Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Fowler on November 20, 2002, 10:34:28 AM
-
Could Hitechcreations put in a major graphics improvement without making a complete new game?
is that a possiblilty?
just curious i have no grips about the graphics but down the road i may want some eyecandy with the changing times..
-
While it's a huge task, at some point there will likely be a graphics engine overhaul for AH. Who's to say when it will be?
Online games are, almost by definition, products that evolve. Developers count on ongoing subscriptions rather that one-time boxed sales, so there has to be constant development in order to keep player interest piqued.
At some point in the future, that might well mean an all new graphics engine (AH 2.0?). As it is now, AH has (relatively recently) begun supporting the DirectX8 API, so there are quite a few tricks in that bag that could be exploited long before the current engine is exhausted. Also note that some of the artwork from the original release (cockpits and skin textures) is gradually getting updated to be more detailed.
Cheers,
phaetn
-
We already know improved lighting is on the way...
-
have faith.. if HTC were intent on sitting on their laurels we'd still be playing 2d Warbirds.
-
anyone remeber in 96/7 when there were arenas upon arenas of aw full of people 24/7.
6 years later and 10 times the computers out there and 1/5th 1/10th the people playing the derivatives of aw , (wb and ah).
dont know if that is exactly commin far.
I no longer play and 95% of the people I played with in the beta and first year or two also dont.
-
Increase texture sizes to 512x512 = Instant better looking game.
Add an option for those with low spec systems to use the current 256x256 = No performance hit.
You could even phase them in gradually. Most obvious one would be the terrain tiles as thats what most of us spend the most time looking at.
Do textures get compressed in vid memory? Just scribbling it down on a bit of paper, each aircraft for EXTERNAL textures only is about 0.5mb uncompressed 512x512, those with 32mb cards may be pushing it in a big furball for vid ram. Would this be an issue?
Gatso
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
anyone remeber in 96/7 when there were arenas upon arenas of aw full of people 24/7.
6 years later and 10 times the computers out there and 1/5th 1/10th the people playing the derivatives of aw , (wb and ah).
dont know if that is exactly commin far.
I no longer play and 95% of the people I played with in the beta and first year or two also dont.
That statement is errroneous.
Please explain further what you're trying to say.
-
I agree.. it'd be awesome to create tiles that were 1024 instead of the 512 limitation we have now..
I start with the larger file and am so dissapointed when I have to compress them downwards.
but then there's the issue of players with older machines.
-
what do you mean by 2d warbirds???? The only versions of Warbirds I played were 3d.
-
Originally posted by gatso
Increase texture sizes to 512x512 = Instant better looking game.
Add an option for those with low spec systems to use the current 256x256 = No performance hit.
Right now, the texture resolution isn't such a problem as the older models have mediocre textures and models. Looking at the new P-51D gives a good idea of the difference that can be made just by using better textures.
512x512 textures are a good idea, and would make a great option. (I hope they're working with 512 textures or bigger, and shrinking them to 256) but just redoing the 256 textures can make a huge difference with absolutly no performance hit.
-
"If they indeed were sitting on thier laurels WB's never would have been created and we'd be playing AirWarrior ala 1993"
Gawd that was fun!
-
I believe HiTech has stated that the next update in the graphics engine will come when even lo-spec machines are running GeForce2 standard cards. I think he speculated that this might be at some point next year.
-
udet.. WarBirds was 2d a loong time before 3d was available.
a lot of names here remember it I'm sure
-
From my interview (posted at "The Wargamer") with HiTech at the Con this year...
SABRE: Fair enough. Let’s wrap this up with just a few general questions. The graphics engine Aces High uses right now works pretty well. It provides pretty good frame rates for people with more modest computers. When do you see that there’ll be a need for a major upgrade to the graphics engine?
HITECH: That would be in about a year’s time frame when we’ll need to start on that. The cool stuff you can do with the new video cards out there hasn’t really been a big deal…until they came out with pixel shaders. Pixel shaders were introduced in DirectXÔ 8.1, but hardly any hardware out there supported them. So it really wasn’t worth implementing in the game. As we approach about a year from now, TNT-2’s will pretty much be out of date and we’ll be into all GForce2 stuff. I can push some vertex processing up onto the [video] boards and be assured it’s not going to kill peoples’ machines, and start adding in the neat-looking effects, the pixel shaders and that type of stuff.
-
heh,
A geforce 2 MX will run ~$40, why would anyone still use anything less?
-
Because MX cards suck rocks.
-SW
-
Yep, I remember 2-d WB, I started in version 1.11 I beleive it was...
-
MX cards do not have shader support exposed. Also,..Hewlett Packard puts TNT2 chips in all thier Pentium 4 Pavilion systems, while removing the AGP slot as well.
