Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: brendo on April 19, 2004, 08:37:31 AM
-
Hi All,
I think that AH2 terrain is starting to look a lot like reality.
Anyone care to post an in game shot comparison?
I took these on Sunday:
(http://members.optusnet.com.au/~poges/PICT0007b.jpg)
(http://members.optusnet.com.au/~poges/PICT0006b.jpg)
(http://members.optusnet.com.au/~poges/PICT0010b.jpg)
-
Lol. I really hope I live long enough to see terrain like that:D
I still think the original Microsoft Combat Flight Simulatir 1 was the best terrain from altitude yet.
-
brendo from WB ?
long time no see !
-
colours is the major difference i see
-
Originally posted by brendo
Anyone care to post an in game shot comparison?
I think AH2 has a long way to go. I took this screenie from the latest beta:
(http://www.atariage.com/2600/hacks/screenshots/s_CombatRock_Hack_4.png)
:)
-Sik
-
(http://[img]http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/66_1079292266_pic021_edited.jpg)[/IMG]
Some games come close.
-
Setting aside its proficiency as a game, FS2004(compatible with CFS3) is incredible in its own way, too.
Yak-3 (http://mms://kittyice.cafe24.com/kittyice/yak3.wmv)
..
Ofcourse, with this guy editing films I'd bet AH2 would look like that, too. :D
-
SAVE . Im still around mate.
- - - - - -
Intersting comment re: colours. I have NO idea how to calibrate colours. I can only imagine a game designers/artists nightmare getting the accurate colours.
I clicked on an image enhancement button, and this is what it spat out:
(Still waiting for some AH2 pics for comparison)
(http://members.optusnet.com.au/~poges/PICT0007c.JPG)
(http://members.optusnet.com.au/~poges/PICT0006c.JPG)
(http://members.optusnet.com.au/~poges/PICT0010c.JPG)
edit for pics
-
Errr you have to be kidding?
AH2 graphics at this stage are terrible, hugely dissapointed with the terrain graphics to date.
...-Gixer
-
(http://www.r0013636.hostultra.com/uploads/data/media/1/ahss36_copy.jpg)
just pulled this from screenshots and images forums...
-
Yeah,
IL2 still blows AHII away, graphically, unfortunatly.
But AHIIs graphics have gotten better than they were.
-
Yep I like both, IL2 is great but it never seems to have any point to it.......AH gameplay makes up for the graphics.
-
Im not kidding GIXER, IMO I think they are looking more realistic. Most of what I see in Flight Sims has in the past not looked like what I see out the window.
Thanks for the P40 pic.... I havnt seen those clouds before.... I think that was a version .20 addition?
-
AHII graphics are really 'fuzzy' on my computer, very unclear.
Almost a step back when in comparison with some AH I maps.
But.. and a big but...
This is only beta :D
-
AH2 is just way too dark. Look at the underside of the P-40, in real life it wouldn't be black :rolleyes:
-
Yes I'm looking at the screen shots and trying out the latest Beta, but to me the colours used in the terrain and the sea just look rather poor, not sure maybe need to look softer or something. I don't think you can compare to the likes of IL2 as that really is in a class of it's own. But if you compare the terrain to that of WW2OL then it is a considerable difference.
Agree I'll take FM's and game play over graphics any day but it's still nice to have a terrain which dosn't look like it's been pulled out of a sim from the 90's.
But again it's still Beta so I'm holding any real judement till release. When ever that is. Q4 05?
...-Gixer
-
Gotta remember too that not everyone has or can afford to buy brand new high end machines to run the kind of super graphics that we all would like and HTC has to try to make something that is going to be runnable on as many systems as possable so..
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Gotta remember too that not everyone has or can afford to buy brand new high end machines to run the kind of super graphics that we all would like and HTC has to try to make something that is going to be runnable on as many systems as possable so..
I'm not sure if I go with that argument these days given how cheap a mobo and graphics card are these days. Then again AH never really utilised any fancy graphics card more the CPU which was always dissapointing. Hopefully AH2 will address this. But it dosn't take much to pump the graphics of IL2 at a good enough frame rate.
The graphics in AH now look about 10 years old, oh probably because that graphics engine is 10 years old. LOL AH2 at the current beta dosn't look much better.
Again luckly the gameplay makes up for the lack of environmental realism.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
The graphics in AH now look about 10 years old, oh probably because that graphics engine is 10 years old. LOL AH2 at the current beta dosn't look much better.
...-Gixer [/B]
10 Years ago:
(http://www.itga.com.au/~gnb/AW/ZERO-HIT.gif)
1994, AWDOS.
-Sik
-
[edit]
double post :)
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Gixer
But it dosn't take much to pump the graphics of IL2 at a good enough frame rate.
...-Gixer
Oh, so suddenly you're a game programmer and digital artist? What game do you work on again?
:aok
-
Gixer
Check the size of your IL2 folder in windows mine is 554mb.
Now if you want that to download good luck to you.
AH2 is a complete game with skins for around 40mb the skins file alone for IL2 is 39mb. So I think that MB for MB AH2 is doing a far better job than IL2 and doesnt look too bad for being a 10th of the size. So if you feel the need to compare try comparing like for like!
Adjuster
-
Originally posted by Furball
AHII graphics are really 'fuzzy' on my computer, very unclear.
Almost a step back when in comparison with some AH I maps.
But.. and a big but...
This is only beta :D
i think the fuzzyness is from mipmapping...
if you put the pictures side by side (with a better pic from ah2...) the main difference you would notice is colours and lighting...and honestly to me ah2's planes look at least as good if not better than most other games
adjuster...that argument is a bit poor considering the amount of people who have tried americas army...wich is a 750 mb download...
