Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Weirdguy on January 11, 2013, 03:37:24 AM
-
I keep finding other flight sims to try out and I am impressed by one thing in all of them. They have better terrain. Houses, actual road networks, and fields lined with trees. If you try out the Wings of Prey demo on Steam you can see what I am talking about. It looks really, really good.
Even strategy games like European Escalation seem to have better looking terrain.
(http://mashthosebuttons.com/gallery/wargame-european-escalation-screenshots-02162012/wargame_european_escalation-60.jpg)
If it was up to me I would have more maps that had smaller mountains, a lot more flat land, more treelines, more roads (even if they don't do anything), and more buildings per square mile.
Is there anybody else who wants more of this in AH-2?
-
Hell no, some of us can barely run AH as it is - if you could get all HTC subscribers PC's that could run it then hell yea! :lol
-
Someone say Weirdguy was getting us all new desk top gaming computers? My email is in your pm!
-
If your primary is eye candy, you'll never be happy with the game
-
I would much rather see changes to the terrain that more model reality. Gvs should be able to travel faster/better by road then over open terrain. Likewise they should be able to travel better on open terrain then on beaches or near water where there would be more muddy and marshy areas. And so on and so forth
-
2 weeks
-
Lets all do our part in keeping HTC in business. :banana:
If you're running a computer that was built in the early 00's, go ahead and upgrade so HTC can improve some areas that could attract new customers. :bhead
-
That "let's keep horribly outdated terrain because some guys want to run the game with ten year old computers" argument is rather weak. The bottom line is the game would substantially expand its subscriber base by improving the terrain and game play, both of which has been pretty stagnant.
-
I keep finding other flight sims to try out and I am impressed by one thing in all of them. They have better terrain. Houses, actual road networks, and fields lined with trees. If you try out the Wings of Prey demo on Steam you can see what I am talking about. It looks really, really good.
Even strategy games like European Escalation seem to have better looking terrain.
(http://mashthosebuttons.com/gallery/wargame-european-escalation-screenshots-02162012/wargame_european_escalation-60.jpg)
If it was up to me I would have more maps that had smaller mountains, a lot more flat land, more treelines, more roads (even if they don't do anything), and more buildings per square mile.
Is there anybody else who wants more of this in AH-2?
Good thing this isn't a flight sim...
-
Lets all do our part in keeping HTC in business. :banana:
If you're running a computer that was built in the early 00's, go ahead and upgrade so HTC can improve some areas that could attract new customers. :bhead
We don't all have the money to buy a $10,000 setup like yours :old: :bhead
-
Hell no, some of us can barely run AH as it is - if you could get all HTC subscribers PC's that could run it then hell yea! :lol
Too bad!
You folks are holding up HT in my opinion!
HTC would get new subscribers if they did this and a few other things and you would buy a new computer just so you could be there,.. some one would sell you that... see how this trickles down.... it would be good for everyone involved.
AW was on the server while most were in AW3, maybe they could do that.......But time to move on....while they still can.
Wouldn't it be cool to fly with goggle like graphics? Set in the 1940's... Common!!!
:airplane:
-
I don't really spend that much time looking at the terrain.
-
We don't all have the money to buy a $10,000 setup like yours :old: :bhead
Hardly, My current gaming machine is 5 years old... a Q6600 with 4gig ram.
I upgraded to a video card from newegg a year ago (Radeon 485X) for $60.
I run in 1080p (1920x1080), use detailed water/terrain/water reflections/bump mapping/1024 shadows/2x anti aliasing--- pretty much everything on but the object reflections, and get between 30-60fps (all depends on the number of aircraft in the vicinity).
I built a quad core machine about 6 months ago to run network based applications and backups for the house. Cost a total of $129.00. Utilizing extra HDs laying around the house, that system plus a $60-$100 video card from today should get you into the 21st century.
-
I don't really spend that much time looking at the terrain.
Neither do I...
-
That "let's keep horribly outdated terrain because some guys want to run the game with ten year old computers" argument is rather weak. The bottom line is the game would substantially expand its subscriber base by improving the terrain and game play, both of which has been pretty stagnant.
This.
I can't play right now because my gaming rig died but I've got four people who like AH but the lack of "eye candy" keeps them away.
I don't have a problem with AH. I love it. I have for over a decade, BUT the new generation wants eye candy (just because a game has eye candy doesn't mean the modeling and game play have suck balls. Just sayin').
-
I'm sure EVERYONE would love to see this game go into true 3D, with real life looking objects. Imagine the "immersion" factor!
The problem is those "other games" only have a few miles of terrain to build. HTC's has hundreds of square miles to build. To add the graphics those "other games" have would take a super computer. Heck most personal computers today can't run everything on this game flat out. Just to pre-load all the skins is too much for any video card we run. Add in all those fancy trees, buildings, bridges, and roads and your computers will be lucky to load a single frame an hour.
-
I freely admit that half the reason to ask is because of how poorly the ground combat works in AH2. The normal engagement ranges are ludicriously long, usually well over a kilometer or even 2. That doesn't seem to jive unless you are talking about North Africa.
I agree that for flight sims the terrain doesn't need to do anything other than kill you if you fly into it, but I still think a good map would be better. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, compares to AH-2 for air combat PvP. This is THE flight sim I compare all others to on how well they play, and for customizable controls. Nothing beats the stick set 1 to stick set 2 changing on the fly. I can't stand other flight sims that won't let me use my hat switches in two modes at the push of a button to get the 45 degree up views.
I play Planetside 2 right now, but I HATE their aircraft with their mouse and keyboard controls, and you cannot look around and steer at the same time. Yet, we also have ground combat in AH2, but the terrain lets it down severely.
However, even if a newer map style was introduced, I doubt it would be on par with current games like my other favorite flight sims like Rise of Flight (awesome WW-1 flight sim for those who never tried it, go get that demo version with the Albatross and Spad and see). But, if it can be improved, I want it to be improved.
-
I freely admit that half the reason to ask is because of how poorly the ground combat works in AH2. The normal engagement ranges are ludicriously long, usually well over a kilometer or even 2. That doesn't seem to jive unless you are talking about North Africa.
I agree that for flight sims the terrain doesn't need to do anything other than kill you if you fly into it, but I still think a good map would be better. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, compares to AH-2 for air combat PvP. This is THE flight sim I compare all others to on how well they play, and for customizable controls. Nothing beats the stick set 1 to stick set 2 changing on the fly. I can't stand other flight sims that won't let me use my hat switches in two modes at the push of a button to get the 45 degree up views.
I play Planetside 2 right now, but I HATE their aircraft with their mouse and keyboard controls, and you cannot look around and steer at the same time. Yet, we also have ground combat in AH2, but the terrain lets it down severely.
However, even if a newer map style was introduced, I doubt it would be on par with current games like my other favorite flight sims like Rise of Flight (awesome WW-1 flight sim for those who never tried it, go get that demo version with the Albatross and Spad and see). But, if it can be improved, I want it to be improved.
One thing they could do with ease is add desert and winter map's,they have them in Ava and they add a lot and look great with no real fr loss.
-
One thing they could do with ease is add desert and winter map's,they have them in Ava and they add a lot and look great with no real fr loss.
I'd LOVE some winter maps......
-
Seriously, if you're struggling to run AH, its time to recognize that Y2K is now well behind us, and you can safely upgrade to post-millennial hardware.
My whole system cost about $1000 2.5 years ago. It's my work box, so it isn't even really gaming optimized, except I got a 6950 (flashed it up to a 6970) that is more graphics horsepower than I strictly need. I run high frame rates with all eye-candy turned on at 2560x1600. My monitor was about a thousand too, but again it's for work.
-
Seriously, if you're struggling to run AH, its time to recognize that Y2K is now well behind us, and you can safely upgrade to post-millennial hardware.
My whole system cost about $1000 2.5 years ago. It's my work box, so it isn't even really gaming optimized, except I got a 6950 (flashed it up to a 6970) that is more graphics horsepower than I strictly need. I run high frame rates with all eye-candy turned on at 2560x1600. My monitor was about a thousand too, but again it's for work.
Exaggerating and insulting people is not a good way to gain support. My system is well outdated and can no longer run AH at max settings even at the 1440x900 my screen runs at. That said, my 2005 era Athlon 64 X2 4400 with a budget video card from Dec. 2010 is not about to be upgraded. Not because I don't want to and not because I don't look with some longing at better hardware, but rather because my money is spoken for and I cannot responsibly build even a $500 or $1000 computer right now.
-
Exaggerating and insulting people is not a good way to gain support. My system is well outdated and can no longer run AH at max settings even at the 1440x900 my screen runs at. That said, my 2005 era Athlon 64 X2 4400 with a budget video card from Dec. 2010 is not about to be upgraded. Not because I don't want to and not because I don't look with some longing at better hardware, but rather because my money is spoken for and I cannot responsibly build even a $500 or $1000 computer right now.
In the rest of the computer world they have these sliders and toggles to turn up the pretty stuff for those who can or want to while others can run at lower settings.
All sarcasm aside, that does not change my above observation which is true for every computer game. The greater the innovation, the better the prospects for growth. The planes look pretty nice, the terrain, well... it's seriously lacking in appearance. They could also do a lot to improve gameplay which hasn't really gone anywhere. The terrain improves the overall feel of the game while gameplay improvements improve retention as people don't get bored of the same old same old mechanics.
-
Appeasing the lowest common denominator is a strategy of failure in the long run.
-
Appeasing the lowest common denominator is a strategy of failure in the long run.
Well said!
-
Hell no, some of us can barely run AH as it is - if you could get all HTC subscribers PC's that could run it then hell yea! :lol
Red, i have seen your screenies and videos, you just need a new computer because yours doesn't even meet PS1 standards for graphics lol :bolt:
This is just like schools, they have to dumb down classes for the few dummies but end up hurting all rest who could understand it. I'm not talking about the learning disabled either, I'm talking about the ones who can but refuse to learn.
however, that being said, its already been 2-3 years if not longer since the current graphics were released and before that it was even longer. In that time, we have upgraded a few planes' models and added a few new ones, but we have only received what? One, for sure, maybe two new maps?
I too personally know 3 people that played AH before i met them that have quit because of no improvements with the graphics.
-
@Karnak - There's no exaggeration there. My system cost under $1000 - granted I built it myself. That's 2 drives, mainboard, memory, PSU, GPU and even a new DVD drive. Case, keyboard and ancillaries I already had, but they don't add much. Not sure how you'd find that insulting...
-
Exaggerating and insulting people is not a good way to gain support. My system is well outdated and can no longer run AH at max settings even at the 1440x900 my screen runs at. That said, my 2005 era Athlon 64 X2 4400 with a budget video card from Dec. 2010 is not about to be upgraded. Not because I don't want to and not because I don't look with some longing at better hardware, but rather because my money is spoken for and I cannot responsibly build even a $500 or $1000 computer right now.
I'm running a 2006 xps410 and have AH and FSX and others all turned up high and it runs fine. All we have ever put in it is a new graphics card since tHe first one got fried when the power cord came out of the walland we increased the ram from 512mb to 2gb. Even when we were at the lower ram setting and the origional stock graphics card, it ran everything fine.
-
In the rest of the computer world they have these sliders and toggles to turn up the pretty stuff for those who can or want to while others can run at lower settings.
That works fine as long as it is stuff that can be turned off. The moment it is stuff that can't be turned off because everybody needs to be in the same tactical environment it ceases to be so simple.
@Karnak - There's no exaggeration there. My system cost under $1000 - granted I built it myself. That's 2 drives, mainboard, memory, PSU, GPU and even a new DVD drive. Case, keyboard and ancillaries I already had, but they don't add much. Not sure how you'd find that insulting...
The $1000 wasn't the exaggeration. The insult and exaggeration was the insinuation that those who's systems can't run AH at max settings are still using computers from the 1990s.
My budget when I build a new PC, and I likewise build them myself, is $1000-$1500, I just haven't been able responsibly to afford that since my PC hit the three year age at which I normally replace them.
-
LOL! OK, well I apologize. That was meant to be humorous, not insulting. However I'm not sure it's an exaggeration. I ran AH just fine in 2000, on equipment bought in 1998. Obviously the graphics have advanced considerably since then, but you can still turn off all the eyecandy, run at 640x480 and fly. I just tried it and wow, does it look clunky, but it works.
Anyway, the point is that at some point back-compatible becomes a drag on forward progress. It costs $180 a year to play this game. plus some fraction of your connectivity charges, so call it $200. It's not unreasonable to expect to pay another $200 a year in hardware costs, which would give you a $1000 system upgrade every five years. Geeze, if your hobby is jogging you pay $200 a year in shoes.
Speaking of which, time to get some exercise. ;)
-
HTC does move things forward too. This game would now be unplayable on my system that ran AH glass smooth in 2000. We have recently had bump mapping and reflective surfaces added for example. Terrain has only had one major revision and I agree it could use another, but we have to keep in mind that the HTC team only has two programmers and two artists.
-
Appeasing the lowest common denominator is a strategy of failure in the long run.
Funny, socialism works that way too. :D
-
Very true.
-
Yeah, you don't want to wind up like Switzerland.
-
Lets all do our part in keeping HTC in business. :banana:
If you're running a computer that was built in the early 00's, go ahead and upgrade so HTC can improve some areas that could attract new customers. :bhead
Done as soon as Apple releases the new MacPro desktop.
-
I don't think we need flashier graphics. I think the current ground objects look fine, as I am not one of those guys who thinks graphics are king.
What I really would like is just a better, more detailed map that doesn't have gigantic pyramid mountains ever 5 miles, but does have a small hill every quarter mile, with tree lines that separate every farmer's fields, a road network that is actually a road network, complete with rivers with bridges.
-
I don't think we need flashier graphics. I think the current ground objects look fine, as I am not one of those guys who thinks graphics are king.
What I really would like is just a better, more detailed map that doesn't have gigantic pyramid mountains ever 5 miles, but does have a small hill every quarter mile, with tree lines that separate every farmer's fields, a road network that is actually a road network, complete with rivers with bridges.
When are you planning on plowing the tree lined fields?
Where would you like to drive to on this network of roads?
-
Yeah, you don't want to wind up like Switzerland.
Don't you mean Greece. Switzerland is not socialist.
-
Well, I have to admit I haven't been to all of Switzerland, but everywhere I went there was universal, free, socialized medicine. And a universal, comprehensive social welfare system. And universal, comprehensive government run retirement benefits, and post-secondary educational funding. And universal, government run disability coverage, unemployment coverage and maternity leave. Admittedly the Social Democrat party is only the second largest in the country, and there is a 2 year waiting list to get your child into subsidized, state-run daycare, so it's less socialist than Germany, for example, or Sweden.
Greece actually spends less of its GDP on social programs and is lower on it's after-tax gini co-efficient than Switzerland, so you and I must be defining "socialism" very differently. What measures are you using?
-
They do not have universal, free, socialized medicine. They have compulsory health insurance, which means you are required by law to purchase basic health insurance within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country. So universal yes, but not free or "socialized".
Now, enough with this Skuzzy baiting digression.
-
You're right. I should have said universal, non-profit health insurance. I stand thoroughly corrected.
-
You should. I live in a country with socialized health care and the difference is huge. I wish we would adopt the Swiss system.
-
Don't be idiots ,hijacking this guys thread. :aok
-
Done as soon as Apple releases the new MacPro desktop.
I need a throwing up emoticon....
-
I need a throwing up emoticon....
(http://www.animated-smileys.com/smileys/puking/animated-smileys-puking-27.gif)
-
We have socialized health care too, but I like it better than the Swiss system.
We now return you to your previously hijacked thread.
-
(http://www.animated-smileys.com/smileys/puking/animated-smileys-puking-27.gif)
Perfect. :aok
-
For me, it wasn't the lack of eye candy that made me stop subscribing. It was part of it, sure. But believe me when I say eye candy alone wouldn't do it. I'm an old school gamer by today's standards and I definitely hold gameplay higher than graphics. No, it was the lack of drive from the company. The lack of innovation.
I understand HTC's desire to remain a small company, I really do. I've seen first-hand how growth can corrupt. But I've also seen some growing companies do amazing things. And the bottom line is to be competitive in today's market and to catch the attention of the modern gamer you need to spend money on graphics.
I saw an air of stagnation with this game. And it no longer become worth the money to me. I love the gameplay, and I'll never forget it. But I can't support a company with no vision for the future.
-
I saw an air of stagnation with this game. And it no longer become worth the money to me. I love the gameplay, and I'll never forget it. But I can't support a company with no vision for the future.
It's a perfectly reasonable opinion, but why does it have to evolve, other than some platitude like 'evolve or die?'
Chess hasn't changed substantially in ~500 years. Still fun to play.
The thing that keeps me here is the level of detail of the FM, and the open world and large maps. I'm not a pilot, but I just like the way the aircraft here feel. I can't speak to accuracy, but I don't know of another flight sim with this level of multiplayer that can have a plane fall out of the sky backwards. That to me indicates it's unique among them, and logically seems to me to indicate the FM might be better.
Other similar games with smaller maps just feel forced to me, and I don't care for it.
Wiley.
-
Just a quick comment on your chess analogy:
Old chess pieces:
(http://www.chessville.com/images/Mozarabchesspieces_alsoknownasthepiecesofSaintGenadio.jpg)
New chess pieces:
(http://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/images/discount-chess-sets.jpg)
Notice there's a big difference in... shall we say... "visual quality". I don't think anyone is arguing that the core game functions or FM needs work.
-
Heh! Dead on analogy, bringing it back to the point of the thread. I guess my post was somewhat of a hijack...
I'd love higher fidelity terrain if it were implemented as long as map size stayed the same, but I just don't understand the people who see it as a 'necessity'. Now, I might feel different if I tanked. IMO the terrain is substandard for tanking.
Wiley.
-
Curious...is it not possible to divide a map into several smaller maps?
Example: Cut a portion off of Trinity, game is still the same, however, once the war is won, the map changes to the adjacent map portion, and so on. Map size is reduced, more action, less stale gameplay. More room for eye candy.
-
Curious...is it not possible to divide a map into several smaller maps?
Example: Cut a portion off of Trinity, game is still the same, however, once the war is won, the map changes to the adjacent map portion, and so on. Map size is reduced, more action, less stale gameplay. More room for eye candy.
first time I read this type of wish....its a good one :aok
-
Curious...is it not possible to divide a map into several smaller maps?
Example: Cut a portion off of Trinity, game is still the same, however, once the war is won, the map changes to the adjacent map portion, and so on. Map size is reduced, more action, less stale gameplay. More room for eye candy.
