Any rumors about improving the terrain?

[GScholz]

I'm here to check on the progress of the game, and to keep up on current events. I don't need your permission or approval.

[Nathan60]

I'm here to check on the progress of the game, and to keep up on current events. I don't need your permission or approval.

You can do bout without trying to influence popular opinion,  until you pay up sit there and keep quiet.

[GScholz]

"Both", and no. 

I will "influence" all I want within the rules of the forum; why would I be checking on the progress of the game unless I was hoping for some improvement that would lead me to play again?

[kappa]

You can do bout without trying to influence popular opinion,  until you pay up sit there and keep quiet.

popular opinion? other than a few fanbois here, i think the opinion is the game is dated..

you don't have to read what he post you know.. self control is crucial 8)

[Nathan60]

It was satire, yes It would be nice to see improvement, and yes hearing what would bring people back and make them stay is important aswell, however,  at this point would you rather have more a/c gv's, new maps,  a new stat system or a new engine?

[kappa]

It was satire, yes It would be nice to see improvement, and yes hearing what would bring people back and make them stay is important aswell, however,  at this point would you rather have more a/c gv's, new maps,  a new stat system or a new engine?

Engine.. all that other stuff has been added thru the years and look where we are.. I've been steadily paying for this game for a long long time.. Don't guess I've missed a month in many years.. Honestly, the only thing that keeps me paying is the group I fly with.. If they would kick me out, i'd be gone too.. I would bet big money that I am not alone in my thinking..

[Gixer]

Actually a similar thing already happened to AH in the past. The transition from AH1 to AH2 was apparently a rather painful one, with a big cut in MA activity and player numbers. According to the stats, it took a long time to recover.

That's because myself and a lot of other players expected AH2 to be an upgrade of AH1 with a new engine or a significant upgrade. It was a big surprise after all the wait and hype that AH2 looked and felt exactly the same as AH1, most of aircraft, models etc were still exactly the same. Other than for a few new objects, textures, effects etc. It was just another upgrade of the existing engine from beta days which even at that time was starting to look very dated.

Subsequently I closed my account and didn't return fully for another 3 years, and for me that pattern has continued come back see what's changed if there is any news of an update and then close account again, think I've had about 6 accounts in past 13 years.


<S>...-Gixer

[Gixer]

It was satire, yes It would be nice to see improvement, and yes hearing what would bring people back and make them stay is important aswell, however,  at this point would you rather have more a/c gv's, new maps,  a new stat system or a new engine?

Absolutely a new engine because with that you can get real new maps and a new stat system. The existing one has gone as far as it can go development wise. That's why graphic performance is relatively poor for the visuals here, because it's a dated CPU intensive design, doesn't take advantage of GPUs of even 7 years ago and now doesn't even take advantage of latest CPUs as still single/dual core design.

Doesn't matter how many textures you map onto a pyramid mountain, it's still going to look like a pyramid due to the underlying mesh, poly count. New maps on the existing engine aren't going to help AH2 into the next 2 years and beyond.


<S>...-Gixer

[Easyscor]

Absolutely a new engine because with that you can get real new maps and a new stat system.
...
<S>...-Gixer

No, you won't. Why would we get a new strat system with a new terrain engine? That isn't logical because the two are independent, just like the flight model and other modules of the game engine.

A new terrain engine with more vertices would probably interpolate between existing verts with some random variance but they would be the same terrains we have now. It would take brand new terrains, or manually reworked ones to see natural differences in the ground mapping in the MA. The more features htc adds to a new terrain engine, the longer it will take to create new terrains and the heavier the load on the player's hardware (and it wouldn't be verts alone.)