-
" adjuster...that argument is a bit poor considering the amount of people who have tried americas army...wich is a 750 mb download..."
Sorry but I cannot believe that the majority of AH users would even think about downloading this game if it was 500-600mb let alone try to. Believe it or not there are many many people playing this game on dialup for many different reasons and if it ever became that big a download this board would be so full of complaints that you wouldnt see anything else mentioned. It would also alienate so many people that it would effectively put HTC out of business.
I am sure if they (HTC) thought they could get away with a huge download they could find many interesting routes for this game but as they try to keep it within everyones reach they do the best they can.
Adjuster
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
I think AH2 has a long way to go. I took this screenie from the latest beta:
(http://www.atariage.com/2600/hacks/screenshots/s_CombatRock_Hack_4.png)
:)
-Sik
Dood, I was the shiznit in Red Baron for Atari!
-
i know adjuster...i was just pointing out that a big download doesnt neccasarilly mean noone will download it...i am happy with the way HTC has run things and honestly i hope that the game never gets above 100 mb..
-
I dont think download size does matter too much.
I wouldnt have a prob downloading a CD from the net. HTC could very well send out CDs for a buck each on which they burn the game. At least for the paying customer base. And nowadays almost everyone has a DSL or cable or whatever connection. There are only few who actually only have a 56k modem availabale, and they could very well get a burnt CD.
And remember: When AH was beta or just went open, the requirements were not low for that time! So I dont think they should stick to old gfx. You know, it worked to have good gfx back then. Why not today?
And the patches wouldnt be as big as the while game. Although a bit bigger maybe. But not so much that it would pos a real problem.
One problem would be though, that HTC would have to pay for this huge traffic such downloads would cause. And HTC does have to care about gameplay. Maddox Games does not and doesnt need to. You know, Il SP sucks because the AI is bad (always bad compared to MP) and MP is faulty too, spawn pauses, non-spawn-pauses, whatever. In this regard HTC is already way ahead of IL-2, I just dont know what impact such a souped-up gfx engine would have on the development.
The release of the tour of duty would be pushed back, be sure :P
-
Purzel:
Download size does matter there are a lot of people with out hi speed access. CD not realy a valid option when you consider how new users get in the game.
We are producing to the same age vidoe card (aprox 3 years) as we did when we started.
HiTech
-
HiTech,
Would it not be unreasonable to offer a lower end solution as we see now to kick things off with "patches" with upgraded textures being available for folks who want the better quality that more modern cards offer? Basically, a minimal download with functionality and more basic graphics and separate upgrades that would enable various functionality/graphic upgrades.
Most every other game that I know off offers sliders that let you crank up features to suite modern machines or crank it down for compatability with older machines. Could you not accomplish the same thing while maintaining a minimal required download by doing what I described above?
-
Well Adjuster, if you wanna compare installed folders then the AH2 folder is ovre 290Mb's ;)
Il2 could be made smaller if needed i guess, still not anywhere as small as AH2 download file though I guess.
-
Originally posted by rabbidrabbit
HiTech,
Would it not be unreasonable to offer a lower end solution as we see now to kick things off with "patches" with upgraded textures being available for folks who want the better quality that more modern cards offer? Basically, a minimal download with functionality and more basic graphics and separate upgrades that would enable various functionality/graphic upgrades.
Most every other game that I know off offers sliders that let you crank up features to suite modern machines or crank it down for compatability with older machines. Could you not accomplish the same thing while maintaining a minimal required download by doing what I described above?
You have 2 different things going on here.
You would have HTC provide differnet install bases to suit your graphic needs. Lots of maintenance and at what graphic points do you cutoff the difference in download sizes ?
On the other hand, you ask for sliders. AH II has sliders and checkboxes that allow you to change the graphic details to suit your cpu/gpu horsepower.
This slider/checkbox "notion" implies instant results. With that notion, you have to deliver the WHOLE package. Can you imagine being in the game and pull the slider up for more detail, and at that point, a download occurs for each increment updwards ... I can't. Its a nightmare.
Why must everybody try to compare AH to these other games. There is no other MMPOG flight sim, that I know, that handles the amount of people on one server like AH. When people talk about AA I have to cringe. For some reason, I don't think that HTC has the same operating budget as the US Army, if they did, then maybe HT and crew would take a different tact ... but guess what ?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Purzel:
Download size does matter there are a lot of people with out hi speed access. CD not realy a valid option when you consider how new users get in the game.
We are producing to the same age vidoe card (aprox 3 years) as we did when we started.
HiTech
Well, thats right. I didnt think about new users. It is some step to start a download of a few hundres MBs, and if you dont even know what you get its even more difficult.
I didnt know for sure but I had the impression that AH was, when I first tried it, somewhat heavy on my hardware. It was ok but not by much :)
Now the beta is very well playable on my system, so maybe that makes the impression that there is much "room" left for additional stuff. But anyhow, I think you have studied your possibillities enough and since youre in the matter for quite some time, and successful, you know what youre doing.
And its important to get new ppl into the game, you know, I'm not good enough to shoot down the older ones ;)
-
When you are busy playing, the graphics of AH1 is good enough with a good marginI dont even notice graphics in a game that is good.
Better to have a good game with "dated" graphics than a poor one with lots of candy.
There are a number of old games that are still VERY popular so i think its not just me that feel this way.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
You have 2 different things going on here.
You would have HTC provide differnet install bases to suit your graphic needs. Lots of maintenance and at what graphic points do you cutoff the difference in download sizes ?