Boooo - 100 :furious
This makes way to much seance.Please get your act together and get with the BBS wish list usual ,maybe ask for a sub, or a glider or maybe even that suicide jet rocket maned bomb thing.
:aok
-
Boooo - 100 :furious
This makes way to much seance.Please get your act together and get with the BBS wish list usual ,maybe ask for a sub, or a glider or maybe even that suicide jet rocket maned bomb thing.
:aok
:rofl
you got me :cry
-
I think Titan's Idea is amazing.
we have a small community, hence we need smaller maps.
I think that making a map cycle a series of campaigns on smaller battlefields with greater detail. Would be a magnificent idea.
Hard fights, beautiful scenery and carnage for all. Whats not to like
-
Curious...is it not possible to divide a map into several smaller maps?
Example: Cut a portion off of Trinity, game is still the same, however, once the war is won, the map changes to the adjacent map portion, and so on. Map size is reduced, more action, less stale gameplay. More room for eye candy.
I'm pretty sure you can't edit a map like that. Any major change like that would be the same as just making a new map.
Making maps smaller isn't the answer either. First to get the "detail" people are looking for you would have to make it much smaller, like maybe 4 or 9 sectors. Second, look at the small maps we get now. They are much bigger than that, and the players are funneled into tight fronts creating hordes/furballs with no room to to get around.
I think thats why some of the new maps are so well liked, and also not up as long as many would like. The newer maps are more a long the lines of a medium size with lots of mini fronts. They have opportunities for a lot of fights along the fronts. The furballers have fun at one of the points, and the win the war types breach the front and grab bases at another. Unfortunately no body defends so it is a race to the end of the map. Greebo's map, and those other two colorful ones that were added over the last few years are always fun maps, they just never last long.
As for the detail, I think it's nice enough. I have just recently started running in GVs. There is enough to hide behind and dodge around as it is. If things were made more hilly, with denser woods/forest, you could hunt around for an hour never seeing another tank, only hearing them. With out spotters and such it would be very difficult to find an enemy. I thought we played this game to fight, not hide.
-
For me, it wasn't the lack of eye candy that made me stop subscribing. It was part of it, sure. But believe me when I say eye candy alone wouldn't do it. I'm an old school gamer by today's standards and I definitely hold gameplay higher than graphics. No, it was the lack of drive from the company. The lack of innovation.
I understand HTC's desire to remain a small company, I really do. I've seen first-hand how growth can corrupt. But I've also seen some growing companies do amazing things. And the bottom line is to be competitive in today's market and to catch the attention of the modern gamer you need to spend money on graphics.
I saw an air of stagnation with this game. And it no longer become worth the money to me. I love the gameplay, and I'll never forget it. But I can't support a company with no vision for the future.
Stagnation in what? You expected to have your hand held and someone to show you all the different things a person can do in AH? I think someone is trying to be overly grandeur in their attempt to say "I like eye candy and insta-action. I'm a l337 gamer!" In one sentence you speak of "never forgetting the game play", yet in another you mention "gotta have dah graphicz!". Sounds more like to me that you're playing WoP at the moment saving all your credits for an upgrade to your P36.
The terrain is not just an easy fix. Sure, there are lots of things that could be "improved". But the amount of time and money to get that done is far more than most of us hear realize. I'd like to see more uneven terrain, the ground the tanks roll over is far too smooth, imo. I'd also like to see ravines, creeks, rivers, buttes, etc, for the gv's to have to contend with. But, it isn't that easy to just through in to the map. I think there are lots of little eye candy things HTC could improve on, but when in the air I'm more concerned about the modeling of the aircraft than I am the eye candy on the ground. Oh.. and I'd fewer trees on all the maps too. :aok
-
I'm pretty sure you can't edit a map like that. Any major change like that would be the same as just making a new map.
Making maps smaller isn't the answer either. First to get the "detail" people are looking for you would have to make it much smaller, like maybe 4 or 9 sectors. Second, look at the small maps we get now. They are much bigger than that, and the players are funneled into tight fronts creating hordes/furballs with no room to to get around.
I think thats why some of the new maps are so well liked, and also not up as long as many would like. The newer maps are more a long the lines of a medium size with lots of mini fronts. They have opportunities for a lot of fights along the fronts. The furballers have fun at one of the points, and the win the war types breach the front and grab bases at another. Unfortunately no body defends so it is a race to the end of the map. Greebo's map, and those other two colorful ones that were added over the last few years are always fun maps, they just never last long.
As for the detail, I think it's nice enough. I have just recently started running in GVs. There is enough to hide behind and dodge around as it is. If things were made more hilly, with denser woods/forest, you could hunt around for an hour never seeing another tank, only hearing them. With out spotters and such it would be very difficult to find an enemy. I thought we played this game to fight, not hide.
Go back to split arenas maybe? Even better, each split arena is a different portion of the same map, if HTC could somehow make it into a dynamic map change, that'd be even better. I have my doubts but hey..it's a wish. :)
Not necessarily more detail (quantity), but more detail (quality) :). Still the same amount of trees/bushes to play hide and seek in, just prettier.
Boooo - 100 :furious
This makes way to much seance.Please get your act together and get with the BBS wish list usual ,maybe ask for a sub, or a glider or maybe even that suicide jet rocket maned bomb thing.
:aok
:D :lol
-
I agree that for flight sims the terrain doesn't need to do anything other than kill you if you fly into it, but I still think a good map would be better. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, compares to AH-2 for air combat PvP. This is THE flight sim I compare all others to on how well they play, and for customizable controls. Nothing beats the stick set 1 to stick set 2 changing on the fly. I can't stand other flight sims that won't let me use my hat switches in two modes at the push of a button to get the 45 degree up views.
I play Planetside 2 right now, but I HATE their aircraft with their mouse and keyboard controls, and you cannot look around and steer at the same time. Yet, we also have ground combat in AH2, but the terrain lets it down severely.
This weird guy has got it exactly right. I also play Planetside 2, and can't stand the aircraft controls, the aircraft "physics", etc. Planetside 2 is still my game of choice at the moment because it does the rest pretty dang well, and it actually looks good. And lets see, they've got a lot of players with computers that can apparently handle the requirements. Many of you defending the ancient non-graphics have been spoiled and haven't had to upgrade your computers for far too long now. Time for HiTech to stop coddling you guys and get a larger user base. Don't worry, if they do it, you spoiled ones can play too, but you might have to drop a hundred on a video card or CPU for the first time in eight years.
-
Yeah, I keep waiting for a proper multi-player only combat game with infantry, tanks, and planes with actual aircraft flying that requires a joystick to play. The idea that "fighter pilots" can play using a keyboard and mouse is what is holding it back.
The games that do come out with planes in them are so poorly done it is a crying shame. Battlefield and Planetside are terrible games for flying.
WW-2 Online was the one attempt to do it right, but we probably all know how that turned out (buggy as all hell). I keep looking back at AH-2 and wishing they could just inch the design just a bit more. The controls of the tanks are good, the simulation of the tanks is solid, but the terrain they play on is the problem that they feel like a waste of time.
The inevitable argument has always been, "This is a flight sim. Keep the tanks useless, or better yet get rid of them."
I still am waiting for a decent combined arms game of air, land, and sea, and AH-2 is the closest to it.
-
I'm very skeptical to the notion that the maps need to be smaller to get more detail. A long time as passed since computer games needed to have everything loaded in memory at once. MS FLight Simulator X, a 7-year old game by now, models the whole world, with stunning detail of important locations with the proper mods and expansions.
AH terrain could look this good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i04jbb79LAI
-
I'm very skeptical to the notion that the maps need to be smaller to get more detail. A long time as passed since computer games needed to have everything loaded in memory at once. MS FLight Simulator X, a 7-year old game by now, models the whole world, with stunning detail of important locations with the proper mods and expansions.
AH terrain could look this good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i04jbb79LAI
Doing that would require a massive art team from HTC or a massive community provided work effort. Then there would be the problem of AH download increasing from 200+Mb to 2Gb+. Nowadays even that wouldn't be a problem if you count out bandwith costs for HTC.
Knowing AH community the community based development might not be that far fetched at all.
-
If it really comes down to potentially losing old customers with outdated systems then why not add another arena with high quality maps and objects and keep the original arenas? Best of both worlds.
-
If it really comes down to potentially losing old customers with outdated systems then why not add another arena with high quality maps and objects and keep the original arenas? Best of both worlds.
High quality maps and objects do not necessarily reflect so much on performance - low specced users can choose lower details.
-
View in HD and be amazed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSACnUuNNso
This kind of fidelity was a reality 3 years ago with a modded 7 year old game...
-
Doing that would require a massive art team from HTC or a massive community provided work effort. Then there would be the problem of AH download increasing from 200+Mb to 2Gb+. Nowadays even that wouldn't be a problem if you count out bandwith costs for HTC.
Knowing AH community the community based development might not be that far fetched at all.
Bandwidth costs would be negligible. How much does a filefront account cost these days?
-
I'm very skeptical to the notion that the maps need to be smaller to get more detail. A long time as passed since computer games needed to have everything loaded in memory at once. MS FLight Simulator X, a 7-year old game by now, models the whole world, with stunning detail of important locations with the proper mods and expansions.
AH terrain could look this good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i04jbb79LAI
but does it render the whole world at once of only the area you are flying in?
In aces high they have to render it all. If Im fighting in sector 1,1 with a horde on my tail :noid you still have to be able to have the same terrain available in sector 15,15 where you are fighting. If you are popping up a 5 mile square are section for one player sure you can add a lot of detail. Do the math for aces high maps, 25 mile sectors, 15 across, 15 down, and 6 miles deep (32k alt) thats a lot of area.
-
What is so important down there? Still trying to figure out exactly, what it is that folks are trying to see on the ground, while travelling at ~ 300 mph and while other folks are trying to fill their plane full of lead for them. :headscratch:
-
but does it render the whole world at once of only the area you are flying in?
In aces high they have to render it all. If Im fighting in sector 1,1 with a horde on my tail :noid you still have to be able to have the same terrain available in sector 15,15 where you are fighting. If you are popping up a 5 mile square are section for one player sure you can add a lot of detail. Do the math for aces high maps, 25 mile sectors, 15 across, 15 down, and 6 miles deep (32k alt) thats a lot of area.
Each and every player PC only needs to render the environment around that player, not the whole world. In FSX you can fly from London to Seattle in one flight. In AH today your PC does not render the whole map at once, just a "bubble" around your aircraft/vehicle. The view distance can even be adjusted in the settings.
-
What is so important down there? Still trying to figure out exactly, what it is that folks are trying to see on the ground, while travelling at ~ 300 mph and while other folks are trying to fill their plane full of lead for them. :headscratch:
Maybe if you try driving a vehicle it becomes more apparent.
-
Maybe if you try driving a vehicle it becomes more apparent.
Maybe if you weren't a lazy-ass, you would check my stats instead of making egregious assumptions and it would become apparent that I do drive vehicles. Almost as much as I fly :aok
(http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff107/tymekeepyr/Tour_zps233f0b78.jpg)
Is there something interesting missing in the bushes that should be there?
-
Then your original question makes no sense; the answer should be glaringly obvious to you.
-
Then your original question makes no sense; the answer should be glaringly obvious to you.
Nope.
I am horrendously obtuse.
I cannot figure out what it is that I am missing that my heart should be yearning for. I see bushes, trees, grass and tanks; some of which are shooting at me, others I am hunting to shoot at myself.
While scanning my sector for things that are shooting at me/what I need to be shooting at, I have yet to find myself remarking about how the Hibiscus flowers are lacking detail and the cannabis leaves are even numbered, instead of odd numbered.
-
World of Tanks looks great, but isn't a proper tank sim by any measure.
This however is a proper tank sim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYYGNFnzxGg
AH could surely match the visual fidelity of this five-year-old game.
-
World of Tanks looks great, but isn't a proper tank sim by any measure.
This however is a proper tank sim: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYYGNFnzxGg
AH could surely match the visual fidelity of this five-year-old game.
AH could surely stay solvent and not go bankrupt like this company...
"Unfortunately, this game was unfinished and neglected !" Right in the description of the video. :rofl
-
"Unfortunately, this game was unfinished and neglected !" Right in the description of the video. :rofl
Which has no bearing on the visual fidelity that was available five years ago.
-
Nope.
I am horrendously obtuse.
Quite right...
-
The question is would improving the terrain bring more income to cover up the development costs. If not, it's simply not a smart thing to do.
-
I am still dying to know what I am missing.
My son plays COD on our living room TV.
51" Plasma, 1080p. Looks fantastic! Stupendous!! Mind blowing!
It is a literal visual orgasm!
(for the .23 seconds that I look at the eye candy before people start shooting at each other and I stop gawking at the scenery)
-
The question is would improving the terrain bring more income to cover up the development costs. If not, it's simply not a smart thing to do.
Best reason.
I don't want prices to go up to pay for garbage that I do not need.
I believe that this is the only service that I have paid for in the last 10 years that has not increased their fees...
-
Quite right...
Just being rational...
-
Btw. VonMessa, the game is still available if you're interested: http://www.amazon.co.uk/WWII-Battle-Tanks-34-Tiger/dp/B0012Q2DGA
With the patches and community mods it is a good game and well worth looking into if you're into tank sims.
-
The question is would improving the terrain bring more income to cover up the development costs. If not, it's simply not a smart thing to do.
That's always the big question: What to spend the development budget on. With all the F2P games available today traditional subscription based games are heading the way of the dinosaur. I don't know what's in AH's future.
-
Btw. VonMessa, the game is still available if you're interested: http://www.amazon.co.uk/WWII-Battle-Tanks-34-Tiger/dp/B0012Q2DGA
With the patches and community mods it is a good game and well worth looking into if you're into tank sims.
Wow, for a game released almost 4.5 years ago it looks amazing... with the rolling hills the ground almost looks real.
-
Wow, for a game released almost 4.5 years ago it looks amazing... with the rolling hills the ground almost looks real.
The reviews didn't seem too amazing.
Besides, I only have American dollars to spend... :noid
-
The question is would improving the terrain bring more income to cover up the development costs. If not, it's simply not a smart thing to do.
That's up to the big guy to figure out; however, making it look pretty could gain many potential opportunities for subscribers that might have bypassed it strictly based off their first impression.
Lets say you know nothing about either game, you're watching the history/military channel on TV. You see an advertisement for each game.
WOP: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VTazV7Mizg
AHII: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh9FOD463cg#!
Which one are you going to check out first?
I'm in AHII's corner regarding overall gameplay, and want HTC to be successful... but I really don't understand what's holding them back on the graphics.
-
I don't see where that is all that much better than what we have. Our tanks look better. We have the ground clutter.... that everyone turns off. Those trees and bushes look better, but once your in the fight your not looking at how pretty they are. The ground does have a smoother roll to it, but again, can they expend the poly-count just to round off the hills? I'm sure the terrains could be built with a bit more small elevation changes, but that would fall the a map maker wouldn't it? After spending all that time to build a MA map hows going to spend the extra time going over the map foot by foot to add all that elevation detail?
Ya I know, your answer is going to be HTC should do this, take care of this, build new maps. Of course that would negate the possibility of any new things added other than pretty trees and rolling hills on ONE map.
-
The reviews didn't seem too amazing.
Besides, I only have American dollars to spend... :noid
Like I said, it needs to be patched and modded. There's a huge Kursk mod in the works. Looking forward to it.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=203
-
I don't see where that is all that much better than what we have. Our tanks look better. We have the ground clutter.... that everyone turns off. Those trees and bushes look better, but once your in the fight your not looking at how pretty they are. The ground does have a smoother roll to it, but again, can they expend the poly-count just to round off the hills? I'm sure the terrains could be built with a bit more small elevation changes, but that would fall the a map maker wouldn't it? After spending all that time to build a MA map hows going to spend the extra time going over the map foot by foot to add all that elevation detail?
Ya I know, your answer is going to be HTC should do this, take care of this, build new maps. Of course that would negate the possibility of any new things added other than pretty trees and rolling hills on ONE map.
Um...
T34 vs Tiger: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ABElONSfDY
AH2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5bahYlZJ1Q&NR=1
The difference is substantial to say the least...
-
I don't see where that is all that much better than what we have. Our tanks look better. We have the ground clutter.... that everyone turns off. Those trees and bushes look better, but once your in the fight your not looking at how pretty they are. The ground does have a smoother roll to it, but again, can they expend the poly-count just to round off the hills? I'm sure the terrains could be built with a bit more small elevation changes, but that would fall the a map maker wouldn't it? After spending all that time to build a MA map hows going to spend the extra time going over the map foot by foot to add all that elevation detail?
Ya I know, your answer is going to be HTC should do this, take care of this, build new maps. Of course that would negate the possibility of any new things added other than pretty trees and rolling hills on ONE map.
And add the possibility of subscription increases...
-
Or they could do the sensible thing and have us pay for add-on aircraft and vehicles, thus financing their development.
-
The difference is substantial to say the least...
Agree--- most of the aircraft models and tanks look great in AHII... reworking the terrain could potentially complete this game.
-
Yup, there is nothing wrong with the planes or vehicles, and definitely nothing wrong with the controls for them. In fact I would say the controls of AH-2 are actually better than most other games.
And, as I said before, the trees and buildings actually used on the terrain seem fine to me as well.
However, the lack of fine detail in the underlying shape of the ground itself stands out. We need terrain that has a much finer polygon count to increase the amount of hills in the game. The gigantic, 1-kilometer squares before the terrain makes a blatantly obvious transition to the next, giant sized polygon (which you often see as a straight line, and a jump in your suspension as you drive over it) is not something to be proud of.
-
Here's what X-plane can do
Spitfire and 109 - to show off the planes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-xl1s7fuqo
Helicopter over Poland - to show off the terrain
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ZC94HCtcg
Like AH, X-plane is a small company (really just Austen Meyer). The great thing about X-plane is that it's a very open system, with many user-developed plug-ins, and you can build your own planes in tremendous detail. The cool thing is you don't have to put in the flight dynamics by hand, the program actually works out the physics based on the design elements, including details like wing flex, etc. etc. There's a huge library of user-created content. It's also an FAA certified flight simulator, and it's been used as the design tool for at least two real-world aircraft. Basically, it rocks.
What it is NOT is a combat simulator. It does have weapons modeled, but it doesn't have a damage system. Nor does it support 500 pilots in a shared WWII world, nor a bunch of other things that AH does very well.
However these things are not mutually exclusive. If their strengths could be combined, it would be possible to have the best of both worlds.
