Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
Neighbor_Kid

The Engines

62 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Yoshiblue    175

I can see that if they ever picked up a new engine, it would become World of Tanks II or something they can work on in the background. World of Fast Food Chains! Also depends on how optimized the game would be on said new engine. Not like you can just take the game and cram it into a new fancy box.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twitch133    608
26 minutes ago, SmirkingGerbil said:

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.

 

18 minutes ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

The human eye can only detect ~30fps. 

 

So, lets take this to something physical... sense you two are both mistaken on the whole "FPS" thing. The human eye does not see in "Frames per second"... Per se. Depending on the training and the innate abilities of the person doing the seeing, they can make out and comprehend hundreds, if not thousands of "Frames per second".

 

Lets take a look at two good examples of highly visual sports. Shooting and baseball. 

 

I am a competitive shooter, both shotgun and handgun. I have trained my self to be able to see two things that most others would not be able to. The sight on a handgun, shooting at a very high rate of fire. And the rings on a clay target moving at ~65mph. I can see the front sight, make it out, and comprehend where it is point on my target, shooting at 6-7 rounds per second with a handgun. That means I can track the sight as it lifts, and control it on the way back down to line it up extremely fast. During a recoil cycle that is imperceptible on a 60fps video.

 

I can see, and count the rings on a clay target, within 3 yards of the trap house Leaving me a whole 17 yards to react to it, aim and shoot before it crosses the center line, and I need to be ready to shoot the second target of the pair... when the target has been thrown at ~65mph. At this speed, on a 60fps video, that target would be an orange blur, about 6 yards in length. (It takes the target just over a second to travel from the trap house to the center of the field... It is thrown at 88 feet per second, but slows rapidly, and the field is 120 feet wide.)

 

Take a pro-baseball player. It takes a >90mph fastball 0.4 seconds to reach home plate. The hitter has <0.25 seconds to see the ball, and react to it. Yet, at this speed, he has the ability to see the seams on the ball, know what kind of pitch it was, and react to it accordingly. All you would be able to see on a 60fps video of this is a white and red blur.

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LowSpeed_US    33

Okay, I'm not correcting you there @twitch133. What about the physiological factors? The years or training involved? or the innate pro sportsman's raw natural talent? 

 

Going back on topic. Most of us here don't play this game at such a niche competitive levels. Even with hosted some 'competitive' events in Warships.

The difference between you making the shot and hitting a target is not a direct coefficient to your hardware. There are other pre-calculated/determined factors which contributes to it more directly from within the game coding itself.

 

Say you have the most advance PC set up that one could get with unlimited money. You take a shot, your shots don't all hit. Why? the game has it designed so. No this isn't a pro baseball game, nor any other real life game/sport.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrushWolf    1,464
20 minutes ago, Neighbor_Kid said:

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. 

Basically if you put too much of your development money into the graphics you end up cutting corners somewhere and game play development is time consuming and expensive so often ends up being the first thing cut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neighbor_Kid    35
4 minutes ago, BrushWolf said:

Basically if you put too much of your development money into the graphics you end up cutting corners somewhere and game play development is time consuming and expensive so often ends up being the first thing cut.

 


Ok, so what do you think would be lost in a port over in terms of gameplay?  Most of the gameplay is there, with the exception of consumables  that do make a difference some certain ship classes. I couldn't really foresee the gameplay changing much from what it is now. 

 

From the responses it sounds more like a community that doesn't like change instead of moving forward. Which is common in terms of people, not everyone likes change even if it's for the better in the long run. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XpliCT_PaiiN    56
29 minutes ago, Show_Me_Your_Cits said:

The human eye can only detect ~30fps. 

Unequivocally false.  The human eye does not detect in FPS, nor is there a "limit" on the number of frames you can see in a second.  That's a line made up that people have been propagating for years.  

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sonoskay    244

 Once you get used to playing at 60 vs 30.   you will notice the difference. It Becomes a little jarring. actualy. Does it Effect Compeditive play.  It depends on how  Quickly  Imput is needed. For a twitch shooter. yes it Absolutly can. For a game like this where everything moves  like.. well.. A massive ship.  Half a seccond of reaction time isnt going to greatly impact your performance. 

The game Still looks Really damn good in my book. Even with  such an old engine. They are  getting a lot out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neighbor_Kid    35
Just now, XpliCT_PaiiN said:

Unequivocally false.  The human eye does not detect in FPS, nor is there a "limit" on the number of frames you can see in a second.  That's a line made up that people have been propagating for years.  