On the other hand, you ask for sliders. AH II has sliders and checkboxes that allow you to change the graphic details to suit your cpu/gpu horsepower.
This slider/checkbox "notion" implies instant results. With that notion, you have to deliver the WHOLE package. Can you imagine being in the game and pull the slider up for more detail, and at that point, a download occurs for each increment updwards ... I can't. Its a nightmare.
Why must everybody try to compare AH to these other games. There is no other MMPOG flight sim, that I know, that handles the amount of people on one server like AH. When people talk about AA I have to cringe. For some reason, I don't think that HTC has the same operating budget as the US Army, if they did, then maybe HT and crew would take a different tact ... but guess what ?
I don't think you are correct in your position. Yes, there are 2 things that are being addressed here and maybe they should be handled separately. On the graphics front, you could have a level of detail slider that can be moved to higher settings if you download the packages. A simple grey out and maybe a link to the better package would be obvious and simple enough for most users to handle. The slider does not have to imply instant results, rather, it implies that there is something more available if desired.
On the funtionality front I don't think (though I could be wrong) that this implies nearly as much download size as improved graphics. Therefore, having somehtign along the lines of the current system seems viable. I don't think this is the big issue when talking about package download size.
The big limiter here is all the poor folks with dialup. At some point they will not be the primary customer and maybe no longer directly catering to them will be the most economical way to go. As it is, I doubt more than 40 percent of the current customers are dialup and that number is going down each year. Considering this project is being built for the next 3-5 years catering to the market demands of higher graphics markets without excluding dialup might not be a bad idea.
About spending the resources on improving the textures I point you towards all the skins being put together already. HiTech is fortunate enough to have customers willing to do his work for him. It's a great thing for all involved.
Regards,
rr
-
The question is for how long will AH stay the only worthy MMOG aircombat sim? In case of FA3, people criticize the overall gameplay for good reason. But what if FA3 had essentially the same type of gameplay offered as AH? Or the really fun question would be, what if IL-2 ever decides go online with the UBI capital backing it up? To which game will new users flock to?
It is true that neither graphics nor gameplay change on a whim. But the undeniable fact is that if the gameplay essentially arrives at a simular level the graphics(or rather the level of immersion it promises) will define who wins and loses.
Another dangerous fact is the "gameplay" of AH as we know today was not all because AH was the best. It has a mixed, "wobbly" basis - AW went tits-up, WB was becoming stagnant. People flocked to AH as an alternative - not necessarily because they thought AH was better. Yes, a lot of people thought that, but there were also a lot who didn't. They simply changed because AH was the only option left.
It's so far acted as a positive circle of action - AW and WB goes down, people flock to AH. AH has many players and a huge community, so that naturally draws more people to it. But there's no guarantee that the action will not be reversed - and once it does, it's going to turn into a reverse-action, vicious circle.
....
I'm not making these doomsday prophecies for fun - it's how the gaming market goes these days.
A certain game title rises to the top in one day, and then goes poof the next day. Those types of games live on fads and trends changing by the minute. Compared to that, AH isn't a "fad" type of game, but rather a "steady-seller" game with a long life-span.
But that also means that no matter how innovative it may become along the years, the type of gameplay, what it offers, always remains constant to a certain level, within certain boundaries. What a WW2-based aircombat sim game can offer, is limited.
That is why the importance of graphics increases by the day - the eyes of a human being gives out the most powerful sensation among all our sensory organs. It's no wonder the saying goes, "seeing is believing".
...
So, what if the strat system can evolve no more? How much more can AH thrive on "gameplay" alone?
The announcement of the ToD mode was significant in the fact that HTC boldly decided to implement a RPG aspect into the game, to bring fundamental changes to the formation of the 'immersion factor'. I'd bet that the ToD mode alone can guarantee something like an extra 5 years for AH as the King of the Hill.
But whatever the system is, it can be benchmarked, copied, followed. The initial gap between the games, once a determined competitor rises, tends to close at a rapid rate in the market.
...
What I'm saying is, gameplay for the whole simulation genre is reaching an evolutionary dead-end. Or rather, the fact that it simulates a real-life machine meant that from the very start the 'simulation' genre was meant to be limited.
Since there isn't any other way to increase immersion in the physical sense(unless people dig a large pit at their basement and install a private simulator machine...), immersion for an airplane simulation derives itself from the visual recreation of the real world. That, and good gameplay, usually manifested in the form of "realistic FM". The immersion factor, which drives people to grab a joystick and fly a virtual plane, is nowadays no longer defined by gameplay alone.
So many games come and go in the market. It's a flood of new games everyday. The new generation of gamers buys games which leaves a good first impression - which, is usually the graphics. Sure, they may buy it and then regret it, but that's better than not getting sold at all.
Lookit the horrid gameplay CFS series offers - but it's still got a more-or-less fanbase. Just because it can look really good.
How in the world did IL-2 make such an impact into the simulation world when the boxed-games were in such a long depression? Because of the graphics.
So, it may be currently impossible to use IL-2 level graphics on a network based sim.. but about in five years? What will happen then?
Another factor we should becareful, is that a lot of AH players are "old". We've played air-combat sims since AW DOS years. We know how much things have gotten better over the years. We can feel content with this much AH offers.
But what about the new generation of gamers? Born in the '90s? They're teenagers right now. In a few years they'll get their own credit cards and living spaces. They grew up with "graphics".
So, can we convince them to try AH with "gameplay" alone? Would we be able to pursuade them into flying a large MMOG arena-based sim rather than play a boxed-sim with limited MP games, but has incredible graphics?