-
I didn't read all 7 pages (my vid card couldn't keep up :noid ) :rofl
But did anyone suggest a compromise of sorts?
The actual areas where ground battles are fought (spawns, bases, towns, etc) could be fancied up and maybe only seen when you're in a GV/on foot/touching the ground (well this still wouldn't work for me since even if I fly 40k my nads still drag. :neener: ) while the miles of empty terrain in between is left as is...
<edit: and :headscratch: why was this moved to the o' club? Not that it really matters.>
-
I made this using the current terrain system. The current system works good. It's the amount of hours it would take a terrain maker to create what y'all are asking for is the key. More detail=more time=less terrains coming out. :salute
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1732/br1io.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/401/br1io.jpg/)
-
Increasing the poly count of the terrain would have a major impact on frame rates. The only way it could be done without obsoleting all existing terrains would be to double the resolution, i.e. 1/4 mile squares instead of 1/2 mile. That way old terrains could be converted by the program on the fly with no extra work. A smoothing algorithm could blend the existing polys but would leave flat terrain flat in order to avoid object bugs. There could still be issues with SPs however.
The problem is that doubling the number of polys the terrain uses would probably lose more customers to frame rate issues than it would gain through smoother looking terrain. The major benefits would only be apparent once new terrains came out taking advantage of it, months or years down the line.
Personally I'd rather see a greater variety of objects cleared for MA terrain use. Bridges for example, either standalone or as part of bridge bases. Also some general clutter; villages, factories, beached ships, wrecked tanks, ruined buildings etc. These would have no strategic value but would break up the endless green wastelands between bases. New MA objects would also give an incentive for terrain designers to bring out new MA terrains. I think a lot of the problem with how AH looks is some of the older MA terrains are not very well designed, with unnatural looking mountains and roads running up steep cliffs etc. These could be got rid of if there were new better looking terrains to replace them.
-
I made this using the current terrain system. The current system works good. It's the amount of hours it would take a terrain maker to create what y'all are asking for is the key. More detail=more time=less terrains coming out. :salute
Absolutely beautiful, nicely done.
Increasing the poly count of the terrain would have a major impact on frame rates. The only way it could be done without obsoleting all existing terrains would be to double the resolution, i.e. 1/4 mile squares instead of 1/2 mile. That way old terrains could be converted by the program on the fly with no extra work. A smoothing algorithm could blend the existing polys but would leave flat terrain flat in order to avoid object bugs. There could still be issues with SPs however.
The problem is that doubling the number of polys the terrain uses would probably lose more customers to frame rate issues than it would gain through smoother looking terrain. The major benefits would only be apparent once new terrains came out taking advantage of it, months or years down the line.
Personally I'd rather see a greater variety of objects cleared for MA terrain use. Bridges for example, either standalone or as part of bridge bases. Also some general clutter; villages, factories, beached ships, wrecked tanks, ruined buildings etc. These would have no strategic value but would break up the endless green wastelands between bases. New MA objects would also give an incentive for terrain designers to bring out new MA terrains. I think a lot of the problem with how AH looks is some of the older MA terrains are not very well designed, with unnatural looking mountains and roads running up steep cliffs etc. These could be got rid of if there were new better looking terrains to replace them.
I think a few "touch ups" are needed here and there (95% of which you already said). The problem (again), is the frame rates. Sad to say it, but I am one of the "frame rate guys" who if I'm getting 15 fps I'm doing darn good. When there is a furball or a nice battle going on, normally I can't join because I would be lagging too much. I am getting a far better computer this spring, but what about the other gamers in the boat I'm in now?
For you guys who have nicer computers, that's cool; but don't forget you're not the only ones who play (and pay) this game.
Eye-Candy can wait until the current things in-game are polished and perfected.
Respectively,
Tinkles
:salute
-
Greebo,
What is wrong with leaving the existing arenas as is and creating a new "hi fidelity" map(s) and put it/them in their own arena? Open up the rule set so designers could implement much higher quality terrains and objects. The primary thing holding advancement up is the restrictive rule set for current MA maps. Entering the arena is purely optional so you are not losing any players and most would help build and test the new maps. Given the player base who does a lot to further the game like ranger and yourself, HTC would benefit substantially from enabling those who try to help them instead of holding a hard line.
-
I made this using the current terrain system. The current system works good. It's the amount of hours it would take a terrain maker to create what y'all are asking for is the key. More detail=more time=less terrains coming out. :salute
(http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/1732/br1io.jpg) (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/401/br1io.jpg/)
That looks good compared to what we're used to, but still underwhelming compared to other games. Is the terrain maker/editor easy to use? Does it have any advanced tools for creating detail with little work, like procedural/fractal terrain shaping etc.? Or do you painstakingly have to add every little detail manually?
Something like this, from FSX, should be entirely doable:
(http://www.fullterrain.com/images/ss/napfj/30.jpg)
-
Greebo,
What is wrong with leaving the existing arenas as is and creating a new "hi fidelity" map(s) and put it/them in their own arena?
Personally I don't like any solution to a problem that involves splitting the player base. Either most players would join the hi fidelity MA and the low fidelity MA would quickly die or vice versa.
-
Personally I don't like any solution to a problem that involves splitting the player base. Either most players would join the hi fidelity MA and the low fidelity MA would quickly die or vice versa.
It's a win win either way. I'll bet you 80% plus would switch but the remaining still have an option. Sticking to the middle means bleeding from both directions with no forward progress. The terrain is markedly dated in appearance now and will become more so each passing year. Improving gameplay and upgrading terrain would do a heck of a lot to retain current players and bring many in the door which serves everyone's best interest.
-
It's a win win either way. I'll bet you 80% plus would switch but the remaining still have an option. Sticking to the middle means bleeding from both directions with no forward progress. The terrain is markedly dated in appearance now and will become more so each passing year.
For argument's sake, we'll use your numbers.
Not being sarcastic, but looking at that from the other side, it's a win if you effectively guarantee 20% of the playerbase gets alienated?
If I logged in at prime time and the MA had 80 people in it while the HD one had 320, I probably would go do something else. Most if not all of that 20% probably would as well.
Improving gameplay and upgrading terrain would do a heck of a lot to retain current players and bring many in the door which serves everyone's best interest.
But would it cover that 20%? This game is niche gameplay. Many who try it don't stick around for a myriad of reasons. Lack of graphics is probably pretty low on the list.
A lot of people say people are going to leave because the graphics look dated, but do you know of anyone who has actually cancelled their account and said, 'I love the community, I can't get enough of the gameplay, but my god the lack of new maps and dated graphics are just something I can't get past.' I haven't, most people I've seen leave were sick of sandbox gameplay and the behavior it fosters in people.
Wiley.
-
Who knows if it's 80/20 or 50/50? The point being, in my opinion, HTC would benefit from enabling a better quality product. Making another arena to use as a sandbox without the severe limitations of the current MA's would breathe some life into those inclined towards designing objects and terrains. Why not use the free labor to give people who want more variety that option?
Your right in saying gameplay is more of an issue than terrain but it's another topic. I'd love to see a dynamic map where squads could fight for map space or some other ideas that expands beyond the current "sandbox" as that gets stale.
-
FSO is there to get you out of the sandbox. It's awesome.
And truly the graphics are secondary - but secondary is not the same as unimportant. Better graphics are that much more immersive. Actually, I'm quite sure that a terrain graphics upgrade will come at some point. They have always evolved and I'm sure will continue to do so. Really the discussion here is over what priority that should have, and as a secondary point, what level of hardware is just too old to be supportable anymore.
-
That looks good compared to what we're used to, but still underwhelming compared to other games. Is the terrain maker/editor easy to use? Does it have any advanced tools for creating detail with little work, like procedural/fractal terrain shaping etc.? Or do you painstakingly have to add every little detail manually?
Something like this, from FSX, should be entirely doable:
(http://www.fullterrain.com/images/ss/napfj/30.jpg)
HTC fractal design (which the natural world is made of) is really sad and i wish they would look into it, for way better mountens and such.
-
I saved a link to this thread while I completed my work on a new custom terrain you folks might be interested in. It's not an improvement in the terrain engine of course, but it includes many things you probably haven't seen, that make it come close to some of the screenshots posted in this thread. I think avachanl Paris stands up well against the terrain video under that helicopter someone linked on uTube.
AvA Chanel is now up in the AvA arena and I think you might just like it.
-----------------
avachanl
The new avachanl terrain is having it's debut in the AvA arena starting Friday, June 7th. It's 9.2 MB of lovin for you.
Those asking for better terrains will hopefully find some of what they've been asking for in this terrain. Items include the bluffs along the Normandy coast, and upgraded LSTs originally built by Dux with built-in O'Clubs tied back to towers on the English coast. There are massive cities, Paris and London, and significant other cities; La Havre, Caen, Cherbourg and Lisieux. The Eiffel tower is included and you can climb to the top, or play hide and seek on the LSTs as a bailed pilot. Check out jimson's Lighthouse while you're at it. There are even lamp posts at all the street intersections in the cities, and British and German battle flags at the maprooms, along with Sealion style landing barges, and at least two custom bridges.
The most noticeable eye candy scheduled to be added this summer includes the cliffs of southern England and more bluffs along portions of the French coast. Most of the remaining default fields and bases will be replaced with bases similar to those you'll find in Normandy.
Additionally, there will be several (tested but not implemented) additions to the Normandy beaches and the areas of the terrain stretching from Cherbourg to the Seine River.
It's my hope that some of you will post screen shots that might entice our oldtimers to return. Unfortunately, I recently changed my isp and I can't yet post pictures.
The write-up for this weeks setup can be found here: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,349681.msg4618881.html#msg4618881
-
For easy image hosting get a free Dropbox account. You can link directly to pictures you place in your "public" folder.
Can't wait to see your new terrain!
-
There's no reason HTC couldn't make the more detailed terrain optional, like it is now. I agree that the only thing holding this game back is the graphics. We can all agree the game play and physics is amazing. However i look at other games and continue asking myself why am i paying these guys 14.95 a month? Flight model accuracy and crappy graphics from 10 years ago. :noid
-
The graphics in this game are quite poor and if they dont upgrade them they will continue to lose players and not bring former players back in the fold. Thats the terrible truth of it. An upgrade in the game engine is far more important then introducing new airplanes and not doing so cause a few players have old, old computers is..well... you see where that has gotten the game. Just look at overall K/A compared to when the last update came out.
This is the most flawlessly running MMOG Ive ever played. The plane set is exceptional, and there are still many skilled players. But without an upgrade in the "look" of the game I dont think they are going to attract many new players and retain them.
-
Personally I don't like any solution to a problem that involves splitting the player base. Either most players would join the hi fidelity MA and the low fidelity MA would quickly die or vice versa.
AW did this... is the reason it won't happen :lol :aok
No serious... the last day of AW3/milinium ... AW was still on the server choice and folks still played on it.
I don't see why it would be bad. The people that absolutely refuse, don't have the funds ...etc... still have a place to play and pay. The rest that would like the killer shizznic move on and play AH3/Alenium.
Ridding AH3 since 2008
Girl is gonna need College,
:old:
Edit: Test video for the new IL-2Stalingrad that got leaked ,,,
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8XsLHaG5Q2sa2VKWjl4TlpGMGM/edit?pli=1 (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8XsLHaG5Q2sa2VKWjl4TlpGMGM/edit?pli=1)
On the Fourm The 109f4 looks darn nice and have done some cockpit lighting shot's that look cool.
-
There's no reason HTC couldn't make the more detailed terrain optional, like it is now.
Depends on what details you mean. Higher resolution textures, sure. Higher polygon count terrain and trees, no. Why? Because if the polygons are different you will most assuredly encounter a situation where some tank thinks it is hull down or concealed and to the guy he is fighting who is using another detail setting the tank is exposed.
I agree that the only thing holding this game back is the graphics. We can all agree the game play and physics is amazing. However i look at other games and continue asking myself why am i paying these guys 14.95 a month? Flight model accuracy and crappy graphics from 10 years ago. :noid
While I agree the graphics are dated, lets be realistic here. Looking at games from 10 years ago they did not look as good as AH does now, particularly on the recently redone units.
-
Both Il-2: Forgotten Battles and Lock On: Modern Air Combat were released in 2003.
(http://i.d.com.com/i/dl/media/dlimage/90/04/6/90046_large.jpeg)
(http://www.x-speed.de/computer/pixelpracht/jpg/pp_il2-sturmovik_forgotten_battles.jpg)
(http://cdn2.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Il-2_Forgotten-Battles.jpg)
(http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7310/vaaf2touchedpm1.jpg)
(http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/lomac-platinum/lomac%2010.jpg)
(http://www.1888freeonlinegames.com/dwgmimg/3550/lock-on-modern-air-combat-screenshot-3.jpg)
(http://www.wallpaperpimper.com/wallpaper/Games/Lock_On_Modern_Air_Combat/Lock-On-Modern-Air-Combat-12-LJ9TOGCGGD-1024x768.jpg)
-
<snip>cause a few players have old, old computers is..well... you see where that has gotten the game.
Unfortunately that's not the whole truth. There are many of us, having an elderly gaming rig still capable to run AH with decent frame rates and sufficient eye candy, knowing our hardware will be outdated in the near future. The bigger problem is, that there's a whole lot of new players asking why their gameplay isn't fluid although they have a "brand new <insert brand here> $400 laptop with Intel graphics. It's the Gaming Console generation who can't read or understand the minimal requirements for a PC game. I've seen that numerous times among my clientele, or rather their kids. It's not nice to tell the parents that the game granny or godmother bought for the apple of their eye can't be run other than as a slide show on their precious state-of-the-art banking computer.
-
AW did this... is the reason it won't happen :lol :aok
No serious... the last day of AW3/milinium ... AW was still on the server choice and folks still played on it.
I played AWC until the day EA pulled the plug on it before moving full time to AW3 and the population of AWC players at the end wasn't very big at all. The population numbers were pretty much the same as the population numbers we see now in the MW arena.
ack-ack
-
Yeah, I keep waiting for a proper multi-player only combat game with infantry, tanks, and planes with actual aircraft flying that requires a joystick to play. The idea that "fighter pilots" can play using a keyboard and mouse is what is holding it back.
The games that do come out with planes in them are so poorly done it is a crying shame. Battlefield and Planetside are terrible games for flying.
WW-2 Online was the one attempt to do it right, but we probably all know how that turned out (buggy as all hell). I keep looking back at AH-2 and wishing they could just inch the design just a bit more. The controls of the tanks are good, the simulation of the tanks is solid, but the terrain they play on is the problem that they feel like a waste of time.
The inevitable argument has always been, "This is a flight sim. Keep the tanks useless, or better yet get rid of them."
I still am waiting for a decent combined arms game of air, land, and sea, and AH-2 is the closest to it.
Some of us cant buy Joysticks
-
Edit: Test video for the new IL-2Stalingrad that got leaked ,,,
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8XsLHaG5Q2sa2VKWjl4TlpGMGM/edit?pli=1 (https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8XsLHaG5Q2sa2VKWjl4TlpGMGM/edit?pli=1)
On the Fourm The 109f4 looks darn nice and have done some cockpit lighting shot's that look cool.
:O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O
-
Both Il-2: Forgotten Battles and Lock On: Modern Air Combat were released in 2003.
(http://i.d.com.com/i/dl/media/dlimage/90/04/6/90046_large.jpeg)
(http://www.x-speed.de/computer/pixelpracht/jpg/pp_il2-sturmovik_forgotten_battles.jpg)
(http://cdn2.dualshockers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Il-2_Forgotten-Battles.jpg)
(http://img166.imageshack.us/img166/7310/vaaf2touchedpm1.jpg)
(http://www.armchairgeneral.com/wordpress/wp-content/gallery/lomac-platinum/lomac%2010.jpg)
(http://www.1888freeonlinegames.com/dwgmimg/3550/lock-on-modern-air-combat-screenshot-3.jpg)
(http://www.wallpaperpimper.com/wallpaper/Games/Lock_On_Modern_Air_Combat/Lock-On-Modern-Air-Combat-12-LJ9TOGCGGD-1024x768.jpg)
and neither of them can handle 500 square miles of terrain with more than 200 people on at a time...if you like the 32 or 64 player interaction, go for it.
There's no reason HTC couldn't make the more detailed terrain optional, like it is now. I agree that the only thing holding this game back is the graphics. We can all agree the game play and physics is amazing. However i look at other games and continue asking myself why am i paying these guys 14.95 a month? Flight model accuracy and crappy graphics from 10 years ago. :noid
do you currently have all graphics options to the highest they can go with a steady 60fps frame rate?
-
and neither of them can handle 500 square miles of terrain with more than 200 people on at a time...if you like the 32 or 64 player interaction, go for it.
You obviously know nothing. The largest maps in Il2 are much larger than any in AH. Small maps in Il2 are typically 200x200 miles. That's 40,000 square miles. Large maps are 500x500 miles or more. It would take hours to fly from one edge to the other.
The number of players really has nothing to do with visual quality.
-
I played AWC until the day EA pulled the plug on it before moving full time to AW3 and the population of AWC players at the end wasn't very big at all. The population numbers were pretty much the same as the population numbers we see now in the MW arena.
ack-ack
I know... but the space was there and it didnt cost AW to hold that arena for some. Still getting paid by those that just refuse to upgrade. I didnt say it would be all that... just a place for those left behind.
There would be no argument from those that argue now that there system can't handle an upgraded game.
-
Both Il-2: Forgotten Battles and Lock On: Modern Air Combat were released in 2003.
Neither of which look better. In particular I'll single out IL-2's terrain graphics as looking good from thousands of feet up, but utter crap on the deck. The trick they did for "3D" trees is clever for minimal frame rate hits, but it looks terrible on the deck and would be entirely useless in a GV inclusive game.
Lockon's terrain graphics look about the same level as AH. I don't know the view range on Lock On though. I do agree that AH's terrain graphics are heavily dated.
-
I think there are a lot of little things HTC can do to make the game look better. Update the sprite models, maybe add a small amount of randomness to it. Seeing the same gun flash animation over and over can loose it's luster. Make a new sprite for when anything explosive hits the water.
Shadows for planes being cast on the ground could look better if the shadow became larger and fainter as the plane increased in alt. Clouds could also cast shadows on the ground. As far as I can tell, the clouds don't move so that could remove the dynamic calculation that goes with that.
The buildings, when barns and houses are on hills why are they always crooked? Either take them off the hill or have the terrain editor provide a level surface for the building to sit on.
