Author Topic: major graphic changes in AH Ever? (Read 596 times)

Amboss · « **Reply #30 on:** November 21, 2002, 12:37:18 PM »

I am not critizing the quality of their work (otherwise I'd take my $$$ elsewhere), but with all due respect it does not take a 5 man team more than 2 weeks to add a new plane once they have the necessary flight model data together. 3x2 Weeks=1.5 months.

But hey, I've seen my share of fanboys on various boards and I know how moot it is to talk with them. Once you start believing in something there can be no other truth.

And spare me your tirades about experience. I manage multimedia software development projects and I know what I can expect from 5 people working fulltime (maybe HTC doesn't work fulltime on AH).

End of discussion.
-Amboss

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #31 on:** November 21, 2002, 12:43:37 PM »

Amboss, do any of those multimedia experts program games?
-SW

Wlfgng · « **Reply #32 on:** November 21, 2002, 01:28:36 PM »

lol. it isn't like HTC is just adding a plane here and there.

it's the gameplay, strat, game balanc... nevermind.
why waste my time when you (Amboss) can go read the threads for yourself.

(spits out hook)

Creamo · « **Reply #33 on:** November 21, 2002, 01:38:18 PM »

Would you be happy with a IL-2 graphic engine for Ah NOW Wlgng, or more planes and "trains"?

nevermind

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #34 on:** November 21, 2002, 01:43:57 PM »

Creamo... fly a dogfight mission in Il2.

I have a Athlon XP 2000+, 768MB, GF4 Ti 4200... fly one of those servers that has all planes (AI too) enabled.

When you have 4 Pe8s attacking an airbase with fighters defending and stuff blowing up all over the place... you'll realise just how quickly Il2 can bring fairly decent computers to their knees.

So.. I would not want an Il2 graphics engine in AH NOW.. later down the road when the hardware can support a large scale war in that kind of detail, sure.
-SW

Wlfgng · « **Reply #35 on:** November 21, 2002, 01:45:03 PM »

lol oed
have to admit I really dig IL2 graphics.. so I guess there's your answer Creamo o'course my hardware can handle it

Creamo · « **Reply #36 on:** November 21, 2002, 02:01:29 PM »

Fair enough.

Going on vacation. Die Bambi die! See ya all in 2 weeks.

gatt · « **Reply #37 on:** November 21, 2002, 02:02:55 PM »

Quote

HITECH: As we approach about a year from now, TNT-2’s will pretty much be out of date and we’ll be into all GForce2 stuff.

Hard core simmers still with TNT2 and well into GeForce2 in one year? Oh MY ....

brendo · « **Reply #38 on:** November 21, 2002, 08:50:10 PM »

GF4 4400

gatt · « **Reply #39 on:** November 22, 2002, 12:20:17 AM »

Oed,
I'm simply stating that there should be more valid excuses to keep the actual AH graphic engine for 1 year and more. More a/c, more strat development, better DM, more frequent events, little staff .... *these* all are valid reasons. But pls, dont tell me that we have to keep this graphic engine becouse we (average gamers) have still a TNT2 and will have a GF2 next year ... pleeeeaaaaseeee, eheheh ... ehm

Turbot · « **Reply #40 on:** November 22, 2002, 09:08:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Amboss
I am not critizing the quality of their work (otherwise I'd take my $$$ elsewhere), but with all due respect it does not take a 5 man team more than 2 weeks to add a new plane once they have the necessary flight model data together. 3x2 Weeks=1.5 months.

But hey, I've seen my share of fanboys on various boards and I know how moot it is to talk with them. Once you start believing in something there can be no other truth.

And spare me your tirades about experience. I manage multimedia software development projects and I know what I can expect from 5 people working fulltime (maybe HTC doesn't work fulltime on AH).

End of discussion.
-Amboss

You assume:

(1) Updates include only airplanes
(2) No time post release chasing down bugs
(3) That releases are sent out right away

None of these are fair assumptions. A bit of time looking at the revision history should clear that up for you.

Shiva · « **Reply #41 on:** November 22, 2002, 10:51:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Oedipus
I personaly think that the largest reason that there are 500+plus in the AH arenas in the evenings (US time) and not 250 is that Aces High system specs are very liberal. By not forcing everyone to have a Pent IV and a Geforce2 (or better) they retain a larger subscribers base.

It should be possible, however, to design the graphics engine so that there are multiple steps of detail reduction., which a user can toggle on or off to get the tradeoff of eye candy for frame rate that they want. It's not going to happen overnight, given that the engine has to be developed or licensed, and all of the existing graphics redone with more detail for the higher-quality rendering, but it's technologically feasible.

The issue then falls to the other two legs of the triad that control whether a decision gets implemented. Is it politically feasible? Well, judging from the response on threads like this, there are a significant number of people who want to see the graphics quality improved, so doing it isn't going to encounter opposition from the customer base unless the low-end people get shut out in the process. Is it economically feasible? Here's where you run into the problem. As you point out, HTC is a small company; dedicating the resources to a complete rewrite of the core of the AH client, as well as redoing all of the object graphics in the game, is likely going to sideline all other development. If HTC can't do it with their current staff, they'd need to hire extra people for the additional coding work, which eats into their overhead and could cause them to raise their fees. How many of the people with low-end systems would be willing to pay, say, an extra $5.00 per month for a year so HTC can implement graphics improvements that they'll never see because their systems can't handle it at a reasonable frame rate?

The problem is a complex one, and I'm sure HiTech's done the tradeoff at least once during the development of AH. But since we're not privy to the financial status of HTC, any arguments either way are going to be speculation.

phaetn · « **Reply #42 on:** November 22, 2002, 02:49:25 PM »

There are scalable graphics of a sort right now: screen resolution, colour depth bit rate, mipmapping, and palettized textures. Upping these reduces frame rates, while lowering them increases frame rates (at the expense of visuals).

Online flight simmers have always been behind the curve when compared to requirements for retail boxed games. One of the reasons, naturally, is that online developers have a legacy product to support and know they will definitely lose customers if they increase their hardware requirements too much. Remember, it's always harder to attract new customers than to keep existing ones.

When there's enough pressure from competition to demand a graphics overhaul, and a company deems an appropriate percentage of their customer base would be able to handle an increase in hardware requirements, they typically do increase them. As it is, there's all sorts of stuff that could be done now that DirectX 8.1 is supported that simply wasn't feasible before. HTC can exhaust a lot of those long before they have to use an all new engine.

Cheers,
phaetn