Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
Neighbor_Kid

The Engines

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

99
[WPS]
Beta Testers
476 posts
12,001 battles

Anyone else out there wishing at some point the game would look as dam good as the trailers and cinematics that WG puts out before a new line releases or gamescom trailers?  The in game cinematic before you login is looks great too.. 

 

This trailer looks awesome... when will wargaming update from their big world engine.. which at this point is getting older, to a new one that matches todays generation of games like frostbyte by EA or Unreal 4 engine etc.  

 

Sure new ships and game play I imagine are first, but when is something like this going to hit? The ultimate immersion of battling in boats made of pixels!

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
[CHEEZ]
Members
2,614 posts
4,925 battles

The graphics in these frame by frame animated trailers are really not all that impressive by today's standards.... They are on par with the in engine graphics of modern games such as: "Horizon Zero Dawn", "Battlefield 1", "Uncharted 4", "Far cry 5", and so on...

 

Considering that this game's engine is so antiquated and obsolete, that the fans on my graphics card do not even turn up to keep the game running smooth on maxed out settings, at the built in frame cap of ~70fps.

 

There is plenty of overhead to do so. (I really don't care about those who are trying to run this game on a laptop that does not even meet the current minimum recommended specs, I, along with many others that play this game, have machines built to run the demands of modern shooters... we have the overhead to make it look that good, give us the ability to do so.)

 

The only thing is, even on the best modern engine's, such as Frostbite 3, they still do not have the water and wave physics down to the point that it would look as good as in these trailers. (But they frostbite three is getting pretty close.) The textures would be on par or better than these trailers though.

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,757
Members
6,889 posts
14,874 battles

One of the nice things about the game is that I can play it and it look really good on my old video card.  I can't max the settings as it is a GTX 670 but I am fairly close.  I would love a newer card but with a couple kids and a house it is not on the forefront of what I need to replace. 

Any number of other people play it on laptops - would bet a good number of folks would not be able to play. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
777
[NSEW]
Members
2,909 posts
12,205 battles

With the advent of game developers getting on the bandwagon of "Early access" games, with some notoriously known for being in a particular phase for over number of years. Their reason being due to game engine used or in process of moving to another for the sake of productivity. I learned very quickly to not delve into any games that are "Early access". 

 

Now, this game. Even a low end circa 2008 PC can run it fine. Why? because the game engine is fine as is to do what is needed. Without having to progress to an 'upgrade' game engine. Therefore causing unnecessary bugs, codes, scripts to be re-written. If it isn't broke, why fix it.

 

I for one, am personally glad that they have not followed other developers trend; and unnecessarily 'upgraded' their engines to force their players to constantly upgrade their own PC components to handshake the technology (or financial gains to be more apt, for the graphics card companies).

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
[CHEEZ]
Members
2,614 posts
4,925 battles
3 minutes ago, CylonRed said:

One of the nice things about the game is that I can play it and it look really good on my old video card.  I can't max the settings as it is a GTX 670 but I am fairly close.  I would love a newer card but with a couple kids and a house it is not on the forefront of what I need to replace. 

Any number of other people play it on laptops - would bet a good number of folks would not be able to play. 

 

On a newer engine, you could turn it down, and still have just as good of graphics... possibly even better, seeing as a newer engine would make more efficient uses of your resources.

 

And it would not limit those of us that have mid - high end, modern gaming computers built.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,757
Members
6,889 posts
14,874 battles
2 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

On a newer engine, you could turn it down, and still have just as good of graphics... possibly even better, seeing as a newer engine would make more efficient uses of your resources.

 

And it would not limit those of us that have mid - high end, modern gaming computers built.

The video card is the weakest part of my machine - otherwise it is an i7 with SSDs and 16 gigs of ram.  I have played plenty of games with teh newer engines where turning graphics down did not help a lot and if lowered too much - quickly becomes worse crap.

It is a balancing act - having the ability for playing on a decent laptop helps the server population for NA which needs all the help it can use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,039
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles

The real question is, would moving to a new engine, after paying a goodly chunk of change for the existing one, make financial sense?

