Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: BUG_EAF322 on February 23, 2004, 08:54:46 PM
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_277_1077591362.jpg)
-
you mean unreadable? i thought they fixed that already?
:)
-
i sure as heck hope not...thats gawd awful
-
I like the sea though! Current cockpit details are pretty bad currently...
-
Well I don't have a p38 for you.
IMO screen shots don't do these cockpits justice anyway. In game dials are clearn crisp, easy to find & read.
But I did grab a 190 cockpit shot
http://www.332nd.org/dogs/ghosth/190.jpg
And a P51D
http://www.332nd.org/dogs/ghosth/p51d.jpg
Just so you can dream a bit. :)
Last, we have no way of knowing what graphics are yet to be enabled. What is in place in a reduced state, placeholders, etc.
Patience grasshopper!
-
Yes clocks are small probably scenic view mode
but i must say indeed what awfull lookin isn't it :rolleyes:
i must have some **** in my eyes i guess
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_277_1077641075.jpg)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_277_1077641127.jpg)
-
Wooot!!! :eek:
-
What are those screenies from? They look really, really good but... for a MMOG such as AH I don't think that level of detail (LOD) would be possible.
Considering the ground war and possible future plans for ground combat(troops in addition to more GVs etc.) in AH2 and beyond, the current LOD is superb all things considered. It's certainly a huge step up from AH.
Maybe AH3, I'd love to see detail like what you've shown but many people and I believe HTC have reiterated that it just won't be a realistic goal right now.
-
I'm guessing those are screenies from IL2's new expansion (I forget its name). They look so nice. I might have to go pick the game up just so I can fly my Lightning there. :)
-
Yeah its nice, but like the man says you can't read the instruments. I have the same prob in FB. It's near impossible to fly on the instruments.
-
hope FB goes MMOPG....
-
hope FB goes MMOPG....
Me too, but you would probably need an ungodly PC to run it.
are graphics gonna be like this?
Close, but throw in enough fog so you can't see the island in the first screen :(
-
that explosion effect looks basicly the same as our current one only with with some transparency
the actual 3d models really dont look to much more complex than what we have in ah2...maybe more triangles to make it look a bit smoother but honestly overall the difference is barely noticable (and other than a frame rate hit immaterial at over d-250)
so why does it look so good?
-
It's just a more advanced engine.
Anyway, if we get a sexy new P-38 model, I'll make some skins for it that'll make that one look merely average :aok
-
that explosion effect looks basicly the same as our current one only with with some transparency
the actual 3d models really dont look to much more complex than what we have in ah2...maybe more triangles to make it look a bit smoother but honestly overall the difference is barely noticable (and other than a frame rate hit immaterial at over d-250)
so why does it look so good?
3 Things.
1. Texture resolution
2. Convincing terrains and backgrounds
3. Better lighting effects
The texture resolution, obviously is the first and foremost factor in creating the "looks better" illusion. Its like make-up for the actors in filming a motion picture.
The terrains and backgrounds adds a bit of immersive value, but not by too much.
The third, lighting effects, is even more important than textures. It is probably the largest single factor that profoundly effects whether computer generated polygon images look "real" or "fake".
If you ever visited tochy's webpage(the guy who created the famous virtual films "1942" and "1945"), he has created various CGIs for WW2 era planes.
Here are few examples:
(http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/image/f4u_02.jpg)
F4U-1
(http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/image/scene007.jpg)
P-51D
(http://www.angel.ne.jp/~tochy/airplane/image/scene011.jpg)
Bf109G-10
When I first saw those CGIs, I thought to myself "heck, those are pretty neat scale models." At first glance, I could have sworn that they were good photographs of plastic scale models.
Some of the latest Japanese games available for Playstation2, also prove just how much lighting effects are important for realism. Despite the low resolution screens and largely limited processors compared to PC systems, some of those games are absolutely amazing when it comes to "looking real".