On the note of the more advanced graphics;
The current detailed water (detailed terrain and water together) lacks a lot of luster. I think the look of the water when the detailed terrain is on (detailed water off) would look better if it was given a level of specular mapping. Adding flickers of light over the surface of the water to mimic sunlight would be look amazing as well. I suspect that would be quite a hit to frame rates though, even on better systems.
Making the sky change color as the sun sets would be a major improvement IMO. As of right now I can't tell if the lighting model is correct or if the contrast between the sky and darkened ground is too sharp. I think changing the color of the sky as the sun is setting or rising could help make tanking at dawn or dusk easier on the eyes.
Just my $0.02
-
The old halo remark "Dude! Check,out the water!!!!"
And then they get eaten by this
.........╚⊙ ⊙╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
╚═(███)═╝
.╚═(███)═╝
..╚═(███)═╝
...╚═(███)═╝
-
do you currently have all graphics options to the highest they can go with a steady 60fps frame rate?
There are some games coded on 2001 that look crappy and still modern computers freeze when all options are turned on. One example is a 2002 F1 game which simply had poor coding. If the code is unoptimized it places 1000 fold demand on hardware for nothing.
So the point about not being able to crank up the settings is void. I'm sure the sample video posted above didn't have to fill up the whole video memory to produce fluid and sharp shadows for example ;)
-
There are some of us who dont care about the eye candy. We just wanna have fun :old:
-
You obviously know nothing. The largest maps in Il2 are much larger than any in AH. Small maps in Il2 are typically 200x200 miles. That's 40,000 square miles. Large maps are 500x500 miles or more. It would take hours to fly from one edge to the other.
The number of players really has nothing to do with visual quality.
you're right, i don't know anything...the average lwma maps are 62,500 square miles, i calculated the distance of a single grid square wrong.
i have il2 and i know that with 64 players on a single map, you have to dummy down the graphics to keep frame rates up. i don't even want to know what it would be like with 300 players.
-
I do not understand how can some of you state so firmly that the better and more PC demanding graphics increases the number of players. Do you have any statistics to back up your opinion? If it needs a better PC, some may unsubscribe and some may join. I am a returning customer and I love this game, but I would not buy a new computer just because I can`t play AH2. Any change that puts a higher demand on the hardware or network connection seems like a risky one. I am shure that a better terrain will come some day, but I understand it takes time.
If this discussion gets heated and some threaten to leave because of the graphics, then maybe the solution would be a poll among the subscribers. There could be an option to give your vote near the account information or something. People could vote if they want an improved graphics and that they are willing to accept the new minimum system requirements, if that can be predicted.
If there is a cunning way to program a better terrain without the increase in video card load or if there is an option to tune it down, then by all means. Anyway "eye candy" is pretty low on my wishlist.
-
I do not understand how can some of you state so firmly that the better and more PC demanding graphics increases the number of players. Do you have any statistics to back up your opinion? If it needs a better PC, some may unsubscribe and some may join. I am a returning customer and I love this game, but I would not buy a new computer just because I can`t play AH2. Any change that puts a higher demand on the hardware or network connection seems like a risky one. I am shure that a better terrain will come some day, but I understand it takes time.
If this discussion gets heated and some threaten to leave because of the graphics, then maybe the solution would be a poll among the subscribers. There could be an option to give your vote near the account information or something. People could vote if they want an improved graphics and that they are willing to accept the new minimum system requirements, if that can be predicted.
If there is a cunning way to program a better terrain without the increase in video card load or if there is an option to tune it down, then by all means. Anyway "eye candy" is pretty low on my wishlist.
You don't even NEED statistics. Look at the player-base of AH. Its dying. Everyone sees it except those few who are in such deep denial that they are going to drown.
When you have games that have crap physics and flight modeling pulling in more players than AH one has only to think for any amount of time to realize that it is the eye candy. Even with commercials it wouldn't improve the AH player-base by much because that is one of the biggest things for the modern gamer. Graphics. We are in an age where every respectable gaming computer would have been a super computer in the day of what some of you are running.
Am I saying they need to make it so that everyone has to drop four grand on a PC? Absolutely not. Heck, my computer couldn't run any of the IL2 games, but I DO see that in order for this game to live on it needs to be re-worked. It doesn't take a genius to see that.
Those of you refusing to try to upgrade when you have the means to do so are doing nothing but slowly contributing to the death of your favorite game. If you can go out and buy a new car, restore and old car, build a new man-cave etc. you can upgrade your PC. You simply do it one piece at the time if you cannot go all out and get a new PC.
For those who ARE wanting to buy a new PC I recommend www.digitalstormonline.com - they have a baseline computer that can run any modern game of $699, which can be upgraded to all kinds of fancy stuff (even liquid cooling, which is not necessarily a big feat).
---
Back OT: Just look at any modern game. The game-play sucks but they have a lot of players. Why? It looks good. People are tired of playing the same old games with the same old graphics. Why play something that looks like it belongs on an Atari? The game-play may be good, but on this new game over here I lose a little bit of game-play for....my gosh...it's so beautiful....
Am I saying HT needs to sacrifice game-play? No. It's merely a means of showing you how the modern gamer works.
-
You don't even NEED statistics. Look at the player-base of AH. Its dying. Everyone sees it except those few who are in such deep denial that they are going to drown.
When you have games that have crap physics and flight modeling pulling in more players than AH one has only to think for any amount of time to realize that it is the eye candy. Even with commercials it wouldn't improve the AH player-base by much because that is one of the biggest things for the modern gamer. Graphics. We are in an age where every respectable gaming computer would have been a super computer in the day of what some of you are running.
Am I saying they need to make it so that everyone has to drop four grand on a PC? Absolutely not. Heck, my computer couldn't run any of the IL2 games, but I DO see that in order for this game to live on it needs to be re-worked. It doesn't take a genius to see that.
Those of you refusing to try to upgrade when you have the means to do so are doing nothing but slowly contributing to the death of your favorite game. If you can go out and buy a new car, restore and old car, build a new man-cave etc. you can upgrade your PC. You simply do it one piece at the time if you cannot go all out and get a new PC.
For those who ARE wanting to buy a new PC I recommend www.digitalstormonline.com - they have a baseline computer that can run any modern game of $699, which can be upgraded to all kinds of fancy stuff (even liquid cooling, which is not necessarily a big feat).
---
Back OT: Just look at any modern game. The game-play sucks but they have a lot of players. Why? It looks good. People are tired of playing the same old games with the same old graphics. Why play something that looks like it belongs on an Atari? The game-play may be good, but on this new game over here I lose a little bit of game-play for....my gosh...it's so beautiful....
Am I saying HT needs to sacrifice game-play? No. It's merely a means of showing you how the modern gamer works.
Sadly what you said has some merit. Being one from the properly named "entitled" generation. If the graphics aren't "uber doober all that" then some gamers won't even look at that game. That has happened with quite a few games. Most of the games that have been released in the past 3 years have been 'uber doober" graphics, Assassin's Creed series, Call of Duty, Crisis etc.
Point being, some can look past the graphics and see the quality of the game, others HAVE to have the eye-candy. While I wouldn't mind having the better graphics (even if I couldn't use them), I think we need to have other things fixed or updated before graphics.
That being said, I do think if HTC wants to grab some of "this generations" attention, graphics would need to be updated. However for me, I'm fine with graphics as they are :aok.
Respectively,
Tinkles
:salute
-
:O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O :O
Dev Update every Friday
http://il2sturmovik.net/ (http://il2sturmovik.net/)
Sign up at the bottom it looks great but won't be mmo as of yet.
-
I got to say, the big money for HTC would be under 25 your olds. I play a few other mmorp games (now and then) i also have a lot of friends on FB under 20. ALL of these people first thing they say when a game comes out is its awesome graphics. This this game is about 10 years back as far as that. So HTC will die a slow low GFX death so old players that don't want to spend money on a PC less then 5 years old can play. Its a bad business model.
-
Back OT: Just look at any modern game. The game-play sucks but they have a lot of players. Why? It looks good. People are tired of playing the same old games with the same old graphics. Why play something that looks like it belongs on an Atari? The game-play may be good, but on this new game over here I lose a little bit of game-play for....my gosh...it's so beautiful....
I am not in a denial, just expressing my own views. I can`t understand why would anyone sacrifice gameplay for graphics. It does not seem that bad to me and I use very low settings. The graphics may become new, but it will still be the same "old" game (straight from WW2 :)). Can you please give me some examples about the modern games you are talking about?
-
I got to say, the big money for HTC would be under 25 your olds. I play a few other mmorp games (now and then) i also have a lot of friends on FB under 20. ALL of these people first thing they say when a game comes out is its awesome graphics. This this game is about 10 years back as far as that. So HTC will die a slow low GFX death so old players that don't want to spend money on a PC less then 5 years old can play. Its a bad business model.
It's not the old people leaving due to graphics, it's the younger crowd who can't/won't spend the time to learn the game. I'm 55, both my kids are grown up and have jobs making twice the money I make. My wife makes more money than I do. My hobbies are flying Aces High and drinking beer :devil I have no problem blowing a couple grand every few years to build a new smokin computer. I'm sure a lot of "older guys" are in the same boat.
The younger generation gets bored doing the same old "base attack" (read Horde if you wish :P ) and so NEED eye candy to keep it exciting enough to hang around. Us old guys just get bigger monitors so we can see those blasted little planes flopping around and continue to play. Game play is more important to us.
-
It's not the old people leaving due to graphics, it's the younger crowd who can't/won't spend the time to learn the game. I'm 55, both my kids are grown up and have jobs making twice the money I make. My wife makes more money than I do. My hobbies are flying Aces High and drinking beer :devil I have no problem blowing a couple grand every few years to build a new smokin computer. I'm sure a lot of "older guys" are in the same boat.
The younger generation gets bored doing the same old "base attack" (read Horde if you wish :P ) and so NEED eye candy to keep it exciting enough to hang around. Us old guys just get bigger monitors so we can see those blasted little planes flopping around and continue to play. Game play is more important to us.
Well you might be right,you saying you will spend money to keep playing every few years,your not the one that statement was aimed at.
But the game is behind badly as far as games go these days in the "eye candy" department when you look at ALL the other games with a large player base.
I love its realistic flight model,but that was done many years ago,now eye candy.
-
I'd be fine if they just made a more realistic layout of the land. Barns by big open fields, instead of in the middle of the woods. Some grain in the fields (give an option for a solid block of grain with texturing, or individual stalks if your computer can handle it), hedges and trees marking the boundaries for the fields...
Even with the current quality of graphics, the game would FEEL more realistic.
-
Nathan60/Hamhock posted this in the General forum. I'd put this terrain up against almost any of the screenshot posted in this thread. And, it's playable on most of our existing hardware.
(http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l502/Nathan60215/e867d977-9541-4a16-ae11-1abda9d443d6_zps418b740d.jpg)
-
Graphics? Are you talking about graphics? Whos talking about graphics? Cmon, graphics?
:lol
:bolt:
-
I'd be fine if they just made a more realistic layout of the land. Barns by big open fields, instead of in the middle of the woods. Some grain in the fields (give an option for a solid block of grain with texturing, or individual stalks if your computer can handle it), hedges and trees marking the boundaries for the fields...
Even with the current quality of graphics, the game would FEEL more realistic.
Wouldn't you need to actually play the game to feel more realistic?
:salute
-
If the excitement of a long, drawn-out life and death dogfight doesn't keep you here, fancy graphics surely wont
-
If the excitement of a long, drawn-out life and death dogfight doesn't keep you here, fancy graphics surely wont
You'd be surprised....
-
Depends on what details you mean. Higher resolution textures, sure. Higher polygon count terrain and trees, no. Why? Because if the polygons are different you will most assuredly encounter a situation where some tank thinks it is hull down or concealed and to the guy he is fighting who is using another detail setting the tank is exposed.
While I agree the graphics are dated, lets be realistic here. Looking at games from 10 years ago they did not look as good as AH does now, particularly on the recently redone units.
Fine 5 years ago... And yes i know that you would have problems with two people using different settings. Just a thought.
do you currently have all graphics options to the highest they can go with a steady 60fps frame rate?
And Really?? That's a lot like calling tech support and having the guy ask if the computer is plugged in isn't it? Yes I have textures maxed out. I used to use the 8092 shadows or whatever they were before HTC got rid of them. And just because your next post is going to try to prove me wrong it is a custom built gaming rig from ibuypower. :aok
-
If the excitement of a long, drawn-out life and death dogfight doesn't keep you here, fancy graphics surely wont
That depends on the arena. If the arena is empty, the graphics and terrain features are even more important to keep the player interested until someone shows up to provide that life and death dogfight that you're talking about.
-
We don't all have the money to buy a $10,000 setup like yours :old: :bhead
LMAO 10,000$$$ LMAO you understand a 700$ computer could run AH with full detail
-
I do not understand how can some of you state so firmly that the better and more PC demanding graphics increases the number of players. Do you have any statistics to back up your opinion?
Have you seen the amount of players War Thunder has?
it's a terrible game, but a lot of people play because it looks like it was made this decade
-
also the AH engine, and our current hardware (not the mythical $10,000 dollar super rigs) is capable of this:
(http://i1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj623/8rave8/mtonaf/ahss141.jpg)
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,344662.0.html
but we don't have it
?
personally I feel we've got a big enough plane set to play around with, it'd be nice for some of our $15 a month to go towards getting some better looking maps to fly them in (just my opinion)
-
LMAO 10,1000$$$ LMAO you understand a 700$ computer could run AH with full detail
Well done, you're correcting my 6 months old post! Boy, you sure showed me :rolleyes:
and if it means that much to you, I was referring to Pand who has a multi-thousand dollar setup by the looks of it, smart one :rolleyes:
And 10,1000$ huh? :rofl
-
Nathan60/Hamhock posted this in the General forum. I'd put this terrain up against almost any of the screenshot posted in this thread. And, it's playable on most of our existing hardware.
(http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l502/Nathan60215/e867d977-9541-4a16-ae11-1abda9d443d6_zps418b740d.jpg)
Photoshopped pictures are not going to make your point very well you know. Some game engines actually feature in-game effects like that.
-
Photoshopped pictures are not going to make your point very well you know. Some game engines actually feature in-game effects like that.
If I read your reply correctly, it sounds like you think that screen shot is Photoshopped.
Clearly you haven't been in the AvA since Thursday night. Maybe you should go look before you say anything more.
-
If I read your reply correctly, it sounds like you think that screen shot is Photoshopped.
Clearly you haven't been in the AvA since Thursday night. Maybe you should go look before you say anything more.
Clearly you're blind to miss the blur added to the screenshot. AHII graphics engine does not have focus blur effects unlike many other modern engines do. I'm not saying they would be very useful in most usage cases online but when posting screenshots, stick to unphotoshopped versions.
When you remove the artificial depth created by the blur in the screenshot, all that is left is unproportional size of objects and low detail level in that image.
-
Clearly you're blind to miss the blur added to the screenshot.
Looks to me like he reduced it and turned it into a jpg for posting.
I should know, I built the terrain.
Like I posted, you can try to prove me a liar simply by going into the AvA or spawning a custom arena with avachanl. Go ahead, try.
-
Looks to me like he reduced it and turned it into a jpg for posting.
I should know, I built the terrain.
Like I posted, you can try to prove me a liar simply by going into the AvA or spawning a custom arena. Go ahead, try.
AHII does not have a blur effect in the image - are you really oblivious to the photoshop?
-
The difference is that I know how massive that city is and you haven't a clue.
-
Well done, you're correcting my 6 months old post! Boy, you sure showed me :rolleyes:
and if it means that much to you, I was referring to Pand who has a multi-thousand dollar setup by the looks of it, smart one :rolleyes:
And 10,1000$ huh? :rofl
forgot i was not super pro at typing i assume this means you want my soul :(
-
AHII does not have a blur effect in the image - are you really oblivious to the photoshop?
Are you really oblivious to the fact its JPG and resized?. The man is telling you to look for yourself but oh it must be fake so why try is the logic being applied im assuming
-
It's not the old people leaving due to graphics, it's the younger crowd who can't/won't spend the time to learn the game.
Its not just the young people who left the game. It would be irresponsible to think that. Yes there is a core group of old timers and thats a strength but the game has lost 1/2 its players since its prime and that sounds like zero growth to me. Less players = less quality fights. Most of all on the big maps. Yesterday at 1500 hrs there was about the same amount of players there is on a week day on a huge map. Frankly it was boring as heck and I signed off early.
Graphics isnt everything but it is important. And an update wouldnt even have to be cutting edge because the game is so strong in other areas. I remember what a success the last one was. I think the next one will be so too.
-
While you're looking it over MrRiplEy, check out the Normandy Coast. I think you'll be surprised again.
-
I think the game is fine :old:
It would be vastly improved if we had the Gloster Meteor :old:
I know nothing about the Flight Sim business so its probly best that I dont comment to much :rofl
-
Its not just the young people who left the game. It would be irresponsible to think that. Yes there is a core group of old timers and thats a strength but the game has lost 1/2 its players since its prime and that sounds like zero growth to me. Less players = less quality fights. Most of all on the big maps. Yesterday at 1500 hrs there was about the same amount of players there is on a week day on a huge map. Frankly it was boring as heck and I signed off early.
Graphics isnt everything but it is important. And an update wouldnt even have to be cutting edge because the game is so strong in other areas. I remember what a success the last one was. I think the next one will be so too.
This^ +1
-
I've seen it take quite awhile for people to get a feel for what that terrain has to offer so it will probably be awhile before our friend posts his review. The usual response has been O_O and WOW. That's very gratifying for a terrain builder.
Do I wish for more ground vertices? Absolutely! And other things too, but that doesn't mean a terrain can't be competitive with the posted screen shots from those other games, if you have the time to do the work. And the amount of work is daunting.
-
The image you posted has artificial blur added afterwards. Just compare the two shots:
(http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/4382/nimetnfx.png)
(http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l502/Nathan60215/e867d977-9541-4a16-ae11-1abda9d443d6_zps418b740d.jpg)
Now, do you still claim your picture wasn't photoshopped?
In addition to that I found the textures to have an absolutely horrible z-fighting issue, the terrain is flashing like disco lights when in flight. This may be something AMD driver specific but I can see why this terrain is not accepted for MA use.
The z-fighting issues I believe are also a part of the ongoing issues with AH graphics engine - they're not entirely the texture designs fault. I'm assuming this because I get no such problems on any other game titles using the same hardware and OS.
-
Nice screen shot.
