Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: jbroey3 on October 19, 2002, 08:39:31 PM
-
Can we start to get houses and ground effects as seen here?
It would definately lead to a Ground war that would be truely remarkable.
I dream of having the Depth of aces high multiplayer action with the possibility of an arena that can has this level of detail.
Just imagine a ground vehicle without a giant neon placard above it saying.. "shoot me.. shoot me.. im right here"
(http://www.il2center.com/RTS/006.jpg)
-
OUCH, what porgram is the picture made in, doubt it's from a game...
Would be nice with better grpahics for the ground war, that isn't seen from the air. People might get too big FPS hits :(
-
I prefer to set my line with one of these.
-
Considering, that FPS is planned for Aces High, probably number of group objects shall be much higher that now. I doubt we will see it prior to summer anyway.
-
Uhmm, looking at the textures of the Tank it probarly is from a game, but which one?
-
It's from our old friend Maddox games (IL2 fame). Still in development but looks bloody amazing. Go here for more screenies..... http://games.tiscali.cz/clanek/screen_detail.asp?id=3073&img=imgj.jpg&ord=35
I can hear my ageing Athlon groaning even as we speak..... :(
TTFN
snafu
-
That won't run in high res (1600x1200) at good fps any time soon - at least not on the next generation of graphics cards. The one after that, maybe.
Supporting just high end hardware keeps too many players away.
Also, I don't think download size would allow something like that.
FPS die even with geforce4 cards when 30 aircraft are sitting on the runway.
-
You guys, this is from a game yes, one that is in development, but that is not even my point.
Il2 currently has graphics for a ground war that looks very simular minus the grass part to the screenshot posted above.
Anyway my point is... have you guys seen another game called BattleField 1942? its really where I would like to see aces high.
Now dont get me wrong, im obviously not talking about the Flight model or the modeling of physics within the game as a whole, but the Ability to have a TRUE Air/Land/Sea War all in one arena is really awesome AND to have really nice graphics in the process.
My computer is a 1.4 Athlon thunderbird (NOT athlon XP)/512ddr ram/geforce3 (original geforce3) and I consistantly get 75fps(refresh rate) at 1024x768.
Considering that im getting 75fps, I have PLENTY of room for graphics improvements to knock it down to a STILL playable 30fps. :)
For all the guys here who are running Anything Less than a 1 GHZ machine, I just checked on http://www.pricewatch.com and found 1ghz and up CPU/Motherboard combos being priced at 70$$$. :eek:
-
It's not just the processor. If they increase the graphics it's going to out date alot of current customers' computers. It doesn't take much of a computer to run this game, opening it up to more customers. If you make the game to where only top of the line video cards and computers can run it, not too may will play it.
-
For all the guys here who are running Anything Less than a 1 GHZ machine, I just checked on http://www.pricewatch.com and found 1ghz and up CPU/Motherboard combos being priced at 70$$$.
yeah, it doesn't cost very much, but most of us who have less then 1 GHz CPU also have old mainboards and RAM. updating the Mainboard (to a fairly good one that alowes for updates) would cost 150-200 US dollars in Sweden, same if I order from Pricewatch due to shipment and Swedish Customs. The RAm would cost anouther 50-120 to get 256-512 mb. Then the CPU, 1Ghz is just silly to buy now, it should atleast be XP 1800 or so which costs around 100 US. So could count on, a system update that can be further updated, with RAM, Mainboard and CPU, for about 300 US dollars.
I will buy new stuff next year, just don't have the money now :(
I am running a 700Mhz and often go down as low as to 10fps with 20+ people in a fight :(
-
Originally posted by jbroey3
My computer is a 1.4 Athlon thunderbird (NOT athlon XP)/512ddr ram/geforce3 (original geforce3) and I consistantly get 75fps(refresh rate) at 1024x768.
Considering that im getting 75fps, I have PLENTY of room for graphics improvements to knock it down to a STILL playable 30fps. :)
30 fps isn't really playable. neither is 1024x768. Also, max fps doesn't matter, what matters is fps in those nasty situations when you need it, e.g. bunch of bomber formations ahead - with 30fps in an empty area you're going to drop to <10, which noone sane would consider playable.
I've played at 1024x768/30fps. With my new box i'm getting 70+fps at 1600x1200. Suddenly calibrating the bombsight is easy as i noticed in yesterdays CAP (the two times i tried before i completely sucked, now it just worked perfectly). Bouncing at landing has reduced to almost zero. The big ship guns I could hardly move before (sometimes 5 fps or so) now move smoothly. I still have to work on my gunnery though ;)
But even now when on the runway with 30 other aircraft fps drop to 10 or 20 (when all ac are at the spawnpoint).
There's no room for graphical improvements, unless using reduced resolution, which is IMHO not an option for a flight sim.
