Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: earl1937 on July 22, 2013, 12:32:37 PM
-
:airplane: Just wondering why FSX, War Thunder and some other flight sim's can have clouds without killing frame rates, better defined terrain features, more "eye candy" for players to enjoy their surroundings, etc! Just wondering if it is different type of servers, network limitations, cost of installing some of these features? I for one, would be willing to pay a little more each month for some of these improvements to our game, say, 19.95 a month, just wondering?
-
It probably has something to do with the scale of Aces High. However, it has more to do with our graphics being outdated.
-
Unless I am gravely mistaken those normally have far shorter view distances than AH does.
-
Lower view distances but they have a nice fog/background texture to cover it up and make it look nice. They also don't have 300+ people in a map. However, they tend to have the same amount of players in a similarity sized area as in AH (ex: a AH furball might have 30-40 people in a 10x10km square, a Rise of Flight furball might have the same amount).
AH is also using the same engine from 10 years ago while these new games are made to take advantage of the latest technology. Jumping from a 5570 to a 6870 might not gain you much in AH but it certainly does in other games.
-
Unless I am gravely mistaken those normally have far shorter view distances than AH does.
Completely false. As I recall There is a BF3 map that is 40*48 miles or so and you can see almost all the way around it. AH needs fog and less details at range and more details close. And the funniest part my i5 2500k at 4.8ghz and 660ti at 1.2ghz core can run BF3 maxed out on that map at 1080p never going below 50fps yet it will drop to high 30s in AH XD
-
Completely false. As I recall There is a BF3 map that is 40*48 miles or so and you can see almost all the way around it. AH needs fog and less details at range and more details close.
Uhmm no, you're talking about Bandar Desert, largest map in Battlefield's history. And it is nowhere as large as you make it out to be.
Edit: quick google search tells me it's 5 square kilometers. "Bandar Desert is the largest map in Battlefield history, being around five square kilometers large, approximately two and a half times the size of the large map Caspian Border. The map is also shown to have a seven flag variant of Conquest on PC."
-
I think the biggest reason other games looks better than AH even though they have a smaller map size is because of well placed textures/meshes that seamlessly blends from one area to another. So up close, you get your full HD textures but as you get farther away, low quality textures replace the HD ones to save performance. However, those low quality textures still looks pretty decent so that your eyes fool you into thinking it's a part of the HD textures. Especially true in flight sims where zooming by at 300mph, the ground is already a blur (Rise of Flight excluded).
AH's textures are just pop ins that completely ruins any sense of immersion. And even the ones up close aren't that great besides the newly added planes (even then their quality is pretty low, ex: you can't read the warning signs and labels on certain planes). Other games also tend to have great lighting that covers up areas with low textures or direct your focus to areas of interest/beauty. AH's lighting is near non existent besides a yellow circle that acts as a determinator for where the shadows will fall.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/ahss/full/me109-cockpit-p40.jpg)
(http://cdn3.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/45300/ss_38959d97d432389531565965214d4a34870a8e27.1920x1080.jpg?t=1355425604)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/ahss/full/b24j-tailgun.jpg)
(http://cdn3.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/45300/ss_14ab466b76b6e1504c7053936618890d14959d6e.1920x1080.jpg?t=1355425604)
-
Uhmm no, you're talking about Bandar Desert, largest map in Battlefield's history. And it is nowhere as large as you make it out to be.
Edit: quick google search tells me it's 5 square kilometers. "Bandar Desert is the largest map in Battlefield history, being around five square kilometers large, approximately two and a half times the size of the large map Caspian Border. The map is also shown to have a seven flag variant of Conquest on PC."
Well silly me i mean BFBC2 but that statement is false if bandar desert is the biggest. Exact size of the BFBC2 map heavy metal is something like 34 miles long.
But you hit the nail on the head on this statement
I think the biggest reason other games looks better than AH even though they have a smaller map size is because of well placed textures/meshes that seamlessly blends from one area to another. So up close, you get your full HD textures but as you get farther away, low quality textures replace the HD ones to save performance. However, those low quality textures still looks pretty decent so that your eyes fool you into thinking it's a part of the HD textures. Especially true in flight sims where zooming by at 300mph, the ground is already a blur (Rise of Flight excluded).
AH's textures are just pop ins that completely ruins any sense of immersion. And even the ones up close aren't that great besides the newly added planes (even then their quality is pretty low, ex: you can't read the warning signs and labels on certain planes). Other games also tend to have great lighting that covers up areas with low textures or direct your focus to areas of interest/beauty. AH's lighting is near non existent besides a yellow circle that acts as a determinator for where the shadows will fall.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/ahss/full/me109-cockpit-p40.jpg)
(http://cdn3.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/45300/ss_38959d97d432389531565965214d4a34870a8e27.1920x1080.jpg?t=1355425604)
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/images/ahss/full/b24j-tailgun.jpg)
(http://cdn3.steampowered.com/v/gfx/apps/45300/ss_14ab466b76b6e1504c7053936618890d14959d6e.1920x1080.jpg?t=1355425604)
-
:airplane: Just wondering why FSX, War Thunder and some other flight sim's can have clouds without killing frame rates, better defined terrain features, more "eye candy" for players to enjoy their surroundings, etc! Just wondering if it is different type of servers, network limitations, cost of installing some of these features? I for one, would be willing to pay a little more each month for some of these improvements to our game, say, 19.95 a month, just wondering?
I guess the community has changed after all. If you tried this post 4 years ago you would have been burned and your ashes spread all over the AH sky for asking this :rofl
-
Well silly me i mean BFBC2 but that statement is false if bandar desert is the biggest. Exact size of the BFBC2 map heavy metal is something like 34 miles long.
But you hit the nail on the head on this statement
Just nitpicking so don't get offended but Heavy Metal wasn't that big either. If anything, it was maybe 2km long at most. I'd be surprised if it was over 1km.
-
Need some more artists and coders. :old:
-
Completely false. As I recall There is a BF3 map that is 40*48 miles or so and you can see almost all the way around it. AH needs fog and less details at range and more details close. And the funniest part my i5 2500k at 4.8ghz and 660ti at 1.2ghz core can run BF3 maxed out on that map at 1080p never going below 50fps yet it will drop to high 30s in AH XD
Besides the other errors that have been pointed out, I'd also add that map size and view distance are two entirely separate things. AH has maps that are 512 miles across, but you certainly can't see that far. You can't even see a 20th of that.
-
aside from their graphics engine, which i haven't found out what is being used...one of the newbie flight sims has some nice tweakable graphics settings.