-
Have you seen the amount of players War Thunder has?
it's a terrible game, but a lot of people play because it looks like it was made this decade
I did not browse enough to see any number of players in War Thunder or World of Planes, but the first thing that caught my eye was the fact that these are free games. If the number of players would be subdivided, then how large group takes part in arcade style playing and how many in full realism? If AH2 was a free game, I am pretty shure there would be more players, but would the newcomers adapt to the realism and communication etiquette.
Before starting again now I played late war arena through tours 128-132. If I remember correctly numbers as big as 500 was pretty common during 21:00 UTC. Titanic tuesday increased it regularly to 800 or so. The number of players during daytime in Europe was pretty low. Are all those gone because of the outdated graphics? I remember messages popping up in game when players gave their farewell saying that they cancel their account because of the economic depression, I did too. Many newcomers stopped playing, because their two weeks of free time got over. I do not remember people saying goodbye because of low visual appeal. That may have been a reason too.
I understand that the graphics needs to be updated, but some of you guys make it sound like it is the most important thing to do. Changes that need higher system requirements are not that easy because some people win and some lose. If there are players who enjoy the gameplay but stop playing after free time is over, there are guys who stop when their PC gets outdated. If some players are willing to sacrifice a little of the gameplay for better graphics and turn to other games, then you may be killing this game as well as people like me who do not want to get a new computer. I would like everyone to be happy.
-
Hitech has said that the terrains are capable of looking like "that other game". I wonder why they don't let it? I know in the old days they were very careful of file size. The game was download only and so a smaller file size over dial up was better. Today however "most" people are on hi-speed internet. Yes I understand that many are not, but again how long does everyone have to suffer due to those on the low end?
If the game is capable of these graphics on the main maps why not use them? Can the download be separated enough so that game updates are one download, and terrain updates another? While I hate the idea of the WOT pay system I do like the idea of enough players that we would have 2 or 3 LW main arenas.
-
And Really?? That's a lot like calling tech support and having the guy ask if the computer is plugged in isn't it? Yes I have textures maxed out. I used to use the 8092 shadows or whatever they were before HTC got rid of them. And just because your next post is going to try to prove me wrong it is a custom built gaming rig from ibuypower. :aok
:lol if it's from ibuypower, it's probably a very good computer but, it's not a custom built gaming rig. i didn't ask about just textures and shadows, i asked about all graphics settings.
this would be current maxed out aces high graphics settings...
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/ahmaxgraphx.jpg)
if you can run 60fps with those settings in a low alt furball at a coastal base with ships close to shore, over a heavy tank battle ...then maybe you have a foot to stand on about the graphics quality. my system is capable of running any retail box game with high settings in multiplayer mode, none of which allows more than 64 players at a time on a terrain. the mmo's that i have played and currently play are all give and take, either photo realistic graphics with limited players on a map or, photo realistic graphics with unlimited players but limited graphics detail range (1 mile or less). aces high isn't high end photo realistic graphics but it is a decent balance considering the range of visibility with detail, the number of objects that can be rendered within that range (including all the skins available) and the number of players that are allowed in a single environment. neither world of tanks, war thunder, iracing, guild wars, or any of the other mmo's are as balanced as aces high is when it comes to all of the aspects involved.
that's not to say there isn't room for improvement. i'll concede that the ground and water is minimalistic in comparison to some, but i know it is a trade off of looks vs performance and i for one would rather have the performance without the need for higher performance hardware than i can afford. some of the people in this discussion wanting better graphics either weren't here for, or have forgotten about the last graphics upgrade and the subsequent blowout from subscribers. and what those people (10% or less of the current subscriber base) are asking htc to do is yet again push the graphics higher and subsequently increase the hardware requirements to maintain performance, at the risk of losing yet more subscribers without any guarantee that the improved graphics will actually draw more subscribers than such graphics improvements will lose.
-
:lol if it's from ibuypower, it's probably a very good computer but, it's not a custom built gaming rig. i didn't ask about just textures and shadows, i asked about all graphics settings.
this would be current maxed out aces high graphics settings...
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/ahmaxgraphx.jpg)
if you can run 60fps with those settings in a low alt furball at a coastal base with ships close to shore, over a heavy tank battle ...then maybe you have a foot to stand on about the graphics quality. my system is capable of running any retail box game with high settings in multiplayer mode, none of which allows more than 64 players at a time on a terrain. the mmo's that i have played and currently play are all give and take, either photo realistic graphics with limited players on a map or, photo realistic graphics with unlimited players but limited graphics detail range (1 mile or less). aces high isn't high end photo realistic graphics but it is a decent balance considering the range of visibility with detail, the number of objects that can be rendered within that range (including all the skins available) and the number of players that are allowed in a single environment. neither world of tanks, war thunder, iracing, guild wars, or any of the other mmo's are as balanced as aces high is when it comes to all of the aspects involved.
that's not to say there isn't room for improvement. i'll concede that the ground and water is minimalistic in comparison to some, but i know it is a trade off of looks vs performance and i for one would rather have the performance without the need for higher performance hardware than i can afford. some of the people in this discussion wanting better graphics either weren't here for, or have forgotten about the last graphics upgrade and the subsequent blowout from subscribers. and what those people (10% or less of the current subscriber base) are asking htc to do is yet again push the graphics higher and subsequently increase the hardware requirements to maintain performance, at the risk of losing yet more subscribers without any guarantee that the improved graphics will actually draw more subscribers than such graphics improvements will lose.
:furious :bhead Yes my child i have the graphics maxed out the way you describe in your screenshot. As for 60FPS in a low alt fur ball with a giant gv battle next to the coast with ships close to shore, i guess we'll never know because i'm not sure that has ever happened. Something a little more your speed, i run BF3 on ultra and WOT maxed out as well with no issues. And yes i use the 64 player servers in BF3 with 60FPS. And i would consider a computer that i picked the parts for custom built. I didn't say it was a home build did I?
-
AHII does not have a blur effect in the image - are you really oblivious to the photoshop?
LOL focusing on the blur and not WHAT was in blur is where you are going wrong. Blurring the edges don't cover up the TERRAIN and what was there.
-
:furious :bhead Yes my child i have the graphics maxed out the way you describe in your screenshot. As for 60FPS in a low alt fur ball with a giant gv battle next to the coast with ships close to shore, i guess we'll never know because i'm not sure that has ever happened. Something a little more your speed, i run BF3 on ultra and WOT maxed out as well with no issues. And yes i use the 64 player servers in BF3 with 60FPS. And i would consider a computer that i picked the parts for custom built. I didn't say it was a home build did I?
:rofl child? unless you're at least 20 years my senior, don't even try to go there.
unless you just bought a $1000 6GB nvidia titan video card, i seriously doubt you're getting 60fps online in any arena with those settings. i've been in the exact scenario as i described with lower graphics settings, on my current true custom built system, and frame rates dropped as low as 30fps. when bf3 and wot get maps as big as aces high, with 300+ players all on the same terrain, and a visibility range of even 10,000 feet with detail, then come back and tell us all how great the graphics are.
-
LOL focusing on the blur and not WHAT was in blur is where you are going wrong. Blurring the edges don't cover up the TERRAIN and what was there.
Well...the terrain was EXACTLY what was blurred....and he was simply stating that using a photo with ANY effect done to it is a poor choice of defense.
It's like saying you have evidence with a blood covered rag that a killer used....but then you tie-dye iit and expect it to be seriously
-
Well...the terrain was EXACTLY what was blurred....and he was simply stating that using a photo with ANY effect done to it is a poor choice of defense.
It's like saying you have evidence with a blood covered rag that a killer used....but then you tie-dye iit and expect it to be seriously
The terrain is still there as all the objects added and in the non blurred areas you can see what they look like in game. There are quite a few AvA with outstanding terrain, Easy's isn't even the most detailed terrain wise but hes added somany objects he toned down the terrain as I understand it.
-
Long and the short of it if the new games with the awesome graphics are so great go play them. Sure, AH could use a little beautifaction but not att he expense of the flight model and other trade offs. Ripley didn't you say goodbye to AH to go play War Thunder why aren't you on those forums complaing about the flight model?
-
LOL focusing on the blur and not WHAT was in blur is where you are going wrong. Blurring the edges don't cover up the TERRAIN and what was there.
Re-read the conversation and then post. I told he was posting photoshopped images and I proved the picture was photoshopped. The terrain didn't work at all on my computer, it was flashing like a broken neon sign due to z-fighting.
-
Long and the short of it if the new games with the awesome graphics are so great go play them. Sure, AH could use a little beautifaction but not att he expense of the flight model and other trade offs. Ripley didn't you say goodbye to AH to go play War Thunder why aren't you on those forums complaing about the flight model?
Show me where I said goodbye to AH... I still have an account and despite very little time to play I still pay for it.
-
Re-read the conversation and then post. I told he was posting photoshopped images and I proved the picture was photoshopped. The terrain didn't work at all on my computer, it was flashing like a broken neon sign due to z-fighting.
OK so youre not arguing against the terrain then? Sorry if I misread.
-
Show me where I said goodbye to AH... I still have an account and despite very little time to play I still pay for it.
well that's why I asked seems I confused you with Dhyran
-
Re-read the conversation and then post. I told he was posting photoshopped images and I proved the picture was photoshopped. The terrain didn't work at all on my computer, it was flashing like a broken neon sign due to z-fighting.
This is the first report of such issues, and I spent 4 to 8 hours a day in there Friday and Saturday. Although I'm aware of a problem at the ports, there's been no other reports and the ports are fixed for the next update after this weeks run.
Where are you saying you have a zbuffer problem?
What object?
What is the nearest Base number or sector and keypad designation?
-
If some players are willing to sacrifice a little of the gameplay for better graphics and turn to other games, then you may be killing this game as well as people like me who do not want to get a new computer. I would like everyone to be happy.
I would like to play Aces High, but whenever I log in during my evening time there are between 40-100 players at the most, and finding a fight is an extremely frustrating experience
so I don't log in anymore, and I really should cancel my account...something is holding me back...I love the scenarios and I hope to have time to participate in some FSOs which take place during my Saturday afternoon...
-
Half the time I'm flying to a fight so yes the terrain / sky / clouds / weather conditions needs to be updated. The a/c models look great. I've never been a fan of the airfield / city layout, I think the lack of variety in airfields and the way they are arranged on the terrains could be reworked to add a little more flavor.
-
Yes coombz, that can be a problem in the wee hours of the morning USA time. :(
As for the OT, my point was that we haven't pushed the limits of the current engine. We could request additional tile sets in addition to the Pacific and European tiles. They could also add and allow new non-destroyable bridges for choke points in the ground vehicle game.
New tile sets would require a larger initial download of the game (expensive?) and any choke point bridges would require application guidelines for MA terrains. There must be other enhancements that could be added as well but tile sets for desert and winter terrains are the most obvious.
-
Re-read the conversation and then post. I told he was posting photoshopped images and I proved the picture was photoshopped. The terrain didn't work at all on my computer, it was flashing like a broken neon sign due to z-fighting.
You never learn do you? Its not photoshop.... Here i will go the terrian myself and find that exact point.
-
This is the first report of such issues, and I spent 4 to 8 hours a day in there Friday and Saturday. Although I'm aware of a problem at the ports, there's been no other reports and the ports are fixed for the next update after this weeks run.
Where are you saying you have a zbuffer problem?
What object?
What is the nearest Base number or sector and keypad designation?
It was the 'town' tiles in Paris. The whole city was flashing. I updated my drivers after that but haven't had the chance to retest if they helped.
-
You never learn do you? Its not photoshop.... Here i will go the terrian myself and find that exact point.
You never learn do you? I just posted a picture proof and you still babble? :headscratch:
-
It was the 'town' tiles in Paris. The whole city was flashing. I updated my drivers after that but haven't had the chance to retest if they helped.
Perhaps it's your driver, don't know, and I only offer agreement because no one else has reported this issue. I spent a great deal of time preventing zbuffer issues in Paris etc.
My driver seems old but it was the latest available just a few (2?) months ago.
AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series
AMD Driver 7/27/2012
Version 8.982.0 0
edit for misspelling
-
Perhaps it's your driver, don't know, and I only offer agreement because no one else has reported this issue. I spent a great deal of time preventing zbuffer issues in Paris etc.
My driver seems old but it was the latest available just a few (2?) months ago.
AMD Radeon HD 6800 Series
AMD Driver 7/27/2012
Version 8.982.0 0
edit for misspelling
I use the beta driver since the whql driver malfunctions on AH with 7xxx series.
-
Food for thought concerning the potential loss of players due to graphics: One of the latest big successes in the game scene is based on making use of physical laws, combining velocity, mass, angle and trajectory. Sort of a shooting simulator, that is... Can't help it, but IMO Angry Birds looks like some cartoons of the 60's, especially the backgrounds.
-
Honestly Im a little shocked at the numbers in the MAs big map even during prime US weekends.
I would like to play Aces High, but whenever I log in during my evening time there are between 40-100 players at the most, and finding a fight is an extremely frustrating experience
so I don't log in anymore, and I really should cancel my account...something is holding me back...I love the scenarios and I hope to have time to participate in some FSOs which take place during my Saturday afternoon...
-
You never learn do you? I just posted a picture proof and you still babble? :headscratch:
So what exactly is your argument? Terrain looked good before I added the blur with the middle not blurred to draw attention to the focal point of the screenie posted. The Eiffel Tower the Nazi Flag and a 109, not to cover up any deficiencies. Your 'proof' screenie still looks good to me when it comes to the content of the terrain.
-
I would like to play Aces High, but whenever I log in during my evening time there are between 40-100 players at the most, and finding a fight is an extremely frustrating experience
so I don't log in anymore, and I really should cancel my account
And that's the one of most important reasons why I did cancel mine. Player activity during my "prime time" dropped to a level which was simply not fun anymore. US prime time still got enough battles and was still fun to fly at, but staying awake to play 2-6 a.m. ain't a good idea.
For the record, we used to have ~1 million air to air kills per quarter when I joined (and that wasn't even the high tide of AH). In the current quarter we will end up at less than 50% of that.
-
And that's the one of most important reasons why I did cancel mine. Player activity during my "prime time" dropped to a level which was simply not fun anymore. US prime time still got enough battles and was still fun to fly at, but staying awake to play 2-6 a.m. ain't a good idea.
For the record, we used to have ~1 million air to air kills per quarter when I joined (and that wasn't even the high tide of AH). In the current quarter we will end up at less than 50% of that.
By 'quarter' do you mean per year? Or per quarter of a year (3 months)?
Interesting stat, btw! :salute
-
And that's the one of most important reasons why I did cancel mine. Player activity during my "prime time" dropped to a level which was simply not fun anymore. US prime time still got enough battles and was still fun to fly at, but staying awake to play 2-6 a.m. ain't a good idea.
For the record, we used to have ~1 million air to air kills per quarter when I joined (and that wasn't even the high tide of AH). In the current quarter we will end up at less than 50% of that.
so, if i read you right, keeping the status quo does not seem to be helping subscription rates? I've been thinking for awhile now it seemed as if the population has significantly lowered.. and still all these fanboys saying nothing needs to change or its not possible to have this with that.. ummm, its already being done elsewhere..
-
So what exactly is your argument? Terrain looked good before I added the blur with the middle not blurred to draw attention to the focal point of the screenie posted. The Eiffel Tower the Nazi Flag and a 109, not to cover up any deficiencies. Your 'proof' screenie still looks good to me when it comes to the content of the terrain.
My argument is to not post photoshopped images as counter arguments when talking about game engines and their abilities. If this is too hard a concept for you to grasp then I can't help it. What made the argument extend any further than the 1 post was easyscor claiming (for some reason unknown) that the picture wasn't photoshopped even through a blind man could see the heavy blur added to the image.
Many other engines DO have motion blur / focus effects so posting a picture which has been post processed manually is kinda counterproductive.
-
By 'quarter' do you mean per year? Or per quarter or a year (3 months)?
Per 3 months.
-
so, if i read you right, keeping the status quo does not seem to be helping subscription rates?
In my opinion, yes.
Unfortunately that's about as far as my opinion goes, it does not include an opinion how to "fix" this in an easy way. The reasons for that decline are manifold, there are many things that are challenging AH these days.
-
Per 3 months.
Wow, 1 million A-A kills in 3 months? Not including A-G, G-A, or G-G kills? Impressive
Do you know what the average number of players during certain hours of the day are (say prime time US vs prime time UK)? Or is there not enough information without constantly monitoring the arenas manually to find that stat?
-
I would like to play Aces High, but whenever I log in during my evening time there are between 40-100 players at the most, and finding a fight is an extremely frustrating experience
Little offtopic, but in addition to time zones, finding a fight may also be problematic, because players have different ideas of having fun. Sometimes you need to deceive the enemy a little to get the fight you want. If massive furball is your thing, then of course that is difficult to achieve with low numbers. History and war movies may give some inspiration. Having a lot of patience always comes in handy.
I do not understand much of the techincal stuff, but I would like to know one thing. If one has a modern computer and a good download speed, does improved graphics put more stress on the internet connection itself? If some guys have a ping of 200+ then would it cause bigger problems for them as well?
-
Wow, 1 million A-A kills in 3 months? Not including A-G, G-A, or G-G kills? Impressive
Without looking up the exact number, the max number of kills total (all categories) for a single tour was just over 900,000 kills. That was including EW &MW at that time, but still impressive ;)
Do you know what the average number of players during certain hours of the day are (say prime time US vs prime time UK)? Or is there not enough information without constantly monitoring the arenas manually to find that stat?
I can't say that directly without actually monitoring the arena in-game. Which I did at various points in the past years, but I can't do that comprehensively.
What's a bit easier to do is tracking the activity over the day via kills.
-
My argument is to not post photoshopped images as counter arguments when talking about game engines and their abilities. If this is too hard a concept for you to grasp then I can't help it. What made the argument extend any further than the 1 post was easyscor claiming (for some reason unknown) that the picture wasn't photoshopped even through a blind man could see the heavy blur added to the image.
Many other engines DO have motion blur / focus effects so posting a picture which has been post processed manually is kinda counterproductive.
So your nitpick a photo that has edges blurred, ignoring Ranger's and Coombz's posts of what the engine is capable of? As has been discussed the engine is capable of more, if you want to take the time to make the maps go ahead. I invite anyone that wants a better looking terrain to take the time to make a terrain and submit it. HTC isn't EA they cant pump out new a/c, retexture a/c and create more terrain like they were, NOTHING is stopping you form making your own terrain and submitting it for rotation.