Already, I find that difficult. I participate in a small flight-sim community of my own country. I'm one of the 'older guys', but a lot of them are teenagers, middle-schools/high-school students. They all play IL-2/FB and not AH. I ask them why? The first reason they give is the money. (which is natural ofcourse..) But, the next reason they give, is that they're not much inclined to try AH.. because, "it has bad graphics".
How'd they ever know which game has much better gameplay when they aren't the least bit motivated to even try a certain game? Because it "doesn't look good enough" for their standards? We've been surrounded by our own kind for such a long time, that we often fail to realize the new generation is coming rapidly - who hold radically different opinions than compared to our own.
...
So to make a long story short..
Graphics is gameplay. They aren't two different things. If a certain game has lacking graphics, no matter how much "fun" it is to those who know the game, people aren't gonna play it.
..
Now, is AH2 good enough?
It just might be.
The overall feel isn't all too bad - if HTC removes the texture/sprite based effects and replace them with more "modern" methods.. yeah, I think it could be pretty good.
..and maybe historical cockpits.. that'd help increase the immersion factor more than two-fold. It's probably the single largest make-over without any fundamental change in the graphics engine, which can immediately jump up the immersion factor up to immense levels.
-
As for pics...
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1082880839_sampleunouched.jpg)
Three untouched screenshots, save a 0.3 pixel Gaussian blur for "softening" the edges.
...
And here are touched pics with emphasized ambient lighting..
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/232_1082880775_sampletouched.jpg)
Now, a person with a sharp sense may notice that both the untouched and touched pictures may look strangely better than the AH2 you actually play.
Why is that?
Because, the picture is at low-altitudes.
The "default" map of AH2(ndisles currently up..) doesn't seem to be really carefully checked or created. I'd bet it was a simple conversion from AH1 format to AH2 format. The problem with that, is at high altitudes the ground textures form a very tile-ish pattern. That is one of the key reasons why AH2 may not look so great at altitudes. The picture I've taken, is at low altitudes - the repeating "patterns" don't show up.
Another factor which greatly influences realistic look is the lightings. Notice the difference between the first three pics and last three pics. Both AH1 and AH2, to be fairly critical, posess directional lighting from a single lightsource(the sun), but have very poor ambient lighting qualities. Look at the picture of FB Schaden posted - that's what ambient lighting is about. If you have a copy of FB, try setting all the lighting options to minimal - and you'll immediately realize that it starts to look awfully simular to AH. Yup, that's because turning the lighting options cuts down the quality of ambient lighting and only maintains the directional lighting(from the sun) - which, makes it look like AH.
-
Kweassa, you have a lot of good points. Most notably the AH lighting; it hasn't changed since the Great Beta of '99. Aircraft are too dark when viewed from below or the side, and cranking up the game gamma in AH2 to compensate just washes out the whole screen. Try viewing the B-26 nose art when it sits on the runway; you can't. It's far too dark to make out any details at all. What's worse, any aircraft that has a remotely dark paint scheme ends up looking nearly black at some angles. It needs to change with better ambient lighting. Too many games these days can run many local light sources at once; AH doesn't. I remember Pyro saying he'd love to do night fighters if they could ever figure out how to implement the technological advances in a realistic manner. AH, as an engine, can't do that without using local and projected light sources. Landing lights, runway lights/burning barrels, anti-collision lights, tower flares and flak blasts; you can't model these things in AH1. I don't know if AH2 does allow for this, but I sure hope it does.
AH graphics haven't really advanced much when you look at comparison shots between the current Beta and v1.11 p4 of AH1. Sure, there's more ground clutter, and the buildings and such look a whole lot better, but that's it. We still have the same generic terrain, the same bad lighting, and hardly any graphics options compared to other games/sims. Particle effects are limited to rocket and airshow smoke; even then, the airshow smoke is square. In the contest between download size and playability, look at a few other games. Most have climbed to over 100mb in size to download and have a fair amount of options to pick from. As a player on a reasonably fast dial-up line (4.8k/sec usually), I don't mind downloading a 100mb file if the results are worth it. WBs has stagnated, but their graphics are gorgeous. Moving 3D tank tracks, astounding particle effects with a very reasonable FR strike, and a view system that'll boggle the mind! Still, like Il-2, they'll pound AH2 into the dirt from a visual stand-point. This game definitely needs more improved graphics as well as options to use them. Some guys on high-end systems are seeing 50-60 FPS, if not more, in the current Beta with fairly agressive settings. Hell, I'm on an old bucket and I see at least 22 on the pre-Beta-24 terrain in the weeds. Once I climb above 2,500 AGL that FR leaps into the 40's. My current FR on NDISLES regularly screams over 50.
I'd like to see local light sources and a much improved ambient lighting system. I noticed the B-26 has the transparent wing domes for landing lights. To have those actually work would be unreal! The same goes for real muzzle flashes that don't cause a light change on areas not near the gun muzzles or on the flip-side of a metal plate. Increased use of particle effects would also really help things along. Large caliber gun hits like 5" and 8" guns, tank guns, and 37mm guns could be done with independant particle effects depending on the surface hit and the gun caliber. Smaller guns and light cannons (30 mil) could also benefit from this. Target Rabaul has a very nice particle effect for gun smoke that barely causes the FR to burp. Granted, their tracers need help, but the smoke from the gun muzzles is really something to see.