As the movie makers say, "light makes magic"
-
oh vorticon its just the same as AH2 (beta)
please whipe out ur eyes
the cessna is just like a space shuttle just add a rocket
-
Could I suggest the some major motion picture studio enlist tochy's skills and do a "Band of Brothers" type feature film, except about the 8th AF over Germany in 1944, or better yet about the Cactus Air Force on Guadalcanal in 1942-43?
Done well, that would be a film for the ages.
-
The gualdacanal one would be awsome. As would a Malta one.
-
I hope HTC wont go in the "unreadable-unusable" cockpits direction ....
-
o.k. we have round dials, so how come we can't have curves on our canopies? If I have to buy a new system to play AHII is it too much to hope for something more than converted AHI straight line canopies?:(
-
Dont compare IL-2 with Aces High. That simply doesnt work. Its not HT strategy. As long as AH will be a downloadable game with not more then 50MB download there wont be a chance we see eyecandys like in IL-2 EAP.
-
Originally posted by AKWeav
Close, but throw in enough fog so you can't see the island in the first screen
The normal horizon distance in FB is 20 kilometers, about 12 miles. With the "perfect" terrain lighting settings the horizon distance in FB is 30 km, about 18 miles.
The AH2 default horizon fog distance is 10 miles. The maximum available horizon distance setting in AH2 is 17 miles.
Originally posted by Kweassa
1. Texture resolution
2. Convincing terrains and backgrounds
3. Better lighting effects
Texture resolution is the same, 1024x1024.
The new micro terrain in AH2 is almost as good as the FB system. In terms of polygons and elevation features, the FB terrain is probably more limited than the AH2 terrain. However, FB has a vastly superior system for rivers, lakes and shorelines.
In my opinion, like Kweassa also said, the single biggest graphical difference between AH2 and FB is the lighting effects. I dont know how much a better lighting engine would increase the download size of AH2, I would assume not much? However, the increased hardware requirements are a different thing...
Camo
-
the thing about the ah2 terrain is that it is too "square" and not smooth enough imo.
and..about the texture resolution thing...does that mean it IS possible to make ah2 skins the quality of il2?
-
Originally posted by fffreeze220
Dont compare IL-2 with Aces High. That simply doesnt work. Its not HT strategy. As long as AH will be a downloadable game with not more then 50MB download there wont be a chance we see eyecandys like in IL-2 EAP.
This is why I dont fly AH and dont have an account. The game just looks poor. Also, the views possible from the cockpits are so unrealistic and totally remove the concept of the "bounce"... but thats another matter.
I have no problem with AH providing a base graphics set that is small for download (cater to the dialup guys) and requires an ancient computer to play.
However, why does AH not offer alternate graphics updates? Why not publish the base art, but also allow seperate options for those willing to download 500MB (take about 10 minutes here) and/or have a very fast machine?
Heck, you could probably get many community guys to build the models and graphics then submit them for review and implementation.
I just dont buy the whole "MMOLG means you have to have crap graphics" arguement. I wont pay for it.
Fang
-
Originally posted by Fangio
This is why I dont fly AH and dont have an account. The game just looks poor. Also, the views possible from the cockpits are so unrealistic and totally remove the concept of the "bounce"... but thats another matter.
I have no problem with AH providing a base graphics set that is small for download (cater to the dialup guys) and requires an ancient computer to play.
However, why does AH not offer alternate graphics updates? Why not publish the base art, but also allow seperate options for those willing to download 500MB (take about 10 minutes here) and/or have a very fast machine?
Heck, you could probably get many community guys to build the models and graphics then submit them for review and implementation.
I just dont buy the whole "MMOLG means you have to have crap graphics" arguement. I wont pay for it.
Fang
While ah graphics could be improved and the alternate download thing is a good idea, I think you don't know alot about game development. There are several roadblocks and reasons which don't allow for what you said above.
If you want me to go into detail why these aren't possible I will do so.
-
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
Texture resolution is the same, 1024x1024.
Sadly mistaken here, map height field size is 1024x1024 in AH. Texture size is 256x256.
Resolution is an entirely different thing you can have a 256 x 256 bitmap at 300 dpi resolution. AH bitmaps use 72 dpi resolution in most cases.
