Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: CrosFire on May 17, 2009, 12:07:13 PM
-
i think it would be cool to see contrails form planes from like 15k up
-
+1
It looks awesome in Il-2, would like to see it in AH.
-
thats where i got it form lol
-
i am sure they can do it. after all, you see the trials on bullets, A/C loosing oil, fuel and on fire. But they should make them 6 k long and have them appear on some A/C like bombers at 20 k.
-
Woudln't that give some people a lot of lag when thye get near the plane?
-
Do you get lag from a bomber with fuel and oil hits? It would be about the same amount of lag. This game needs to push into the twentyfirst century with graphics. Even if that means losing the people that cant put a hundred dollars in to their computer every year to keep up with everyone else.
-
Id venture to guess that they might gain some people....
-
Same wishes........ Over, and over, and over.......
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,246194.0.html
-
Well, let's make it like the rest.
I've been for it and still am! :aok
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,176079.0.html
-
A double yep on this one. YEPYEP
-
Do you get lag from a bomber with fuel and oil hits? It would be about the same amount of lag. This game needs to push into the twentyfirst century with graphics. Even if that means losing the people that cant put a hundred dollars in to their computer every year to keep up with everyone else.
I understand your point, but as the sole bread winner for a family of five on a ****** job in a crappy economy, thanks a lot.
-
I understand your point, but as the sole bread winner for a family of five on a ****** job in a crappy economy, thanks a lot.
If there were an option to run the game with contrails (and any eye candy for that matter) disabled, then this shouldn't affect anyone whose computer can't handle it.
-
Contrails? Like the genesis of clouds caused by condensed water and engine heat at high altitude?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Qantas_and_contrails.jpg/750px-Qantas_and_contrails.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/B-17_Flying_Fortress.jpg/180px-B-17_Flying_Fortress.jpg)
Or, wingtip vortices? The little vapor trails wingtips make in dense, humid air during high G maneuvers.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/FA-18C_vapor_LEX_and_wingtip_1.jpg/800px-FA-18C_vapor_LEX_and_wingtip_1.jpg)
Wouldn't contrails be a whole new coading nightmare? Having to put them where the plane was and leave them for an indeterminate amount of time? And everything would get so cloudy.
On the other hand, who flys that high anyway?
wrongway
-
Offline missions.
If this were so much of a hassle, then why did we ever implement smoke from fire, especially fire from planes.
-
+1
-
So, each map would have an altitude which if you go above, you trail a bright white stream like a thick fuel leak. And, since you can easily see contrails from the ground, any plane that high will be displayed on the map as a normal red dot for all to see, since ground spotters would radio the position, estimated speed and direction of travel.
-
There is one very big problem here guys, one that HTC have possibly thought about.
What happens when a plane trailing smoke or fuel has a little mini warp? The smoke trail zig-zags with the warp and stays disrupted till the tail end catches up.
If contrails stretching back a kilometer or so were implemented, they would be constantly broken up by very ugly zig-zags. We dont notice how much planes beyond 3k warp around because they are just a black dot, with contrails it would be very obvious and exteremy bad looking.
-
That's a very valid point that I never considered.
I suggest that HTC eliminate the, "warp." :D
-
Really? Wait then, I take it back. 26 years making only invalid points and I'm not stopping now.
-
"It's time for change!" :lol
-
I understand your point, but as the sole bread winner for a family of five on a ****** job in a crappy economy, thanks a lot.
and yet you can fork out the money to pay a monthly bill for AH? and a computer to run it....might need to change priorities...
-
Graphically IL2 has an edge, and the contrails is one of them. . .
AH2 is a better game, a better community, but I sometimes look at IL2 with a wish that we could get some of those things.
+1 bump
-
Has nothing to do with alt. Humidity and temp on the other hand, air density & pressure...... Altitude is only a factor by changing the measurements of the former factors.
On the other hand, who flys that high anyway?
wrongway
-
There is one very big problem here guys, one that HTC have possibly thought about.
What happens when a plane trailing smoke or fuel has a little mini warp? The smoke trail zig-zags with the warp and stays disrupted till the tail end catches up.
If contrails stretching back a kilometer or so were implemented, they would be constantly broken up by very ugly zig-zags. We dont notice how much planes beyond 3k warp around because they are just a black dot, with contrails it would be very obvious and exteremy bad looking.
Airplanes warp a bit in Il-2, also, but I haven't noticed this to be a problem.
Wouldn't contrails be a whole new coading nightmare? Having to put them where the plane was and leave them for an indeterminate amount of time?...
On the other hand, who flys that high anyway?
Are you saying Oleg Maddox codes better than hitech? :devil Last FSO frame we were flying P-47s at 32k ft.
-
Airplanes warp a bit in Il-2, also, but I haven't noticed this to be a problem.
Are you saying Oleg Maddox codes better than hitech? :devil Last FSO frame we were flying P-47s at 32k ft.
Well, Anax, if I go into offline and set all four drones on fire, it drops my frame rates. I can only imagine what contrails would do to a more marginal AH machine....
