OMG, look at the front page

[Volron]

 

[Karnak]

I would be absolutely shocked if the average PC used by an AH player was remotely close to a 2011 gaming PC.  Shocked.  I would guess the average is equivalent to a 2007 gaming PC.  Remember, many of our fellow players are older people or non-computer people who saw the add on TV and tried it out.  They have off the shelf consumer PCs such that even a 2012 PC is unlikely to be more capable of 3D games than a 2007 gaming PC.

My PC is a 2005 gaming PC with a 2012 graphics card and I cannot run AH at full detail.

[Gixer]

Remember, many of our fellow players are older people or non-computer people who saw the add on TV and tried it out.  They have off the shelf consumer PCs such that even a 2012 PC is unlikely to be more capable of 3D games than a 2007 gaming PC.

My PC is a 2005 gaming PC with a 2012 graphics card and I cannot run AH at full detail.

So what do you suggest , AH stays playable on 5 year old + computers because of a small older player base, or develop a new graphics engine,physics and FM to attract new customers and keep AH development going forward for the future?

They can always run two arenas, AH2 for old spec computers and AH3 for higher performance. Eventually the AH2 arena would die off along with it's customer base and could be closed down. Allowing the AH3 arena to continue and develop..

Unless of course HT doesn't have any plans to keep AH going, and happy to let it slowly die off which is what seems to be happening given the average MA peak numbers these days..

As for having a 2005 PC with a 2012 graphics card and not being able to run at full detail. That's because it's pointless to match a 2012 graphics card with a 2005 CPU,Mobo,Ram etc.  Especially with AH since it is more CPU intensive than GPU and still only DX9. You probably could of saved a bit of money and just got a 2006/2008 graphics card, same performance..



<S>...-Gixer

[Karnak]

So what do you suggest , AH stays playable on 5 year old + computers because of a small older player base, or develop a new graphics engine,physics and FM to attract new customers and keep AH development going forward for the future?

I suggest you don't know what you think you know.  The player base cannot simply be discarded with the assumption that a bunch of graphics first gamers will take their place.  In addition HTC does not have 80 artists working to pump out those high poly count graphics that EA has.  As to the engine, I trust HiTech is telling the truth when he says that this engine can do the stuff people are asking for, if HTC wanted to do that with it.

They can always run two arenas, AH2 for old spec computers and AH3 for higher performance. Eventually the AH2 arena would die off along with it's customer base and could be closed down. Allowing the AH3 arena to continue and develop..

No, you really can't with a small company.  You end up having two development lines or you abandon the older line and lose those players.

Unless of course HT doesn't have any plans to keep AH going, and happy to let it slowly die off which is what seems to be happening given the average MA peak numbers these days..

I am sure HTC is more aware of the subscriber base and what it means for them than any player. I am also sure that suddenly pumping out the computer crippling graphics will not increase the player base.

As for having a 2005 PC with a 2012 graphics card and not being able to run at full detail. That's because it's pointless to match a 2012 graphics card with a 2005 CPU,Mobo,Ram etc.  Especially with AH since it is more CPU intensive than GPU and still only DX9. You probably could of saved a bit of money and just got a 2006/2008 graphics card, same performance..<S>...-Gixer

Nope.  1) a friend gave me the card for free and 2) while my Athlon 64 4400 X2 is certainly not getting everything out of that card that a modern CPU would, it did noticeably improve the performance of the computer over the Dec. 2010 $100 budget card that was in it before, which was in turn an improvement over the $300 2008 video card that was in it before, which was a massive improvement over the 2006 $350 video card that was itself a massive improvement over the 2005 $300 video card that I put in it when I first built the computer.

The fact is that I would love to build a new PC, but I am not sure when that will happen.  I used to do it every three years, but now it is coming up on eight years in September.  I am hopeful I can build one soon, but I am not sure of it.  Playing around with New Egg and retaining my existing video card and power supply I put the parts together for a nice I7 system for just under $1100, but for now that is a pipe dream.

[pervert]

So what do you suggest , AH stays playable on 5 year old + computers because of a small older player base, or develop a new graphics engine,physics and FM to attract new customers and keep AH development going forward for the future?

They can always run two arenas, AH2 for old spec computers and AH3 for higher performance. Eventually the AH2 arena would die off along with it's customer base and could be closed down. Allowing the AH3 arena to continue and develop..

Unless of course HT doesn't have any plans to keep AH going, and happy to let it slowly die off which is what seems to be happening given the average MA peak numbers these days..

As for having a 2005 PC with a 2012 graphics card and not being able to run at full detail. That's because it's pointless to match a 2012 graphics card with a 2005 CPU,Mobo,Ram etc.  Especially with AH since it is more CPU intensive than GPU and still only DX9. You probably could of saved a bit of money and just got a 2006/2008 graphics card, same performance..



<S>...-Gixer

Christ Gixer I do get sick of you walking around with a 'the world is ending' sandwich board on all the time.

Lets see, a game with a FM so good it allows almost limitless variation, and you are crying, if you truly loved the essence of what air combat is you would not be looking at how hi res your wing is.