-
30 fps isn't really playable. neither is 1024x768. Also, max fps doesn't matter, what matters is fps in those nasty situations when you need it, e.g. bunch of bomber formations ahead - with 30fps in an empty area you're going to drop to <10, which noone sane would consider playable.
1024 is definatly playable IMO, not lower though. And as long as FPS is abouve 26 there is no problem really. I think Jbroey said he had 30 at the lowest...
-
That is correct Wilbuz.
CCiv I really do not understand how you can say that 1024x768 is not playable... uhmm..
Everything that I play is at 1024x768.. simply because it is the sweet spot between Good graphic detail (fine resolution) and Smooth framerates. Aces High/IL2/Battlefield /X-plane etc....
Sure I can Crank up the resolution to 1600x1200 and get about 65-70 constant but why?... I dont want to have to read and look at the gages when the numbers are 3 pixels wide.
In a situation with over 32 guys, 10 more.. people blowing @h#$% up.. and clouds.. I get around 60fps.
Hitechs models.. are not seemingly Polycount intensive because of the way that flat single 2D textures are laid out in order to form specific parts of the aircraft where polycount would add up quickly.
30fps.. if you can attain it.. in anysituation is .. still 30fps.. And still faster than 24 for the TV.
You would see smooth motion at that rate.
-
30 fps is certainly playable, even for a flight sim. Around 20 fps it could start affecting dynamic performance. However, for the ground war even 10 fps would be playable- 70 ton Panzers don't move at 400 mph and they certainly don't do rapid break turns. Terrain and object detail could certainly be programmed different for flight and driving so that grounders could have the detail for immersion and hiding and flyers could have the frame rate for rapid targeting. (I do forsee a whine there- a grounder might try to hide in a bush or behind a building that an air attacker doesn't see on his FE.)
HTC has already said both that they will be going to more ground stuff (FPS) as well as supporting DX8 graphics cards. They just choose to go more slowly in that direction than some would like. However, they, perhaps correctly, prefer to go slow and maintain stability and profitablity.
-
HTC could make the gfx scalable. Like different levels of texture res, pollycount and lightsources.
Would make the game able to run on older systems, yet be visually better for high-end systems.
-
Originally posted by jbroey3
TEverything that I play is at 1024x768.. simply because it is the sweet spot between Good graphic detail (fine resolution) and Smooth framerates. Aces High/IL2/Battlefield /X-plane etc....
Sure I can Crank up the resolution to 1600x1200 and get about 65-70 constant but why?... I dont want to have to read and look at the gages when the numbers are 3 pixels wide.
Not exactly correct. Gauges are just the same size on all resolutions. At 640x480 they're hardly readable, at 1600x1200 you can almost see the pixels of the textures.
The font for the chat looks bad at 1024x768, I think it's designed for 1280xX.
Originally posted by jbroey3
30fps.. if you can attain it.. in anysituation is .. still 30fps.. And still faster than 24 for the TV.
You would see smooth motion at that rate.
Panning snap views aren't smooth at 30fps. Passing something really fast usually isn't smooth either. Those are both situations you hardly see on a TV, and if it's in a situation where you don't need to see anything anyway. When a 262 passes you and you try to follow with panning views it's a different thing.
715, you're correct about that upcoming whine, it has been that way in WB3. btw whines didn't stopp when trees were forced on ;)
-
HTC could make the gfx scalable. Like different levels of texture res, pollycount and lightsources.
Ya, why not.. Warbirds had 2 different vers running alongside eachoter (same arena) one with 2D FE and on 3D FE.
Might be to much coding time for HTC tough... to develop two different FE´s at an time..
-
If I had to drop to 1024 I'd either stop playing or upgrade. And I'm not ready for an upgrade yet.
There is a real difference between 1024 and 1280 in Aces High. That I can run it in 1600 is just icing on the cake.
-
Those pics are definitely from Oleg Maddox's upcoming strat sim. However, what you fail to realize is there will not be 500 players in it at the same time.
I am sure HiTech would love to make Aces High look like that, but with today's technology, specifically considering the average users box, you aren't going to be gaming anything that looks like that online in a MMP environment. Perhaps in about five years the tech will be available to handle that for the MMP environment, but then you have to wait a couple of years to allow people to reach that level of tech on their desktops in sufficient numbers to make a business case for it, then you will probably see Aces High II with that much detail.
Remember, IL-2 only allows 32 players in an arena. It's a trade off. Numbers vs detail. However, based on what HiTech has stated in interviews, don't expect AH to remain stagnant in that area as a result. The great thing about HTC is they are always updating AH, but doing it in a manner that still allows it to remain playable to their customer base. Throwing in a ton of detail isn't going to make it better if most of your customer base can't operate it afterward.
-
For graphics like that...umm to borrow a classic phrase from WW2OL:
"Buy more Ram!"
Like at least a gig or two.