 

How many people really aren't playing this game because the graphics aren't cutting edge? How many would pick up the game just because the graphics got better?

 

The issue with having a top-end gaming machine is the same as having an exotic sports car. You might be able to use the Autobahn for your daily drive to work, and weekend getaways, but you're also going to be driving on a lot of potholed city streets, and other conditions where your Ferrari is no more enjoyable to drive than a fully-loaded Camry.

Edited by Skpstr
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
777
[NSEW]
Members
2,909 posts
12,205 battles
13 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

...And it would not limit those of us that have mid - high end, modern gaming computers built.

With respect, those of you that have a mid - high end, modern gaming computers will not suffer any losses. The only factor that may be of concern is the visual quality per frame that you'd want to capitalise on. Basically, you want to maximise your return on investment with your hard earn cash to build the aforementioned gaming computers. However, I'm 100% certain that those with mid -high end modern gaming computer owners did not build them solely to play this game only.

 

In another perspective. Those with mid -high end modern gaming computer owners can still play any engine upgrades that this game will upgrade to; should they choose. 

However, what about those that play from an outdated PC? the ones who play this game casually via a small laptop? Or even those who are not interested in any PC upgrades of their own but willing to play this game, because their PC runs it?

I suspect that Warships will lose or have a sudden drastic dip in their customer base if they do.

 

This game has a global following, and unlike us in the western world. Where we game within the comforts of our own residences. You have to remember that in some countries, some people game from a rented PC gaming business premises; and I can tell you that these businesses do not invest in modern mid-high end PC components for their customers. What about the college students? who play this game from the PC rooms?

 

There are pros and cons of this, and the price of going down either of the roads will have a dramatic effect with the player base in numbers.

 

Edited by LowSpeed_US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
[CHEEZ]
Members
2,614 posts
4,925 battles
20 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

With the advent of game developers getting on the bandwagon of "Early access" games, with some notoriously known for being in a particular phase for over number of years. Their reason being due to game engine used or in process of moving to another for the sake of productivity. I learned very quickly to not delve into any games that are "Early access". 

 

Now, this game. Even a low end circa 2008 PC can run it fine. Why? because the game engine is fine as is to do what is needed. Without having to progress to an 'upgrade' game engine. Therefore causing unnecessary bugs, codes, scripts to be re-written. If it isn't broke, why fix it.

 

I for one, am personally glad that they have not followed other developers trend; and unnecessarily 'upgraded' their engines to force their players to constantly upgrade their own PC components to handshake the technology (or financial gains to be more apt, for the graphics card companies).

 

 

15 minutes ago, CylonRed said:

The video card is the weakest part of my machine - otherwise it is an i7 with SSDs and 16 gigs of ram.  I have played plenty of games with teh newer engines where turning graphics down did not help a lot and if lowered too much - quickly becomes worse crap.

It is a balancing act - having the ability for playing on a decent laptop helps the server population for NA which needs all the help it can use.

 

Neither of you two have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to PC settings, graphics, engines and PC performance...

 

Warships.... 1440P ultra settings

ntvSePh.jpg

 

VS Battlefield 1 1440p, ultra and low settings side by side

maxresdefault.jpg

 

And here are screens from BF1 ultra and low on my machine (1440p). The difference in performance is huge... ~100FPS on Ultra, >300FPS on low.

4VOJ2JX.jpg

IqHJbTv.jpg

 

The top one is on low, and the only place that the difference is really noticeable, or at least that bad is in the mast and rigging of the battleship.

 

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,608 posts

Honestly over the years I've felt games have gone more and more graphics based and less and less gameplay.

And as someone else said, you want to maximize the number of people who can play, not minimize it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
777
[NSEW]
Members
2,909 posts
12,205 battles

Give me a reasonable counter argument, instead of posting screen shots of other games. Those screen captures, do not mean anything it its raw form for the end users with various components not matched with the person who captured those shots.

