« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: are graphics gonna be like this ??  (Read 3679 times)

Offline LLv34_Camouflage

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2189
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2004, 04:17:40 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by NHawk
Sadly mistaken here, map height field size is 1024x1024 in AH. Texture size is 256x256.

Resolution is an entirely different thing you can have a 256 x 256 bitmap at 300 dpi resolution. AH bitmaps use 72 dpi resolution in most cases.


Sorry, I didnt quite understand what you're saying?

Please correct me if I'm wrong. DPI resolution shouldnt make any difference in the textures. The size of the bitmap is what matters, as it is "wrapped" around the object. The bigger the bitmap, the "sharper" the texture.  Therefore, since both have 1024 texture size, the AH2 and FB planes should have similar texture detail capabilities.  Lighting effects do make a big difference, so that is where AH2 falls short.

Camo
Logged
CO, Lentolaivue 34
Brewster's in AH!
"How about the power to kill a Yak from 200 yards away - with mind bullets!"

Offline GScholz

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8910
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2004, 05:24:48 AM »
Camo, what he is saying is that if you have a 1024x1024 texture wrapped around a large object you get a lower visual resolution than if it was wrapped around a small object. Every pixel covers more of the model. In practical terms this could for example be the use of only one texture to cover the enitre fuselage of a B-17 as opposed to using several texturemaps, each covering a section of the fuselage. The texturemaps are the same size, but the size of the area they cover determine how good they look.
Logged
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."

Offline AKWeav

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 743
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #32 on: February 27, 2004, 05:35:09 AM »
Quote
The bright blue skies you see in AH1 are capable of being done in AH2. It's just the demo maps settings thats all.


I don't spend much time in offline mode, it's online that concerns me.  I don't think I can change the arena settings online.  Is the fog cranked up online to increase FPS?  I think so.  Will we have to live with it in the final version?  That is the question.
Logged

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #33 on: February 27, 2004, 08:14:16 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Fangio
This is why I dont fly AH and dont have an account.  The game just looks poor. Also,  the views possible from the cockpits are so unrealistic and totally remove the concept of the "bounce"... but thats another matter.

I have no problem with AH providing a base graphics set that is small for download (cater to the dialup guys) and requires an ancient computer to play.

However,  why does AH not offer alternate graphics updates? Why not publish the base art, but also allow seperate options for those willing to download 500MB  (take about 10 minutes here) and/or have a very fast machine?

Heck,  you could probably get many community guys to build the models and graphics then submit them for review and implementation.

I just dont buy the whole "MMOLG means you have to have crap graphics" arguement.  I wont pay for it.


Fang

One word,
Bandwidth
Logged

Offline LLv34_Camouflage

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2189
      • http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #34 on: February 27, 2004, 09:52:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Camo, what he is saying is that if you have a 1024x1024 texture wrapped around a large object you get a lower visual resolution than if it was wrapped around a small object. Every pixel covers more of the model. In practical terms this could for example be the use of only one texture to cover the enitre fuselage of a B-17 as opposed to using several texturemaps, each covering a section of the fuselage. The texturemaps are the same size, but the size of the area they cover determine how good they look.


I understand this, but I dont think he was talking about that. Both games feature WW2 planes, therefore the object sizes are practically similar in each game.  Therefore, no practical difference in texture resolution between FB and AH2.  Right?

Of course, a B17 and an Me163 have huge size difference, therefore the Me163 would appear to have more detail. Both in AH2 and in FB. I dont think this was the topic of the discussion?


Quote
Originally posted by GScholz
Bandwidth


I dont think network bandwidth, as such, is the reason. I think it is about the network code. The AH network code is the best I've seen in any game. There are practically no connection issues, warping, etc.  Even though FB has good network code when compared to other boxed sims, AH wins FB hands down. On the other hand, if you compare AH H2H and an 8-player FB server, there is not much difference in the connection quality.

What it comes down to is the dedicated server. AH has a centralized server, which enables the hundreds of players.  FB is limited to 32 players, even when using the limited dedicated server software. It basically is just a light non-graphical FB to enable people to have servers without having to run the CPU intensive full game.

I think the AH server software is the key issue. All this must have to do with the network code optimization and using the server CPU power to calculate and "predict" the vectors of all the planes.  There was some discussion earlier about the AH servers. I'm not an expert on servers, but I believe the AH servers pack some serious computing power. Probably because it takes a lot of CPU cycles to calculate the networking stuff.

