Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Charge on April 26, 2013, 01:35:35 PM
-
As was previously (and very briefly) pointed out the idea that a game engine needs to develop to keep up with the new games is not necessarily true with AH, while it may be true with games aimed at other customers and genres. This is my understanding why:
As you may have noticed many other games have moved to bigger audiences with the introduction of "vanity" system where basic game play is free but all the better stuff and gadgets cost money, indirectly, but still. That is the way to ensure the cash flow and that kind of development is usually result of the game being sold to a bigger company to provide a steady financial base. But those games need to have all the newest eyecandy to attract new players, and that all the time as the player base in those games is not very steady, in fact the majority of new players quit quite soon and even the old times stay a year of so until everything is pretty much seen, or bought.
Take World of Tanks for a recent example. It looks good and while many vehicles and equipment have a real life basis there is a lot of fantasy equipment available and the system is certainly not a simulation and it really cannot be due to general mechanics of the gameplay. While it retains some features of a simulation it still is an arcade game in everything. And because of that they play on different rules to attract customers who do not necessarily even realize that the tanks in that game existed decades ago while the others never existed at all, but it does not matter if it all looks good.
It was also interesting to try eg. War & Thunder and boy it sure looks sweet. BUT the map is small, a fraction of that of AH's and the flight model is very arcadish while it manages to grasp the general feeling rather well but everything in it screams ARCADE. But it does not hurt if it brings up players who get interested on topic and maybe they eventually wander in to Aces High to try a more hardcore simulation and what is IMO the best of Aces High: the scenarios.
The huge majority of players in those games are not even interested in simulation aspect nor do they intend to stick with a game for years. All in all a game, or simulation, which has lasted a decade with many of its original players is still a fluke and in that way Aces High is a very interesting exception, and thus also plays with different rules compared to mainstream massive multiplayer games.
Of course it is an unfortunate fact that hardcore simulators do not attract big audiences (partly because of steep learning curve in game play) but they attract players who stick with the same game easily for a decade if the topic is something they have been interested about since childhood, as many of you and I have. What is also difficult for a simulation maker is that as the paying audience tends to stay small it gets more demanding all the time as all the data that is part of the game becomes or has been their long time hobby. This leads to a constant demand for higher historical accuracy which is hard to maintain due to nature of the data.
All in all I'd say that Aces High needs more other new features than enhanced graphics. If the ground war would be upgraded that would alone cause a major overhaul to terrain system to keep it on par with, say, WW2Online. And that would only be half of the work. New terrain objects, towns, more accurate maps etc etc. and all that would be a problem for the air aspect as many of those eye candy games need to use workarounds to keep the game playable for those who like to fly. Imagine AH with a fog that obscures the terrain almost completely when flying up high as is the case in WW2Online with its high detail ground. I'd say what ever the graphics many players would not tolerate such development in a game that is supposed to be mainly about flying. If HTC would manage to achieve this without negative effects on air warfare that would certainly be great but I think it is technically very difficult if not downright impossible even with computers of today.
IMO the graphics are still OK and with recent enhancements quite adequate for an aircombat simulator and the focus is right just now: to bring in new planes.
-C+
PS. This was an intended reply to Torqs recent post but unfortunately the little dogs got it locked before I managed to construct a sane reply.
-
PS. This was an intended reply to Torqs recent post but unfortunately the little dogs got it locked before I managed to construct a sane reply.
:lol
-
I'd also like to see how much it improves the visuals once ALL aircraft skins and cockpits are fully updated to make use of Spec and Bump mapping. That alone will make a huge difference.
-
:lol
ditto
-
"ditto"
What, you ran out of smileys? ;)
-C+
-
"ditto"
What, you ran out of smileys? ;)
-C+
I was agreeing with Arlo....
the Little dogs made me laugh.... :aok
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :furious :furious :O :( :O :rock :rock :rock :devil :frown: :x :x
:bolt:
-
I agree Sax, that alone will have a big impact on general appearance of the game. IMO the shadow system alone made a huge positive difference in general appearance of the game. I have an Ati 7850 GPU, not the greatest but not the worst either, and I still cannot run all max. It is always a good sign if the sliders in the graphics menu have travel left so there is room for improvement in hardware section too. Some older games I still play are all maxed out and there you know there is nothing more to be had...
-C+
-
The longer you play flight sims the less you care about graphics. I would be interested to know just how many of us old timers doesn't have his graphics settings down to the minimum.
-
World of Warcraft's graphics are not exactly cutting edge, and never were, yet it still has 9,000,000 monthly subscribers. Blizzard periodically updates the engine, usually when an expansion comes out, but many of the player character graphics are still the same as they were when the game launched in Nov. 2004.
Not every successful game looks hyper realistic.
Do we want better graphics, all else being even, yes, but we're aware of the trade offs in performance and the loss of long time players.