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/405468/AH%20Stuff/advanced%20graphics.jpg)
-
To me, those other pics look very unrealistic compared to the AH pics (as if they were paintings, not real life). Some games go for an over vibrant, Hollywood look, which isn't realistic. I think that our perception of realistic look in AH is heavily dependent on clouds/weather (having some realistic clouds and, if winter, sky color makes a significant difference -- see many clouds setups below), terrain (depends on terrain designer -- see Stalin's Fourth shots below), and skins (of course).
Stalin's Fourth
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/pics/frame2/006-MondayHits.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/pics/frame2/005-RompaAA.jpg)
Weather and other terrains
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/024-109sOtwBack-Image-0053.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame3/014-1down-Image-0058.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame2/015-goForIt-Image-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame2/003-lure-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame3/004-bombPort-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame4/004-cas-Image-0005.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame4/002-otw-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame3/019-kill51-SNAG-0028.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/9950/200711_zz/pics/frame4/004-situation-SNAG-0003.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/005-hunter-SNAG-0006.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201303_mediterraneanMaelstrom/pics/frame4/008-gunfire-SNAG-0028.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame1/009-on51s-SNAG-0013.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/pics/frame2/014-revenge-Image-0029.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/pics/frame3/016-lineUp-Image-0035.jpg)
-
“Man never has what he wants, because what he wants is everything.” - C.F. Ramuz
“Contentment is natural wealth, luxury is artificial poverty” - Socrates
“It is better to want what you have than to have what you want.” - ancient proverb
“Contentment is a pearl of great price, and whoever procures it at the expense of ten thousand desires makes a wise and a happy purchase” - John Balguy
-
To me, those other pics look very unrealistic compared to the AH pics (as if they were paintings, not real life). Some games go for an over vibrant, Hollywood look, which isn't realistic. I think that our perception of realistic look in AH is heavily dependent on clouds/weather (having some realistic clouds and, if winter, sky color makes a significant difference -- see many clouds setups below), terrain (depends on terrain designer -- see Stalin's Fourth shots below), and skins (of course).
Stalin's Fourth
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/pics/frame2/006-MondayHits.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/stalins_fourth/pics/frame2/005-RompaAA.jpg)
Weather and other terrains
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/024-109sOtwBack-Image-0053.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame3/014-1down-Image-0058.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201102_battleOverGermany/pics/frame2/015-goForIt-Image-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame2/003-lure-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame3/004-bombPort-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame4/004-cas-Image-0005.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame4/002-otw-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame3/019-kill51-SNAG-0028.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/9950/200711_zz/pics/frame4/004-situation-SNAG-0003.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/005-hunter-SNAG-0006.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201303_mediterraneanMaelstrom/pics/frame4/008-gunfire-SNAG-0028.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame1/009-on51s-SNAG-0013.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/pics/frame2/014-revenge-Image-0029.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200903_tunisia/pics/frame3/016-lineUp-Image-0035.jpg)
I don't know how it can be considered more realistic when the fires, hit sprites, and water all look terrible. Three of 6 things that we see the most in game. Planes/vehicles, sky, land, fire, hit sprites/weapon effects, and water. The gameplay is fine, it's near perfect actually. Everything else could use more work. Also all those nice terrains that are used in scenarios and SEA are not implemented in the MA.
-
Also all those nice terrains that are used in scenarios and SEA are not implemented in the MA.
Should they be? :D
-
Should they be? :D
Sure, figure out how to fit 3 countries on those terrains. Or update the MA maps visually. I'm sure you can figure out a way Arlo. We'll be waiting for the results. Shoo, go now.
-
Well silly me i mean BFBC2 but that statement is false if bandar desert is the biggest. Exact size of the BFBC2 map heavy metal is something like 34 miles long.
But you hit the nail on the head on this statement
I would point you at this site to review that terrain and the other Battle Field # terrains: http://planetbattlefield.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Gameinfo.Detail&id=310
If you click on the 'thumb nail', for Heavy Metal, you'll be taken to a 2048x2048 image of what's apparently the whole map. Then, judging from the buildings and roads, a pixel is probably around 4 feet but being generous, let's use 5 feet per pixel.
2048 x 5 feet = 10240 feet / 5280 feet = 1.94 miles on a side.
That makes your Heavy Metal terrain under 2 miles x 2 miles square!
For those who might be interested and know something about AH terrains:
Going from the current 1/2 mile vertices to 1/4 mile vertices would make a huge difference in the terrain, but at the current 14 mile viewing range, that's a 400% increase in graphics load! I would love that, but the game would be a ghost town.
A possible alternative?
AH currently uses a 1 mile x 1 mile cell in its terrains. If that were changed to a 1 kilometer x 1 kilometer cell, you could accomplish reasonable visual benefit at a 260% increase in graphics load. The problems and questions start immediately. All the terrains and tiles (airfields, cities, etc) and especially some of the objects would need to be rebuilt! Force scaling of the terrains might help the process. Would all distances shift to metric? You have to wonder what would be the final terrain size, ~318 miles? Any shortcuts in the ground collision model would be compromised. I imagine it would be a huge undertaking, much worse then simply switching to 1/4 mile verts.
-
Sure, figure out how to fit 3 countries on those terrains. Or update the MA maps visually. I'm sure you can figure out a way Arlo. We'll be waiting for the results. Shoo, go now.
*Sigh* I remember 21. Then again, I was more mature than this at 21. ;)
Titanic, young friend, whine to the terrain builder of the specific map you want so badly in the MA. Leave the 'shoo' attitude behind for best results. :)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/World-War-Two-Games/Terrains/Aces-High-Terrains.html (to help you along) :aok
P.S. And, aamof, I'm working with terrain designers already - both to learn how and to discuss implementation. :cheers:
-
*Sigh* I remember 21. Then again, I was more mature than this at 21. ;)
Titanic, young friend, whine to the terrain builder of the specific map you want so badly in the MA. Leave the 'shoo' attitude behind for best results. :)
http://www.hitechcreations.com/World-War-Two-Games/Terrains/Aces-High-Terrains.html (to help you along) :aok
P.S. And, aamof, I'm working with terrain designers already - both to learn how and to discuss implementation. :cheers:
Old age =\= intelligence.
And who's whining? The thread wanted to discuss why AH looks outdated compared to newer games, I gave the main reason. And good for you, sorry I can't spend my whole day building terrains for a video game, I'm sure I'll find the time when I'm 40 and sitting at home all day.