-
The normal horizon distance in FB is 20 kilometers, about 12 miles. With the "perfect" terrain lighting settings the horizon distance in FB is 30 km, about 18 miles.
The AH2 default horizon fog distance is 10 miles. The maximum available horizon distance setting in AH2 is 17 miles.
I took this shot as soon as the island became recognizable. As you know the AH grids are 25 miles apart. Using the center of the plane symbol on the map and estimating to the coastline of the island, I come up with 5 to 7 miles.
(http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fredmeyer/ahfog.jpg)
My point being the fog is much to heavy. It's so heavy that at 12k altitude, you are flying on istruments as there is no concernable horizon at all (and this in a fighter, bombers are worst yet). Moreover, at altitudes over 10k, calibrating the bombsight is near impossible as the target in not visable in the bombsite until it's too late.
Yes I know that it's beta, but no one knows (or they arn't telling) if this thick soup will be with us forever.
-
Weav folks have already gone offline with AH2 and found that the fog is able to be changed. The bright blue skies you see in AH1 are capable of being done in AH2. It's just the demo maps settings thats all.
-
High Res texture file?
I'd download it in a heartbeat.
-
This download thing is simply bull**t, a 100MB+ download wont worry anyone. Moreover, highres files could be simply an add-on.
The average user has much more than the PIII 1Ghz + GeForce2 + 56K modem, you know :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by NHawk
Sadly mistaken here, map height field size is 1024x1024 in AH. Texture size is 256x256.
Resolution is an entirely different thing you can have a 256 x 256 bitmap at 300 dpi resolution. AH bitmaps use 72 dpi resolution in most cases.
Sorry, I didnt quite understand what you're saying?
Please correct me if I'm wrong. DPI resolution shouldnt make any difference in the textures. The size of the bitmap is what matters, as it is "wrapped" around the object. The bigger the bitmap, the "sharper" the texture. Therefore, since both have 1024 texture size, the AH2 and FB planes should have similar texture detail capabilities. Lighting effects do make a big difference, so that is where AH2 falls short.
Camo
-
Camo, what he is saying is that if you have a 1024x1024 texture wrapped around a large object you get a lower visual resolution than if it was wrapped around a small object. Every pixel covers more of the model. In practical terms this could for example be the use of only one texture to cover the enitre fuselage of a B-17 as opposed to using several texturemaps, each covering a section of the fuselage. The texturemaps are the same size, but the size of the area they cover determine how good they look.
-
The bright blue skies you see in AH1 are capable of being done in AH2. It's just the demo maps settings thats all.
I don't spend much time in offline mode, it's online that concerns me. I don't think I can change the arena settings online. Is the fog cranked up online to increase FPS? I think so. Will we have to live with it in the final version? That is the question.
-
Originally posted by Fangio
This is why I dont fly AH and dont have an account. The game just looks poor. Also, the views possible from the cockpits are so unrealistic and totally remove the concept of the "bounce"... but thats another matter.
I have no problem with AH providing a base graphics set that is small for download (cater to the dialup guys) and requires an ancient computer to play.
However, why does AH not offer alternate graphics updates? Why not publish the base art, but also allow seperate options for those willing to download 500MB (take about 10 minutes here) and/or have a very fast machine?
Heck, you could probably get many community guys to build the models and graphics then submit them for review and implementation.
I just dont buy the whole "MMOLG means you have to have crap graphics" arguement. I wont pay for it.
Fang
One word,
Bandwidth
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Camo, what he is saying is that if you have a 1024x1024 texture wrapped around a large object you get a lower visual resolution than if it was wrapped around a small object. Every pixel covers more of the model. In practical terms this could for example be the use of only one texture to cover the enitre fuselage of a B-17 as opposed to using several texturemaps, each covering a section of the fuselage. The texturemaps are the same size, but the size of the area they cover determine how good they look.
I understand this, but I dont think he was talking about that. Both games feature WW2 planes, therefore the object sizes are practically similar in each game. Therefore, no practical difference in texture resolution between FB and AH2. Right?