Now, back to the graphics issue. More intensive graphics in AH2 would mean less CPU power left for the networking code. But if most of the networking is calculated at the host, then what is the problem? Is the FB graphics engine simply just so much superior to the AH2 engine, capable of running much better graphics with much slower computers?  What do you think?

I think, if FB would have AH's network code, that would be quite a combination. :)

Camo
Logged
CO, Lentolaivue 34
Brewster's in AH!
"How about the power to kill a Yak from 200 yards away - with mind bullets!"

Offline BenDover

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5803
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #35 on: February 27, 2004, 10:40:21 AM »
I ment bandwidth as in the bandwith required to download such a thing.
Logged

Offline NHawk

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1787
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #36 on: February 27, 2004, 11:26:35 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by LLv34_Camouflage
Sorry, I didnt quite understand what you're saying? ....

Please correct me if I'm wrong. DPI resolution shouldnt make any difference in the textures. The size of the bitmap is what matters, as it is "wrapped" around the object. The bigger the bitmap, the "sharper" the texture.  Therefore, since both have 1024 texture size, the AH2 and FB planes should have similar texture detail capabilities.  Lighting effects do make a big difference, so that is where AH2 falls short.
 Ok, first point AH does NOT use 1024 x 1024 textures it uses 256 x 256...

NOTE: I stand corrected, AH2 has moved up to 1024 x 1024 textures. Hence the low frame rates

Sorry for the misunderstanding.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2004, 11:39:56 AM by NHawk »
Logged
Most of the people you meet in life are like slinkies. Pretty much useless, but still bring a smile to your face when you push them down the stairs.
-------------------------------
Sometimes I think I have alzheimers. But then I forget about it and it's not a problem anymore.

Offline Fangio

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 49
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #37 on: February 27, 2004, 02:08:17 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by BenDover
I ment bandwidth as in the bandwith required to download such a thing.


A 500MB download takes me about 10 minutes.  For those on dialup, they could either just use the low res default art or order a CD from HTC for an addtional $10.

Perhaps you mean the bandwith at HTC to host the downloads of all this art pack?   Heck,  they would not have to host it. It could carry zero bandwidth requirement for them. They could get file planet to host it, and require players to pay $1 or something to download it.  After all.... its an optional art pack, not required. If you want it, pay a bit more.  Big deal.

Also,  with the high res art being OPTIONAL....  HTC does not have to sweat performance as much. IF only the high end, new machines can run it, so what. Give the customers options. Dont just cater to the lowest common denominator....  cater to the entire customer base.

Do thats, you will have more customers.  Like me for example.


Fang
Logged

Offline Pongo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #38 on: February 27, 2004, 03:25:39 PM »
If AHII:
 Gets all its models to the standard of the P51D
 Rationalizes the skin lay out
 Moves the fog layer back a reasonable distance
Scales the pilot properly!

Then they are way closer to a cutting edge Massive scale ww2 flight sim than any derivitive of IL2 or anyone using its models are.
Alot of the detail in IL2 becomes needless in combat.
Logged

Offline vorticon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7935
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #39 on: February 27, 2004, 03:52:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Pongo

Alot of the detail in IL2 becomes needless in combat.


pah...in combat every detail the original air warrior didnt have is needless...
Logged

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
or like this
« Reply #40 on: February 27, 2004, 04:05:58 PM »
An incredible clouddeck
Logged

Offline OntosMk1

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 465
Who makes ur DDR..
« Reply #41 on: February 27, 2004, 06:20:54 PM »
Hey Bug, im looking into getting a Gig stick for my board, which is the same as yours. Who makes ur DDR memory and do you remember what u payed for them? Also what speed would you recommend?
Logged
TIGER, tiger, burning bright  
In the forests of the night,  
What immortal hand or eye  
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #42 on: February 27, 2004, 06:34:18 PM »
it's 2x ddr 400 512mb pc3200 trancend

guess trancend is the brand got it just standard
400 mhz
Logged

Offline moose

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2702
      • http://www.ccrhl.com
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2004, 02:36:15 PM »
Bug, with those clouds on i get about 25fps with my Athlon 2700 with 512 and a GF4..


making AH available to everyone has always been htc's priority and i agree with it. they try to make the game look as pretty as they can while making the system reqs low.

il2/lomac both throw that stuff to the wind, and pongo is right- who cares about eyecandy. you dont notice the little things one you get into the heat of a furball
Logged
<----ASSASSINS---->

Offline BUG_EAF322

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3153
      • http://bug322.startje.com
are graphics gonna be like this ??
« Reply #44 on: February 28, 2004, 02:46:12 PM »
Than why bother AH2 ??
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
« previous next »