-
I'm sure I'll find the time when I'm 40 and sitting at home all day. (edited from: I'm sure I'll find the time when I'm 40 and unemployed.)
Instead of 21 and much the same? I'm rooting for you getting out of that rut. Then again, I'm rooting for my oldest step-son to do the same. When I was 40, I had time for work and play. Even now I do. :)
-
Brooke is right, they look like paintings;
So good they're a piece of art.
(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577826770235014399/07CDB4B3A465C44911EE492D3FB07DEFDCCC2A21/)
(http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/578933579050598473/DBEED57844287B3F60054C0FB3DE80C578FFD336/)
And these are off my i3, ATi Radeon 5770 card at 60fps.
-
Instead of 21 and much the same? I'm rooting for you getting out of that rut. Then again, I'm rooting for my oldest step-son to do the same. When I was 40, I had time for work and play. Even now I do. :)
Correct, now you have time to sit on this page and hit refresh every 5 seconds for a reply. And nah, I tend to enjoy my youth, sorry to ruin whatever your imagination was thinking of.
-
Brooke is right, they look like paintings;
So good they're a piece of art.
(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577826770235014399/07CDB4B3A465C44911EE492D3FB07DEFDCCC2A21/)
(http://cloud-3.steampowered.com/ugc/578933579050598473/DBEED57844287B3F60054C0FB3DE80C578FFD336/)
And these are off my i3, ATi Radeon 5770 card at 60fps.
Is that your priority? Screenshot art of a game that doesn't play like AHII? Do you really find the play of those games as fun as AHII? Will you be bored with that game in 12 years? 2years? 6 months?
-
Correct, now you have time to sit on this page and hit refresh every 5 seconds for a reply. And nah, I tend to enjoy my youth, sorry to ruin whatever your imagination was thinking of.
Son, I don't waste my imagination on you. I may recommend you try the same, in turn. :aok
-
Put AH and that together, and you'll have a game so good that it's subscribers would need tissues at all times just incase of premature.. er.. accidents.
-
Son, I don't waste my imagination on you. I may recommend you try the same, in turn. :aok
Prune juice and Depends takes up half of your thoughts clearly.
-
Prune juice and Depends takes up half of your thoughts clearly.
And .... you're fixated.
Was that a 5 second refresh response? :D
-
Put AH and that together, and you'll have a game so good that it's subscribers would need tissues at all times just incase of premature.. er.. accidents.
Not ... the visual image that sells. :lol
-
Not just the players rejoicing, but the tissue companies too :banana:
-
Uhmm no, you're talking about Bandar Desert, largest map in Battlefield's history. And it is nowhere as large as you make it out to be.
Edit: quick google search tells me it's 5 square kilometers. "Bandar Desert is the largest map in Battlefield history, being around five square kilometers large, approximately two and a half times the size of the large map Caspian Border. The map is also shown to have a seven flag variant of Conquest on PC."
Perhaps you're right, but this is what I've found: http://www.battlefield.com/uk/battlefield3/blog/inside-dice-building-our-biggest-battlefield-map-ever
It’s official: The biggest map yet
In Conquest Large, Bandar Desert is stretching as far as 1,900 meters from U.S. to Russian deployment...
That is little more then one mile! To be fair, the terrain would extend slightly beyond that for visual reasons but it's clearly unnecessary to extend beyond two miles and the terrain is probably only 2000 meters square.
I don't have a complaint with you specifically, or anyone else, but the comparisons between AH and other games are almost always exaggerated. Posters never quote accurate specs for any of the games, including AH, and it's become very annoying. Forty miles x forty-eight miles, really? That's laughable but typical.
Anyone can post screen shots, but these are three dimensional video games. I occasionally take screen shots of high res YouTube postings of competing games. What I see is about five miles of terrain before the fog/haze blurs the ground textures, that would be game controlled. Objects start being drawn about three miles away, similar to AH, but that's probably subject to the users graphics settings.
AH could do wonders if they flatten all the ground verts and hid them behind a blur at 5 miles or so, but that would eliminate mountains because mountains would kill suspension of disbelief when they pop into view. I don't think I'd want to play that kind of game.
-
IMO, we really don't need 30K mountains...seems out of place anyways. Rolling hills and some valleys is all that's needed. Mountains doesn't serve any purpose in aiding a combat driven game, the drive away the fights and are unrealistic. Yes, they can be used to divert the action to certain areas, but the same can be done using other methods. Then again, all this is a pipe dream each time the topic comes up. We're not getting WarThunder style graphics anytime soon so why worry about it.
-
Agreed. :)
-
IMO, we really don't need 30K mountains...seems out of place anyways. Rolling hills and some valleys is all that's needed. Mountains doesn't serve any purpose in aiding a combat driven game, the drive away the fights and are unrealistic. Yes, they can be used to divert the action to certain areas, but the same can be done using other methods. Then again, all this is a pipe dream each time the topic comes up. We're not getting WarThunder style graphics anytime soon so why worry about it.
So, you think my mountain comment means that I want 30k mountains?
I guess that means you want terrains that don't exceed 1000 feet above sea level, eh? :P
-
Old age =\= intelligence.
Similarly, your thirteenth birthday doesn't mean you transcend into a plane of higher consciousness.
You still seem to display intelligence of a (very) ignorant twelve year old.
-
So, you think my mountain comment means that I want 30k mountains?
I guess that means you want terrains that don't exceed 1000 feet above sea level, eh? :P
No, but as far as I can tell, a lot of maps that have mountains are ridiculously high.
Similarly, your thirteenth birthday doesn't mean you transcend into a plane of higher consciousness.
You still seem to display intelligence of a (very) ignorant twelve year old.
Oh crap, I have an opinion on the internet. Get real son. At the end of the day, you're just some random bag that just happened to float on by.
-
Brooke is right, they look like paintings;
So good they're a piece of art.
To me, that looks unrealistic, and I don't prefer that style.
What does it look like up close to a cloud and flying close to the ground?
-
No, but as far as I can tell, a lot of maps that have mountains are ridiculously high.
Hum, since you were responding to my post, to which of my many terrains are you referring.
-
What does it look like up close to a cloud and flying close to the ground?
like flying in a cloud, density varies as you fly through...no lines. the ground detail really good. land in tall grass and you will see the grass waving in the wind. want some screen shots?
