Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: mrsid2 on April 08, 2002, 06:13:53 AM
-
And improvement to ALL existing models..
New damagemodel, it's time has come. Don't you agree?
If HTC is going to have to concentrate solely on bringing each and every exotic planemodel to the game while forgetting any improvements in the engine, it's not a good development in the long run.
-
Agree.
- New DMG model.
- Improved graphic effects and graphics in overal (damaged but still not destroyed structures, fire, different kinds of explossions).
- Much more maps, much more textures.
- Improved hangar/mission ed interface.
- Refinement of actual planeset.
- Something for the ground war guys to play with, as well as large vehicle bases.
- Adverse weather, haze effects.
Saddly, any of the above points will make AH a much more atractive product than adding a new 190A3.
HTC may keep adding more planes, but the fact is that less than 20% of the actual planeset is really used. People keep asking for P40, as people was asking for 109E, and now that we have 109E it is minimaly used and that is what will happen with P40 after the two first weeks. They may add more versions of P38, F4F, A6M2, etc, the result will be the same except for scenarios, and scnearios represent less than 1% of the normal player play-time.
As a rule, people want to fly something that excels in at least one point. Ki67 in speed, 110G in punch power but take a look at 110C or 109E usage.
-
Hey I fly Hurricane Mk. I for base defense :D But I haven't been asking for introducing Hurri Mk. I into AH so I think this post doesnt count... ;)
-
If a bear farts in the forest and theres no one there to smell it, does it really stink?
In any event, good luck and remember:
Relax, its just a game
-
Yeager has turned very poetic it seems.
Now all he needs is some message behind the pretty words.
-
New models are always the most anticipated and exciting feature with each new version released. But, if HTC decides to sacrifice a few versions(maybe even upto 4 - 5 versions..) in dedicating themselves to improving damage models, maybe trying their hand in new graphic engines, refining the strat system and etc... I'm sure I'll totally understand.
Gets my support.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
Agree.
- Improved graphic effects and graphics in overal (damaged but still not destroyed structures, fire, different kinds of explossions).
- Much more maps, much more textures.
- Adverse weather, haze effects.
These will force older computer owners to upgrade, leading to many to whine..whereas a new aircraft or 3 will bring much praise...which would you do if you were a developer? Just throwing this out as food for thought...I personally don't care either way.
-
Tronspir, certainly the graphics engine can be improved in performance also, while adding more effects, textures, etc. I dont know where the problem is, perhaps in the number of polygons used per object, but the fact is that older sims with better graphics are less CPU/VCard dependant than AH. If the main problem is in the number of polygons used per object/plane, etc, IMO, halfving that number will give us almost the same visual effects but much more free CPU. Most of the time we are flying without external views and we normally see the enemies at no less than 200 yards (except when crashing), so, a zillion of polys does not really matter. What do we want, a plane modeling each screw or 20 fps more?
What we badly need is a system where we can choose the complexity of the 3D models. Do u have a K7 2Ghz? Ok, select the zyllionpoly mode. Do u have a PIII 500? Select a more simpler mode. That way more people will be happy with their current systems, but HTC team will need to model each plane twice (at least for close ranges).
For example, the detail that u can see from inside a Lancaster cockpit (forward view) is no much more than the detail seen from a P51 cockpit, but, for some reason, the difference in FPS is really noticeable. Too much invisible polygons or polygons that are there for nothing are being taken into account in the rendering process.
-
Uh, I can see almost twice the number of polys in the Lanc cockpit as the 51 cockpit. Well,..maybe not twice as many, but probably about 50% as many.
Particle effects are expensive. I can show you a very nice explosion, one that would wow you. But it took over 5000 polys/frame and 24 frames to do it for a 1 second explosion. Oh, that single explosion requires about 15MB of disk storage. Ok,...you can save a frame at a time and play it back much like a movie, but then you have the same explosion over and over again, which people will complain about.
Then again, you could add enough bits and pieces and put it together to make it more random, but then instead of a 26MB download, you would have a 100MB download.
And I know you would wait for it, along with 5,000 others trying to get it. No one would complain about that, I am sure. :)
Tradeoffs are part of game design. See my other post in a simliar thread about it.
-
Skuzzy, I suppose that explosions, fire effect etc may be succesfully achieved with minimal polygon usage. I suppose that DX8 includes effects for that matter based on transparencies, multitexturing, etc, whatever but using a lot of polys.
About the P51 / Lanc cockpit, does you eye really appreciate the excess of polygons in the "dark" Lanc? Are they worth the loose of FPS? The anwser will be "yep of course" for people with 1.5Ghz machine and a GF3, but will that increase the people enjoying AH or just the opposite? Do u remember the first arcade machines using textures and transparencies? Really spectacular and inmersive using very few polygons. What do you think about "FX" effects of an old sim like Janes WWIIF?
-
Yeager, You believe in the "its just a game" myth too strongly. Yes its a game, but hes suggesting ways of making it better. *SLAP*
:D
-
WWIIFighters came on a CD, much like EAW or Il-2.... 650+MB... most of that isn't game data either, it's simply graphics libraries.
Everyone gets all excited at the prospect of excellent graphics like that... and no doubt HTC could do them.
But then we're stuck with a download like that of WarBirds III... and that is precisely one of the reasons I don't play WBIII, it's a huge download.
-SW
-
I'm happy with the way Aces High looks. I think the planes look fantastic. I wouldn't mind seeing more immersive terrain though (Sicily- THAT was an awesome terrain).
-
Let me remind you that my original thought was to revise the damage model, nothing graphic related.
That shouldn't hit fps that much.
-
Shouldn't impact the FPS too much, but as a damage model becomes more complex (and thus more room for errors in it), it also eats up CPU cycles.
Of course, as you get a more complex damage model, you need some kind of representation for it. I presume you would be satisfied with simply colors changing on the damage HUD that you can toggle on/off... Green- fine. Yellow Damaged. Red- Very damaged. Black- Part is no more.
THe only way to represent this visually is to either use decals (like all those FPS shooters, but the decals would have to be permanent instead of fade away) or have multi-skinning... which effectively increases the size of AH's textures atleast 4 times. THis in turn means a larger program.. and of course an increase in video card memory and system memory requirements.
-SW
-
BOOOOO Mrsid.
-
just like for old WB,,,,, maybe 1 day we got extra files to DL and have wery wery nice efects without penalize low speed conection people
for AH 2.0 ? maybe we got HIGH end AH or LOW end AH to download:cool:
-
I was thinking the same thing minus. Would it be possible to allow an optional eye candy download for high end users? These would of course only be eye candy and give no user (high or low) any sort of advantage. I see it as customizing the sounds.... why not 'customize' or beef up the graphics for your FE only?
AND to the original subject, I agree... better damage model :)
-
I agree MrSid.
plus I want also better graphics, different maps etc.
-
HTC barely has enough man power to go back and revise the 3 Spitfire models we had in 1.08 to make them more up-to-date in terms of detail....
What makes you think they'll have enough man power to effectively triple their work load by offering a "more detail" version next to the current version?
Sure, it would be nice... is it feasible? Not with 7 people- and of those 7 people who do you think is doing the art? It ain't all 7.
-SW
-
You got that right. 2 of us do the art, 2 do programing and 1 does flight models. That is 5 out of the 7 that are actually involved in development. Frankly, many companies with twice the amount of people working for them have trouble getting half the amount of work done that we do. (toots own horn ;) )
BTW, Skuzzy, I calculated that the Lancaster has about 4 times the number of polygons than the p51d. :p
-
I agree on better DM although I wouldn't want an uber improvement in the graphic engine but the basic old aircraft(Pony/109) need some updating to current levels as in other planes we have in AH ATM.
Some really nice points put by Mandoble in regards that we never see mist nor lo laying clouds that would really improve the immersion and give you some instrument time :D not the perfect weather 24/7 and cloud layers at FL150 with flight vis P6SM that we seem to enjoy year round ,it would add flavor and variety to AH and more challenge that often WW2 pilots dealed with. If we had them, they should go a bit lower and flight visibility would be diminished somewhat.
-
The graphics look fine to me - I love the newer models. Like Superfly says, development is fast considering the size of the operation, but they do have their limits.
Anyway, fancy graphics only hold their 'wow' factor for a limited length of time. Eventually, you take them for granted, and at that point, gameplay becomes the most important aspect.
That considered, I'd like to see 'degraded' aircraft components, not just 'Operational/Destroyed'. I've no idea how difficult that would be, and I'm assuming alot of work would have to go into making the whole thing balance.
Just look at the whines about the GV model, and you can see the problems that lay ahead. ;)
-
Ahhh Super,..I was just looking at the cockpits of the 2 birds. It is hard to tell how many polys there are with the textures over them, but I figured the cockpit of the Lanc has almost 2 times as many polys.
If there are 4 times as many,...I need to go look again :D.
-
Super, you got that right. We have an in-house dev team, and it takes seven of them to decide if the formatting should be:
if ( ) {
..
..
}
or
if ( )
{
...
...
}
You guys are _amazing_ doing what you do; doing it with the people you have is phenominal. It's a pity that a. you're in texas and b. you don't need my skillset, because I'd ritualistically kill my middle sisters kids to get into a company that well organized.
-
LOL! Sounds like a lot of places I know of Puck. :)
Oops, sorry Skuzzy, I meant the entire plane models for the highest LOD. You are probably correct about the cockpits. Nevermind. :D
-
I am remiss in not recognising the other two, Super.
One tech support person who has a clue, and an in-house full time day care provider for the dev team.
:D
-
I want more planes. As many as it takes to get to the part of the list containing a P-40. Then I don't really care anymore cause I got all I want.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Puck
Super, you got that right. We have an in-house dev team, and it takes seven of them to decide if the formatting should be:
if ( ) {
..
..
}
or
if ( )
{
...
...
}
That's easy to fix. Just shoot all the guys who think it should be the first!
-
If HTC has only two people involved in art then this is one more reason to dont work so hard adding thousand of polys to a model:
1 - More polys = more textures = much more work for two people.
2 - Most of polys are actually hidden for the player's eye while flying into the cockpit. External models need to be good for 200 yards or more, not necessary to model the details noticeable from 1 yard, this is not practical, consumes a lot of HTC work and FPS.
3 - Too much polys = much less FPS.
4 - Good textures are much better than a zyllion of polys.
That apply also to the damage model, some damages may be represented by different textures without needing to add more polys to the model to emulate an almost destroyed elevator (for example).
What someones call "Eye Candy" is flight inmersion for me. This is not only a shooting game, you are also flying and feeling the flight with your eyes and ears. And dont forget that 50% of our play time we are traveling from a field to combat area or RTB.
-
Originally posted by MANDOBLE
1 - More polys = more textures = much more work for two people.
2 - Most of polys are actually hidden for the player's eye while flying into the cockpit. External models need to be good for 200 yards or more, not necessary to model the details noticeable from 1 yard, this is not practical, consumes a lot of HTC work and FPS.
3 - Too much polys = much less FPS.
4 - Good textures are much better than a zyllion of polys.
1 - Not true -> if the model has more polygons it can use same texture asl song as the basic shape and surface outlines are same
2 - Most polygons are hidden when in cockpit -> True, but you need the polygons becaquse you dont have just 2D pit so you need them to be able to move your head and see your plane.
3 - True but greatly depends on game engine and HW accel utilization
4 - Not true unless you use a lot of bumpmaps, multitextures, transparency and filtering stuff -> doable on GFX card with HW. But low poly model is still a low poly model. I hate to compare AH to any other game because no other game uses the same engine so to compare then is not a right way to go. But lemme asure you that better textures take a lot more memory than better 3D models... The model has few kb but textures (basic, bumps, alpha etc.) are in compared to size of models HUGE!
And please keep in midn that the DL size of AH is still way under 30MB. How do you think would other sims look like if you give them limit on 30MB?
I personlay like the way AH looks now. Of course I would like to see it to look like IL-2 and have planeset and strat system of AH but then we are not talking about 30MB... So for now lets just whine along and see what nexst versions of AH will bring... ;) And Im sure HT didnt showed us all the cards hes still hiding in his sleeve :D
-
I would be very happy paying for a 3 CDs boxed version of AH and then suffering 10-20Mb patches every two months, just like IL2.
If this is not possible, I would be happy also having several optinal downloads. Do u remember the individual plane download of WB? This may be a way to have simpler versions of the actual planes/objects and then being able to choose which one to use. I'm sure there are a lot of potential players whose computers simply cant handle so many polys per object. Some of them would be happy customers even having only a monochrome wireframe world, but they can't play getting 2 fps into a lancaster cockpit.
In my particular case, what I appreciate of a plane is what is seen from 100 yards of it. In the other hand, what I can see clearly all the time is the terrain, the cities, the mag. plants, the sea, etc.
I really dont need to see the exhaust tubes of the lanc engines, but I really need to see if the LANC I sprayed is on fire or not, for example.
Finally, the actual models/sky/sea/terrains are too dark to really appreciate any details at more than 200 yards. The F6F for me is only a dark shape even at 100 yards, no matter if it has been done with 10 or 10000 polys. Most of the time I cant even know where is the tail and where is the engine. Our day time is dark also, no sunny days in AH with bright sea. It is like having the sun at twice the distance or half the intensity.
Look at the picture posted by Mathman here:
F6F vs N1K2 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50393&pagenumber=2)
Can you really appreciate any detail in the F6F or in the N1K2? almost none at all in the F6F and none at all in the N1K2. Look at the sky in a clear day (real sky), does it look like the present in the picture, not at all for any day hour (too dark and too intense) ?
-
New DM! New DM! New DM!
-
Mandoble that's what LOD's (Levels of Detail) are for. At set distances, we make it so the model changes to less polygons/detail. At a far away distance planes are really nothing more than a few flat faces with the basic color of the plane. If we didn't do LOD's, your fps would be next to none.
MadBird is right. More polys doesn't necessarily mean more textures. It's more about making our set texture limit work with all of the polygons we push.
-
SUPERFLY, I know about different amounts of polys used depending on the distance. What I mean is that what really matters is how a plane is seen at 100 yards or more and that using a really bunch of polys for plane appearance at 10 yards is not really important but may have a big impact in FPS for the pilot of that plane.