-
The whole argument is silly; the reality is that regardless of blur or no blur, with what I'm sure was an enormous effort, the current engine can produce terrain visuals that are representative of 2003. Updated versions of Il2FB and its later derivatives like Birds of Prey can produce truly stunning visuals.
(http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/x3/i/l/il2bx3021.jpg)
(http://www.wescoregames.com/dynimgs/games/ps3-il-2-sturmovik-birds-of-prey/il_2_sturmovik_birds_of_prey_195396.jpg)
(http://worthplaying.com/wpimages/i/l/il2sturmovik/195179.jpg)
(http://www.playdevil.net/uploader/files/1/Screenshots/Noplatformspecific/IL-2_Sturmovik_Birds_Of_Prey/il-2_sturmovik_birds_of_prey_4.jpg)
(http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc128/hereward1971/IL-2SturmovikBirdsOfPreyDEMO_9.jpg)
-
:O
-
I don't get how you compare a large company like Ubisoft to HTC. Im sure if HTC had 15 offices the graphics would be updated and wed have all the bells and whistles. On top of that Il-2 has many more people out the creating mods. Granted with the declining player base maybe it is time to do something new like selkl the AH license to SOE or EA well get much better graphics and a War Thunder flight model would you like that? Honestly how many employees do you think HTC has?
-
I don't get how you compare a large company like Ubisoft to HTC. Im sure if HTC had 15 offices the graphics would be updated and wed have all the bells and whistles. On top of that Il-2 has many more people out the creating mods. Granted with the declining player base maybe it is time to do something new like selkl the AH license to SOE or EA well get much better graphics and a War Thunder flight model would you like that? Honestly how many employees do you think HTC has?
Enough to update graphics just a tad every so often? I am not saying we need game breaking updates every 3 months, however, I think a moderate update every other year or so to the graphics would be justified.
I remember one very slight update to the graphics, but I think that was at least a year ago, and it wasn't anything special other than what appeared to be a few slight texture redesigns or something IIRC.
Wasn't the last major graphics update from AH1-AH2? (Actual question, I do not know)
:salute
-
I don't give a damn how pretty they look. I just want a realistic layout of terrain.
-
I don't get how you compare a large company like Ubisoft to HTC. Im sure if HTC had 15 offices the graphics would be updated and wed have all the bells and whistles. On top of that Il-2 has many more people out the creating mods. Granted with the declining player base maybe it is time to do something new like selkl the AH license to SOE or EA well get much better graphics and a War Thunder flight model would you like that? Honestly how many employees do you think HTC has?
How many employees do they have? How many should they have? I don't know. Nor do I think it is relevant to the discussion. Fact is that AH is falling more and more behind.
-
How many employees do they have? How many should they have? I don't know. Nor do I think it is relevant to the discussion. Fact is that AH is falling more and more behind.
Well do you want planes or updated terrain. Id take the terrain but lets be realistic how many would complain about getting terrain over a Beaufighter, but as I said nothing is stopping you from helping create a new terrain for the ma
-
:O
don't get so excited Marine, try to stack up 300 players on the same terrain with one of those games and your system will choke.
-
So your nitpick a photo that has edges blurred, ignoring Ranger's and Coombz's posts of what the engine is capable of? As has been discussed the engine is capable of more, if you want to take the time to make the maps go ahead. I invite anyone that wants a better looking terrain to take the time to make a terrain and submit it. HTC isn't EA they cant pump out new a/c, retexture a/c and create more terrain like they were, NOTHING is stopping you form making your own terrain and submitting it for rotation.
I nitpick when someone claims a picture is not photoshopped when it's CLEARLY PHOTOSHOPPED. Now leave this discussion already.
-
don't get so excited Marine, try to stack up 300 players on the same terrain with one of those games and your system will choke.
No it won't... IIRC even AH2 has a limit of 48 simultaneous players on visible range, after that things start becoming invisible. You only need to render the stuff you see, and by seeing I mean visual range. No point rendering things which are too small or too far away for the players to notice anyway - it makes no difference how large the maps are in the end. The real challenge is to get the main server and the netcode not to choke under the player load.
-
don't get so excited Marine, try to stack up 300 players on the same terrain with one of those games and your system will choke.
Again, nothing to do with visual quality.
-
I nitpick when someone claims a picture is not photoshopped when it's CLEARLY PHOTOSHOPPED. Now leave this discussion already.
lol why are you so upset is this really that big of a deal in your life right now? How about YOu leave this discussion as you are clearly not adult enough for civil discourse. Your off on a crusade that no longer has anything o do with the discussion at hand.
-
Again, nothing to do with visual quality.
The higher graphics and keeping track of 300 players and their damage can be taxing can they not?
-
The higher graphics and keeping track of 300 players and their damage can be taxing can they not?
The two are almost, maybe actually are, entirely separate things that do not interfere with one another.
-
What Karnak said.
-
Just to be clear, those last screens I posted was from games that are essentially from 2003, but updated. They do not represent the state of the art.
State of the art in air combat visual quality: (Set quality to HD and view in fullscreen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgoQyk8bKFA
... Well, actually state of the art two years ago... The details are amazing.
-
I don't get how you compare a large company like Ubisoft to HTC. Im sure if HTC had 15 offices the graphics would be updated and wed have all the bells and whistles. Honestly how many employees do you think HTC has?
Old argument, thing is HT charges a premium price for an online game and has done for many years while keeping development at a minimum. Most players already have a full time job and families or other commitments, they pay HT $15 to maintain the game and development.
Sure like a mod community people can make submissions for new maps or what ever, but the response about terrain graphics shouldn't be don't cry about the terrain if you don't contribute, people pay their $15 a month that's already contribution enough.
Main issue is that the core graphics/physics engine etc is Beta from the late 90s. There has never been a significant change in past 14 years other than added textures, effects, bump mapping, model details etc. Core engine and what it's able to produce as far as graphics by anyone as well as HT is heavily restricted by the engine itself which is incredibly dated.
The game has gone as far as it can with the current graphics engine, I've been saying for years HT needs to overhaul the entire thing and replace it with a new engine otherwise it will die off (maybe that's HT's plan, milk it for as long as possible and charge a premium in the process), maybe that player shift is already happening as there seems to be a lot less players during weekend peak times then I recall a few years ago.
AH is still DX9 and doesn't even utilize all of those features let alone DX11, Sun and water for instance are terrible surely there could at least be an update in those two graphic effects since AH2 release.
When AH2 was released I thought it would be a completely new graphics/physics engine as even back then it was looking very dated. How surprised I was and quite a few others when AH2 basically looked and felt exactly the same as AH1 and still does to this day.
And please don't tell me we are still making a game so that a few players with 10+ year old PC's and dial up connections can play it. :rolleyes:
<S>...-Gixer
-
I agree that the 3D models of aircraft are good in AH, but as Gixer says, they are let down by a primitive graphics engine. I say the models are good, however not as good (or better) as current generation games. Not by a long shot. These days it is possible to make the 3D models look almost photorealistic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tugifv2YIw8
Again, set quality to HD and view in fullscreen. Truly amazing details on those models.
-
<Snip>And please don't tell me we are still making a game so that a few players with 10+ year old PC's and dial up connections can play it. :rolleyes:
Skuzzy said recently they're making the game so that the increasing number of players with brand new laptops with Intel graphics can play it.
The Intel video chip is a $2 video chip. It was never intended to be used for games. It happens to work with Aces High because we recognize it to be a huge part of the overall computer marketplace (over 65%). So HiTech has made certain it would work.
-
Skuzzy said recently they're making the game so that the increasing number of players with brand new laptops with Intel graphics can play it.
LMAO same excuse just a different platform, what a joke. Extremely weak excuse for continuing with such a dated game engine.
Just like the 100mb download limit.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Skuzzy said recently they're making the game so that the increasing number of players with brand new laptops with Intel graphics can play it.
We see how well thats working.
-
repeat.
-
I think it's about time AH either make public the records they keep on user PC stats which are collected when new accounts are open or in the very least allow the community to run a forum based poll.
Saying they are catering for new laptop owners is questionable, especially when most modern laptops often have dual graphics cards which includes a dedicated GPU the intel graphics card is really only for desktop and at most something like minecraft. Cripes I think my new cellphone has a faster GPU than intel graphics card and also exceeds CPU and RAM requirements.
I can't believe they are holding back the game to 10 year old tech just because a few new users are supposedly using latops with only intel graphics cards.
My bet most people here play other games in addition to AH and that on average computer specs would be 2-3 years old and fully capable of running AH at high to max detail bar one or two sliders.
imho It's not a case of restricting the graphics because of the player hardware, its more a case of restricting the graphics because of the dated game engine.
Too much potential development time wasted on things like ToD,WW1 and the long list of hangar queens which only come out once every few months for some obscure FSO event.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Gixer, I'm sad to tell that an unbelievably large portion of computer owners/users/buyers are totally unaware of what they can and what they can't do with their computers. People buy laptops because they think desktops aren't being sold any more. Mothers ask me to add some oomph into their laptop because their kids say that Minecraft doesn't run well. Kids in their early teens replace the original Windows Home version with a pirated Ultimate because they think their €500 laptop would run games ultimately better with that. I've also seen new Catalyst drivers on a GeForce equipped rig, because "a friend said the Catalyst would improve gameplay." A friend of mine taught himself website coding and believed he could put large pictures into his sites because "doesn't most everyone have fast broadband nowadays?"
I see you've been along as long as I've been, since October 2001. We know what it takes to run this game. We know how to read the minimum and recommended requirements for a game, both on websites and on the box and we understand the meaning of them. We are the minority. Even old timers who have played every flying sim since Commodore64 can be totally computer illiterate and have to rely on other people's recommendations when they want a new rig for gaming. The game console generation has even less what it takes to understand there'd be any limitations in PC gaming. If the box has the same mark as the console, any game would run flawlessly, without any tweaking. Any PC game won't run on any PC, tweaked or not.
I'm sorry, Gixer, but my experience tells that you'd lose your bet. :salute
-
I'm sorry, Gixer, but my experience tells that you'd lose your bet. :salute
Not in the last 15 years I wouldn't lose that bet. Your argument is more suited to the PC vs first generation playstations of the mid 90s.
Yes in those days you had to muck about with a PC to get it to work with games, now days components are cheap, OS is all plug and pray and pretty much anything out of the box that's advertised as suitable for gaming will play just about anything soon as you install it.
:salute
<S>...-Gixer
-
I admit I might have read that line a little too hasty. Yes, most people here probably play other games, too. I'm not quite sure about the rest, though. A 2-3 year gaming rig would be fully capable running AH, but it seems many players don't have such. And although components are cheap, there's no point investing a €200 videocard to a €400 desktop. Plus you'd have to replace the PSU. Not to mention there's no upgradeable components in laptops in that price category.
Any PC needs at least some tweaking to get online games running without hiccups. By that I mean shutting down or even disabling unnecessary background processes. Quite recently a customer got himself a gaming PC that couldn't run each of his existing PC games. The games weren't supported on Win7 and would run only with some third party modifications.
"Advertised as suitable for gaming?" Online Flash games are also games, so that would not be a lie. A while ago someone asked why he had anomalies in AH, and his <Brand> computer was advertised suitable for gaming.
-
Just about any five-year-old computer is able to run Il2FB. Even with onboard Intel graphics. May have to tune down the details, but that's to be expected.
-
Out of curiosity, how many of you would prefer better looking graphics over more realistic visualizations and terrain?
-
What's the difference?
-
Just about any five-year-old computer is able to run Il2FB. Even with onboard Intel graphics. May have to tune down the details, but that's to be expected.
Now that is weird! I just checked the recommended requirements for both IL2 and IL2FB and they look surprisingly low. I could have sworn that those of my friends that played that used to struggle with frame rates and hiccups with optimized gaming oriented computers with at least twice the power of that recommended - not to mention a lightyear past the minimum. I still have a copy of FB for testing purposes, but I've never bothered to install it. When I got it, I had doubts whether my oc'd Thorton would run it with a Radeon 9800 pro... And now they recommend an Athlon XP 1500+ or the Pentium equivalent which rate only halfways of what I had those days. I suppose the details have to be tuned down a lot with an Intel graphics laptop!
-
Just to be clear, those last screens I posted was from games that are essentially from 2003, but updated. They do not represent the state of the art.
State of the art in air combat visual quality: (Set quality to HD and view in fullscreen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgoQyk8bKFA
... Well, actually state of the art two years ago... The details are amazing.
That game is gorgeous, though buggy as hell from what I hear. It is also not really playable on full graphics settings even on a brand new computer from what I have read. I suspect that HTC attempting graphics of that level wouldn't pan out very well.
As far as the earlier screenshots you posted. I think the current engine could replicate them with just some small changes. Mostly I think it is just color and tree model differences.
-
lol why are you so upset is this really that big of a deal in your life right now? How about YOu leave this discussion as you are clearly not adult enough for civil discourse. Your off on a crusade that no longer has anything o do with the discussion at hand.
You're the one on a crusade here. I made my point, proved it right and that's it. End of story.
-
evidently some of the "eye candy" demanders never paid attention to the other discussion...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338931.0.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,338931.0.html)
-
Now that is weird! I just checked the recommended requirements for both IL2 and IL2FB and they look surprisingly low. I could have sworn that those of my friends that played that used to struggle with frame rates and hiccups with optimized gaming oriented computers with at least twice the power of that recommended - not to mention a lightyear past the minimum.
That bunch is famous for selling their product posting insane minimum requirements. You should have seen their requirements for COD when it first came out, I do believe they had to revise due to the screaming in their forums. Not that it was all people were screaming about. The Write was the most atrocious piece of software Ive ever seen released. I dont know where that game is at cause I quit it in disgust. I was getting like 6 FPS while sitting in grass even with a custom build and a GTX580, when it was the new hot card.
It sounds like I was in the same position your friends were. I guess that company figures they just have to get you to buy it and they have done their job. They have just enough fan boys in their forums to keep the money coming in, "personally I think they are employees with multiple forum accounts". Lotsa luck playing that game anywheres near the minimum posted.
Lol, I found an old post on their forum which was one of my last posted.
I dont know whats worse. Ubi's exuses and pity party or the sniveling commiserating of the players they screwed, and now thru some mammalian
herd instinct feel like they have to band together and protect some greedy corporation who just stuck it to them.
Really, I cant stand it anymore. You have no family, friendship, or karmic connection with this company so why is it so hard to stand up like men and say, "you screwed us and were not happy"?
And they ripped you off on purpose. They knew the condition of the game they were accepting money for, AND, releasing. Just like they have known all along they cant deliver to America on the dates they advertised. I bet it wont be here on 24 May 11 either. They are the Svengalis behind this entire episode, to get our $$ flowing their way and get a working product out......whenever.
Im out. I'll check back in in Jul. and see the status of this game then. I'll just play my FPSs. I was really looking forward to this game, you have no idea. But I had to be rideing the rock pipe to pay $50 to download a buggy game from a foreign source.
One thing I do love about Aces High is that it WORKS. Its the best running online game Ive ever seen.
-
What's the difference?
Like seeing a faint reflection of your pilot in the cockpit glass, vs having distinct variations in terrain, such as forest, mountian, desert, and farmland, and metropolitan areas instead of it all being kind of interspersed.
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/BestEyeCandy_zps6b1d898b.png)
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/ContentedEyeCandy_zpsc58da3dc.png)
-
Arlo, unlike HT your not considering the poor users who still have dial up connections, it will take them an extra 20 mins to view this thread because of your poor attempt of a joke and inability to resize images before posting.
And before you reply and say everyone now has broadband, that's not the case I was informed a few months we still have at least one.
As there was some guy who was warping in the MA because he lives out in the desert of Arizona or somewhere and can't get broadband and still using his trusty 32k baud modem. So good to know we are keeping the low download limits for at least one known subscriber still out there.
Please consider this before posting images, thank you.
p.s not confirmed if he is using a laptop with intel graphics chip.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Arlo, unlike HT your not considering the poor users who still have dial up connections, it will take them an extra 20 mins to view this thread because of your poor attempt of a joke and inability to resize images before posting.
And before you reply and say everyone now has broadband, that's not the case I was informed a few months we still have at least one.
As there was some guy who was warping in the MA because he lives out in the desert of Arizona or somewhere and can't get broadband and still using his trusty 32k baud modem. So good to know we are keeping the low download limits for at least one known subscriber still out there.
Please consider this before posting images, thank you.
p.s not confirmed if he is using a laptop with intel graphics chip.
<S>...-Gixer
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/dialup_zps069d9bb4.png)
-
You're the one on a crusade here. I made my point, proved it right and that's it. End of story.
What was your point again? Seems like you got thrown a bone and completely lost your original point.
-
I know, I know. It's a really important thread for the dial-up segment of the community. My bad.
-
I know, I know. It's a really important thread for the dial-up segment of the community. My bad.
Dial-up segment of the community, and just how many more are there living out in the desert? Other than the confirmed one.
The download load limit has been all about keeping costs to a minimum and nothing about catering for a few dial-ups. Most people here probably download in the GBs every month.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Dial-up segment of the community, and just how many more are there living out in the desert? Other than the confirmed one.
The download load limit has been all about keeping costs to a minimum and nothing about catering for a few dial-ups. Most people here probably download in the GBs every month.
<S>...-Gixer
Yr rit & we shd kep typd carctrs to a min as wel. Thk b4 u pst. anythg :salute :cheers: (Gd wht a wste thes emots r)
-
Is there a reason AH can't reduce the view distance to say...10K? Default is 24K (iirc? Hitech mentioned it in a thread but not going to sit through the terribad search bar for that). After 10-12K, you can't even see dots/planes, yet everything else is still rendered, so what's the point? Add some nice fog/haze to cover up the reduced view distance, and now you have more room to add in effects.
Sun rays
Depth of Field
Ambient Occlusion
Tessellation
DX11
Higher Res textures
Improved Lighting
Shadows that doesn't look like someone cut them up with a safety scissor
Actual water
-
Is there a reason AH can't reduce the view distance to say...10K? Default is 24K (iirc? Hitech mentioned it in a thread but not going to sit through the terribad search bar for that). After 10-12K, you can't even see dots/planes, yet everything else is still rendered, so what's the point? Add some nice fog/haze to cover up the reduced view distance, and now you have more room to add in effects.
Sun rays
Depth of Field
Ambient Occlusion
Tessellation
DX11
Higher Res textures
Improved Lighting
Shadows that doesn't look like someone cut them up with a safety scissor
Actual water
+100
also "Shadows that doesn't look like someone cut them up with a safety scissor" :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
That game is gorgeous, though buggy as hell from what I hear. It is also not really playable on full graphics settings even on a brand new computer from what I have read. I suspect that HTC attempting graphics of that level wouldn't pan out very well.