-
AH has always been strongest in flight modelling and very well done plane performance research.(HiTech and Pyro)
Ah has the best in game integrated voice com system of any game ever. its simple usable and it works.(HiTech)
AH has the best of everything under the hood you could want from big arena 300+ players in one persitant battlefield with stable net code etc. (HiTech)
its competition has been strongest on graphics especially lighting and recently gameplay systems that are enjoyable and innovative and fun. (Oleg and the guys that he sold his il2 system to gajun)
AH fails at nearly nonexistant lighting and effects and clouds and framerates.
however AH has THE BEST and MOST ACCURATE 3d aircraft models (Superfly, Waffle), aircraft textures (greebo) and best usable and accurate cockpits (cockpit canopy bar thickness and windows you can see through without special defects and dirt is a big deal in making always on cockpits fun and friendly).
sadly AH terrain setup (player made mostly with HTC textures) and textures make me cry in agony knowing how many hours ive put into a terrain texture layout and compared to the competition... lets be honest. AH terrain is even with the best hand designed pattern is a blob of turds compared to what the other guys got. let me say that again. I spent hundreds of hours on my latest terrain and for AH I think it looks great for AH terrains but it makes me sad that I couldn't pack it with detail like the competition can.
it's competition fails at flight modelling (cough adverse yaw where? whatsitdat?) and individual plane performance research and modelling is pretty much done with blatant disregard for historical accuracy. (Oleg and the guys that he sold his il2 system to gajun)
cheers.
AH is a great game and has things no other game can even come close to duplicating.
it could do with a terrrain system upgrade in a big way though. (roads and town tile textures and more detail more resolution in mesh and texture etc)
the one color sky with no deeper darker blue above fading into light blue haze and wisp of clouds would be favorite to update.
one terrrain maker players opinion.
-
like flying in a cloud, density varies as you fly through...no lines. the ground detail really good. land in tall grass and you will see the grass waving in the wind. want some screen shots?
I might like that part better than the pics above. I would be interested in some shots from close to clouds and close to ground flying if not too much trouble to see what that is like. Thanks.
-
AH has always been strongest in flight modelling and very well done plane performance research.(HiTech and Pyro)
AH has the best of everything under the hood you could want from big arena 300+ players in one persitant battlefield (HiTech)
This, to me, is the most-important thing and vastly more important than graphics.
I agree completely with this, too:
however AH has THE BEST and MOST ACCURATE 3d aircraft models (Superfly, Waffle), aircraft textures (greebo) and best usable and accurate cockpits (cockpit canopy bar thickness and windows you can see through without special defects and dirt is a big deal in making always on cockpits fun and friendly).
-
" ... best usable and accurate cockpits ... "
Would you venture to say that AHII players are as comfortable in their virtual cockpits after 2 weeks as real WWII pilots were in the real cockpits once they successfully completed advanced training? I'm tempted to.
-
To me, that looks unrealistic, and I don't prefer that style.
What does it look like up close to a cloud and flying close to the ground?
(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577826770235022432/A8AE65255B96A89D7A00E002C006929902BEE761/)
(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/577805776720514063/A9A08943FF9D7C8DB008E451C43905B80680700A/)
(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/576673802878801400/C6AE54ADA42CA7DED7A3CD7C0EE5CE3CC69365D7/)
(http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/576673534632770630/92BFF084FA25A6A8797104B86E13CB847F70CE0B/)
-
I don't know how it can be considered more realistic when the fires, hit sprites, and water all look terrible. Three of 6 things that we see the most in game. Planes/vehicles, sky, land, fire, hit sprites/weapon effects, and water. The gameplay is fine, it's near perfect actually. Everything else could use more work. Also all those nice terrains that are used in scenarios and SEA are not implemented in the MA.
Realism (in looks only -- it is clear to me that AH wins by a lot in realism of flight models) is a complicated mixture of things, and the relative importance of those things will vary person to person. To me, some of these things in rough order of importance are, how the planes look, how the sky/clouds look, how the ground looks, how the water looks, how damage looks, how plane fires look, how building fires look, how ships look, how ship fires look, how cannon hits look, how MG hits look, how bomb explosions look, how buildings look, how vehicles look, etc. This order depends mostly on how much I observe them or how noticeable they are to me when I am flying around in an airplane, fighting. A bunch of the most-important ones are good in AH, in my opinion (planes, sky/clouds, ground depending on terrain, for example).
So, a game might have better plane fires but, to me, worse sky/clouds and so not be as good overall in how it looks to me. To you, it might be a different ordering of importance.
I am not fond of unrealistically Hollywood effects and don't consider those an improvement, though. I also don't like the painted look (seems to me like flying around in the movie What Dreams May Come).
-
" ... best usable and accurate cockpits ... "
Would you venture to say that AHII players are as comfortable in their virtual cockpits after 2 weeks as real WWII pilots were in the real cockpits once they successfully completed advanced training? I'm tempted to.
I would say AH with its saved view system has put itself in a category all its own in terms of being able to see around cockpit canopy obstructions which is a nice balance between no cockpits and full on cockpits with no saved views and it actually gives players a bit of a leg up in seeing around obstructions while still giving a sense of the cockpit being there but in reality the saved view system is an abstraction in a way but not nearly as abstract as no cockpit at all or external view.
I say this because I recently got track IR 5 and I love it.
but it occurred to me that when i turned off the x y z axis and allowed my saved views to move my virtual head around the cockpit while turning my head to look around I was moving my head in unrealistic ways at speeds that would or could injure my neck. I prefer the X Y Z axis on with Track IR in spite of the slightly greater difficulty in seeing around said obstacles because I find it much more immersive and realistic and perhaps with more practice I will be able to peer around the obstacles with head movements at the speed I can with my snap saved views at the optimal angle.
this is not a gripe don't get me wrong.
just an observation that is derived from beginning to use a head tracking system and seeing that some viewing obstructions are a lot harder to look around without saved views.
-
images
Thanks.
Close to the clouds looks OK, about the same as AH close to and in clouds (with the new cloud system). Farther away, they looked unrealistic to me.
Close to the ground looks sort of like close to the ground in AH near cities with more buildings (like below). Water is a bit better than AH -- not too drastic, though.
Ground explosion and plane fire looks good.
Overall, though, I just don't like the painted look.
Also, I'm not sure if it's my particular color settings relative to yours, but the pics all have a greenish tint, like through a green filter.
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/9950/200711_zz/pics/frame3/015-killP51-SNAG-0031.jpg)
-
Thanks.
Close to the clouds looks OK, about the same as AH close to and in clouds (with the new cloud system). Farther away, they looked unrealistic to me.
Close to the ground looks sort of like close to the ground in AH near cities with more buildings (like below). Water is a bit better than AH -- not too drastic, though.
hey Brooke, do these clouds look unrealistic?