 

Are you saying that you disagree to my full statement? Or are you going off topic by going ad hominem?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,039
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles
4 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

 

Neither of you two have any idea what you are talking about when it comes to PC settings, graphics, engines and PC performance...

 

Warships.... 1440P ultra settings

ntvSePh.jpg

 

VS Battlefield 1 1440p, ultra and low settings side by side

maxresdefault.jpg

 

And here are screens from BF1 ultra and low on my machine (1440p). The difference in performance is huge... ~100FPS on Ultra, >300FPS on low.

4VOJ2JX.jpg

IqHJbTv.jpg

 

The top one is on low, and the only place that the difference is really noticeable, or at least that bad is in the mast and rigging of the battleship.

 

 

TBH, while I can tell the difference looking at static screenshots, I doubt I would notice while actually playing the game.

 

To further muddy things, I don't usually have things set to a default, as I start with recommended and increase what I can.

 

I'm flabbergasted at 300 fps. Can you even tell the difference between that and 100? I can't tell the difference between 40 and 60 lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7,039
Members
34,409 posts
10,768 battles
5 minutes ago, Wowzery said:

Honestly over the years I've felt games have gone more and more graphics based and less and less gameplay.

 

I agree. To be fair though, if your game is simple at its core, and sticks to the basics, amazing graphics really add to the experience, and are the only improvement you can really make. 

 

Another thing I've noticed is that, especially if it's a sequel, developers will add gameplay "features" to a great basic game, that aren't needed, (or may actually detract from the experience if not well done) just so they can say the new game is "improved".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
[CHEEZ]
Members
2,614 posts
4,925 battles
10 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Give me a reasonable counter argument, instead of posting screen shots of other games. Those screen captures, do not mean anything it its raw form for the end users with various components not matched with the person who captured those shots.

 

Are you saying that you disagree to my full statement? Or are you going off topic by going ad hominem?

 

 

A reasonable counter argument is dempnstrated by the performance difference, with the lack of major visible difference for most of the textures, just the anti-aliasing on my BF1 screen shots.

 

A newer, more modern engine, while yes, it would knock some of the players on the very bottom of the PC performance spectrum out of the game... Those that still made the cut, would have a significant increase in graphics, without much of a hit to their performance. And those of us with high end gaming PC's would be able to use more of the potential of our machines.

 

100 FPS vs >300FPS is a huge performance difference. It demonstrates that the low end horsepower to run the game is not as high as you think it is, and it further highlights the lack of understanding of PC performance that you have.

 

9 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

 

TBH, while I can tell the difference looking at static screenshots, I doubt I would notice while actually playing the game.

 

To further muddy things, I don't usually have things set to a default, as I start with recommended and increase what I can.

 

I'm flabbergasted at 300 fps. Can you even tell the difference between that and 100? I can't tell the difference between 40 and 60 lol.

 

I have a pretty high end gaming rig... My processor is a few generations out of date. But Intel has not made significant enough improvements in single thread performance for me to justify spending the money on a new MOBO, CPU, RAM and windows copy. They have not had the competition from AMD to push that development.

 

But, I still have a CPU that was / is top of the line (About as high as you can get without spending the money on a 2011v3 or black box CPU) and the flagship gaming (Not enthusiast, there is one higher there, the GTX titan) GPU for nvidia.

 

Edit.... I forgot to add. I have been playing a lot of Rainbow six siege lately, and when I play Battlefield, I am a very hyper, front line player. I have made people motion sick watching me and my high speed... twitchy motions before. I can notice quite a bit off difference when it comes to framerate. Although, I do not get any additional advantage going over 150fps on battlefield. The ~160FPS that I run at on R6 siege on ultra, vs the 60-80 that other players are running nets me a significant advantage with how fast the time to kill in the game is.

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
777
[NSEW]
Members
2,909 posts
12,205 battles
1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

 

TBH, while I can tell the difference looking at static screenshots, I doubt I would notice while actually playing the game.

 

To further muddy things, I don't usually have things set to a default, as I start with recommended and increase what I can.

 

I'm flabbergasted at 300 fps. Can you even tell the difference between that and 100? I can't tell the difference between 40 and 60 lol.