-
:aok
-
I have a I7 quad intel overclocked to 4.3
and a gtx480
12gb of ram
Everything is on max
The game is awesome :banana:
The clouds are awesome as well.
-
Everything is on, max
Well, then turn evrything off.
:neener:
-
IMO the graphics are still OK
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb426/Danny_Winters/BluBerryCustomCreation321.gif:original)
-
i dont worry about the gfx on this game because just like zack i have a decent cpu and can run on max gfx at 60fps :neener:
Honestly tho everything on max on a big screen it looks sweeeet!
:salute
-
i dont worry about the gfx on this game because just like zack i have a decent cpu and can run on max gfx at 60fps :neener:
Honestly tho everything on max on a big screen it looks sweeeet!
:salute
lol...
well I also have a computer that can effortlessly run AH2 with all settings maxed...
that doesn't mean the graphics in this game are good.
however I think the direction HTC is heading based off some of the most recent content is a massive step in the right direction and I am excited for more.
I realize we cannot exactly afford to lose the player base we have now, by updating AH2 with extensively better graphics, but maybe if they slowly make improvements as it appears they are, then the majority of the player base can slowly upgrade their computers to keep up, and not be hurt to bad in the pocket book either.
-
I was agreeing with Arlo....
the Little dogs made me laugh.... :aok
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :furious :furious :O :( :O :rock :rock :rock :devil :frown: :x :x
:bolt:
Whatever you're smokin', pass to the left.
-
i dont worry about the gfx on this game because just like zack i have a decent cpu and can run on max gfx at 60fps :neener:
Honestly tho everything on max on a big screen it looks sweeeet!
:salute
(http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb426/Danny_Winters/BBFPS.png:original)
The FPS topic is a lengthy one.. there is a common misconception that the human eye can't see anything past 30FPS. In reality the human eye can detect movement far past 200 FPS, but that's for another time regarding Blur/Motion.
30 FPS for a game is viewed as acceptable because that's normally a "steady range" that most gamers can achieve.
60 FPS really means nothing if you can't hold it steady. If you fly around alone holding 60FPS and then enter a furball and are constantly jumping between 25 and 60 that's not a good thing.
I remember reading a long time ago that Hollywood movies are normally 27FPS, because with such little strain on the human eye, we see 27fps as being very smooth.
Running 500+ FPS, 60 FPS or even a steady 30 really all look the same with how the majority of us build/run our systems and the game of AH2.
Running extreme FPS is actually something that has little to no benefit especially with the various Hz of monitors.
Hz is the rate at which the hardware in the monitor is refreshing the display. They are two independent functions, and you will see a difference in animation quality with more FPS.
There is a point with FPS though where the human visual pathways become saturated, you can still perceive a difference in quality but you've hit the point of diminishing returns.
In the gaming world/AH2 world, 30 FPS is just fine performance and graphic wise. I don't play with V-sync for personal reasons, none however that involve AH2. :salute
-
Wow... people think that AH graphics are good??? :headscratch:
I mean I get that there are limitations to what hitech can do, but call a duck a duck. AH graphics look dated. That doesn't mean the game isn't fun, nor does it mean better eye candy would make the game more fun. But tell it how it is. I would not describe AH graphics in a positive light.
I've turned everything to max. It's a marginal visual improvement for a huge hit in frames. I have no idea wth bump mapping my own plane full-updates does except kill the lighting effects and drop me down to 20 frames. My plane looks better with that box unchecked. I can see more light reflections that way. Is this the same for other people? Do I need to post a screen? Does anyone enable bump my plane full-updates and see a visual improvement?
Compare the two
(http://imageshack.us/a/img268/1267/nobumpmap.jpg)
v.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img585/2374/bumpmapmyplane.jpg)
Bump mapping the buildings just makes the concrete look brighter, which actually gives an advantage to some folks bombing GVs. Cockpit shadows are also unchecked, they look all jaggy and pixelated. They're just not good.
Bring the clouds back.
-
Oh and I looked at some screenies of that DCS A-10C Warthog game... It doesn't look much better than AH. Guess that's the standard in flight sims. Sad Panda.
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/003/398/2013_6beb.jpeg)
-
Wow... people think that AH graphics are good??? :headscratch:
My thoughts exactly.
-
The longer you play flight sims the less you care about graphics.
Odd, but true.
OTOH, it seems to me that the oldtimers are always the first ones trying to get better graphics performance. Comes from years tweaking systems to get what we now take for granted, I suppose.
- oldman
-
Well, then turn evrything off.
:neener:
I can run Rise of Flight full as well :rofl
I have played other flight sims and AH graphics are very nice.
TrackIr is awesome :banana:
my pc is awesome :banana:
-
I really don't think HTC can push the envelope much further graphics wise without a lot of players taking a huge performance hit.