(http://www.milosfsxflights.miloaviation.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/flying-at-18000-feet-.jpg)
compare closely to what Dolby posted. shape, density, etc...
-
hey Brooke, do these clouds look unrealistic?
compare closely to what Dolby posted. shape, density, etc...
They are OK, but in my opinion not better than AH. The cockpit looks great.
The Dolby pics aren't horrible, but I don't like that it looks like it was painted by someone. It puts me in mind of flying around in What Dreams May Come. Also, everything has a greenish cast, but I don't know if that is a difference in graphics settings between his setup and mine.
Here are some pics where I think the clouds look realistic:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame3/017-goForClouds-Image-0038.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame1/032-otwBack-Image-0094.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/010-hit190-Image-0018.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/017-takeoffTrouble-Image-0044.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/037-landing-Image-0076.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame2/003-il2s-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201003_finalBattle/pics/frame1/002-1stflight-Image-0001.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201003_finalBattle/pics/frame1/009-hits-Image-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/004-bombersInbound-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/012-backIn-Image-0018.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/014-down-Image-0021.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201204_winterSkyDeathGround/pics/frame1/006-tiffies-SNAG-0006.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/9950/200711_zz/pics/frame2/015-overTown-SNAG-0020.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame1/013-popsman-SNAG-0021.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/005-hunter-SNAG-0006.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame3/004-downAndThrough-SNAG-0005.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame3/017-hit38-SNAG-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201303_mediterraneanMaelstrom/pics/frame4/001-1stEngage-SNAG-0013.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/enemyCoastAhead/00-ahss36.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/coralsea/ahss4.jpg)
-
They are OK, but in my opinion not better than AH. The cockpit looks great.
The Dolby pics aren't horrible, but I don't like that it looks like it was painted by someone. It puts me in mind of flying around in What Dreams May Come. Also, everything has a greenish cast, but I don't know if that is a difference in graphics settings between his setup and mine.
Here are some pics where I think the clouds look realistic:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame3/017-goForClouds-Image-0038.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame1/032-otwBack-Image-0094.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/010-hit190-Image-0018.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/017-takeoffTrouble-Image-0044.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/037-landing-Image-0076.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame2/003-il2s-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201003_finalBattle/pics/frame1/002-1stflight-Image-0001.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201003_finalBattle/pics/frame1/009-hits-Image-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/004-bombersInbound-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/012-backIn-Image-0018.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/014-down-Image-0021.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201204_winterSkyDeathGround/pics/frame1/006-tiffies-SNAG-0006.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/9950/200711_zz/pics/frame2/015-overTown-SNAG-0020.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame1/013-popsman-SNAG-0021.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/005-hunter-SNAG-0006.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame3/004-downAndThrough-SNAG-0005.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame3/017-hit38-SNAG-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201303_mediterraneanMaelstrom/pics/frame4/001-1stEngage-SNAG-0013.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/enemyCoastAhead/00-ahss36.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/coralsea/ahss4.jpg)
Aye. They do. :aok
-
One big caveat to the above, though. Those are all cloud setups that I did for scenarios under the old cloud system. The new cloud system is very different. My impression working with it so far is that enables more realism in some ways and less in others. I still have to see what I think of it for making realistic-looking cloud setups (not just a cottony puffball here and there).
-
They are OK, but in my opinion not better than AH. The cockpit looks great.
:rofl :lol that's amazing Brooke, considering that is a real picture out the cockpit of a real airplane...i just found it on the internet. some guy at 13,000ft i think in australia, might want to check your graphics settings. :rofl :lol
-
that's amazing Brooke, considering that is a real picture out the cockpit of a real airplane...i just found it on the internet. some guy at 13,000ft i think in australia, might want to check your graphics settings.
I don't think so.
- oldman
-
The thing that gets me with AH clouds is they look good in screenshots like Brooke posted, they look good from a distance. When you get into them, and see them in motion and soforth you start seeing the flat textures and it completely breaks the illusion. The flat layers at alt look good until you get up close and see they have no thickness.
I've seen some decent use of clouds in AH. Unfortunately apparently it kills a lot of peoples' frame rates. That's a shame, as I really like the idea of weather in game.
Gyrene- Cockpit looks mighty pixelated and 'drawn' to me.
Wiley.
-
I don't think so.
- oldman
:neener:
how about these?
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01541/wing2_1541466a.jpg)
(http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8369/puqccs106.jpg)
(http://www.texas-flyer.com/Minnesota/MO-pix-03.jpg)
-
hey Brooke, do these clouds look unrealistic?
(http://www.milosfsxflights.miloaviation.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/flying-at-18000-feet-.jpg)
compare closely to what Dolby posted. shape, density, etc...
This one is FSX though
-
This one is FSX though
shhhh... :lol
-
shhhh... :lol
Oh no, not this time
FSX!
:D
-
:rofl :lol that's amazing Brooke, considering that is a real picture out the cockpit of a real airplane...i just found it on the internet. some guy at 13,000ft i think in australia, might want to check your graphics settings. :rofl :lol
You may want to check your sources. ;)
View Image Info: http://www.milosfsxflights.miloaviation.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/flying-at-18000-feet-.jpg
"G’day and welcome to milo’s fsx flights, a sub domain for miloaviation.com! With this site I want to share all my flights that I do in Microsoft flight simulator X."
:D
-
:neener:
how about these?
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01541/wing2_1541466a.jpg)
(http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8369/puqccs106.jpg)
(http://www.texas-flyer.com/Minnesota/MO-pix-03.jpg)
Fisheye lens effect on the first.
-
Fisheye lens effect on the first.
ya well, none of them are from fsx this time... :D
if it weren't for you and Dolby i may have been able to string Brooke along on that one... :devil
-
:rofl :lol that's amazing Brooke, considering that is a real picture out the cockpit of a real airplane...i just found it on the internet. some guy at 13,000ft i think in australia, might want to check your graphics settings. :rofl :lol
I don't think so. Since when do real pictures need more antialiasing. ;)
-
Ah, ok -- trying to pull one over on me, eh? :eek:
-
They are OK, but in my opinion not better than AH. The cockpit looks great.
The Dolby pics aren't horrible, but I don't like that it looks like it was painted by someone. It puts me in mind of flying around in What Dreams May Come. Also, everything has a greenish cast, but I don't know if that is a difference in graphics settings between his setup and mine.