HiTech, I don't mean to sound rude here, but I remember you posting that you wanted to use pixel shaders and lots of particle effects for future versions. Thus far, we haven't heard much about prospective changes and the only big change to Dx9 was primarily for FR optimization. I know we're still fairly early in the Beta run, but things don't seem to point at implementing a lot of new features or eye candy right off the bat. Mostly, from my point of view, they've been aimed at getting AH2 out the door. It's understandable, especially since it was due for releast last October. Getting it out the door soon, and implementing all the whiz-bang stuff later does make sense for the short term. Then you could use the next few patches to fix bugs, and the next version or two to stick graphic improvements in. Sure there's a lot of good gameplay/UI changes, and the terrain detail down in the weeds is pretty good, but the rest is still fairly bland at this point. Your new tracer smoke is a good start and a far cry from the AH1 "swizzle sticks." As you probably know, however, there are a lot of other places that definitely need improvement. Too many things have been allowed to stagnate: hit sprites, fires, smoke, dust, textures, terrains and creation, muzzle flashes, and boat wake to name a few.
Obviously folks can't expect to run IL-2 max-quality graphics on a 900MHz CPU, it simply won't happen. However there are a lot of things you can do within your minimum-system specs. Particle effects are quick to implement (but a pain to make; I know!) and changing the ambient light model to something a bit better shouldn't be too hard. Drastic graphics changes would be terrific for those on high-end systems, while us guys on low-end rust buckets could pick and choose between which effects we'd like to see and which details aren't that important. I doubt it'll happen though, because a download of that size would probably be an order of magnitude larger than the current Beta's. AH, for the longest time, has only allowed the user to pick the rez they run and the color depth, relying on the GFX card control panel to change other options. Now in AH2 we've got a few new toys that make some difference, but not enough of one. The basic changes are there along with the framework for a whole slew of further refinement and development of new visuals.
The question is: what can we expect to see? Will we see a lot of improved special effects? Better terrain and textures? Improved lighting by chance? AH always has been a tad dark, even with the new gamma option.
Well, I ran outa gas. Time to ice my finners now.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/geek.gif)
-
Great posts Kweassa and Flakbait. I completely agree with what you folks are saying. The only way around the quicker download would be add on modules. I imagine these would be the enhanced graphics.
It's understood this is a Beta project and probably will be for quite some time so what I'm saying is based on the long run.
-
AHII and indeed AH1 as well do use add-on modules. You just download the basic game. Maps and their textures are downloaded seperatly or automatically. Additionally in AHII only the default skin of each plane is in the main download. The additional skins are downloaded in the bacground when you play.
-
could be wrong ... but I was under the impression that ah2 beta didn't have all it's effects implemented yet.
-
You don't mean to say.......
Its a BETA !!
Surely ?
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Setting aside its proficiency as a game, FS2004(compatible with CFS3) is incredible in its own way, too.
Ofcourse, with this guy editing films I'd bet AH2 would look like that, too. :D
That isn't an IL2 film?
Anyone know the artist of the song on the film?
-
Nope, Modas. It's FS2004. I think the Yak-3's a paid download.
The song's "Ice Queen" performed by the group Within Temptation.
-
As for 'it's beta' comments, yeah it's "beta" alright.
But the whole discussion is basically about just where the end result should be aimed at - obviously I have no idea whether if the AH graphics engine can handle a good quality of ambient lighting, but as it is, my guess is it isn't very likely we'll see it implemented.
The effects part, we may very well be able to see them renewed - such as better fires, better hit marks, better explosions etc etc. I think that can be done with the graphic engine.
The quality of the graphics engine as a whole, however, remains skeptical to a lot of people who expected a big change in AH2. Personally, I'm pretty much satisfied what AH2 Beta currently looks like, but it does seem that AH2 was lower than what people have expected - especially since now AH has a very potent competitor(though it's limited as a boxed game with limited MP aspect) on the market.
Frankly, graphics issue is like falling in love ;) - there's no reasoning with it. No matter what we may argue, once a gamer has experienced a game with incredible visuals, there's no turning around.
..
So basically I think the whole thread is about a very very delicate issue - does AH have to tend and wait for the people who are lagging behind the tech curve? Or does AH have to leave them behind(hopefully they'll start upgrading if they really love AH so much..) and catch up with this era's standards in visuals and graphics?
Obviously the 1C:Maddox crew, developers of the IL-2 series, chose the latter. That turned out to be a big success - the flight sim game genre was in a very long stagnation and depression since late '90s.. and still, IL-2 made a huge impact in that harsh environment, drawing a lot of completely new gamers who were previously uninterested in the genre. If IL-2 had sacrificed its level of detail in graphics for the low-end users, my guess is it would have become just another average game in the stagnant flight sim market. Frankly as a single player game, IL-2 campaign mode sucks. The gameplay is totally lacking - EAW was better than IL-2. And still, it has earned its place as a classic because it was phenomenal in immersion.
After that incident, a lot of people, as seen in this thread, is starting to think the latter. And with every passing minute the grounds for the people who support the former, is getting thinner and narrower. The "I take gameplay over graphics" attitude is starting to go the way of the dodo. OK, not in AH, currently, but that's what's happening outside the AH world.
IMO AH was very fortunate so far. The expansion of the internet between 1998~2003 provided an escape route for AH as a MMOG - which allowed it to be largely uneffected by the stagnation of the flight-sim market. And the dusk falling upon WB and AW in an unbelievably good timing, almost instantly expanded the AH gamer base by two~three fold. Round 1 of the battle for supremacy in the online aircombat sim market ended with AH being crowned King, and the previous competition laying in ruins.
But the bout isn't over yet. Round2 is going to start soon. And some AH gamers are worried, that somebody will come challenge AH with simular gameplay but superior graphics.
