Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NatCigg on December 19, 2011, 08:04:54 AM
-
http://youtu.be/B_LplAoJwdY
long version of the epic kill
The force is strong with this one, and quite fun to watch.
The interesting part is how he dies. in true video game style, the exposion of his opponents auger ended the fighterpilots epic run.
-
Why can't Aces High look that good?
-
Why can't Aces High look that good?
Because many could not run it then.
-
Scalable graphics options? My computer is from 2006 and I can still run most new games on high or ultra settings. Aces High does look quite outdated and I can only think they're losing new customers because of it. Perhaps they should allocate resources to updating their gfx engine instead of just adding new content (if they aren't doing so already).
-
Scalable graphics options? My computer is from 2006 and I can still run most new games on high or ultra settings. Aces High does look quite outdated and I can only think they're losing new customers because of it. Perhaps they should allocate resources to updating their gfx engine instead of just adding new content (if they aren't doing so already).
Take a 5 year old computer, with a built-in Intel video chip, and run todays high end graphic games on anything other than the lowest possible setting. Not going to happen.
The Intel video chip has 68% of the computer market.
If you look into the beta we have out now, it is a graphics improvement which will still run on that 5 year old Intel video chip.
-
That's cool, but the one-third of the computer market that has performance to spare... Why not give us say dx 10/11 support or post processing injection? Won't affect those who can't use it and won't require any increase in fidelity of the in-game content, but will still make things prettier by allowing better effect shaders.
-
That's cool, but the one-third of the computer market that has performance to spare... Why not give us say dx 10/11 support or post processing injection? Won't affect those who can't use it and won't require any increase in fidelity of the in-game content, but will still make things prettier by allowing better effect shaders.
1/3 of the computer market is not enough to sustain Aces High.
So you want to get rid of Windows XP support? That would pretty much kill Aces High as Windows XP still has the largest market share of Windows operating systems.
Getting rid of Intel support and Windows XP support would leave about 10% of the computer market available. That would end Aces High.
Our graphics engine is actually very sophisticated. Look at our current beta plane models and then consider we are doing all that with a game that still fits on a single CD. Yes, the size of the download does matter, for several reasons.
-
1/3 of the computer market is not enough to sustain Aces High.
So you want to get rid of Windows XP support? That would pretty much kill Aces High as Windows XP still has the largest market share of Windows operating systems.
Getting rid of Intel support and Windows XP support would leave about 10% of the computer market available. That would end Aces High.
Our graphics engine is actually very sophisticated. Look at our current beta plane models and then consider we are doing all that with a game that still fits on a single CD. Yes, the size of the download does matter, for several reasons.
I'm not sure how this would end XP support. 100% of the other games I play - all with high-end graphics - offer options for DX's 9,10 and 11.
-
I'm not sure how this would end XP support. 100% of the other games I play - all with high-end graphics - offer options for DX's 9,10 and 11.
Costs/risks versus gains. Yes, you can do it, but you have to build support for each version (actually 10 and 11 share the same pipeline structure, but 9 is different). Now you have multiple paths to support in the game. The benefit is negligible compared to the risks.
DX9 works across all Windows platforms, with minimal risks.
I am not going to get into the business aspects of all this, even though it is a big portion of what we do and why we do it.
-
Adding dx 10 or 11 support does not remove dx 9 support. Most new games can still be run on dx 9 and on XP. Nor does adding dx 9 post processing injection prevent XP users from playing the game.
Another game discussed here recently, Skyrim, can be run on a 32-bit XP rig with only dx9 support and still looks fantastic. There is no reason why adding support for more advanced shaders should prevent players with low-end rigs to play without them, but hey... It's your product.
-
Tinman beat me to it.
-
You are not seriously comparing a closed environment game to an open environment game?
There are so many things wrong with the idea of comparing those I cannot find a basis to have a discussion.
Just FYI, a 5 year old Intel video chip has zero support for shaders of any kind.
-
lets see, based on that clip, 50foot takeoff distance, unlimited ammo, 50G turns, 500knt landings? yeah im impressed. oh yeah its battlefield 3 and it ran once on my machine and now wont run at all.
I7-266
6gigs of ram
1 terabyte raid
4980 radeon card
ill stick with aces high
-
You are not seriously comparing a closed environment game to an open environment game?
There are so many things wrong with the idea of comparing those I cannot find a basis to have a discussion.
Just FYI, a 5 year old Intel video chip has zero support for shaders of any kind.
Skyrim has a 16 square mile open environment, but that's not important. What's important is that it has a good multi-source lighting system, speculars, reflections, volumetrics (smoke, fog, clouds), good looking soft shadows, all in dx9.
That five year old Intel video chip would still run the game as it is now without the more advanced shaders.
Il-2 Sturmovik was launched ten years ago on November 18, 2001 and back then it looked like this:
(http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/screenshots/gs/news/010119/sturm_790screen034.jpg)
It ran on a Pentium III with a minimum of 256MB system ram and 32MB video ram with dx8 support. Notice the nice diffused specular highlights on the cowling and the leading edge of the left wing, the beautiful volumetric clouds and sense of depth in the scene.