Here are some pics where I think the clouds look realistic:
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame3/017-goForClouds-Image-0038.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200907_coralSea2009/pics/frame1/032-otwBack-Image-0094.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/010-hit190-Image-0018.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/017-takeoffTrouble-Image-0044.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame1/037-landing-Image-0076.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/200910_redStormKruppSteel/pics/frame2/003-il2s-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201003_finalBattle/pics/frame1/002-1stflight-Image-0001.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201003_finalBattle/pics/frame1/009-hits-Image-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/004-bombersInbound-Image-0004.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/012-backIn-Image-0018.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201110_enemyCoastAhead/pics/frame1/014-down-Image-0021.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201204_winterSkyDeathGround/pics/frame1/006-tiffies-SNAG-0006.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/9950/200711_zz/pics/frame2/015-overTown-SNAG-0020.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame1/013-popsman-SNAG-0021.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame2/005-hunter-SNAG-0006.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame3/004-downAndThrough-SNAG-0005.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201210_derGrosseSchlagII/pics/frame3/017-hit38-SNAG-0024.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/flightsims/scenarios/201303_mediterraneanMaelstrom/pics/frame4/001-1stEngage-SNAG-0013.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/enemyCoastAhead/00-ahss36.jpg)
(http://electraforge.com/brooke/misc/aces_high/coralsea/ahss4.jpg)
The problem isn't what "we" think of the game and its graphics. It is what the other game players who don't want to play this game due to the graphics think of them.
To me each of the pictures you posted looks like a video game, to me they seem almost flat, no depth. But I'm ok with it as I enjoy flying and fighting in this game. May other look at this and say "Wow! what crappy graphics", and they move on. If HTC moved toward the "painting" type graphics these other games have would we have more people joining? I don't know, but for what I've heard of the comparisons they might.
The same goes for the "historic" comments by gyrene81 in the other thread. He said something along the line of people believing some of the planes they have in those other games actually flew in the war, at squadron strength. Who cares what they believe! If they play here and have fun I certainly don't care what they think in terms of what plane was for which country. Give them a list of 10 countries and ask them to split them into axis and allies. I'm sure a vast majority wouldn't even be close. Again, WHO CARES!
If more players try the game, and more players STAY in the game isn't that good for everyone?
-
:neener:
how about these?
Definitely. :)
There are, of course, a near infinite variety of clouds. Some games pick heavily from one particular type -- puffy cotton clouds, sparsely populated. That happens in real life at times, of course. If you search for "clouds" on Google images, those are the types that will pop up for page after page -- people love to take pictures of puffy cumulus. But real weather is more commonly not only some puffy cumulus here and there.
The former AH cloud system was good at stratus and stratocumulus (like in the pictures I showed, and like the ones directly below) but wasn't well suited to sparser, puffy cumulus (unless generated in a small portion of the map, as there was a cloud-number limit).
(http://www.eo.ucar.edu/kids/sky/images/stratocum4_sm.jpg)
(http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/clouds/images/l7_1.jpg)
(http://eo.ucar.edu/webweather/images/stratus.jpg)
The new system will be much better at all types of cumulus but worse (I think -- I'm still playing with it) at swaths of less-distinct cloud.
Basically, I think we'll get more like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/GoldenMedows.jpg/300px-GoldenMedows.jpg)
and less like this:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2663/3734297475_371ff726db_z.jpg)
-
The thing that gets me with AH clouds is they look good in screenshots like Brooke posted, they look good from a distance. When you get into them, and see them in motion and soforth you start seeing the flat textures and it completely breaks the illusion. The flat layers at alt look good until you get up close and see they have no thickness.
True -- that was the main weakness in my opinion to the old cloud system, that inside the cloud, you saw layers, not continuous cloud.
The new system is fine in that regard (no layers -- just continuous cloud).
I've seen some decent use of clouds in AH. Unfortunately apparently it kills a lot of peoples' frame rates. That's a shame, as I really like the idea of weather in game.
I've been putting clouds in "This Day in WWII" events, starting with sparse ones and working up (in the case of Battle of the Bulge) to quite numerous thick ones. It seems fine for the vast majority of people. For the thin ones, I got no one complaining of frame rate hit. For the thick ones, I got a couple of people only, with the rest saying that it was fine on frame rate.
-
The problem isn't what "we" think of the game and its graphics. It is what the other game players who don't want to play this game due to the graphics think of them.
Who are they? Players quit because of the graphics? Players who have never played the game may not even know of it's existence. Granted, they may have been distracted by the eye-candy of other games they tried first. How often are they repeatedly distracted by that only to be disappointed when the pretty pics fail to salve their boredom after 6 months or a year? If they knew something existed beyond 5 key-stroke pretty picture games that are 'free to play' but cost them $40.00+/a month in purchased items and game currency might they give it a try and fall prey to the addition that the rest of us have for (almost) 15 years now?
Operation .... get the word out. I like the other thread that talked about guerrilla marketing posters. There are currently more YouTube videos for WarThunder than AHII out and about. I know there are players who make fantastic AHII YouTube videos (I'd like to learn that, as well).
:D
-
and less like this:
(http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2663/3734297475_371ff726db_z.jpg)
I like the less like you're illustrating. :D
-
The problem isn't what "we" think of the game and its graphics. It is what the other game players who don't want to play this game due to the graphics think of them.
If more players try the game, and more players STAY in the game isn't that good for everyone?
I'm for more realism and against less realism. If there are a bunch of players out there who prefer graphics that are more like Hollywood movies or XBOX games, that isn't good for anyone who wants more realism.
Better, more-realistic graphics alone wouldn't drive anyone off and might cause some new players to come in. But it has to be balanced against other things. You have to devote development resources to that instead of other aspects of the game (new play features, new planes, updated planes, improvements to flight model, new terrains or terrain features, whatever). You have to decide what mix of development is optimal. Also, fancier graphics will tend to result in higher hardware requirements than less-fancy graphics, all else being the same. Do you create fancier graphics, get some new customers but find that you lose more than that from among people playing on their old computers? HTC has all of the info on these things, but we don't.
-
Realism is a funny thing. When you go to the movies, (do people still "go" to movies?) You have to suspend your disbelief. You are aided by the dark theatre and the big screen among other things. You can get choked up watching a puppet show because you believe in the characters and story.
Special effects are interesting, sometimes seeing the zippers on the suits of aliens doesn't get in the way other times it does. Personally high quality CG really prevents my suspension of disbelief. I watched the Lord of the Rings and I kept wondering "CG or New Zealand????" And the flying movies I simply don't believe. This flying game thing is a little the same for me. Its kind of nice having a painterly landscape but I find myself wondering what was photographed to make the textures and the like. I wonder if its the same as the "uncanny valley" in animation but for landscapes.