Hey, I like that wingtip vortices thing though...would constitute a clue about what the opposition is doing.
-
What I don't get is my better FPS rate in Il-2 even though it's so much prettier than AH.
-
What I don't get is my better FPS rate in Il-2 even though it's so much prettier than AH.
I suspect AHII has alot more "under the hood" so to speak.
-
and yet you can fork out the money to pay a monthly bill for AH? and a computer to run it....might need to change priorities...
Five years ago, it was easy to afford a computer to run it. I was a crew foreman trimming trees out of powerlines making good money with great benefits, up until I came down with an inner-ear infection that took a long time to recover from. It took three doctors to finally figure it out. Meanwhile, I traded rolls with my wife and stayed home with my three boys, one of which was six months old at the time. By the time I was able to get back to work, the job market really started taking a dump out here. I managed to find a job working for a mineral plant just down the highway- low pay, no benefits. The only saving grace about the situation out here is that I don't live in town- I own my house, I don't belong to the bank.
Next spring, I'll be able to fork some money out to build an entirely new machine, but for now, my priorities are my wife & kids, my job, my dad's farmland. Aces High is down the line, and at $15 a month, it's still a good Friday night game to unwind with my BOP buddies after working my arse off for what we get. I'm gonna live life at least a little bit, dammit. :cool:
I'm sorry, but I bristle when someone questions my priorities without knowing the facts.
EDIT: I apologize for straying off the subject.
-
What I don't get is my better FPS rate in Il-2 even though it's so much prettier than AH.
OpenGL?
-
The aviation physics model is no where near as complex as we have here.
What I don't get is my better FPS rate in Il-2 even though it's so much prettier than AH.
-
Flight physics are responsible for a noticeable difference in fps? How do we know this? Flight physics should count for far less Cpu power than graphics, which is evident from the fact that reducing visual detail or resolution improves fps.
The lengths to which some of you go to defend HTC is really amusing sometimes. :lol
-
You don't write code do you brotha? Defend HTC? I just got off a week ban, they can kiss my grits.... :devil I simply defend the truth. The video card has less to do with frame rate then you may be aware of. Of course until HTC tells you that, you'll continue to believe the lies. Ingame processes play just as big a part. The graphics can't keep up... Okay, that makes sense..... But what if the CPU can't keep up? Flying a plane in AH is much close to really flying a plane then it is in IL2. Hence the modeling causes the FPS loss just as easily. You fly into a furball and start lagging, but.... but all the cons are just little dots.... What graphics do you see?
Flight physics are responsible for a noticeable difference in fps? How do we know this? Flight physics should count for far less Cpu power than graphics, which is evident from the fact that reducing visual detail or resolution improves fps.
The lengths to which some of you go to defend HTC is really amusing sometimes. :lol
-
The graphics engine in Il2 would be superior (as it seems to be) in a bang/buck metric simply because more cash was thrown at it. I'm not sure Il2 is that much less intensive overall.. It has all those weird bootstrapped FM bits and pieces and a lot more DM going on. I could be wrong on this one though.
-
What about the fact that Il-2 doesn't have real trees? That AH tries to be a suitable world for ground vehicles has to hit fps more than the 2d trees of Il-2.
-
Has nothing to do with alt. Humidity and temp on the other hand, air density & pressure...... Altitude is only a factor by changing the measurements of the former factors.
A contrail will form behind a jet if, as exhaust gases cool and mix with surrounding air, the humidity is high enough and the temperature low enough for liquid water to condense. The air needs to be supersaturated and the temperature generally below -40°F, something that typically occurs only in the upper troposphere, the atmospheric layer several miles up where airliners cruise.
Low level contrails in Siberia I suppose. I guess I should be more specific. After all, where does one find -40o air generally?
wrongway
-
Winter happens and planes still fly my brotha!!! :cool: Not to mention I think the request is for all forms of vortices, contrails, vapor trails........... Only contrails behave exactly as you have spoken. Vapor trails can happen at any altitude and vortices are easy to make..... Anywhere. And then you have Crow Instability to boot!
A contrail will form behind a jet if, as exhaust gases cool and mix with surrounding air, the humidity is high enough and the temperature low enough for liquid water to condense. The air needs to be supersaturated and the temperature generally below -40°F, something that typically occurs only in the upper troposphere, the atmospheric layer several miles up where airliners cruise.
Low level contrails in Siberia I suppose. I guess I should be more specific. After all, where does one find -40o air generally?
wrongway
-
Winter happens and planes still fly my brotha!!! :cool: Not to mention I think the request is for all forms of vortices, contrails, vapor trails........... Only contrails behave exactly as you have spoken. Vapor trails can happen at any altitude and vortices are easy to make..... Anywhere. And then you have Crow Instability to boot!
Which is why I asked a few posts back whether it was contrails or vapor trails/vortices being asked for. Two different things IMO.
-40o in winter below 20,000 feet where? Often? Don't want to go there.
I would surmise that the whole "contrail" wish was a request to be able to spot high level flights from the ground anyway, which would be pointless as regarding the view range in game anyway.
