skin. Awesome ! And you know what ? P47 models are player contributed. Actually, the best looking models like c.202, c.205, p47c, P47d and 190A8 are work of Lemsko - a member of PDC.

[brendo]

Thanks for the clarification on the origin of the graphics engine.

If it is in house then that is a very GOOD thing indeed! There is a lot more scope for expansion
 under these circumstances.

Sansho, your comments regarding the texture resolution holds a key to major enhancement potential.

An older graphics engine can compete with newer engines, if there is scope for
more detailed textures.

I think we should all watch the next release of WWII Online closely.

They are implementing hardware DX8.1 Transform and Lighting into their graphics engine.
 They are also releasing new high resolution textures...My 128 meg GF4 can handle
WAY more textures than my ye olde GF2MX or ancient TNT2Ultra.

Have at the new textures shots for 1.67 WWIIOnline..... same game.... better looking:

[straffo]

There is one thing funny in the first picture

Are the Jug pilots unable to count their guns ?