Personally what I would like is to have controls that really mimicked real airplane controls, with realistic force feedback, trim and control travel.
-
I'm for more realism and against less realism. If there are a bunch of players out there who prefer graphics that are more like Hollywood movies or XBOX games, that isn't good for anyone who wants more realism.
Better, more-realistic graphics alone wouldn't drive anyone off and might cause some new players to come in. But it has to be balanced against other things. You have to devote development resources to that instead of other aspects of the game (new play features, new planes, updated planes, improvements to flight model, new terrains or terrain features, whatever). You have to decide what mix of development is optimal. Also, fancier graphics will tend to result in higher hardware requirements than less-fancy graphics, all else being the same. Do you create fancier graphics, get some new customers but find that you lose more than that from among people playing on their old computers? HTC has all of the info on these things, but we don't.
it's a fine line to walk. when it comes to gaming, people are willing to spend their money on what they "believe to be realistic", even if it doesn't have anything to do with the basic fundamental components of the game. and game developers are going to cater to that aspect. as long as the scenery is "pretty" people will flock to the game even if the characters look like they are humping a dog while running. in flight sims, maybe 5% of the players even know what it feels like just to sit in a plane with a single prop, the rest are clueless. for the clueless, as long as there is cosmetic appearance to reality and there is the appearance of flight at speeds that wikipedia says they should be, they don't care if the underlying physics are correct. right now warthunder is a testament to the fact that if the developers will cater to the basic desires of players, it doesn't matter if the flight models are as realistic as aces high, it looks real and they don't need to learn how fly to an airplane, just point your mouse where you want the toon plane to go and it will.
unfortunately the only way htc is going to be able to compete and be a hit with flight simmers is to change. crank up the graphics and make whatever concessions are needed for people with low end systems to play...with the most accurate flight models around and the plane set that ah has, higher quality graphics and changes in the game play can and will bring more people willing to pay $15 month.
-
I'm a bit out of synch with the rest of you on this. For me, the *game* has to come first, over visuals (graphics for a computer game).
So that means immersive tactical match-ups, the ability to have fun outwitting the opponent, at an adequate frame rate. I am willing to sacrifice graphics detail, but do appreciate overall attractive colors and contrast.
MH
-
I agree the game has to come first... that being said i've played war thunder and wings of prey.. too arcadey for me...but gosh darnett those graphics were so immersive and nice to look at.. and it played what i thought was smoother than AH! Wish Ah could just buy one of those graphics engines and just slap on AH's gameplay.. i would gladly pay more.. can't money do this.. money does everything!
-
I'm a bit out of synch with the rest of you on this. For me, the *game* has to come first, over visuals (graphics for a computer game).
So that means immersive tactical match-ups, the ability to have fun outwitting the opponent, at an adequate frame rate. I am willing to sacrifice graphics detail, but do appreciate overall attractive colors and contrast.
Makes at least two of us. I'd be happy with the old AW graphics, so long as the flight models and damage models were accurate.
- oldman
-
You guys ever notice that the car dealers are all on the same side of town? They feed off of each other, see? I think AH is going to get some " Bidness " after the noobs "over there" grow up and want to fly right. :airplane:
-
Eye-Candy is one thing, but the flight modelling here is tops.
-
I think AH is going to get some " Bidness " after the noobs "over there" grow up and want to fly right. :airplane:
that's an amazing assumption...just kidding. the population here has been slowly declinining since i got here. and i know there are "noobs over there" that came from here and elswhere with as much experience as anyone.
-
Ya, same here, give me a good simulation, with good sound over extreme eye candy.
-
that's an amazing assumption...just kidding. the population here has been slowly declinining since i got here. and i know there are "noobs over there" that came from here and elswhere with as much experience as anyone.
Then there's the dead guys. Replaced by the live ones, though.
I had a really cool dream last night that had Benny Hill and Jerry Lewis in it, essentially competing/complementing each other over the same part in a movie that involved playing a Japanese caretaker/front desk guy. At times I was third person, at others I was playing the part of Benny. I just wanted to type/write that down before I forgot it. ;)
Dear Cod, I just sounded like Zacheroff/Midway/Zack1234 put together (all three live replacements for dead guys, I suspect)
-
For the price of £120 s year, AcesHigh has no excuse not to have both
-
For the price of £120 s year, AcesHigh has no excuse not to have both
120 lbs?! What's that, like $15.00 a month? Kinda like when the game started (back before graphics existed)? OMG .... yeah it should. :D
-
back before graphics existed
I don't remember playing aces high with command lines :headscratch:
-
I don't remember playing aces high with command lines :headscratch:
Because AH skipped that step when switching from punched tape directly to graphics interface! :old:
-
Chiseling icons on cave walls is sooooo 2012. :D
-
Because AH skipped that step when switching from punched tape directly to graphics interface! :old:
HT Trivia.
What year did I write my first computer game?
HiTech
-
I was checking the games released in 2004 and Half life 2 is one of them. Its source engine is still used in Valve games, although it has evolved a bit since.
-
HT Trivia.
What year did I write my first computer game?
HiTech
The year the Beatles broke up. :D
-
HT Trivia.
What year did I write my first computer game?
HiTech
The year Al Gore invented the Internet?
Either that, or maybe around 1978?
-
HT Trivia.
What year did I write my first computer game?
HiTech
:headscratch:
Well, the oldest one from you I know about is Confirmed Kill, 1995 (?), but no idea if that was actually your first.
-
I wrote my first computer program in Fortran IV in 1970.......then compiled it onto punch cards and sent it away to be run on one of the only computers in the city available to the public............it took 2 weeks to come back showing me I had made a code error....I fixed the error and resent the cards.......in another two weeks I got my result.......... :old:
-
HT Trivia.
What year did I write my first computer game?
HiTech
The same year you wrote your last computer game?