I has flying today on the system I built for my bro-in law, it's almost as fast as mine, but has a 3820, 2 680GTX 4gb in SLI, and a 144hz Asus Gaming 120hz+ monitor. Over tank town, with track ir 5 running, I could look around at take off and see around 85fps, and up to 144 fps when looking up once over 5k or so.
Once over tank town though......I had about 10 friendly air cons, maybe a dozen red guys within 6k, and all the tanks on the ground. When I got down to the deck over the tank town, I was down into the high 30's, and it felt really notchy. Of course, once away from that action it's back to normal, but my point is that you have to be careful when considering graphics upgrades on the game's side, as even with hardware that's right at the top end, AH2 can still bring these systems to their knees in worst case scenarios.
-
modern post processing effects would go a long way to improve graphics imo. Maybe some black and white filters at times with some noise like an old movie. I'm thinking left for dead 2
-
I never drop below 60 fps even in a furball?
And your SLI?
-
ok so yes i said i like the graphics in ah2 i never said they couldnt be improved upon, i like the current engine because i can get 60 fps with v-sync on even during furballs and it stays there were as say a game with gfx like planetside 2 once the big fights start happening it starts to take a more and more demanding rig to produce the same results.
I realize we cannot exactly afford to lose the player base we have now, by updating AH2 with extensively better graphics, but maybe if they slowly make improvements as it appears they are, then the majority of the player base can slowly upgrade their computers to keep up, and not be hurt to bad in the pocket book either.
I agree with this :salute
-
ok so yes i said i like the graphics in ah2 i never said they couldnt be improved upon, i like the current engine because i can get 60 fps with v-sync on even during furballs and it stays there were as say a game with gfx like planetside 2 once the big fights start happening it starts to take a more and more demanding rig to produce the same results.
I think thats the reasons the graphics are like they are, I know something like war thunder is limited in what it can handle at the same time. IL2 was a nightmare once too many things started happening at once :bhead
People thought IL2's fm was realistic because the graphics were good :lol it was a load of old balls for a flight model
-
I wouldn't mind seeing some game play updates to keep things fresh. Better visuals wouldn't hurt though.
-
I wouldn't mind seeing some game play updates to keep things fresh. Better visuals wouldn't hurt though.
What kind of "game play" updates would you like to see?
-
The longer you play flight sims the less you care about graphics. I would be interested to know just how many of us old timers doesn't have his graphics settings down to the minimum.
[/quote
I got everything turned off I can turn off just to have a frame rate in the teens. I could care less about graphics I only care about the game play and how the tanks and planes operate. To me the rest of the map looks like a drunken 5 year old kids finger painting.
-
Wow... people think that AH graphics are good??? :headscratch:
I mean I get that there are limitations to what hitech can do, but call a duck a duck. AH graphics look dated. That doesn't mean the game isn't fun, nor does it mean better eye candy would make the game more fun. But tell it how it is. I would not describe AH graphics in a positive light.
I've turned everything to max. It's a marginal visual improvement for a huge hit in frames. I have no idea wth bump mapping my own plane full-updates does except kill the lighting effects and drop me down to 20 frames. My plane looks better with that box unchecked. I can see more light reflections that way. Is this the same for other people? Do I need to post a screen? Does anyone enable bump my plane full-updates and see a visual improvement?
Compare the two
(http://imageshack.us/a/img268/1267/nobumpmap.jpg)
v.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img585/2374/bumpmapmyplane.jpg)
Bump mapping the buildings just makes the concrete look brighter, which actually gives an advantage to some folks bombing GVs. Cockpit shadows are also unchecked, they look all jaggy and pixelated. They're just not good.
Bring the clouds back.
pfffffffffft. P51 pilot :devil
-
Give me more. Now.
Thanks.
:angel:
-
What kind of "game play" updates would you like to see?
Check the wishlist.
-
Yes Zack, with SLI. SLI doesn't give AH2 a whole lot of FPS boost I've found with a single monitor. That said, if you're not dropping over tank town when it is filled with tanks and cons, you don't have everything "maxed out". This has been established in the hardware thread about running everything at max. Anyone who claims they never drop below 60fps either has a NASA classified system, or doesn't have everything truly maxed or turned on at 1920 1080p 2048 texture.
-
Yes I failed to omit that slider for shiny bits is at 60%
Another factor is I learnt a while ago not to have FSP displayed all the time :old:
45,65,250 FSP is not the issue, smooth flowing graphics is the issue. :old:
I think a lot of talk of FSP is a bit of a obsession with a lot of people because they build PC's themselves :old:
Its like GV'ing, not my cup of tea, but people like building pc's and its a free country :)
Whats the best software for removing graphics drivers?
-
http://www.guru3d.com/content_page/guru3d_driver_sweeper.html
-C+
-
It wants me to download other software but not driver sweeper?
i have found it :salute