Otherwise, eye candy?
wrongway
-
AHHHHHHHHH.... You are so right sir, you did say that. Apologies! :salute
Which is why I asked a few posts back whether it was contrails or vapor trails/vortices being asked for. Two different things IMO.
-
means losing the people that cant put a hundred dollars in to their computer every year to keep up with everyone else.
Been there done that and I have the T-shirt.
Making this mistake almost put HTC out of business, I will not be making that mistake again.
2nd you do not quite seem to understand the difference in scale we are talking about.
With bullet trails and leaks, how long does the trail stay around, 1 - 2 secs?
HiTech
-
HT, would it really be that expensive if they were kept to the highest altitudes, and had a large LoD range?
-
Flight physics are responsible for a noticeable difference in fps? How do we know this? Flight physics should count for far less Cpu power than graphics, which is evident from the fact that reducing visual detail or resolution improves fps.
Anax: I fool around with a non-combat flight sim called X-Plane. In the "Plane-Maker" module, you can set the number of elements along the wings and stabs for which lift and drag are measured. Simply increasing the numbers of points being measured for flight modeling purposes from say 4 to 10 on all lift surfaces for a given craft can cause a notable slow down in frame rates when flying that craft.
-
With bullet trails and leaks, how long does the trail stay around, 1 - 2 secs?
HiTech
Yep and when Im in a bomber and have five or six fuel/oil leaks I dont see ANY FR hits. Thats pretty good seeing that I only spent $475 on this computer a few years ago. How much would it hurt if the contrails lasted 6-8-10 secs?
-
Anax: I fool around with a non-combat flight sim called X-Plane. In the "Plane-Maker" module, you can set the number of elements along the wings and stabs for which lift and drag are measured. Simply increasing the numbers of points being measured for flight modeling purposes from say 4 to 10 on all lift surfaces for a given craft can cause a notable slow down in frame rates when flying that craft.
Very interesting! Thank you for the edification. I suppose it's probable that the fm is responsible for the difference, though the trees of AH are a real fps killer.
-
I still Love you man!!! <S>
Very interesting! Thank you for the edification. I suppose it's probable that the fm is responsible for the difference, though the trees of AH are a real fps killer.
-
I agree, the contrails dont have to last for thousands of feet, 5-8 seconds would be just fine. And if your computer cant handle that, then it must be a POS to begin with that could barely run AHII. Hell the new planes have more graphic weight than the contrail will.
-
Sort of off topic........
Our trees are 2D. I'm not sure how much they actually do effect anything.
AH trees are several 2D trees layed on top of one another at varying degrees. All of our 3 dimensionality is based on 2d planes (not aircraft). However the level of complexity towards aircraft & tanks is far more compared to the trees. If you hand out under a tree in a tank, you totally see the 2d tree.
-
You must not play Il-2. I know what you're saying, but compared to Il-2 our trees are 3-dimensional. You can measure their height, width and depth. In Il-2 they're simply horizontal layers above the ground that look like trees until you're at ground level.
-
You are correct sir. I have just seen some videos and caps from it.
Now I'm looking for a low level screen cap from it so I can see what you mean.
<S>
-
It's like he describes. Layered sprites.
-
Oh Wow... I see what ya'll are saying about it...... This shot is low alt, but still a mile or two out and they look super strange....
(http://www.candidz.com/snapshotz/images.php/i2285_il2media.jpg)
The ground in general has strange looks to it. The water almost looks animated though, is it?
Here is to the Update!!! We hope, we pray!
-
Those are real 3D trees, the ones refered to as flat shapes are the actual thick forests.. Those are just a couple of layers of sprites conformed to the ground topology.
-
Has anyone thought of the messages that would be written in the clear blue sky with said contrails??? I can think of a few things that the squaddies and I would write... I suppose I'd get a week long contrail ban shortly thereafter. :aok
-
But those look almost penciled in.... They are 3d? But now I know exactly what you were referring to. I always thought that was just strange topography of the land. Like in this one, there are no trees really but all the land looks like that?
(http://www.candidz.com/snapshotz/images.php/i2284_il2.jpg)
Those are real 3D trees, the ones refered to as flat shapes are the actual thick forests.. Those are just a couple of layers of sprites conformed to the ground topology.
-
Yep that's pretty much what ground looks like in Il2.
-
IL2 may have crappy forests with trees only being horizontal layers, BUT they have amazing 3D clouds. So while you may not be taking a FPS hit from the trees, the clouds make up for it.
-
Neither of those screen shots are very high quality. Here are some better shots of Il-2 that show trees:
(http://i310.photobucket.com/albums/kk426/FSMplanepics/mustang.jpg)
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y290/thefruitbat1/grab0004-6.jpg)
(http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh195/Uufflakke/slw17.jpg)
In the last picture, look at the fuzzy ridge line. That is caused by the 2d trees.
-
Hopefully HTC raises the ambient lighting now that there'll be true shadows. Skinners will have to take note of that too - lots of good skins with artificial shadows drawn in.
-
I'm looking forward to the new lighting system as much as the new terrains. :rock