I agree too. You can't physically. Our human eyes can not distinguish the difference between 100 FPS or 300 FPS. 

Effectively, someone. Or some entity started to sell the idea that more FPS = better everything. However, some of the people who jumped on this bandwagon believed them with a blind eye; closest thing to relate would be 'blind faith' which comes to mind. What was not practised in mind was that over a certain number of frame per second.  A human eye cannot detect them. 

 

Technology advances, and the companies that makes such tech are giving us the visual clarity that we could experience with optimal gear. It not only contributes to the PC gaming, but also the photography world, engineering, architecture, design world, scientific labs, and any professional environments that require a more computing power.  I get that.

 

But game titles to market their AAA titles or otherwise with their stunning graphics...I've been down that road, not getting burned again. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,051 posts
4,673 battles
8 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

 

TBH, while I can tell the difference looking at static screenshots, I doubt I would notice while actually playing the game.

 

To further muddy things, I don't usually have things set to a default, as I start with recommended and increase what I can.

 

I'm flabbergasted at 300 fps. Can you even tell the difference between that and 100? I can't tell the difference between 40 and 60 lol.

If you can't tell the difference between 40 and 60, I'd recommend getting a new monitor.  

The difference is staggering.  Once you actually play, and can see, over 100 fps, you'll never want to go back to 60hz.  The difference between 144 fps and 300 fps on a 144hz monitor will not make as large of a difference, but you will still feel it.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,051 posts
4,673 battles
1 minute ago, LowSpeed_US said:

I agree too. You can't physically. Our human eyes can not distinguish the difference between 100 FPS or 300 FPS. 

Effectively, someone. Or some entity started to sell the idea that more FPS = better everything. However, some of the people who jumped on this bandwagon believed them with a blind eye; closest thing to relate would be 'blind faith' which comes to mind. What was not practised in mind was that over a certain number of frame per second.  A human eye cannot detect them. 

 

Technology advances, and the companies that makes such tech are giving us the visual clarity that we could experience with optimal gear. It not only contributes to the PC gaming, but also the photography world, engineering, architecture, design world, scientific labs, and any professional environments that require a more computing power.  I get that.

 

But game titles to market their AAA titles or otherwise with their stunning graphics...I've been down that road, not getting burned again. 

Refer to my previous comment.  Those who actually believe that you cannot tell the difference between 60hz and 144hz haven't experienced the difference first hand.  I have both a 144hz monitor and a 60hz monitor on a high end gaming rig.  I can switch back and forth between the monitors, and you will notice a MASSIVE difference between the two in the "fluidity" of the game.  Playing on less than 144hz feels like it has input lag to me.

 

It's something you have to experience to believe, but trust me, it is actually mind blowing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,750
[FOXEH]
Beta Testers
6,103 posts
1,313 battles

WG will never give up the Big World engine, cause they still, for whatever reason, have a massive hard-on for that old outdated engine.

 

Hell, you wouldn't even need the frostbite engine. Just ANY current engine would do to increase the graphics. I mean, look at WT Naval forces! Sure, the gameplay isn't there but thats Gaijiggle's fault, not the game engine.

 

WG has more than made up what they paid for the Big World engine just with WoT alone. There is literally no other reason to continue using such an old, outdated, and quite honestly, piece of junk game engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
613
[CHEEZ]
Members
2,614 posts
4,925 battles
2 minutes ago, XpliCT_PaiiN said:

If you can't tell the difference between 40 and 60, I'd recommend getting a new monitor.  

The difference is staggering.  Once you actually play, and can see, over 100 fps, you'll never want to go back to 60hz.  The difference between 144 fps and 300 fps on a 144hz monitor will not make as large of a difference, but you will still feel it.  

 

Those who say different, I would be willing to put money that they have never played a shooter at a high level before.