-
I dont' know. I think the graphics are pretty good right now. Hold a steady 40-50 fps and drop to 25-30 in heavy furballs. Any more graphics and I'm going to need to upgrade.
I'd rather spend 1500 on a new GZ intimidator setup for next years paintball season :D
-
Aces High can surely use a complete facelift. My personal opinion.
-
Yes, its missing its P-38F/G/H/J mascara and P-61 hair dye
-
Comparing the graphics from BF1942 is a joke
Try playing it with 64 players in one area
Eeekkkkk
I'd rather have aging graphics (and lately killer skins!) then have new stuff with the problems associated with it
Give them time.
-
heh, i like Voss's tackle box. they're all divers.... atta boy!
-
Originally posted by Fatty
If I had to drop to 1024 I'd either stop playing or upgrade. And I'm not ready for an upgrade yet.
There is a real difference between 1024 and 1280 in Aces High. That I can run it in 1600 is just icing on the cake.
And makes hitting chutes a lot easier.
-
Originally posted by ccvi
And makes hitting chutes a lot easier.
Heh, makes hitting everything a lot easier, especially the little guy dangling at the bottom of a chute.
People are under the mistaken impression that higher res in aces high means everything is smaller. Everything is the same size but in more detail, and it's like playing a completely different game with the clarity 1280 and above.
-
Originally posted by Fatty
People are under the mistaken impression that higher res in aces high means everything is smaller. Everything is the same size but in more detail, and it's like playing a completely different game with the clarity 1280 and above.
Everything appears smoother... but thats because they are smaller.
Think of it this way- it's 1024x768 pixels.. you are now going to 1600x(whatever) pixels, but still using the same viewing area.
It's not significantly smaller, as say going from 640x480 up to 1600x(whatever)... but it's still smaller.
I wish I could go up to 1600x(whatever) but I only get 60Hz on my monitor's refresh at that res... gives me headaches.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKSWulfe
Everything appears smoother... but thats because they are smaller.
Think of it this way- it's 1024x768 pixels.. you are now going to 1600x(whatever) pixels, but still using the same viewing area.
It's not significantly smaller, as say going from 640x480 up to 1600x(whatever)... but it's still smaller.
I wish I could go up to 1600x(whatever) but I only get 60Hz on my monitor's refresh at that res... gives me headaches.
-SW
THey are not smaller, wolf. At least 3d objects, which are rendered, are not. They are same size. Just it is more pixels to show each object.
Fixed size objects, like pixelated fonts are smaller though. That is why with small display setting higher resolutions may hart your eyes. Text buffer messages are really small.
-
Right, it's the same size image drawn at a much higher resolution.
-
I get more viewing area in cockpit at higher resolutions? Or maybe I'm remembering back to the days of bitmap (drawn on, none-3D) cockpits?
-SW
-
The chat window.. or anything that is "text" in the sense of being a 2d image is reduced size wise.
The 3d Objects are exactly the same size.. and Do not change.
The issue that I am Talking about, Is... FONT size..
As you increase the resoultion the "Viewable" size of the Font is decreased.
Another thing... For all you guys.. that "Simply must" play at nothing less than 1600x1200 .... :rolleyes:
Doesnt that goto show you that... Your computer is not doing "enough" and should/CAN be Pressed harder to have greater Details/effects/physics.. etc..
I start thinking that wow, when I can run at 1600x1200 with everything on, all the "bells and whistles" and still get 75-80fps,
I can only imagine how much MORE can be put into making it look graphically better/enchanced physics etc with a simple drop of the resolution and still have HIGH frame rates.
-
Quite,..changing the resolution does not alter the size of any image in AH.
It just alters the number of pixels/square inch to render.
-
30 fps isn't really playable. neither is 1024x768.
This is, quite possibly, the most entirely subjective statement I have ever heard. And I've been cruising flight sim boards and news-groups for years... professionally! :D
Over more than a decade I have certainly played flight sims at less than 30fps, and certainly at less than 1024x768. Sheesh, I've even played them in a monochrome "256 shades of grey" monitor. :) Hey, once LucasArts' "Battle of Britain" was the leading edge in flightsims... and damn they were fun. As lousy as it was from today's perspective, Microprose's F-19 Stealth Fighter (the original one) was damned sweet, too. It was an immersive, nail-biting game, that had all sorts of diverse elements.
Hey, it's all relative. You may find less than 30fps bothersome, and less than a 1024x768 resolution an eyesore, but lots of other people don't. Indeed, I find the fact that my monitor doesn't support a refresh rate above 85Hz in 1200x1024 much more disconcerting than the fact that it's less detailed at 1024x768.
Bear in mind that other people may actually have differing opinions that you do... (heaven forbid!).
Boy, I didn't think I got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning, why the hell did I have to respond to this post?!?
Cheers,
phaetn