War Thunder can have 32 players online, well big deal, Aces High can have 400+ I am guessing somewhere WT has made a compromise in aesthetics to accommodate this.

[MajWoody]

What's really cool about War Thunder is the awesome F3 mode of play. 

[Wmaker]

And you seem  to lack the ability to have a conversation without making personal remarks on reading comprehension.

I never argued about the geometry of the terrain. I said that AH has not been using the same engine (per Hitech's statements) for 14 like you. And yet you kept on saying how I was wrong in on an argument I never had made. So in that context the observation on your reading comprehension was totally valid.

Had you not acted obtuse to begin with, you wouldn't need to now be crying that I'm being mean to you.

Your strongly defending changes the first 5 years of the last decade, but overlooking the 8 years and six months since 2005 where not a lot has happened (AH3?)..

I'm not defending anything. I certainly think AH looks dated and would hope to see improvements on the graphics. Just, unlike you, I'm believe in level headed reasoning and facts instead of hyperbolas and miss-information  and utter nonsense to bring my points across.





There are many things in AH graphics that make me cringe nowadays.

[Arlo]

Well, to me, every screenshot is a potential work of art.

 

[DREDIOCK]

get it right, tank destroyer and there's 3 of them.

Just somethign else whos rounds will bounce off the drivers side windows of M3s and jeeps LOL

[olds442]

(Image removed from quote.)

Well, to me, every screenshot is a potential work of art.

 

I agree, in the air I think it looks fine. Personally I think getting rid of the big pointy top hills would be good.

[Butcher]

Back to the Ops comment -

Re: StuG III
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2011, 10:36:25 AM »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote from: SmokinLoon on August 06, 2011, 09:07:27 AM

I dunno, I'm torn between the StuG III and Su-100 for HTC's first turret-less AFV.  

Both would be good editions, the StuG IIIG would not be perked and probably 25 eny without being perked, a nice offset would be the Jagdpanzer, a turretless tank destroyer with the 75mm L/70 (same gun on the Panther), however I believe it would be perked, on par with the Firefly but a little cheaper.

Seems my last wish for the Jagdpanzer was over 2 years ago, I couldn't find any dated topis I specifically remember posting for the tank back in 2004-2005.

Wishes do come true  

[RotBaron]

So since were talking about td's, 

Why is it that at the first mention of them, ppl want to talk about the perks they will cost along with the other important aspects.

I can't see any reason why these models would have perks. Most of this has already been covered by posters, here and in other threads, but:

1. Most of time they will have engine running, probably not all of the time, as they will adapt to ambush tactics.

2. These models are built on top of an earlier chassis model behind the tank turret/gun each TD corresponds to. From what I've read/seen that was the case with all the German TDs, except the JagdTiger, being built on a Tiger2 chassis.

The only aspect that repeatedly is pointed out, is that some of the TDs will have the ability to shoot at very long ranges and stay out of the up close battles. I believe that all depends on the optical ability to zoom in like the models above the Pz4. If they can't see you at 4K+, then they sure aren't going to hit anything.

[Arlo]

So since were talking about td's, 

Why is it that at the first mention of them, ppl want to talk about the perks they will cost along with the other important aspects.

I can't see any reason why these models would have perks. Most of this has already been covered by posters, here and in other threads, but:

1. Most of time they will have engine running, probably not all of the time, as they will adapt to ambush tactics.

2. These models are built on top of an earlier chassis model behind the tank turret/gun each TD corresponds to. From what I've read/seen that was the case with all the German TDs, except the JagdTiger, being built on a Tiger2 chassis.

The only aspect that repeatedly is pointed out, is that some of the TDs will have the ability to shoot at very long ranges and stay out of the up close battles. I believe that all depends on the optical ability to zoom in like the models above the Pz4. If they can't see you at 4K+, then they sure aren't going to hit anything.

Think 'punch.' That's probably it.

[Lusche]

2. These models are built on top of an earlier chassis model behind the tank turret/gun each TD corresponds to. From what I've read/seen that was the case with all the German TDs, except the JagdTiger, being built on a Tiger2 chassis.

Look up the Jagpanther.

[Tank-Ace]

So since were talking about td's, 

Why is it that at the first mention of them, ppl want to talk about the perks they will cost along with the other important aspects.

I can't see any reason why these models would have perks. Most of this has already been covered by posters, here and in other threads, but:

1. Most of time they will have engine running, probably not all of the time, as they will adapt to ambush tactics.

2. These models are built on top of an earlier chassis model behind the tank turret/gun each TD corresponds to. From what I've read/seen that was the case with all the German TDs, except the JagdTiger, being built on a Tiger2 chassis.

The only aspect that repeatedly is pointed out, is that some of the TDs will have the ability to shoot at very long ranges and stay out of the up close battles. I believe that all depends on the optical ability to zoom in like the models above the Pz4. If they can't see you at 4K+, then they sure aren't going to hit anything.

I can't wait for the first time a Hetzer kills your Panther because you didn't see it...

And losing a Tiger II to a Jagdpanther that has to have its engine running, and has almost half of your armor...