So, when that day comes, I'm sure the true-believers will stay with AH. But what about the new gamers? I predict they won't choose AH - even if it means they have to get a new video card, more CPU and more RAM. Seeing is believing - and when people "see"(literally!) something that they don't like, no amount of gameplay is gonna turn them on.
...
Damn, whenever I write something it turns into an essay (#$&@#@E#@$@)@#$^#@.. but anyway, Round2 hasn't started yet. AH has a chance to evolve into something better with the upcoming AH2 ... that's why it's so important right now - if the path has been already set for AH2 remain as it is, it's gonna be really tough to change it after AH2 starts service. Any changes, any upgrades, any new graphics agenda, any new plan, should be laid out and tested right now.
-
..
And to summarize it all with practical suggestions:
1. Remove all texture/bitmap based effects and replace them with particle/local light effects.
The gun flames, hit sprites, explosions, fires, all derive from old AH. I'm sort of guessing changes are already planned for this as the Beta version progresses, but IMO this, is something that can be implemented without completely changing the graphics engine. They are so important because these sort of effects are directly related with combat.
2. "Small stuff"
Some might recall my posts suggesting a lot of "useless but neat" stuff - but as someone said "God is in the details". Those small stuff, help immersion at an incredible level. They are so small and subtle that the player's mind may not catch it immediately, but their eyes do.
Things like:
*vibration/shaking in a GV when bombs land nearby: doesn't need any "real" implementation. It's basically the same thing as gunfire vibrations added to the game way back in AH1.
* little bit of smoke when engine fires up: too much of this will hit the frame rates severely - but when adequately implemented, the eye candy of it all adds greatly to the feel of the game. Effects like these may be provided with an option to turn them OFF/ON for the low-end users.
* little bits and scraps of metal falling off when a plane is hit by fire: anyone ever watch closely to how the plane explodes in AH? When watched in slow motion you can see that the polygons literally break up into million pieces - in low end systems, a three-plane buff formation exploding drags down the FR because there are literally millions of shards floating in the air for a short time. IMO, if there's something not needed in AH1, that's it. Simply remove that needless "erupt into million shards" effect, and use it in something else - like when a plane is severely hit and damaged by gunfire, some of the shards fall off in small chunks.. you don't need millions of shards to depict that, even 5~10 shards and scraps can look good - and still offer more immersion than the "erupt to million pieces" when planes explode(which hardly anyone notices anyway).
and etc etc.. such small stuff/eye candy/details.
3. historical cockpits
As said before, this is another implementation which immediately increases immersion and yet, doesn't need a major graphics engine update. Anyone remember the SpitV custom made cockpit and how great it looked? It doesn't need to be photorealistic - just retouched and reskinned. And there are people who would do it freely - once, it is sanctioned and made official that it will be accepted and used.
...
If the above 3 conditions are fulfilled, I think AH2 would become more-or-less satisfactory to even the picky people.
-
These are all great suggestions Kweassa! I may be missing something but they sound like great end objectives. I imagine the primary focus is to get something out the door then add features as time moves forward. I for one would love to see this baby be born and am willing to wait and let them refine the product once the engine is up running and proven. It's a dynamic product not a boxed set.
I'm dying for someone else to say "It's Beta!!"..> If you feel you must, please read what folks are saying...
-
Not to worry Kweassa, your essays are always worth reading......ahem unlike some who will go unmentioned..
-
make the lighting like Kweassa's after shots for better game play
too dark now
-
Everybody agrees that as it stands the lighting in AH2 is too dark.
Dull and lifeless.
It desperately needs brightening.
-
Interesting reading everyones posts on this subject, my main points regarding graphics. Remembering that I accept Flight Modeling and Gameplay as priority. But graphics create the environment and immersion and therefore also an important factor.
Firstly don't take this as slang at HT I've been involved with AH for 3 years now and really want to see AH2 do well and continue my support for another 3 years.
1. AH2 still seems to use the same engine as AH1 but with a few added effects. How old is the original AH graphics engine 5 years? Although still in beta and understandable has work to go even at this stage the appearence is extremely dissapointing. Also dissapointing that it still has the "look" of AH1. Especially the terrain which looks like AH with extra clutter.
2. I don't accept the argument that we have to design the game so that it can run on a average CPU Celeron 900 or what ever "average" is deemed to be. I don't expect to have to own the latest Intel and ATI board to get 30fps but I think the "average" is alot higher then what AH2 is planned to run on. Plus mobo's and graphics cards are so cheap these days it wouldnt cost to run much to run say the original IL2 at a good frame rate. And we all know how good the graphics of the original IL2 and still set a benchmark today.
3. Another argument is keeping the game size down because of downloading. People we are way beyone 14k modems these days and also have the ability to resume downloads from disconnection. Expecting a game today to still be under 100mb in size is totally unrealistic. Unless of course you want to keep the 10yr old graphics. Cripes I've downloaded whole DVD's off the net over night at over 1gb.
4. Look at WW2OL and the tarrain graphics there,the planes and effects. Other then for the clouds AH2 is way off the mark. WW2OL for example has good visible damage modeling now on a number of smaller aircraft sections with correct corresponding loss of control or reduced lift, increased drag etc.
5. I think eye candy is important to new players, us old hands can appreciate the flight modeling and details. However for new customers they are going to look at AH2 then the competition and take their $15 a month else where.
After the lack of support that's been going on with AH1, how long since the last update (18 months?) While they work on AH2 and with what we have been presented so far with AH2 beta. It still seems along way off from release. If it isn't and there are a few details yet to be added as far as graphics and effects then AH2 is going to be left way behind other MMPOG flight sims.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
4. Look at WW2OL and the tarrain graphics there,the planes and effects. Other then for the clouds AH2 is way off the mark. WW2OL for example has good visible damage modeling now on a number of smaller aircraft sections with correct corresponding loss of control or reduced lift, increased drag etc.