If you two are only talking about MA terrains, then yes, you can download those terrains for offline play but if you aren't subscribing then no, you can't see the same thing that subscribers can see because the latest terrains are not available to you. They can only be downloaded through the AvA or the custom arenas. Ranger's textures aren't available, jimson's lighthouse and his several target aircraft aren't available and neither are the bluffs of Normandy and other features in avachanl

Oh but wait, now you'll declare those don't count because they're not MA terrains. Well, none of the game terrains shown/listed in this thread support an MA style terrain so keep it apples to apples. They all seem to have terrains based on real world locations and we have that in both SEA and the AvA terrains. And some of ours are pretty competitive with theirs.

I've said I'd like more verts and a couple of bridges in the terrain but hey, I'm sure you'll brand me a fanboi anyway.

I always look for a balance of two things when I look at Aces High, quality and playability. Whether it's a planeset in an event or a custom object with supper high definition graphics, it must balance playability or no one will show up.

[jimson]

I was never even talking to you wtf are you ranting about? I made my point very clear: The image was photoshopped - easyscor claimed it wasn't.

Now why are you bugging me about this again? Is it over your head or what? 

First of all, I don't think easyscor was the one who took that screenshot.

The blurriness was the only altered part of the image and since when does blurriness artificially enhance the graphic detail of an image?

You seem to be insinuating that the terrain does not actually look that good.

You're right, it looks better. It's not blurry.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

First of all, I don't think easyscor was the one who took that screenshot.

The blurriness was the only altered part of the image and since when does blurriness artificially enhance the graphic detail of an image?

You seem to be insinuating that the terrain does not actually look that good.

You're right, it looks better. It's not blurry.

People, really. You need to stop posting if you don't even bother to read the posts!

I said that many other engines have focus and blur effects which AH doesn't have. And even if they didn't - YOU JUST DON'T POST PHOTOSHOPPED PICTURES WHEN YOU DISCUSS ABOUT THE ENGINE IMAGE QUALITY. Period.

[Gixer]

No, you won't. Why would we get a new strat system with a new terrain engine? That isn't logical because the two are independent, just like the flight model and other modules of the game engine.

Yes they are independent but it is very logical to do, if you are going to invest time and resources into a new engine you would also take the time out to build a new strat system with the new version.

And a new strat system would be easier to build from scratch on top of a new version than to try and build one with the parts already available.


<S>...-Gixer

[jimson]

People, really. You need to stop posting if you don't even bother to read the posts!

I said that many other engines have focus and blur effects which AH doesn't have. And even if they didn't - YOU JUST DON'T POST PHOTOSHOPPED PICTURES WHEN YOU DISCUSS ABOUT THE ENGINE IMAGE QUALITY. Period.

HE WASN'T REFERRING TO THE FOCUS AND BLUR EFFECTS. THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE A SCREENSHOT THAT SOMEONE ELSE POSTED THAT SHOWED THE OTHER DETAIL OF THE TERRAIN HE WAS REFERRING TO.

Seriously though, aside from the blur effects, the picture accurately showed what the terrain looks like.

It's not as though he used photoshop to add detail and color vibrancy that isn't there. I think if he had had a handy screenshot that didn't have edge blur he would have used it.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

HE WASN'T REFERRING TO THE FOCUS AND BLUR EFFECTS. THAT JUST HAPPENED TO BE A SCREENSHOT THAT SOMEONE ELSE POSTED THAT SHOWED THE OTHER DETAIL OF THE TERRAIN HE WAS REFERRING TO.

Seriously though, aside from the blur effects, the picture accurately showed what the terrain looks like.

It's not as though he used photoshop to add detail and color vibrancy that isn't there.

It makes no difference whatsoever. I said the photo was photoshopped (as it clearly was), he claimed it wasn't. The whole argument spawned from that obvious flaw. Someone tried (poorly) to enhance the image by adding a fake focus effect on it using blur. Even though it was a bad job, you just don't post manipulated images as 'proof' of how good graphics are.

[Gixer]

Seriously though, aside from the blur effects, the picture accurately showed what the terrain looks like.

 

And there's the core of the problem in the first place and reason for this thread. Photoshopped or not the terrain looks terrible and very dated even at max detail.


<S>...-Gixer