As far as the earlier screenshots you posted. I think the current engine could replicate them with just some small changes. Mostly I think it is just color and tree model differences.
CoD ended up being such a clusterf*ck that it's no longer being supported and instead the next installment was farmed out to a 3rd party developer, the guys that made the fantastic WW1 Rise of Flight sim.
ack-ack
-
What was your point again? Seems like you got thrown a bone and completely lost your original point.
I was never even talking to you wtf are you ranting about? I made my point very clear: The image was photoshopped - easyscor claimed it wasn't.
Now why are you bugging me about this again? Is it over your head or what? :lol
-
I was never even talking to you wtf are you ranting about? I made my point very clear: The image was photoshopped - easyscor claimed it wasn't.
Now why are you bugging me about this again? Is it over your head or what? :lol
Im not on a rant at all. Just wondering if whether the edges were blurred or not was you only concern in this entire thread. Thanks for clearing that up.
-
CoD ended up being such a clusterf*ck that it's no longer being supported and instead the next installment was farmed out to a 3rd party developer, the guys that made the fantastic WW1 Rise of Flight sim.
ack-ack
Yes Cliffs of Dover was a buggy POS that was launched a year too early. However it still represents the state of the art in visual quality for a flight sim.
It is a lot better now though with community patches and mods. Online play is very good if you're into scenarios rather than furballing.
Some online play from JG52: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn6umUtXpWk
-
Stunning graphics, makes one wonder why AH can't even get the basics of light/shadows right.
Let alone the terrain etc.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Stunning graphics, makes one wonder why AH can't even get the basics of light/shadows right.
Let alone the terrain etc.
<S>...-Gixer
HTC is a small company with limited resources. They have to prioritize tasks. In addition to this AH is a very old product which has been gradually updated - but probably a lot of old code and design limitations still hang on. To update the graphics to Cliffs of Ben Dover level would mean a whole graphics engine rewrite most likely or having to license an engine from outside. I'm sure HT is balancing the cost / payoff ratio very closely when making the devel guidelines. In the end I think most players play AH solely for the gameplay experience and only secondarily for eye candy. If they wanted only eye candy they'd flock to WT and the likes.
-
I tried to get back into AH, but I only lasted one sortie. Just couldn't handle the dated look. And to be blunt... The AI in most other flight sims give me a better fight than most players in AH now.
-
I tried to get back into AH, but I only lasted one sortie. Just couldn't handle the dated look. And to be blunt... The AI in most other flight sims give me a better fight than most players in AH now.
You got your hiney handed to you that fast? Don't worry, it will pass once you get used to the game again.
-
I tried to get back into AH, but I only lasted one sortie. Just couldn't handle the dated look. And to be blunt... The AI in most other flight sims give me a better fight than most players in AH now.
<sigh> Ive noticed a lot less Euro players.
-
I tried to get back into AH, but I only lasted one sortie. (...) The AI in most other flight sims give me a better fight than most players in AH now.
How do you know that with only one sortie? :headscratch:
-
I re-upped my account after God knows how long since I played last. I took off... Looked at the dated state of the game... Landed with five pelts in a 30 ENY plane. Logged off.
-
:rofl
So if you accidentally had run into a top player killing you skillfully in a matter of seconds, would you have concluded from that single incident that today's avg. skill level is higher than ever? ;)
-
I was rusty, but not THAT rusty. ;)
-
HTC is a small company with limited resources... In the end I think most players play AH solely for the gameplay experience and only secondarily for eye candy. If they wanted only eye candy they'd flock to WT and the likes.
Then grow the company, develop a community to increase resources like a lot of the new game developers are doing. It's been over 14 years with the same old engine, if increasing resources or bringing in outside paid help to assist with a new engine is what's required then it should be done and should of started over 10 years ago.
Sure we all take gameplay experience over eye candy, but the gameplay is declining due to the ever reducing numbers and one of the mains reasons for that is the dated graphics at a premium price for an online game. Off peak numbers are around 50 players, peak times about 300-400
It's not just a simple matter of saying gameplay over eye candy it's the eye candy which helps to create the sim in the first place, better eye candy = increased immersion & realism and for whats suppose to be a sim that is very important. Also a new engine would have improved physics and FM.
You only have to look at this years racing sims in beta to see the advancement in physics compared to racing sims of 5 years ago, even just 2 years ago. Project Cars which is shaping up to be the most advanced of them all to be released this year and its a small community developed sim, not some major gaming house.
Graphics,visuals,realism,physics,FM is what will draw in and hold new customers as well as keep the old ones. People seem to think you can't have good FM,physics as well as good graphics and use console games to defend that argument which is completely untrue, no reason why you can't have all those things in one sim.
Starting to think that HT has no future plan for AH. Unless there is a major update soon with a completely new engine not just a few added effects, models and textures like AH2 over AH1. AH is at risk of slowly dying off if it hasn't already started to do so a few years ago.
<S>...-Gixer
-
I tried to get back into AH, but I only lasted one sortie. Just couldn't handle the dated look. And to be blunt... The AI in most other flight sims give me a better fight than most players in AH now.
so basically you're sitting in these forums talking stupid about how bad something is that you have no stake in...figures. if you have that much time, go build your own mmo flight sim, i'm sure you can do better.
You only have to look at this years racing sims in beta to see the advancement in physics compared to racing sims of 5 years ago, even just 2 years ago. Project Cars which is shaping up to be the most advanced of them all to be released this year and its a small community developed sim, not some major gaming house.
pcars has been in beta for years and it stinks compared to iracing. the physics aren't any better and the graphics are just slightly better (they've done good with the dynamic lighting effects). by the time its actually playable, it should be the top of the line racing sim bar none...it's taken long enough just to get where it is now.
-
Do you have any "stake" in this game? Would explain the fanboi defense...
-
In the end I think most players play AH solely for the gameplay experience and only secondarily for eye candy. If they wanted only eye candy they'd flock to WT and the likes.
If I were playing the role of the Devil's Advocate, I'd say: "Yes, those that are still playing. Which are a lot less than it used to be."
:noid
-
pcars has been in beta for years and it stinks compared to iracing. the physics aren't any better and the graphics are just slightly better (they've done good with the dynamic lighting effects). by the time its actually playable, it should be the top of the line racing sim bar none...it's taken long enough just to get where it is now.
Wasn't making a pcars vs iracing which is best comparison, just pointing out how far physics for sim racing have come especially in last few years, iracing especially included.
If pcars has been in beta for a long time and is developed by a community and not a major gaming house then at least that's better than nothing in development other than releasing odd new plane or tank for last few years into the same old sandpit.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Do you have any "stake" in this game? Would explain the fanboi defense...
actually yes, i do as do the other paying subscribers...i'm far from a fanboi as you appear to be for maddox and the crap ubisoft has been putting out.
-
Then grow the company, develop a community to increase resources like a lot of the new game developers are doing. It's been over 14 years with the same old engine, if increasing resources or bringing in outside paid help to assist with a new engine is what's required then it should be done and should of started over 10 years ago.
I know first hand what kind of challenges small software companies face. When you have only so much resources, doing a full update to your product is a very painful experience and if you pull it wrong it can lead to a lot of customer dissatisfaction.
We're currently in the middle of the third major revamp in our product and it's going to slow down or halt any development to the older version for many many months before the new kernel is ready for production. Last revamp lead to a full year of stagnation - luckily the previous version was at a level that we were not pressed to constantly update it.
Doing a major jump in the engine would require a major investment from HTC - I'm guessing the current subscriber level does not enable any drastic increases in development power especially when any new coder must first be accustomed to the existing codebase before he can even begin work. HTC has the option to get some investor money and make a risk move to F2P/Premium accounts for example but usually it means losing control of the company in the process and us, the end users would risk losing the game. Investors do not really care about anything but returns so they could just pull the plug at any time and end AH history.
-
If pcars has been in beta for a long time and is developed by a community and not a major gaming house then at least that's better than nothing in development other than releasing odd new plane or tank for last few years into the same old sandpit.
<S>...-Gixer
that's pretty much where pcars will end up unless there is a continual change of the base game engine, even iracing with their decent sized staff has been slow in that department. the effects of such changes to existing customers can be detrimental to the bottom line, more so than no changes at all. are you assuming that htc has no plans to make any changes to ah other than add some content? not sure i would make the same assumption, even though there seems to be some reticence to even make the jump to directx 10. it would be a decent change functionally though it wouldn't necessarily bring out the glossy eye candy people are wanting.
-
AH is better now than it was ten years ago, so why do we not want to play it you may ask. The thing is that ten years ago AH wasn't so far behind the competition in visual quality, and as an overall experience AH was superior, largely due to the single arena massive multiplayer gameplay. Now however, the AH experience, marred by its dated look, is overshadowed by the overall experience of other products that have evolved with the available technology. The single arena gameplay is no longer able to tip the scales in favor of AH in the overall experience. Now, other games offer a better experience, even in single player mode against AI that is much better than what was available ten years ago. AH needs to evolve or die; it's Darwinism.
-
I know first hand what kind of challenges small software companies face. When you have only so much resources, doing a full update to your product is a very painful experience and if you pull it wrong it can lead to a lot of customer dissatisfaction.
Actually a similar thing already happened to AH in the past. The transition from AH1 to AH2 was apparently a rather painful one, with a big cut in MA activity and player numbers. According to the stats, it took a long time to recover.
-
... Double post.
-
gotta love Scholz...he loves to compare apples to oranges and wonders why people only smell poop with his comparisons.
when x-plane or any of the other stuff you marvel at can handle 300 people on a single map without needing top of the line computers...then come back and tell us what's what.
-
Laminar Research is a one-man-company that produces the X-Plane simulator, now in it's 10th iteration, and it looks gorgeous. The Strike Fighters series of jet combat simulators is largely made by one guy and a tiny team. Being a small developer does not justify falling this much behind.
This is a one-man company product: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pCo3bILdkk#!
-
gotta love Scholz...he loves to compare apples to oranges and wonders why people only smell poop with his comparisons.
when x-plane or any of the other stuff you marvel at can handle 300 people on a single map without needing top of the line computers...then come back and tell us what's what.
Again, visual quality has nothing to do with how many players that can play.
-
gotta love Scholz...he loves to compare apples to oranges and wonders why people only smell poop with his comparisons.
when x-plane or any of the other stuff you marvel at can handle 300 people on a single map without needing top of the line computers...then come back and tell us what's what.
Ever played Planetside 2? Up to 2,000 players on a singe large map (called "continents"), on foot, in vehicles or in aircraft.
(http://media1.gameinformer.com/imagefeed/featured/sonyonlineentertainment/planetside/planetside2/flash610.jpg)
-
Yes Cliffs of Dover was a buggy POS that was launched a year too early. However it still represents the state of the art in visual quality for a flight sim.
It is a lot better now though with community patches and mods. Online play is very good if you're into scenarios rather than furballinging
Some online play from JG52: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn6umUtXpWk
watched almost the entire vid.. that is just awesome.. do you play it? I noticed the comment that sometimes you can't find a fight... how would you rate the action?
-
Yeah, I play it, but not online. Not yet anyway. Playing it on full realism is quite the learning curve...
-
Ever played Planetside 2? Up to 2,000 players on a singe large map (called "continents"), on foot, in vehicles or in aircraft.
(http://media1.gameinformer.com/imagefeed/featured/sonyonlineentertainment/planetside/planetside2/flash610.jpg)
even after posting this you will still get the same argument. . can't have nice visuals and play with hundreds of folk on the same map.. its sad..
joint operations had 250player servers over 10years ago..
-
Yeah, I play it, but not online. Not yet anyway. Playing it on full realism is quite the learning curve...
is FR the only online option?
-
I'm sorry, "FR"?
-
Ever played Planetside 2? Up to 2,000 players on a singe large map (called "continents"), on foot, in vehicles or in aircraft.
(http://media1.gameinformer.com/imagefeed/featured/sonyonlineentertainment/planetside/planetside2/flash610.jpg)
so you would be ok with maybe 2 miles of visibility from the air? maybe if you ask real nicely, you can convince Hitech to switch over to the sony proprietary game engine that planetside uses...
-
I'm sorry, "FR"?
hehe sorry, flasback to airwarrior days... full realism..
-
See rule #4
-
is FR the only online option?
Probably not, but I guess that's where the action is. I'm an "FR" guy anyways ;)
-
even after posting this you will still get the same argument. . can't have nice visuals and play with hundreds of folk on the same map.. its sad..
joint operations had 250player servers over 10years ago..
i played joint ops...as well as all of the black hawk down games. the joint ops servers held 150 players, not 250. and the graphics weren't of the quality to support your argument.
(http://cdn.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/32700/0000008997.1920x1080.jpg?t=1353440283)
-
Over ten years ago that was pretty good.
-
Boy am I sorry I bumped this thread.
Apparently, most of you trashing the game don't subscribe so you can't see new developments anyway.
Oh well.
-
i played joint ops...as well as all of the black hawk down games. the joint ops servers held 150 players, not 250. and the graphics weren't of the quality to support your argument.
(http://cdn.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/32700/0000008997.1920x1080.jpg?t=1353440283)
lol, it was sweet for it's day... and you must not have played enough, the 'orange bowl' server was 250players..
-
I was wondering what fanboi excuse you would come up with next. HTC already has the netcode. HTC already has the flight models. HTC already has the strategic system. HTC already has the server system.
like i said, maybe if you asked real nicely you could convince him to buy into the sony proprietary game engine...so you can have the eye candy.
-
Why would I? I'm not the begging kind of customer. I'm the kind of customer that takes his money elsewhere. There are plenty of good GFX engines available to license. There are even a few free open source ones that are far better than what they use now.
-
Boy am I sorry I bumped this thread.
Apparently, most of you trashing the game don't subscribe so you can't see new developments anyway.
Oh well.
You forget that the game can be downloaded and tested offline without a subscription.
-
Why would I? I'm not the begging kind of customer. I'm the kind of customer that takes his money elsewhere. There are plenty of good GFX engines available to license. There are even a few free open source ones that are far better than what they use now.
then, once again, what are you doing trolling the forums here?...you've obviously found something better, go do it.
-
I'm here to check on the progress of the game, and to keep up on current events. I don't need your permission or approval.
-
I'm here to check on the progress of the game, and to keep up on current events. I don't need your permission or approval.
You can do bout without trying to influence popular opinion, until you pay up sit there and keep quiet. :uhoh
-
"Both", and no. :aok
I will "influence" all I want within the rules of the forum; why would I be checking on the progress of the game unless I was hoping for some improvement that would lead me to play again?
-
You can do bout without trying to influence popular opinion, until you pay up sit there and keep quiet. :uhoh
popular opinion? other than a few fanbois here, i think the opinion is the game is dated..
you don't have to read what he post you know.. self control is crucial 8)
-
It was satire, yes It would be nice to see improvement, and yes hearing what would bring people back and make them stay is important aswell, however, at this point would you rather have more a/c gv's, new maps, a new stat system or a new engine?
-
It was satire, yes It would be nice to see improvement, and yes hearing what would bring people back and make them stay is important aswell, however, at this point would you rather have more a/c gv's, new maps, a new stat system or a new engine?
Engine.. all that other stuff has been added thru the years and look where we are.. I've been steadily paying for this game for a long long time.. Don't guess I've missed a month in many years.. Honestly, the only thing that keeps me paying is the group I fly with.. If they would kick me out, i'd be gone too.. I would bet big money that I am not alone in my thinking..
-
Actually a similar thing already happened to AH in the past. The transition from AH1 to AH2 was apparently a rather painful one, with a big cut in MA activity and player numbers. According to the stats, it took a long time to recover.
That's because myself and a lot of other players expected AH2 to be an upgrade of AH1 with a new engine or a significant upgrade. It was a big surprise after all the wait and hype that AH2 looked and felt exactly the same as AH1, most of aircraft, models etc were still exactly the same. Other than for a few new objects, textures, effects etc. It was just another upgrade of the existing engine from beta days which even at that time was starting to look very dated.
Subsequently I closed my account and didn't return fully for another 3 years, and for me that pattern has continued come back see what's changed if there is any news of an update and then close account again, think I've had about 6 accounts in past 13 years.
<S>...-Gixer
-
It was satire, yes It would be nice to see improvement, and yes hearing what would bring people back and make them stay is important aswell, however, at this point would you rather have more a/c gv's, new maps, a new stat system or a new engine?
Absolutely a new engine because with that you can get real new maps and a new stat system. The existing one has gone as far as it can go development wise. That's why graphic performance is relatively poor for the visuals here, because it's a dated CPU intensive design, doesn't take advantage of GPUs of even 7 years ago and now doesn't even take advantage of latest CPUs as still single/dual core design.
Doesn't matter how many textures you map onto a pyramid mountain, it's still going to look like a pyramid due to the underlying mesh, poly count. New maps on the existing engine aren't going to help AH2 into the next 2 years and beyond.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Absolutely a new engine because with that you can get real new maps and a new stat system.
...
<S>...-Gixer
No, you won't. Why would we get a new strat system with a new terrain engine? That isn't logical because the two are independent, just like the flight model and other modules of the game engine.
A new terrain engine with more vertices would probably interpolate between existing verts with some random variance but they would be the same terrains we have now. It would take brand new terrains, or manually reworked ones to see natural differences in the ground mapping in the MA. The more features htc adds to a new terrain engine, the longer it will take to create new terrains and the heavier the load on the player's hardware (and it wouldn't be verts alone.)
If you two are only talking about MA terrains, then yes, you can download those terrains for offline play but if you aren't subscribing then no, you can't see the same thing that subscribers can see because the latest terrains are not available to you. They can only be downloaded through the AvA or the custom arenas. Ranger's textures aren't available, jimson's lighthouse and his several target aircraft aren't available and neither are the bluffs of Normandy and other features in avachanl
Oh but wait, now you'll declare those don't count because they're not MA terrains. Well, none of the game terrains shown/listed in this thread support an MA style terrain so keep it apples to apples. They all seem to have terrains based on real world locations and we have that in both SEA and the AvA terrains. And some of ours are pretty competitive with theirs.
I've said I'd like more verts and a couple of bridges in the terrain but hey, I'm sure you'll brand me a fanboi anyway.
I always look for a balance of two things when I look at Aces High, quality and playability. Whether it's a planeset in an event or a custom object with supper high definition graphics, it must balance playability or no one will show up.
-
I was never even talking to you wtf are you ranting about? I made my point very clear: The image was photoshopped - easyscor claimed it wasn't.