I'll disagree with you on this. Some points to note, one of the most common complaints 'over there' is the visibility range, AH1/2 can do up to 17 miles, WW2OL can barely do 3. Fly to 20k in WW2OL and look at the ground, do the same in AH, notice the difference.
The visual damage in WW2OL is relatively primitive compared to AH1 and AH2. At the moment there is no visible damage applied to single engine aircraft, and visual damage in multi engine relates to wings, tails, and engines. The visual damage on AH1 has more components than WW2OL has.
And then theres the FPS... whoa baby. Some good lessons to be learn't there for HTC (like its time to think about two seperate optimized engines for air and land).
Lets not forget that AH players have contributed some great terrains with very nice colour balancing for AH1 (remember Midway), no doubt that will happen with AH2. You have to pinch yourself every now and then and remind yourself we're not tied to one map here gixer.
CRS have done a great job for the ground battle with the new terrain, but its shortcomings (for the air) show up in the air very quickly.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Unless of course you want to keep the 10yr old graphics.
Still have the boner for the 10 year old graphics? What games in 1994 had AH quality graphics?
Cyberia? Duke Nuke em 3d? Doom 2? lol.
-Sik
-
Sound sources are another thing that could definitely use updating. Currently they are not mobile, so when you swing a gun you eventually hear the sound behind you instead of in front of you. The LVTA4 is a prime example of this. Swinging the Ma Deuce on the turret around to face front places the gun's firing sound behind you, making it seem muffled. If it's possible to attach a sound source to a vehicle, why not attach it to the gun muzzle? That way the gun sound is always in front of you regardless of where you point the thing. When you look around from a gun position using a stick hat or the keypad, the sound would accurately change to reflect the position in relation to your head.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/page25.gif)
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Still have the boner for the 10 year old graphics? What games in 1994 had AH quality graphics?
Cyberia? Duke Nuke em 3d? Doom 2? lol.
-Sik
Not as hard as the boner you have about 10 years, If it makes you happier say 7 years ago or 5 years ago. I was making a relative point that the graphics look dated.
...-Gixer
-
Gixer,
I can understand you, but Hitech answered one of my questions/remarks on the first page of this thread, and said that they were aiming for the same age of video-cards they did in the beginning, meaning 3 years old.
I'm not sure, but I think they know what theyre doing, and AHI was very impressive back then for beeing a MMPOG, and I think with adjusted colors, some neat effects like this particle-stuff and lighting it could be looking very good. At least good enought to draw some customers.
AH will prolly never look as good as a boxed game, but the gameplay is the part that gets ppl. There is not much right now that can rival AH, but if the Il-2 successor implements some gameplay like AH has, even on a smaller scale, then ppl will begin to look closer and will change to the boxed game, esp since it is much cheaper.
Up to now, the SP as well as the MP of Il-2 sucks. And its biased. But its a potential threat.
-
Originally posted by Purzel
Up to now, the SP as well as the MP of Il-2 sucks. And its biased. But its a potential threat.
Most of our squadron is nowadays flying mostly IL2FB. The AH participance has dropped significantly during the past year. I'd say IL2 is a serious threat.
Camo
-
IL2 doesn't suk AH doesn't suk either
In il2 the fm of all planes looks somewhat close to eachother
hate it that p38 can be outturned by 109 and 190
not like in AH
I like both for now i'm playing IL2 more than AH
I still like the graphics more than in AH2
i hope ah2 comes near this graphics
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Not as hard as the boner you have about 10 years, If it makes you happier say 7 years ago or 5 years ago. I was making a relative point that the graphics look dated.
...-Gixer
Do you always exagerate by a factor of two when trying to make a point?
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Sikboy
Do you always exagerate by a factor of two when trying to make a point?
-Sik
Yes especially in regards to boners.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Yes especially in regards to boners.
...-Gixer
lol Touche
-Sik
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
Setting aside its proficiency as a game, FS2004(compatible with CFS3) is incredible in its own way, too.
Kweassa -
I've got CFS3 and just bought FS2004. When you say they are compatible, does this mean I can bring the A/C from CSF3 into fs2004?
How does one do that?
-
and said that they were aiming for the same age of video-cards they did in the beginning, meaning 3 years old.
But that is tempered with keeping the overall program viable for dial-up downloading. I suspect that keeping the overall program small for the dial-up download actually combines with 3-yr old graphics card target to hurt the eye-candy dept even more. Unfortunately, I think that catering or leaning towards the dial-up types that can't make a large download will keep some of those at the higher end with the top-end computers and Internet connections who would be sold on wizz-bang graphics away from AH2. I see it being then, in the end, just merely a trade-off on who you get and no real overall benefit to the strategy. But I also feel (and I'm not educated in these matters) that leaning the design to keep a small download will also shorten the longevity of the program.
-
Originally posted by Puke ver. 2
[ I see it being then, in the end, just merely a trade-off on who you get and no real overall benefit to the strategy. But I also feel (and I'm not educated in these matters) that leaning the design to keep a small download will also shorten the longevity of the program. [/B]
This is beyond my ability to comprehend too...
Why would you design a game with such a short operational window? I would have thought that you would design for the latest out there since by time it's actually released it will be dated anyway. It would seem to me that designing to the high end buys you time to refine the product instead of entering a new developement cycle shortly after release. Would it not be reasonable to design for the best out there and let folks tune it down to suit? Initial download size could be managed by add on packs with the better graphics , sounds, skins etc that could be downloaded after the inital game. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do , nor do I portend to know the whole story, but this makes the most sense to me. Maybe I'm missing some perspective..
