War Thunder

[LCADolby]

I am neither promoting nor berating.

[Arlo]

I guess you guys are happy to settle and watch other games snap up the player base, while Skuzzy PNGs anyone who dares to have a voice that something need to be done?

[GScholz]

No Combatsim for Old Men? 

[cohofly]

Hey Dolby, I just wanted to point out that while I cant see a dot at 15 to 17 miles, my squaddie Poppy can on his rig. We have tried to figure out why this is....... some sort of combo involving his GPU and monitor, I cant say for sure, time and again he sees cons (dots) at approx. 3/4's of a sector. So just wanted to let you know that it is possible.
<S>
Carver

[LCADolby]

I ran the film viewer to when cons were observed, 9.5k. Snail man observed 10K, 88mm range...

Poppy must have all the bells and whistles to manage 3 times the view range as the rest of us.

[zack1234]

Hey Dolby, I just wanted to point out that while I cant see a dot at 15 to 17 miles, my squaddie Poppy can on his rig. We have tried to figure out why this is....... some sort of combo involving his GPU and monitor, I cant say for sure, time and again he sees cons (dots) at approx. 3/4's of a sector. So just wanted to let you know that it is possible.
<S>
Carver

I have been informed you have glasses like Mr Magoo

[Skuzzy]

I think WT and AH are both DX9. WTs graphics engine is from 2008.

Efficient as in, more eye candy for the same PC power. IE so that all of us can run the settings on AH higher.

I guess you guys are happy to settle and watch other games snap up the player base, while Skuzzy PNGs anyone who dares to have a voice that something need to be done?

We draw more vertices, per screen, than WT does.  We do not ship 6GB of artwork for our game.  We ship 300MB.  What we do with out tiny bit of art is far, far better than what WT could do with it.  By all engineering definitions, our graphic engine is incredibly efficient.  Just because you cannot see something does not mean it is not being rendered.  There are times when a single pixel is not small enough to display what is rendered.  That is a bit out of our control.

It does no one any good to keep people around here who continually make detrimental remarks about the game or the service.  It does not help any one.  Quite the opposite. While I am having to deal with these situations, there is a lot of positive contributions, I can make, that are not being done.

You are not helping at all.  We know, far better than you will ever know, what we need to do and what we will do.  If you want to be a part of that, I strongly suggest you find a way to become a positive contributor to this forum and stop making declarations about things you do not have no knowledge about.

Here is an opinion;

"The terrain graphics could stand some updating."

Here is you;

"The graphic engine is not efficient."

The first statement is accurate.  We agree.  It really does not hurt us.  It is the truth.  The last statement is a lie, at best.  No matter how many times I have told you there is a difference between a graphic engine and artwork, you continue to belabor a point which has no basis in reality.  You continue to promote a fallacy.  When you do, we have to stop whatever we are doing and address it.  Like it or not, this bulletin board is also a form of advertising.  The fallacy could keep away a new customer if we do not address it.  It is highly counterproductive. It does nothing to help anything, nor anyone.

We are happy to allow people here who state an opinion, even when it is stating the obvious.  We will not tolerate anyone who comes in here and spreads lies about our product and/or service.

[Volron]

We draw more vertices, per screen, than WT does.  We do not ship 6GB of artwork for our game.  We ship 300MB.  What we do with out tiny bit of art is far, far better than what WT could do with it.  By all engineering definitions, our graphic engine is incredibly efficient.  Just because you cannot see something does not mean it is not being rendered.  There are times when a single pixel is not small enough to display what is rendered.  That is a bit out of our control.

It does no one any good to keep people around here who continually make detrimental remarks about the game or the service.  It does not help any one.  Quite the opposite. While I am having to deal with these situations, there is a lot of positive contributions, I can make, that are not being done.

You are not helping at all.  We know, far better than you will ever know, what we need to do and what we will do.  If you want to be a part of that, I strongly suggest you find a way to become a positive contributor to this forum and stop making declarations about things you do not have no knowledge about.

Here is an opinion;

"The terrain graphics could stand some updating."

Here is you;

"The graphic engine is not efficient."

The first statement is accurate.  We agree.  It really does not hurt us.  It is the truth.  The last statement is a lie, at best.  No matter how many times I have told you there is a difference between a graphic engine and artwork, you continue to belabor a point which has no basis in reality.  You continue to promote a fallacy.  When you do, we have to stop whatever we are doing and address it.  Like it or not, this bulletin board is also a form of advertising.  The fallacy could keep away a new customer if we do not address it.  It is highly counterproductive. It does nothing to help anything, nor anyone.