:x
:bolt:
-
:lol you're fired :D
-
The first computer I wrote a game on.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/DEC_PDP_8e.jpg)
-
The first computer I wrote a game on.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/DEC_PDP_8e.jpg)
Holy crab, tabman! I was right? That's on top of the Apple building, isn't it? :confused:
-
Excellent. We used a PDP-8 in our radiation-and-detection lab when I was an undergrad. Had to toggle in the boot sequence, and it had magnetic core memory. :aok
-
In Aces High you get a flight model thats not based on the anecdotal assumptions of the deluded, I know this because the guys 'helping' to develop the flight models over there have been over here spouting bollocks in the forums for years with no actual proof of what they are talking about except its their opinion, or it 'feels' historically accurate or doesn't :rofl
-
The first computer I wrote a game on.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/DEC_PDP_8e.jpg)
On this? Was it that little stick man skiing downhill? :neener:
-
:aok
-
In Aces High you get a flight model thats not based on the anecdotal assumptions of the deluded, I know this because the guys 'helping' to develop the flight models over there have been over here spouting bollocks in the forums for years with no actual proof of what they are talking about except its their opinion, or it 'feels' historically accurate or doesn't :rofl
ya know i'm gotta do it...so are you saying the flight models here "feel historically accurate" versus over there? what plane did fly in world war 2 again, i can't remember... :neener:
-
ya know i'm gotta do it...so are you saying the flight models here "feel historically accurate" versus over there? what plane did fly in world war 2 again, i can't remember... :neener:
:rofl :D
-
I wrote my first computer program in Fortran IV in 1970.......then compiled it onto punch cards and sent it away to be run on one of the only computers in the city available to the public............it took 2 weeks to come back showing me I had made a code error....I fixed the error and resent the cards.......in another two weeks I got my result.......... :old:
I remember this ...was about 3-4 years later for me.... we used an Olivetti punch card machine simailar to this
(http://www.technikum29.de/shared/photos/rechnertechnik/olivetti_programma101.jpg)
and we just sent it to the teacher :lol
-
I have used this. :aok
(http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/Keypunch.jpg)
-
I have used this. :aok
(http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/Keypunch.jpg)
I've seen that used. :D
-
I just got an email from Gaijin touting they have reached over 3 million people who registered in War Thunder. Crappy flight model/controls or not, 3,000,000 people is a crap load more than AH subscription numbers. Perhaps the majority of people do prefer to have awesome eye candy..... :uhoh
-
I just got an email from Gaijin touting they have reached over 3 million people who registered in War Thunder. Crappy flight model/controls or not, 3,000,000 people is a crap load more than AH subscription numbers. Perhaps the majority of people do prefer to have awesome eye candy..... :uhoh
ya, Scholz posted it in the oclub...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350507.75.html (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,350507.75.html)
that number is probably the overall total number of people who registered since closed beta...a good number have jumped ship.
-
I wouldn't jump to that conclusion just yet.
I'm one of those 3 million. Yeah, it's an impressive number....but keep in mind the game is "free".....just about anyone will signup if something is free if only to try it out. I'd love to see the percentage of those 3 million accounts that are "active" on a regular basis....I'm betting it would be a fairly small percentage, which I grant may still represent a larger user population than AH.
-
most times when i sign in, i generally see 25-30 thousand online depending on the time...most are doing the arcade crap.
-
Yeah....same here. I havent been on in weeks. And I tried the arcade crap once....I'm still going through professional therapy trying to cope with the horror. :lol
25-30K is still not a huge percentage of 3,000,000.
-
I just got an email from Gaijin touting they have reached over 3 million people who registered in War Thunder. Crappy flight model/controls or not, 3,000,000 people is a crap load more than AH subscription numbers. Perhaps the majority of people do prefer to have awesome eye candy..... :uhoh
I don't care if 100 million have signed up. I like it here better. Where are you playing?
-
I just got an email from Gaijin touting they have reached over 3 million people who registered in War Thunder. Crappy flight model/controls or not, 3,000,000 people is a crap load more than AH subscription numbers. Perhaps the majority of people do prefer to have awesome eye candy..... :uhoh
don't get fooled, its 3 million free accounts
-
I have used this. :aok
(http://www.computersciencelab.com/ComputerHistory/HtmlHelp/Images2/Keypunch.jpg)
Talk about a blast from the past memory. I spent many hours in collage on one that looked exactly like that.
Had a room mate almost get killed after he dropped my COBAL deck for a class assignment.
HiTech
-
You all beat me by miles...
This is the 1st one I programmed on, after my dad almost risk his marriage by spending an obscene amount of money on it: :D
(http://www.zock.com/8-Bit/PET2001.JPG)
My first game however was written for the TRS_80 at school. It sucked, but gave me one of my very rare good marks ...
-
Talk about a blast from the past memory. I spent many hours in collage on one that looked exactly like that.
Had a room mate almost get killed after he dropped my COBAL deck for a class assignment.
HiTech
Almost get killed or body hasn't been found yet? Guess I shoulda PMed this .... because ... you can trust me. :lol
-
Couple years ago I inherited my grandpa's oldest toolchest, mounted on the front of it is a vintage UNIVAC decal. As he used to say: geniuses use them, but they can't fix them.
-
don't get fooled, its 3 million free accounts
How many free 2 week trials do you think AH has had in that same time span? Probably less than 3000if I were to guess judging solely on names I did not recognize in the MA (thus not an accurate count by any means. Just a guess)
-
I just got an email from Gaijin touting they have reached over 3 million people who registered in War Thunder. Crappy flight model/controls or not, 3,000,000 people is a crap load more than AH subscription numbers. Perhaps the majority of people do prefer to have awesome eye candy..... :uhoh
Registered users is not the same as active users and as a game that relies on a F2P business model, active numbers is the key metric which was left out of their marketing e-mail blast.
ack-ack
-
Had a room mate almost get killed after he dropped my COBAL deck for a class assignment.
Heh! There is a Simpson's episode where Apu shows Bart the Fortran deck he saved from his Ph.D. work (1st program to play perfect tic-tac-toe). Bart asks "What's this for?", pulling a card out of the deck at random. Apu sighs and dumps the whole deck into the trash.
-
This is the 1st one I programmed on
Excellent! I programmed on the PET and on the TRS-80. (Gives Lusche the secret handshake.)
-
Lol I play this game on ENIAC :D
-
Heh! There is a Simpson's episode where Apu shows Bart the Fortran deck he saved from his Ph.D. work (1st program to play perfect tic-tac-toe). Bart asks "What's this for?", pulling a card out of the deck at random. Apu sighs and dumps the whole deck into the trash.
I guess Apu was absent the day they were told they could use the columns past 72 to number their decks, or to just draw a diagonal line on the top edge of the cards in the deck. :old: :devil
-
:neener:
how about these?
(http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01541/wing2_1541466a.jpg)
(http://img641.imageshack.us/img641/8369/puqccs106.jpg)
(http://www.texas-flyer.com/Minnesota/MO-pix-03.jpg)
:airplane: The middle pic and the bottom one are the type of clouds which I wish we had in the game! We used to have one map, can't remember the name of the map, but it had some excellent clouds over and around some mountains on the S.E. side of map. Looked very good and realistic!