Regards,
RR
-
View version 2.0 as the new foundation to build on the next 5 years like ah 1.0 was. There are lots of items built into the new engine that you don't see. We have done search lights, pixel shader fire and smoke, envirorment mapping. The frame work is in place for those items already. They will be comming in future version, but first 2.0 needs to be released ,solid and be able to run on older machines then we can go on to some cooler stuff for newer boards.
HiTech
-
market share
coding to appeal to the largest segment of paying customers
I'm pretty sure they are leaving hooks for a faster upgrade once the average customers hardware/connection warrants such a move without losing their base
HT for a fine product - have never gotten so much enjoyment from one program
edit: hehe - HT responded as I was typing - thanks again
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/329_1083191055_ah2scenery.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Puke ver. 2
But that is tempered with keeping the overall program viable for dial-up downloading. I suspect that keeping the overall program small for the dial-up download actually combines with 3-yr old graphics card target to hurt the eye-candy dept even more. Unfortunately, I think that catering or leaning towards the dial-up types that can't make a large download will keep some of those at the higher end with the top-end computers and Internet connections who would be sold on wizz-bang graphics away from AH2. I see it being then, in the end, just merely a trade-off on who you get and no real overall benefit to the strategy. But I also feel (and I'm not educated in these matters) that leaning the design to keep a small download will also shorten the longevity of the program.
Actually Puke you quite wrong in assuming that keeping the bandwidth narrow is to appease the dialup users.
Now I'm speaking as a networking person, not as a 'in the know with AH2' person... but try this, pick an offshore host, say stuff.co.nz, open up a command line prompt in Windows and type...
ping stuff.co.nz -l 32
ping stuff.co.nz -l 64
ping stuff.co.nz -l 128
ping stuff.co.nz -l 256
ping stuff.co.nz -l 512
ping stuff.co.nz -l 1024
ping stuff.co.nz -l 2048
Notice the difference? Increase the bandwidth, and watch the latency go up.
64kbps is the *magic* number at the moment to get guaranteed bandwidth+good latency across the net. Dialup users or not.
-
Originally posted by hitech
View version 2.0 as the new foundation to build on the next 5 years like ah 1.0 was. There are lots of items built into the new engine that you don't see. We have done search lights, pixel shader fire and smoke, envirorment mapping. The frame work is in place for those items already. They will be comming in future version, but first 2.0 needs to be released ,solid and be able to run on older machines then we can go on to some cooler stuff for newer boards.
HiTech
Thanks for the clarity Hitech.. Now... if I dare...
How is thing looking? Is it getting closer to wider scale capacity testing? I'm by no means looking for a date (Two Weeks), rather would love to know what the feel is for you guys since your eyeball deep in this project. Something along the line of "its going to be a while" or " It's complete enough now to think about kicking it out the door and touching up as we go soon" would be most welcome.. just something to set expectations... of course nothing is ready until its ready but there must be some confidence level.
Thanks again!
RR
-
View version 2.0 as the new foundation to build on the next 5 years like ah 1.0 was. There are lots of items built into the new engine that you don't see. We have done search lights, pixel shader fire and smoke, envirorment mapping. The frame work is in place for those items already. They will be comming in future version, but first 2.0 needs to be released ,solid and be able to run on older machines then we can go on to some cooler stuff for newer boards.
HiTech
Thanks for having the patience to listen to our long complaints :) That is indeed good news!
-
Originally posted by BUG_EAF322
IL2 doesn't suk AH doesn't suk either
In il2 the fm of all planes looks somewhat close to eachother
hate it that p38 can be outturned by 109 and 190
not like in AH
I like both for now i'm playing IL2 more than AH
I still like the graphics more than in AH2
i hope ah2 comes near this graphics
Hmm, maybe I didnt make clear what I wanted to say, I think Il-2 has much potential. The develoeprs surely could do great things with it, the framework is there. And the know-how.
BUT, they dont use it wisely IMHO. In SP the AI can do, err, weird stuff with their planes, and any skill level above average makes them snipers. 1 KM headshots on head-ons, that are hardly avoidable. Just like the buff-gunners are. It doesnt totally ruin the game, but it makes it worse. If they dont want to cope with these problems, they should at least focus on MP, so that they can take that market. But MP isnt good either with pauses, non existent Ded servers, and many many more problems. About the FM, I think its not "balanced". It doesnt fit, the planes dont stack up to each other as they should, AFAIK. The armament, while in AH1 too lethal, is too weak in Il-2. German guns are really really weak right now, dispersion in Brownings high (AFAIK) and stuff like that.
Instead they focus on making new planes, a new sim, but prolly with the old AI and Net-code. Really, I dont think thats smart in the long run.
I agree that the GFX in Il-2 are better than AH2. But, as HT responded already, there is somthing in store for us in the new Graphics engine, its just not used yet. Maybe it will come close to the Il-2 GFX standard.
HTC stays in the MP department, sticks (hopefully) to their netcode and do what they can do, and do it good. The trees invite for more GVs, but there will always only be small steps of changes I think. So, that the game stays playable.
So, maybe Il-2 doesnt suk in all aspects, but although there are great GFX the gameplay isnt too great. This is even more unfortunate, as the possibillities are there. Theyre just not used accordingly.
All IMHO, off course. :)
-
Thanks for the reply HT! Definitely answered a few of my questions.
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
(http://www.wa-net.com/~delta6/sig/life_modem.gif)