Now why are you bugging me about this again? Is it over your head or what? :lol
First of all, I don't think easyscor was the one who took that screenshot.
The blurriness was the only altered part of the image and since when does blurriness artificially enhance the graphic detail of an image?
You seem to be insinuating that the terrain does not actually look that good.
You're right, it looks better. It's not blurry.
-
First of all, I don't think easyscor was the one who took that screenshot.
The blurriness was the only altered part of the image and since when does blurriness artificially enhance the graphic detail of an image?
You seem to be insinuating that the terrain does not actually look that good.
You're right, it looks better. It's not blurry.
People, really. You need to stop posting if you don't even bother to read the posts!
I said that many other engines have focus and blur effects which AH doesn't have. And even if they didn't - YOU JUST DON'T POST PHOTOSHOPPED PICTURES WHEN YOU DISCUSS ABOUT THE ENGINE IMAGE QUALITY. Period.
-
No, you won't. Why would we get a new strat system with a new terrain engine? That isn't logical because the two are independent, just like the flight model and other modules of the game engine.
Yes they are independent but it is very logical to do, if you are going to invest time and resources into a new engine you would also take the time out to build a new strat system with the new version.
And a new strat system would be easier to build from scratch on top of a new version than to try and build one with the parts already available.
<S>...-Gixer
-
People, really. You need to stop posting if you don't even bother to read the posts!
I said that many other engines have focus and blur effects which AH doesn't have. And even if they didn't - YOU JUST DON'T POST PHOTOSHOPPED PICTURES WHEN YOU DISCUSS ABOUT THE ENGINE IMAGE QUALITY. Period.
HE WASN'T REFERRING TO THE FOCUS AND BLUR EFFECTS. THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE A SCREENSHOT THAT SOMEONE ELSE POSTED THAT SHOWED THE OTHER DETAIL OF THE TERRAIN HE WAS REFERRING TO.
Seriously though, aside from the blur effects, the picture accurately showed what the terrain looks like.
It's not as though he used photoshop to add detail and color vibrancy that isn't there. I think if he had had a handy screenshot that didn't have edge blur he would have used it.
-
HE WASN'T REFERRING TO THE FOCUS AND BLUR EFFECTS. THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE A SCREENSHOT THAT SOMEONE ELSE POSTED THAT SHOWED THE OTHER DETAIL OF THE TERRAIN HE WAS REFERRING TO.
Seriously though, aside from the blur effects, the picture accurately showed what the terrain looks like.
It's not as though he used photoshop to add detail and color vibrancy that isn't there.
It makes no difference whatsoever. I said the photo was photoshopped (as it clearly was), he claimed it wasn't. The whole argument spawned from that obvious flaw. Someone tried (poorly) to enhance the image by adding a fake focus effect on it using blur. Even though it was a bad job, you just don't post manipulated images as 'proof' of how good graphics are.
-
Seriously though, aside from the blur effects, the picture accurately showed what the terrain looks like.
:lol
And there's the core of the problem in the first place and reason for this thread. Photoshopped or not the terrain looks terrible and very dated even at max detail.
<S>...-Gixer
-
Jimson Ripleys whole reason for being in the thread are the blurred edges, that it. The guy cant see reason and gosh darn it you better start to see things his way.
-
Well, at first glance I saw an out of focus image, not an enhanced image. There was no deliberate deception here.
I am done with this stupid discussion.
-
Jimson Ripleys whole reason for being in the thread are the blurred edges, that it. The guy cant see reason and gosh darn it you better start to see things his way.
Exactly. If some of you are too dense to realize that artificial focus effect is a no-no when trying to show something from a game engine then I don't know what to say anymore.
-
Well, at first glance I saw an out of focus image, not an enhanced image. There was no deliberate deception here.
I am done with this stupid discussion.
Someone made an effort to enhance the image - a botched up job but an effort anyway. Which is why I pointed out it was shopped.
-
Now, now, MrRiplEy, that's ridiculous. It was a teaser for the AvA.
-
Now, now, MrRiplEy, that's ridiculous. It was a teaser for the AvA.
LOL if you would have said 'yes' when I noted your image had been photoshopped we wouldn't even have this discussion. What was your motive to deny it was altered?
-
I didn't know it was altered. I stated what I thought about it at the time. Stop looking for conspiracies.
-
I didn't know it was altered. I stated what I thought about it at the time. Stop looking for conspiracies.
LOL his whole point is moot hes just being an arse because I guess he can be.
-
LOL his whole point is moot hes just being an arse because I guess he can be.
The point is not moot - the picture either is or is not photoshopped. There is no middle road.
Let's say you have a thread discussing how good your wives look... You don't post photoshopped images to 'prove' the looks of your better half. :devil
-
You heroes have an amazing ability to pointlessly hijack a thread and drag it on for pages without making a relevant point. :cheers:
-
Someone raised up the question why people have left the game during these years AH has existed and explained it with outdated graphics. I'm not saying I wouldn't like to see some improvement in them, but seriously, I wouldn't blame the graphics. People tend to get other things to do. Many who have left the game have got a family, got a job instead of endless studying, anything that real life can bring. If the graphics played such an important role, why do the better looking games last only a few years? How many IL2 pioneers are still playing its later variations, for example? During these years I've been online there's been a bunch of novelties luring fellow AH'ers. What makes them return after half a year or so?
My monthly online hours can nowadays be counted with fingers, but it's not due to graphics, it's because the guys I used to fly with are online equally seldom. Each time we manage to get a bigger part of the "old gang" together, the game is just as fun as it used to be.
-
The problem isn't people leaving; there will always be some people leaving after a while for many reasons, some of which you've mentioned. The problem is that with such outdated visuals AH is ill equipped to attract new customers to replace those who leave.
-
Dial-up segment of the community, and just how many more are there living out in the desert? Other than the confirmed one.
The download load limit has been all about keeping costs to a minimum and nothing about catering for a few dial-ups. Most people here probably download in the GBs every month.
<S>...-Gixer
I'm dial-up!....so is another guy in my squad. When signal is good, my smart phone does a nice job. At any rate, a 42k connection and 225 SMOOTH ping runs this game fine. For large updates, I throw the laptop on the family truckster, and drive 2 miles to the public library, and use their wifi
-
I'm dial-up!....so is another guy in my squad. When signal is good, my smart phone does a nice job. At any rate, a 42k connection and 225 SMOOTH ping runs this game fine. For large updates, I throw the laptop on the family truckster, and drive 2 miles to the public library, and use their wifi
So larger files wouldn't affect you really. The graphics are rendered locally so your data requirements within the game wouldn't change and you already use other options to do the large downloads.
I am curious what HTC's view on this subject is.
-
funny thing is, not one of the geniuses saying it's possible to do what htc is doing with much higher graphics, has shown any proof that any other developer is actually doing it. if it were possible, a developer would have done it by now.
-
funny thing is, not one of the geniuses saying it's possible to do what htc is doing with much higher graphics, has shown any proof that any other developer is actually doing it. if it were possible, a developer would have done it by now.
You already forgot my Planetside 2 post? Maybe you should see a doctor about this... ;)
-
You already forgot my Planetside 2 post? Maybe you should see a doctor about this... ;)
ah i see, the stupid has engrained itself in you...here, this should help.
aces high = flight simulator, not first person shooter.
and i've played planetside 2...not what you're looking for as an example.
-
Planetside 2 also simulates weird futuristic aircraft and vehicles. 2,000 players on a single map. Hell, even Il2 Cliffs of Dover supports 100+ players on persistent servers running 24/7 with player statistics and a huge map covering France, the Channel and Britain. AH was special ten years ago in that regard.
-
Planetside 2 also simulates weird futuristic aircraft and vehicles.
They also don't render items that are there when it gets too crowded. That I know of, AH doesn't do that at all.
Wiley.
-
I don't know how many player aircraft/vehicles AH can render inside each player "bubble", but the number 64 has been mentioned earlier in this thread.
-
I don't know how many player aircraft/vehicles AH can render inside each player "bubble", but the number 64 has been mentioned earlier in this thread.
In reference to other games only, as far as I can tell.
Wiley.
-
(http://i1197.photobucket.com/albums/aa433/arloguh03/TroopsAHII_zpscfc6977e.png)
"Damn, sarg. This terrain could use some improvement."
"What, are you loco, private? Look at them pretty flowers."
"Well, they are kinda pret .."
"Shaddap, ya pansy. Move it!"
-
In reference to other games only, as far as I can tell.
Wiley.
I'm sorry, the number was 48 not 64.
No it won't... IIRC even AH2 has a limit of 48 simultaneous players on visible range, after that things start becoming invisible. You only need to render the stuff you see, and by seeing I mean visual range. No point rendering things which are too small or too far away for the players to notice anyway - it makes no difference how large the maps are in the end. The real challenge is to get the main server and the netcode not to choke under the player load.
-
I'm sorry, the number was 48 not 64.
:rofl you're taking Ripley's word for it? :rofl
-
Any reason I should not? Please do tell.
-
I'm sorry, the number was 48 not 64.
Hmp. If that is the case, not stellar. Pretty sure I have seen bigger hordes clashing but I wasn't counting at the time. I'd be slightly surprised if that is the number, WBs did over 100 I am pretty much positive. It doesn't seem logical they would have made the limit smaller but who knows? I saw WBs hit the limit once. It sucked.
Wiley.
-
48 is incorrect!
The game was updated some time back, IDRW, and it can render 64 ICONS,the amount of dots you see is another matter.
:salute
-
So whats the problem with having good graphics and a great flight model? Some peoples computers won't be able to run it? In my opinion the only reason we are loosing players is because of the graphics. They see things like World of Planes and the like and go straight to it. Sadly accuracy of a flight model isn't that important to the younger generation of gamers now a days because they simply don't know any better. They see shiny things in a free game and flock to it like flies on... well... you get the idea... :noid
-
Any reason I should not? Please do tell.
Well in this case he has a point - I pulled the number off memory it could be something else too nowadays. But what is clear anyway is that AH does _not_ support 600 or even 100 players simultaneously in a players visible field. So in that sense both the talk about map size or player numbers are invalid graphics engine wise.
-
48 is incorrect!
The game was updated some time back, IDRW, and it can render 64 ICONS,the amount of dots you see is another matter.
:salute
Dots do not matter when we talk about graphics. Only thing that matters is the level of detail - a GPU can easily draw a million dots at any given time. But it can't draw a million 3D models with shaders etc.
-
The point is not moot - the picture either is or is not photoshopped. There is no middle road.
Let's say you have a thread discussing how good your wives look... You don't post photoshopped images to 'prove' the looks of your better half. :devil
I might photoshop a heart border around it to focus attention to her and not the surrounding room, but by doing that wouldn't it by your definition void the entire photo?
-
I might photoshop a heart border around it to focus attention to her and not the surrounding room, but by doing that wouldn't it by your definition void the entire photo?
Adding soft filter to hide her acne would definately fall in the category if you know what I mean! The point was - if someone added blur on photoshop there's no saying what other modifications have been made to the image also. And secondary point was (for the third time) that other game engines actually have focus effects, motion blur etc. which may or may not give artificial depth and sense of speed to images. That's why no AH screenshot should have this kind of effects postprocessed if the discussion is about game engine abilities instead of community photoshop skills.
-
But what is clear anyway is that AH does _not_ support 600 or even 100 players simultaneously in a players visible field. So in that sense both the talk about map size or player numbers are invalid graphics engine wise.
Dots do not matter when we talk about graphics. Only thing that matters is the level of detail - a GPU can easily draw a million dots at any given time. But it can't draw a million 3D models with shaders etc.
you're forgetting that ah caches all the skins of every aircraft and gv out to 6000 yards whether you can see clearly it or not. call it a program flaw if you want but, it saves a lot of hardware cycles.
what you and the others are claiming can be accomplished with greater detail at the level of ah and warbirds without requiring more computing power than most of us can afford, hasn't been done by anyone. if it were possible, considering 2 new mmo flight sims have just recently been brought to the market, someone would have done it by now.
-
Adding soft filter to hide her acne would definately fall in the category if you know what I mean! The point was - if someone added blur on photoshop there's no saying what other modifications have been made to the image also. And secondary point was (for the third time) that other game engines actually have focus effects, motion blur etc. which may or may not give artificial depth and sense of speed to images. That's why no AH screenshot should have this kind of effects postprocessed if the discussion is about game engine abilities instead of community photoshop skills.
easyscor did know that despite the blur effect which he may not have been able to really distinguish as a deliberate effect, that the screen shot did otherwise correctly show what it looked like.
Fair enough?
-
Like I said gyrene, Cliffs of Dover is running 100+ players now with no player "bubble". That's a hundred planes in visual range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz6286jMi7o
And btw. I'm usually getting better framerates in Il2 CoD than in AH. Especially near the ground.
-
Like I said gyrene, Cliffs of Dover is running 100+ players now with no player "bubble". That's a hundred planes in visual range.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz6286jMi7o
And btw. I'm usually getting better framerates in Il2 CoD than in AH. Especially near the ground.
Yep it's all about the engine. Correct optimization can pull out 1000 times the performance from the same hardware.
-
Dots do not matter when we talk about graphics. Only thing that matters is the level of detail - a GPU can easily draw a million dots at any given time. But it can't draw a million 3D models with shaders etc.
Ok but whats that got to do with my post? I was only supplying the correct information on the rendered A/C.
:salute
-
Well in this case he has a point - I pulled the number off memory it could be something else too nowadays. But what is clear anyway is that AH does _not_ support 600 or even 100 players simultaneously in a players visible field. So in that sense both the talk about map size or player numbers are invalid graphics engine wise.
Up to 256 visible planes/vehicles, depending on the arena.
-
Skuzzy is incorrect, you will see EVERYONE in the game who is in visible range.
The system will provide slower updates based on the people who are the farthest away.
HiTech
-
Now lock this!
-
Thanks for clearing that up Hitech.
A terrain question. What stops you from enabling another arena that allows much better terrain features such as many custom objects and more vectors for the terrain itself thus making it appear realistic? If the current engine is not nearly maxed out then where is the harm done by giving us a cool sandbox to show off the true capabilities?
-
Very nice netcode system HTC's got there (yes I'm going to take his word for it Gyrene). Like I said, they have the netcode, they have the FM, they have a lot of good 3D models; they have everything they need to make a truly great game, except the visuals, immersive sound and overall polish.
-
If the current engine is not nearly maxed out then where is the harm done by giving us a cool sandbox to show off the true capabilities?
The harm is ANYTHING I do takes away from something else.
HiTech
-
Very nice netcode system HTC's got there (yes I'm going to take his word for it Gyrene). Like I said, they have the netcode, they have the FM, they have a lot of good 3D models; they have everything they need to make a truly great game, except the visuals, immersive sound and overall polish.
You act as though polishing the game would automatically up the subscriptions by 50% or something. Or maybe you think the number of players would triple over the next two years :rolleyes:.
Its not graphics driving people away, its the (reasonable) $15/mo, the fact that there is an actual learning curve, and the fact that the target audience is very, very small.
-
I wouldn't presume to know. I can only speak for myself, and in my case it is the dated look of the game. Everything else is fine/top-notch.
-
Just look at WoT. The graphics there are poor, even if the visualizations are good (and even then, only in some areas). It took off very quickly, and has a strong player base.
Why? 1) it was free, and so at least worth a try. 2) A tiered system and arcade gameplay, so the learning curve is fairly gentle. 3) They appealed to a larger target audience; WWII gamers, arcade gamers, tank lovers, German fanbois, 'Murica enthusiasts, Commie-lovers, the Chinese. Their player base is drawn from everywhere. AH on the other hand is primarily in North America.
-
Just look at WoT. The graphics there are poor, even if the visualizations are good (and even then, only in some areas). It took off very quickly, and has a strong player base.
Why? 1) it was free, and so at least worth a try. 2) A tiered system and arcade gameplay, so the learning curve is fairly gentle. 3) They appealed to a larger target audience; WWII gamers, arcade gamers, tank lovers, German fanbois, 'Murica enthusiasts, Commie-lovers, the Chinese. Their player base is drawn from everywhere. AH on the other hand is primarily in North America.
The difference is, it doesn't take a whole lot of manual dexterity, muscle memory, or quick reactive thinking to be competent in a tank. A decent flight simulator, not so much.
Wiley.
-
WoT graphics are not poor. They are not stellar, but far from poor.
(http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/9/7/6/1/WoT_Screens_Tanks_Germany_Aufklarerpanzer_Panther_Image_01.jpg.jpg)
-
WoT graphics are not poor. They are not stellar, but far from poor.
(http://images.eurogamer.net/2013/articles//a/1/5/6/9/7/6/1/WoT_Screens_Tanks_Germany_Aufklarerpanzer_Panther_Image_01.jpg.jpg)
looks awesome.
I have all the latest games......with the great graphics.....when I do actually play a game what one do you think it is....
Aces High......ya the graphics are not the best....but everything else is top notch...
I do understand the tankers in AH wanting better graphics...but me I only fly fighters in fighter mode.....so the graphics are a moot point...... it is all about the Ariel Combat......I dont care what the ground looks like from thousands of feet in the Air :D
-
The difference is, it doesn't take a whole lot of manual dexterity, muscle memory, or quick reactive thinking to be competent in a tank. A decent flight simulator, not so much.
Wiley.
No, but arguably being a good tanker is almost as hard. You need to be more aware of your surroundings at all three levels, you need to be able to quickly judge range, and have some sort of 'feel' for where the enemy is likely to be. And frankly, you need to be more clever in a tank; its the sneaky bastards who park their rust colored T-34/85s next to the rust colored barns that will do the best.
What WoT has done is simplify that down to heavily assisted SA, and an assisted feel for where the enemy is.
WoT graphics are not poor. They are not stellar, but far from poor.
Ehh.... they just seem a tad stylized. Hard to point things out in specific, theres just a feel to them; some of corners seem a bit rounded, perhaps some lines seem slightly curved when they should be strait. And really, the metal just doesn't seem quite like metal; something to do with how the light plays off it makes it look more like textured and painted ABS at times. And the color is just too... vivid.
Its clearly not meant to be an accurate portrayal of reality, its meant to be an impression of a specific part of reality; bright vivid terrain, hot sandy desert and exquisite pastel sky, or grey rubble-strewn streets and confining overcast as the back drop for clanking low-profiled machines, flying splinters, fallen trees, destroyed houses, and firey explosions.
-
Oh it's definitively stylized and over saturated. I don't think that's accidental, but by design. It's clearly an arcade game and not a simulator.