Author Topic: Closer Look at Aces High 2 Images (Read 1656 times)

F1Bomber · « **on:** October 10, 2003, 12:35:35 AM »

For example this picture

Now Look close at the tail of the spitfire, what do you see? Yes its bumpmaping on the aircraft. The new aircraft in aces high 2 will have bumpmapping, increasing the quality and also look of the new aircraft. Just Imagin, having bullets holes with bump maping.

Do you think with the new Half Life 2 review of ATI and nvidia, cards with directX9 that hitech is having the same problem. Seeing that Half Life 2, engine uses directX9 and the best nvidia fx card only got around about 26fps in half life 2 benchmark, when the ati 9600 got about 42 fps and is half the price of nvidia best card. Just wondering if this is the same problem that hitech is facing in his development of aces high 2. That current fx nvidia cards cannot keep up with directx9 and as such, customers will have to upgrade there cards to ati 9600 or hitech has to use only directx8 for nvidia customers?

Even the requirements for aces high 2 have shifted from a 5200 nvidia card to a 9600 ati card from Hitech. This is what i read about when reading the forms on what card to get for aces high 2.

ramzey · « **Reply #1 on:** October 10, 2003, 02:11:39 AM »

Dont worry about HT, he can handle with that:)

moot · « **Reply #2 on:** October 10, 2003, 02:16:02 AM »

looks more like higher texture resolution than bump mapping; the panel lines near the shadows should show the additional shade from the b.m.'s bevel effect, but I don't think I see any.

gatt · « **Reply #3 on:** October 10, 2003, 03:01:28 AM »

After one year of development, it would be nice to take a look at more and better screenshots with some FSAA and AF on as well ...

BenDover · « **Reply #4 on:** October 10, 2003, 06:46:56 AM »

Ermm, last I heard hitech said AH2 would only need a a geforce 2.

jonnyb · « **Reply #5 on:** October 10, 2003, 08:06:44 AM »

Ben, hitech's specs were listed as a geforce2 or similar and a p3 900 or similar.

F1Bomber, I don't see the bump-mapping, but rather high-res texturing. Given the above benchmarking system, HTC cannot possibly be relying on dx9 functionality as the cards do not support it. Further, as development on AH2 began prior to the release/testing/acceptance of dx9, I can't imagine that the developers decided in the middle of the engine development to scrap what they had and start from scratch again to utilize dx9.

gatt · « **Reply #6 on:** October 10, 2003, 09:35:11 AM »

IIRC, the GeF2 series should be able to run AH2 at medium/low graphic settings. GF3, GF4, FX and Radeons should be able to show much better effects (shadows, smoke, explosions, clouds, sun ...).

At least I hope so .... really.

Nefarious · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2003, 12:15:40 AM »

I think they would only use bumpmapping for the new damage effects, which i havnt seen anything of yet, But I have heard about so much.

ramzey · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2003, 12:39:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BenDover
Ermm, last I heard hitech said AH2 would only need a a geforce 2.

as minimum ?

GF2 32 MB is allmost not enought to fly 1024x768 with good framerate

F1Bomber · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2003, 12:58:17 AM »

I got a geforce 2 and i get about 100 fps.

System.
AMD XP 1900
RAM 256 2700 .
Operating system: Windows LongHorn

ramzey · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2003, 01:42:37 AM »

really? 32 MB? did you try atack large bomber formations? or drop bombs flying buffs?

Rutilant · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2003, 02:01:42 AM »

Why do i think he's lying? I get 20fps on average with

geforce FX 5200 128mb, 224 megs SD ram, and a P3 500..

Too big a difference IMO.

mrblack · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2003, 02:04:20 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by F1Bomber
I got a geforce 2 and i get about 100 fps.

System.
AMD XP 1900
RAM 256 2700 .
Operating system: Windows LongHorn

F1Bomber · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2003, 04:07:48 AM »

http://www.bushtech.com.au/Chads/proof/Proof.html

Can i say more!

yes.

Rutilant · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2003, 05:59:58 AM »

Well ****!:eek: