Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Killjoy2 on May 19, 2002, 06:26:27 PM

Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Killjoy2 on May 19, 2002, 06:26:27 PM
Frame Rate

Am I the only one who gets a frame rate hit when I'm around a bunch of buffs?  I am concerned that 4 people with 16 buffs is gonna sink me.  

Anyone else?
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: ra on May 19, 2002, 07:07:24 PM
This may not be a problem if the 3 drone bombers are controlled by your FE and not by the other guy's FE sending packets through the host.  We'll find out soon.
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: SKurj on May 19, 2002, 09:38:16 PM
Its not the packets per se...

As an attacker flying in on 4 buffs which have to be drawn on my system...  multiply by 2-3 u see the issue..
If the drones are as detailed as the player buff this could create a significant frame hit...


SKurj
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: AcId on May 20, 2002, 08:12:09 AM
Skurj, I question your system specs. If for you a 4 bomber formation is giong to give ya a significant FR hit how the hell do you manage to stay playable in a low furball?

And not to sound elitist or my rig is better than yours but maybe it's time for an upgrade dude. :D
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: lazs2 on May 20, 2002, 08:13:44 AM
the real problem is that it will just make for more fluffs in the arena.   Anything that adds fluffs can't be good.
lazs
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: K West on May 20, 2002, 08:40:44 AM
Not fluffs of old, that's for sure.  My present opinion is that the planned model will now take some measure of skill. In comparison to thier current state which requires next to NONE.

 Westy
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: SKurj on May 20, 2002, 10:18:09 AM
AcId my system is fine +)  but I have an above average system.

But!!!  as I said in my post above... multiply by 2-3  thats 8-12 buffs in close proximity...  Even my system will take a hit....


AMD XP1900+
GF4 MX 440
512mb RAM


SKurj
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Sabre on May 20, 2002, 01:55:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
the real problem is that it will just make for more fluffs in the arena.   Anything that adds fluffs can't be good.
lazs


Hmm...They won't be "fluffs" anymore.  They'll be strategic bombers, doing what strategic bombers did best; urban renewal:D.  But if it makes you unhappy, Lazs we'd best just outlaw them entirely .
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: mason22 on May 20, 2002, 02:14:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SKurj
AcId my system is fine +)  but I have an above average system.

But!!!  as I said in my post above... multiply by 2-3  thats 8-12 buffs in close proximity...  Even my system will take a hit....


AMD XP1900+
GF4 MX 440
512mb RAM


SKurj


If anyone has flown some of the scenarios (such as Big Week) you will understand what Skurj is talking about. Even the most powerful systems take a hit.

But with the new larger terrains i'm guessing that the number of pilots will be spread out and not as "crowded" as the 256x maps.

Lets say a squad of 4 wants to up a raid. That's 16 bombers, plus any escorts. I would assume if FR was an issue the buff boxes could up first, then allow escorts, goons, etc to follow. In other words, spreading out the amount of AC in a given time will help alleviate some of the FR hit.

just some $.02
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Shane on May 20, 2002, 02:15:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by SKurj
AcId my system is fine +)  but I have an above average system.

But!!!  as I said in my post above... multiply by 2-3  thats 8-12 buffs in close proximity...  Even my system will take a hit....


AMD XP1900+
GF4 MX 440
512mb RAM


SKurj


 and FYI, even *one* buff causes a fairly big fps hit, unlike 5-6 in a furball flying fast, zooming in and out of your view.

gonna be interesting to see how fps will be affected.

Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Shane on May 20, 2002, 02:16:29 PM
uhh mason, lol, you're talking about an MA ethos that encourages and "rewards" massive pigpiles of baddies.
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: lazs2 on May 20, 2002, 02:22:14 PM
sabre... I would say that if you have to have 3 AI for every one plane that is being flown in order to entice people to actually use the things then they are indeed.... fluffs.
lazs
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Don on May 20, 2002, 02:28:46 PM
>>Not fluffs of old, that's for sure. My present opinion is that the planned model will now take some measure of skill. In comparison to thier current state which requires next to NONE<<


Westy:
 I agree, and I also think it will require that fighter interceptions will require planning and cooperation which, isn't exactly the call of the day in the MA.
And for those who clamor and complain about the so called lack of realism in the game, it will come close (I expect) to real conditions to hit a target from nosebleed alts with any accuracy.
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: K West on May 20, 2002, 02:48:00 PM
Definately Strider. I think that the MA will adapt as folks call out the larger strikes on the country channel and coordinate interception.  Heck, with AH 'awacs' radar they''ll be hard to miss anyway imo.  But if a box (or more) of bombers is flown in the typical MA style (a 5k bee line attack on an enemy base) the opposing fighter pilots will just chew em up as bad as they do now.

 Presently I'd wager that 80% of the players in AH fly fighters.  And of those that would fly a bomber many now choose use a jabo with all intentions of augering after dropping anyway. Partly because quite a number of fighters have a healthy payload and that extra "run-by-em" speed to avoid getting shot down or for running away to come back for the second drop. But mostly because they are dog meat in an AH bomber.  While the jabo-cide method is not greatly effective this practice does give the MA a cheesier, arcade environment at times.  The new system I think will put people back in the bomber cockpit.  Many will get adept at using the new feature. and at the same time fighter pilots in the MA will get better at escorting or intercpting. People will get better at communicating, coordinating as well as blowing them out of the air. All while less is actually being "porked" !!  :)

  Westy
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Wotan on May 20, 2002, 03:01:28 PM
fps warp and lags are a real concern of mine. I had hoped for a perk price to be assigned just for that fact.

But we will see
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: MrRiplEy[H] on May 20, 2002, 03:19:25 PM
That MX440 is probably a real bottleneck in your system.

If you'd have Ti500 or a real gf4 I doubt you'd worry about fps at all.
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: SKurj on May 20, 2002, 04:03:40 PM
oh geez Ripley... 100+ fps means my GF4mx is fine...


its not me i am concerned with really, though even the GF3 Ti500 users will take a huge hit on that first pass on a 12 bomber formation flyin close.
.. as i said i have an ABOVE average system for playin AH (no lie)

Its all the ppl with sub 1ghz systems running whatever vid card they wish(AH is more cpu dependent than gpu unlike IL2)


SKurj
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Sabre on May 20, 2002, 04:27:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by lazs2
sabre... I would say that if you have to have 3 AI for every one plane that is being flown in order to entice people to actually use the things then they are indeed.... fluffs.
lazs


Can't say as I follow your logic here.  The 4-ship pulk is simply compensation for the decrease in effectiveness a single bomber will have.  Why does that equate to fluff?  You yourself have long complained that it takes no skill to operate AH bombers.  Now that changes are being made such that skill will be required to make them effective, you must find some other reason to put them down.  It's all about balancing effectiveness against level of effort.

The idea behind AH is to recreate something of the feel of World War II aerial combat.  If it were only about fighters shooting each other down there’d be no point to modeling actual WWII aircraft.  Simple generic fighters based totally on fantasy (like “Crimson Skies) would be enough to keep people coming in to the arena.  A simple arcade game.  AH is much more than that, which is why it is so popular.  Bombers were a central part of WWII air combat.  What the new bomber changes are trying to do is give them more of their historical place.  Against fields, it will take multiple bomber pilots to achieve what one guy in a single bomber can do now.  This seems to redress an oft-repeated criticism of yours.  Against densely packed targets like cities, however, they will be devastating (as they historically were).  

Bombers never flew alone on purpose; they were neither effective or survivable that way.  Hence the 4-ship pulk.  The bomber pilot in effect becomes a flight leader.  The addition of bomb drift (dispersion) coupled with a much more difficult to operate bombsite insures that skill will be required of the operator while limiting the damage that a single player can do to your ability to up from a field.  Again, what you’ve advocated for in the past.  The perfect solution…in theory, and if it works as advertised.  Granted there is the potential for missuse and abuse, depending on how it is implemented.

Each bomber pilot will have to do the same work, whether he/she takes one plane or a 4-ship pulk.  It will take the skill developed through practice (not the same specific skill as ACM, but skill nonetheless).  Indeed, he will need more skill in some ways, or at least more tactical forethought.  No more violent defensive movements while gunning from the tail, least you break the gossamer-thin lines that tie those drone bombers to your waistcoat.  You can’t even call them “A/I” bombers, since they can do nothing more than attempt to follow the manned plane’s lead.  This is a two-edged sword, for while it increases the potential defensive firepower of the bombers, it forces a much more sedate maneuver limit on them as well.  No more constant, hi-G turns to keep an enemy fighter on the bomber’s six.  That means that gunnery will become more important, as the bomber gunners will not be able to maneuver to give themselves more time or a more favorable line-of-site.

All in all, these upcoming changes will give me a reason to go back to bombers more often.  I can’t wait to see how it all shapes up.
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Wlfgng on May 20, 2002, 04:46:49 PM
some of you may have to lower your resolution if you're really that worried about FPS.

As long as it stays above 30 or so you should be good.
I remember trying to play with about 8fps though.. lol.
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: mora on May 21, 2002, 02:39:31 AM
I normally get around 80 fps in normal conditions. If it drops to 50 or so it's still playble but 30 is definetely not. And how about those with lower system specs? I thought that AH graphics are intentionally the way they are so people don't need top of the line computers to play it, after all we have to pay 14,95$ in a month. I just hope HTC finds a solution to this otherwise they might lose a lot of customers.
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: LtHans on May 21, 2002, 05:34:29 AM
Sabre, dont' worry about good old Laz.  He's only be veheminetly vetoing any and all suggestions to game play that doesn't involve dogfighting.  That is all he wants.  To dogfight.  To dogfight often.  To dogfight in 5 seconds or less.  To dogfight in massive furballs.....

....and to make the rest of us dogfight all the time too, whether we like it or not.

Hans.

P.S.  Majority rules Laz.  Majority is the "or not" crowd.
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: Sabre on May 21, 2002, 08:43:37 AM
I've gradually learned not to let it get to me, Lt Hans.  The Lazs' of the world are necessary to remind the rest of us of the simple pleasure that comes from being happy with life.

Sabre
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: AKSWulfe on May 21, 2002, 08:47:28 AM
Actually Skurj, Il-2 is very CPU dependant.

Chances are you'll get a much better framerate simply increasing your CPU speed than buying a new video card. It's not programmed specifically for any one "GPU".... the only "GPU" it uses is the GeForce T&L which really isn't a GPU but extra features.

All games on PCs are very CPU dependant... since coding to GPUs requires specific calls than using something more generic.

In my case, AH runs much faster at a deeper color depth and higher resolution than Il-2.
-SW
Title: The Real Problem with 4-Buff-Box
Post by: DeaconB on May 21, 2002, 12:25:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Shane



Forget about togglable, I want them killable!  Complete with a horrifying little "baaa-aaa-aaa" when I run them over with my M-16.