Of course, a B17 and an Me163 have huge size difference, therefore the Me163 would appear to have more detail. Both in AH2 and in FB. I dont think this was the topic of the discussion?
Originally posted by GScholz
Bandwidth
I dont think network bandwidth, as such, is the reason. I think it is about the network code. The AH network code is the best I've seen in any game. There are practically no connection issues, warping, etc. Even though FB has good network code when compared to other boxed sims, AH wins FB hands down. On the other hand, if you compare AH H2H and an 8-player FB server, there is not much difference in the connection quality.
What it comes down to is the dedicated server. AH has a centralized server, which enables the hundreds of players. FB is limited to 32 players, even when using the limited dedicated server software. It basically is just a light non-graphical FB to enable people to have servers without having to run the CPU intensive full game.
I think the AH server software is the key issue. All this must have to do with the network code optimization and using the server CPU power to calculate and "predict" the vectors of all the planes. There was some discussion earlier about the AH servers. I'm not an expert on servers, but I believe the AH servers pack some serious computing power. Probably because it takes a lot of CPU cycles to calculate the networking stuff.
Now, back to the graphics issue. More intensive graphics in AH2 would mean less CPU power left for the networking code. But if most of the networking is calculated at the host, then what is the problem? Is the FB graphics engine simply just so much superior to the AH2 engine, capable of running much better graphics with much slower computers? What do you think?
I think, if FB would have AH's network code, that would be quite a combination. :)
Camo
-
I ment bandwidth as in the bandwith required to download such a thing.
-
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
Sorry, I didnt quite understand what you're saying? ....
Please correct me if I'm wrong. DPI resolution shouldnt make any difference in the textures. The size of the bitmap is what matters, as it is "wrapped" around the object. The bigger the bitmap, the "sharper" the texture. Therefore, since both have 1024 texture size, the AH2 and FB planes should have similar texture detail capabilities. Lighting effects do make a big difference, so that is where AH2 falls short.
Ok, first point AH does NOT use 1024 x 1024 textures it uses 256 x 256...
NOTE: I stand corrected, AH2 has moved up to 1024 x 1024 textures. Hence the low frame rates
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
Originally posted by BenDover
I ment bandwidth as in the bandwith required to download such a thing.
A 500MB download takes me about 10 minutes. For those on dialup, they could either just use the low res default art or order a CD from HTC for an addtional $10.
Perhaps you mean the bandwith at HTC to host the downloads of all this art pack? Heck, they would not have to host it. It could carry zero bandwidth requirement for them. They could get file planet to host it, and require players to pay $1 or something to download it. After all.... its an optional art pack, not required. If you want it, pay a bit more. Big deal.
Also, with the high res art being OPTIONAL.... HTC does not have to sweat performance as much. IF only the high end, new machines can run it, so what. Give the customers options. Dont just cater to the lowest common denominator.... cater to the entire customer base.
Do thats, you will have more customers. Like me for example.
Fang
-
If AHII:
Gets all its models to the standard of the P51D
Rationalizes the skin lay out
Moves the fog layer back a reasonable distance
Scales the pilot properly!
Then they are way closer to a cutting edge Massive scale ww2 flight sim than any derivitive of IL2 or anyone using its models are.
Alot of the detail in IL2 becomes needless in combat.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Alot of the detail in IL2 becomes needless in combat.
pah...in combat every detail the original air warrior didnt have is needless...
-
An incredible clouddeck
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_277_1077919382.jpg)
-
Hey Bug, im looking into getting a Gig stick for my board, which is the same as yours. Who makes ur DDR memory and do you remember what u payed for them? Also what speed would you recommend?
-
it's 2x ddr 400 512mb pc3200 trancend
guess trancend is the brand got it just standard
400 mhz
-
Bug, with those clouds on i get about 25fps with my Athlon 2700 with 512 and a GF4..
making AH available to everyone has always been htc's priority and i agree with it. they try to make the game look as pretty as they can while making the system reqs low.
il2/lomac both throw that stuff to the wind, and pongo is right- who cares about eyecandy. you dont notice the little things one you get into the heat of a furball
-
Than why bother AH2 ??