We are happy to allow people here who state an opinion, even when it is stating the obvious.  We will not tolerate anyone who comes in here and spreads lies about our product and/or service.

BOOM!  Headshot!

[Karnak]

I ran the film viewer to when cons were observed, 9.5k. Snail man observed 10K, 88mm range...

Poppy must have all the bells and whistles to manage 3 times the view range as the rest of us.

I wonder if this is simple resolution at play.  If a guy playing on a 2560x1440 can see aircraft dots further out than I can playing at 1440x900 because the computer determines that the dot is too small to render using one of my pixels but is still appropriate to render using one of his smaller pixels?

[Curly]

"The terrain graphics could stand some updating."


The first statement is accurate.  We agree.  It really does not hurt us.  It is the truth.

Honestly I think you'd get much more bang for your buck if you updated the lighting, tweaked the color palette a bit, and perhaps added some filtration. What gives Warthunder it's look is heavy use of saturated colors, lots of diffused light, and graduated filtration. That's what makes those graphics pop. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the poly count in the Aces Model was higher than the WT.  

Vs .

 Lighting will enhance the work you've already done and make it stand more. Computationally it tends to be less demanding than adding more vertices; It tends to be more scalable for the individual user. IE allowing them to disable specular and diffusion maps, the same way we can with bump maps. While the terrain could use a pass, I'm not sure the yield on that investment is very great.  It will be a lot of work having to remap the terrains with the new tiles too. If you just add more vertices what do you get? More models hidden by the same flat palette and vanilla lighting system.

As an example of what i mean; In Photoshop I pushed up the saturation, added some slight diffusion and an ND filter, of the aces Yak-9-t. Notice how the colors separate and everything stands out, it's vibrant with out being cartoony  

[Lusche]

I wonder if this is simple resolution at play.  If a guy playing on a 2560x1440 can see aircraft dots further out than I can playing at 1440x900 because the computer determines that the dot is too small to render using one of my pixels but is still appropriate to render using one of his smaller pixels?

The 88 and 5" gun position have the greatest magnification levels in game. Thus you never see a dot at maximum magnification. Fully zoomed in you can clearly see the three bombers of a formation being rendered in fine detail @ 10k yard distance even on my 'small' 23" monitor.
But once the bombers go past 10k distance, they disappear (along with the icon), they don't even go into dot mode.

From that it's pretty obvious that it is not a GC limitation, but a game one. Which I did not found to be variable with any graphic settings I tried.

[Saxman]

Honestly I think you'd get much more bang for your buck if you updated the lighting, tweaked the color palette a bit, and perhaps added some filtration. What gives Warthunder it's look is heavy use of saturated colors, lots of diffused light, and graduated filtration.

So basically you're saying, "Real Is Brown."

[Arlo]

So basically you're saying, "Real Is Brown."

I dunno. The photoshop example looks like real is a green filter (though I read the cute link). 

[bozon]

Honestly I think you'd get much more bang for your buck if you updated the lighting, tweaked the color palette a bit, and perhaps added some filtration. What gives Warthunder it's look is heavy use of saturated colors, lots of diffused light, and graduated filtration. That's what makes those graphics pop. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the poly count in the Aces Model was higher than the WT.  

(Image removed from quote.) Vs (Image removed from quote.).

 Lighting will enhance the work you've already done and make it stand more. Computationally it tends to be less demanding than adding more vertices; It tends to be more scalable for the individual user. IE allowing them to disable specular and diffusion maps, the same way we can with bump maps. While the terrain could use a pass, I'm not sure the yield on that investment is very great.  It will be a lot of work having to remap the terrains with the new tiles too. If you just add more vertices what do you get? More models hidden by the same flat palette and vanilla lighting system.

As an example of what i mean; In Photoshop I pushed up the saturation, added some slight diffusion and an ND filter, of the aces Yak-9-t. Notice how the colors separate and everything stands out, it's vibrant with out being cartoony  
(Image removed from quote.)

I am sorry Curly, but the AH original image looks more real to me. The WT colors look like a painting and the saturated yak pic you made looks like there is something wrong with my monitor. WT does have nicer mountains in that image, but some trees there look like they are 200 feet high.

[Curly]

So basically you're saying, "Real Is Brown."

Not at all, they certainly don't have to, nor should they copy WT's aesthetic. Though as it stands Aces has very little in the way of lighting or lighting effects. The difference between this

and
this
is lighting effects. I dont think adding more polygons to the trees really will raise the bar as much improving the lighting.