 

When you are above the refresh rate of your monitor, it will not be that big of a deal, but when you have a 165hz, 1440p, G-sync monitor (If you are unfamiliar with G-sync or free-sync. It is a vertical sync that uses a processor in the monitor to lock the refresh rate to the frame output of your graphics card, if it is below the max refresh rate of the monitor.) ... It makes a world of difference when you are playing a high=speed, twitchy shooter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,430
[GWG]
[GWG]
Alpha Tester
29,192 posts
15,767 battles
27 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

The real question is, would moving to a new engine, after paying a goodly chunk of change for the existing one, make financial sense?

 

How many people really aren't playing this game because the graphics aren't cutting edge? How many would pick up the game just because the graphics got better?

 

The issue with having a top-end gaming machine is the same as having an exotic sports car. You might be able to use the Autobahn for your daily drive to work, and weekend getaways, but you're also going to be driving on a lot of potholed city streets, and other conditions where your Ferrari is no more enjoyable to drive than a fully-loaded Camry.

Ironically the games with less perfect graphics are the ones that are still good to play years later while the ones with bleeding edge graphics are forgotten about. This is likely because the less perfect games put more effort into the game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
575 posts
3,075 battles
5 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

Those who say different, I would be willing to put money that they have never played a shooter at a high level before.

 

When you are above the refresh rate of your monitor, it will not be that big of a deal, but when you have a 165hz, 1440p, G-sync monitor (If you are unfamiliar with G-sync or free-sync. It is a vertical sync that uses a processor in the monitor to lock the refresh rate to the frame output of your graphics card, if it is below the max refresh rate of the monitor.) ... It makes a world of difference when you are playing a high=speed, twitchy shooter.

The vision system in humans is a difference engine. Once you get past a certain frame rate, what you think of as your ability to see really high FPS is your vision system creating Delta offsets to approximate the speed you think you are absorbing information.

So really, once you cross a certain threshold, for all the awesomeness of your high end system, you are being fooled by an ancient analog machine between your ears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
777
[NSEW]
Members
2,909 posts
12,205 battles

I did not question your motive, nor your knowledge. I was referring to the drop in player base that WG will suffer, should they choose to go down that road (please re-read my 1st reply). I for one, can play and enjoy this game because my PC runs it fine.

That is the main reason why, I play it still now. Besides the enjoyable experiences/games in Warships.

I do get the odd drops in frames. But for an old gamer like me (who started to game from over decade and half ago). I don't mind the small number of drops in frames. It doesn't directly effect my game-play, unless it goes under 25 FPS for me. Also, I'll admit that it does at times. But this could be mitigated by me upgrading to 2 generation back chipsets. Yes, i'm still using a Core 2 Duo overclocked, that is ancient in terms of PC gaming. :)

 

Here is what it comes down to.

 

Does your performance suffer greatly currently with the current game engine? 

If the answer is a resounding "yes". Then you may have a point about upgrading the current engine.

If the answer is a definite "no". Then this thread is moot.

 

 

Edited by LowSpeed_US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
2,589 posts
8,799 battles
30 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

 

TBH, while I can tell the difference looking at static screenshots, I doubt I would notice while actually playing the game.

 

To further muddy things, I don't usually have things set to a default, as I start with recommended and increase what I can.

 

I'm flabbergasted at 300 fps. Can you even tell the difference between that and 100? I can't tell the difference between 40 and 60 lol.

The human eye can only detect ~30fps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99
[WPS]
Beta Testers
476 posts
12,001 battles

I see this arguement between graphics and gameplay.. well.. why would the gameplay change based on graphics? It wouldn't. Unless the devs did so, which a new engine could lead to differences or options in which they can utilize coding in a newer engine. 

 

Graphics vs hardware, honestly most games run on the majority of low end computers still pretty well at the lowest settings. Not to mention a newer engine would take advantages of more hardware that you have. the big world engines limits the way in which the pc would compute information thus hindering FPS compared to other games like BF1 where the game/software takes an advantage of your hardware to deliver the stunning graphics and detail in which it has to offer. 

 

Not to mention some eye candy does draw folks in a bit. Would you not want to play boats in a crazy storm that looks as well as in the trailer? Not to mention a newer engine also gives way to creating new and better sound. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×