Aces high has better models (the updated ones), but everything else looks like I'm back on a windows 98 box in the late '90s.
I'll stop now before I aggravate anyone, but consider this a request. Please!
-
lets see, based on that clip, 50foot takeoff distance, unlimited ammo, 50G turns, 500knt landings? yeah im impressed. oh yeah its battlefield 3 and it ran once on my machine and now wont run at all.
I7-266
6gigs of ram
1 terabyte raid
4980 radeon card
ill stick with aces high
The issue is not AH. The issue is some folks do not care about anything else but pretty. For them there are the "Pretty" games.
Aces high is coming along nicely IMHO. Cooking up a great game with a mix of ingredients instead of just throwing icing over the whole thing.
-
The issue is not AH. The issue is some folks do not care about anything else but pretty. For them there are the "Pretty" games.
Aces high is coming along nicely IMHO. Cooking up a great game with a mix of ingredients instead of just throwing icing over the whole thing.
Pretty much.
-
I got more enjoyment playing Air Warrior for a decade than I have any "pretty" game.
-
Was the fact that it wasn't "pretty" that which gave you enjoyment, or would you have enjoyed it even more if it was more "pretty"?
-
The aesthetics of the game itself had little to do with the enjoyment. Mountains were pyramids, CVs didn't move and the B-17s held room for 6 gunners.
Mountains are mountains and CVs move but we haven't mastered in AH the creation of a Death Star mission as of yet.
How a game looks doesn't make me tick. I don't spend my precious leisure time looking for the shiniest toy, I spend it with getting the most value for enjoyment. This summer and fall I spent it and a lot of money at the race track. Same for next year. It's not because of how pretty they are, it's what I get out of it.
-
So you'd still be fine with "pyramid" mountains and all the effort put into updating models is wasted in your opinion?
-
It's all about the middle road. You can't expect a game to do well if it's story line lasted 10 minutes and its multiplayer have one map and one gun, even if it does have greatest graphics ever seen. You also can't expect a good game if if the graphics looks like a 2 year old drew it with crayons, regardless of whether or not the story/game play works perfectly.
I think AH2 is fine where it is, the graphics are a solid 7/10 for me, and it's continuing to improve.
The gameplay gets a 9/10.
-
So you'd still be fine with "pyramid" mountains and all the effort put into updating models is wasted in your opinion?
No one said that at all. You're completely missing the point.
-
So you'd still be fine with "pyramid" mountains and all the effort put into updating models is wasted in your opinion?
You're not getting what I'm saying. Let me ask you two questions:
Why do you play a game? Why don't you play a game?
-
What skuzzy is saying is that they want to hire an xbox developer to port the game to xbox 360, but they don't have enuf cash flow for his salary and don't want to offer up a big enough ownership share in lieu of a nice salary in order to make it worth a talented xbox programmer's time. And a sucky xbox programmer would just make everything worse, even if the xbox players are segregated on their own server.
That's what I heard him say anyhow. ymmv because I don't hear so good out of my left ear anymore so I do a lot of interpretation from context :)
edit: This.
If you look into the beta we have out now, it is a graphics improvement which will still run on that 5 year old Intel video chip.
-
http://youtu.be/B_LplAoJwdY
long version of the epic kill
The force is strong with this one, and quite fun to watch.
The interesting part is how he dies. in true video game style, the exposion of his opponents auger ended the fighterpilots epic run.
Personally I dont see whats so great about that kill. All he did was exploit a very poorly modeled portion of the game.
If modeled correctly. if your in a vertical climb and eject. You should eject sideways. Not up. If correctly modeled. the entire shot and sequence could never have happened.
Then again we're talking about a game where the plane goes from a dead stop to full speed airborne in about 10 feet
-
Personally I dont see whats so great about that kill. All he did was exploit a very poorly modeled portion of the game.
Ya what he said.
Jump out of aircraft in stall then get back in cockpit. Do I really have to say it.
They traded some looks for a very poorly modeled game IMO
-
This has been part of Battlefield games since at least BF1942. A guy named Zook made a film of him doing a bunch of times and since then people have made videos of the same. Usually they will have Zook in the description or title.
-
Why can't Aces High look that good?
Because I'd rather spend my money on a developer who builds a fun game that actually has a smidgeon of realism under the hood. As opposed to pretty pictures that look like something real but act completely different. About the only thing realistic in any of the Battlefield series is that there a human beings, they can hold guns, and the guns(usually, ingame mileage may vary) shoot projectiles where the human points them. The best I can say for Battlefield's tanks and planes... A wizard did it.
-
It's all about the middle road. You can't expect a game to do well if it's story line lasted 10 minutes and its multiplayer have one map and one gun, even if it does have greatest graphics ever seen. You also can't expect a good game if if the graphics looks like a 2 year old drew it with crayons, regardless of whether or not the story/game play works perfectly.
I think AH2 is fine where it is, the graphics are a solid 7/10 for me, and it's continuing to improve.
The gameplay gets a 9/10.
I guess we just differ on where the middle road should be.
-
Oops... Didn't mean to post. Just grab a quote...