Just FYI.
-
friggin HP....
-
Originally posted by popeye
"If they indeed were sitting on thier laurels WB's never would have been created and we'd be playing AirWarrior ala 1993"
Gawd that was fun!
Agreed, ya old fart!
-
WHAT thats air warrior in 93...looks worse that red baron 1 (a slightly earlier game)
want to send me that particular version of it??? (if tyhere s offline play ofcourse)
-
Originally posted by lord dolf vader
anyone remeber in 96/7 when there were arenas upon arenas of aw full of people 24/7.
6 years later and 10 times the computers out there and 1/5th 1/10th the people playing the derivatives of aw , (wb and ah).
dont know if that is exactly commin far.
If you put AH on AOL (for free), provided links to AH on the front page of AOL, and featured AH on AOL's national TV ads, then you would get the thousands of players every night that AW had there.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
WHAT thats air warrior in 93...looks worse that red baron 1 (a slightly earlier game)
want to send me that particular version of it??? (if tyhere s offline play ofcourse)
That looked like AW4W, nice shot of the P-38J too :D
Ack-Ack
-
I've said it before and say it again, it's absolutely possible to create a scalable graphics engine, thus neither neglecting the low end nor the high end systems out there.
Better lighting will go a long way, but I'd also like to see bump mapping and volumetric fog/clouds/smoke to be added.
Not wanting to be disrespectful or anything, but I have the distinct feeling that HTC isn't exactly hard at work on AH. There are other online games with a lower monthly fee than AH that update and improve (not bug fixes) their games far more frequently.
I'll be happy to be proven wrong with the release of 1.11, which, when/if it happens, should be a major improvement for the 4 months+ it has been in the works. But, let me be frank here, better lightning, 3 new planes and larger towns are at best a minor improvement. The mission arena may have been a major improvement but that has been postponed until 1.12.
-Amboss
-
Scalable graphic engine and scalable downloads is what AH always has needed. I really hope an enormous graphic improvement is on the way, because actual AH graphics are outclassed by years.
-
Amboss wrote:
Not wanting to be disrespectful or anything, but I have the distinct feeling that HTC isn't exactly hard at work on AH.
Really? What else do you think they are working on? There have been rumours, of course, but I think AH has to be their number one priority.
Remember that they're a small, dedicated dev team, and don't have the bloated studios (or capital!) that many other online offerings have. What they do have is a tight, dedicated product aimed at a very niche market, and a loyal community.
You're right in that online games have to have constant development, though, or player interest quickly wanes. Happily, in AH, the community can also be involved by creating custom terrains and events, etc.
Cheers,
phaetn
-
Originally posted by Amboss
I've said it before and say it again, it's absolutely possible to create a scalable graphics engine, thus neither neglecting the low end nor the high end systems out there.
Yeah, and I've said it before and I'll say it again... it'll take 'em 1 1/2 to 2x longer to create each update.
-SW
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
MX cards do not have shader support exposed. Also,..Hewlett Packard puts TNT2 chips in all thier Pentium 4 Pavilion systems, while removing the AGP slot as well.
Just FYI.
FYI the pavillion line is going bye bye.. HP will be adopting the Compaq EVO line. The only Pavilions you are seeing now were pre-merger.
BTW the EVO line has agp slots
-
lol you don't think HTC is working hard on AH ?
yeah.. that's how 5-6 people created the best mmog aircraft sim.. by sitting on their duffs
-
Originally posted by Amboss
Not wanting to be disrespectful or anything, but I have the distinct feeling that HTC isn't exactly hard at work on AH. There are other online games with a lower monthly fee than AH that update and improve (not bug fixes) their games far more frequently.
then if you're not trying to be disrespectful then what are you trying to be?
since you've only been here since September on the boards and who knows in game, you don't have the experience or knowledge of how the dev team operates to make a comment like that.
you can try Warbirds which now has an update every two weeks but if you look at their 'updates' you'll see that it's mostly very small bugfixes for stuff that should have been done long ago.
this is the best team out there.
-
I am not critizing the quality of their work (otherwise I'd take my $$$ elsewhere), but with all due respect it does not take a 5 man team more than 2 weeks to add a new plane once they have the necessary flight model data together. 3x2 Weeks=1.5 months.
But hey, I've seen my share of fanboys on various boards and I know how moot it is to talk with them. Once you start believing in something there can be no other truth.
And spare me your tirades about experience. I manage multimedia software development projects and I know what I can expect from 5 people working fulltime (maybe HTC doesn't work fulltime on AH).
End of discussion.
-Amboss
-
Amboss, do any of those multimedia experts program games?
-SW
-
lol. it isn't like HTC is just adding a plane here and there.
it's the gameplay, strat, game balanc... nevermind.
why waste my time when you (Amboss) can go read the threads for yourself.
(spits out hook)
-
Would you be happy with a IL-2 graphic engine for Ah NOW Wlgng, or more planes and "trains"?
nevermind
-
Creamo... fly a dogfight mission in Il2.
I have a Athlon XP 2000+, 768MB, GF4 Ti 4200... fly one of those servers that has all planes (AI too) enabled.
When you have 4 Pe8s attacking an airbase with fighters defending and stuff blowing up all over the place... you'll realise just how quickly Il2 can bring fairly decent computers to their knees.
So.. I would not want an Il2 graphics engine in AH NOW.. later down the road when the hardware can support a large scale war in that kind of detail, sure.
-SW
-
lol oed
have to admit I really dig IL2 graphics.. so I guess there's your answer Creamo o'course my hardware can handle it
-
Fair enough.
Going on vacation. Die Bambi die! See ya all in 2 weeks.
-
HITECH: As we approach about a year from now, TNT-2’s will pretty much be out of date and we’ll be into all GForce2 stuff.
Hard core simmers still with TNT2 and well into GeForce2 in one year? Oh MY .... :rolleyes:
-
GF4 4400
-
Oed,
I'm simply stating that there should be more valid excuses to keep the actual AH graphic engine for 1 year and more. More a/c, more strat development, better DM, more frequent events, little staff .... *these* all are valid reasons. But pls, dont tell me that we have to keep this graphic engine becouse we (average gamers) have still a TNT2 and will have a GF2 next year ... pleeeeaaaaseeee, eheheh ... ehm :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Amboss
I am not critizing the quality of their work (otherwise I'd take my $$$ elsewhere), but with all due respect it does not take a 5 man team more than 2 weeks to add a new plane once they have the necessary flight model data together. 3x2 Weeks=1.5 months.
But hey, I've seen my share of fanboys on various boards and I know how moot it is to talk with them. Once you start believing in something there can be no other truth.
And spare me your tirades about experience. I manage multimedia software development projects and I know what I can expect from 5 people working fulltime (maybe HTC doesn't work fulltime on AH).
End of discussion.
-Amboss
You assume:
(1) Updates include only airplanes
(2) No time post release chasing down bugs
(3) That releases are sent out right away
None of these are fair assumptions. A bit of time looking at the revision history should clear that up for you.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
I personaly think that the largest reason that there are 500+plus in the AH arenas in the evenings (US time) and not 250 is that Aces High system specs are very liberal. By not forcing everyone to have a Pent IV and a Geforce2 (or better) they retain a larger subscribers base.
It should be possible, however, to design the graphics engine so that there are multiple steps of detail reduction., which a user can toggle on or off to get the tradeoff of eye candy for frame rate that they want. It's not going to happen overnight, given that the engine has to be developed or licensed, and all of the existing graphics redone with more detail for the higher-quality rendering, but it's technologically feasible.
The issue then falls to the other two legs of the triad that control whether a decision gets implemented. Is it politically feasible? Well, judging from the response on threads like this, there are a significant number of people who want to see the graphics quality improved, so doing it isn't going to encounter opposition from the customer base unless the low-end people get shut out in the process. Is it economically feasible? Here's where you run into the problem. As you point out, HTC is a small company; dedicating the resources to a complete rewrite of the core of the AH client, as well as redoing all of the object graphics in the game, is likely going to sideline all other development. If HTC can't do it with their current staff, they'd need to hire extra people for the additional coding work, which eats into their overhead and could cause them to raise their fees. How many of the people with low-end systems would be willing to pay, say, an extra $5.00 per month for a year so HTC can implement graphics improvements that they'll never see because their systems can't handle it at a reasonable frame rate?
The problem is a complex one, and I'm sure HiTech's done the tradeoff at least once during the development of AH. But since we're not privy to the financial status of HTC, any arguments either way are going to be speculation.
-
There are scalable graphics of a sort right now: screen resolution, colour depth bit rate, mipmapping, and palettized textures. Upping these reduces frame rates, while lowering them increases frame rates (at the expense of visuals).
Online flight simmers have always been behind the curve when compared to requirements for retail boxed games. One of the reasons, naturally, is that online developers have a legacy product to support and know they will definitely lose customers if they increase their hardware requirements too much. Remember, it's always harder to attract new customers than to keep existing ones.
When there's enough pressure from competition to demand a graphics overhaul, and a company deems an appropriate percentage of their customer base would be able to handle an increase in hardware requirements, they typically do increase them. As it is, there's all sorts of stuff that could be done now that DirectX 8.1 is supported that simply wasn't feasible before. HTC can exhaust a lot of those long before they have to use an all new engine.
Cheers,
phaetn