 

Because I can see difference in quality of how smooth my games runs at 60+ compared to running around at 45.. there is a difference in how smooth the game runs. 

 

And still the fact that a newer engine can take hold of hardware better than what an older engine cant. Heck they were running on DX 9 till this year and switched to 11. That make a difference by leaps and bounds IMO. I went from running 55-60 to 75 constant. (FPS) and still there is room to improve. You can't sit there and say that a game that is WAY more graphic intense like BF1 which on average for me runs at 120 on ultra with the same hardware that runs WOWS on high/ultra at 75, that there isn't room to improve the coding, engine, resource management of the game while also improving the way it is portrayed (graphics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twitch133    608
11 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Okay, I'm not correcting you there @twitch133. What about the physiological factors? The years or training involved? or the innate pro sportsman's raw natural talent? 

 

Going back on topic. Most of us here don't play this game at such a niche competitive levels. Even with hosted some 'competitive' events in Warships.

The difference between you making the shot and hitting a target is not a direct coefficient to your hardware. There are other pre-calculated/determined factors which contributes to it more directly from within the game coding itself.

 

Say you have the most advance PC set up that one could get with unlimited money. You take a shot, your shots don't all hit. Why? the game has it designed so. No this isn't a pro baseball game, nor any other real life game/sport.

 

 

I was off in a tangent there to try and help clear up some misconceptions about the human eye.

 

Truth is, on a game like this, the pace is not fast enough to notice any kind of competitive difference with higher frame rates. As long as it is usable for you. I get headaches watching videos below 30fps. It feels like a slide show to me.

 

But, in a fast pace shooter, such as R6 siege, where the time to kill with a headshot is less than 0.1 seconds? Every frame you can get out of it, up to the refresh rate of your monitor is going to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skpstr    1,539
46 minutes ago, Kitsunelegend said:

 

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.

 

Exactly. Big World is bought and paid for. Same reason people drive 20-year old pickups, and continue to live in a home once the mortgage is paid off.

 

A work pickup truck is a good example. A 20-year old truck will do the same job as a new one. The only real difference is fuel economy. If the more frequent repairs on the older truck and the extra fuel used don't add up to the monthly payments on a new truck, why would you switch?

 

Sure they could acquire a new engine, but every dollar it costs is a dollar less profit. If WG doesn't believe that the increased profit from new players would at the very least equal the cost of a new engine, as a business, they have no reason to upgrade.

 

A private individual may be happy with just getting what they originally paid out of a transaction, but a business would consider that a loss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrushWolf    1,464
8 minutes ago, Neighbor_Kid said:

 


Ok, so what do you think would be lost in a port over in terms of gameplay?  Most of the gameplay is there, with the exception of consumables  that do make a difference some certain ship classes. I couldn't really foresee the gameplay changing much from what it is now. 

 

From the responses it sounds more like a community that doesn't like change instead of moving forward. Which is common in terms of people, not everyone likes change even if it's for the better in the long run. 

Game play tweaks, new ships, and game modes would happen at a slower pace as it isn't a simple case of bolting a new engine in and restarting the server. There are always going to be things that won't work the same way in the new engine which has to be addressed and that can take years of being side tracked from actual game development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitsunelegend    2,582
1 minute ago, Skpstr said:

 

Exactly. Big World is bought and paid for. Same reason people drive 20-year old pickups, and continue to live in a home once the mortgage is paid off.

 

A work pickup truck is a good example. A 20-year old truck will do the same job as a new one. The only real difference is fuel economy. If the more frequent repairs on the older truck and the extra fuel used don't add up to the monthly payments on a new truck, why would you switch?

 

Sure they could acquire a new engine, but every dollar it costs is a dollar less profit. If WG doesn't believe that the increased profit from new players would at the very least equal the cost of a new engine, as a business, they have no reason to upgrade.

 

A private individual may be happy with just getting what they originally paid out of a transaction, but a business would consider that a loss.

I've had a 20 year old truck before, and I can tell you thats a completely different thing to a game engine. You can keep a very old truck running easily enough, as long as you baby it, much like I did with my old truck. You can't do that with a game engine, so you cant really compare the two.

 

Big World is very outdated, and falling behind constantly. Its a very very old engine that eventually will have trouble running on newer systems. Its a lot like those very very old games like the original Sim city for example. They have a very hard time running on new systems.

 

As an example, look at the model we have of the Fletcher class in game, then go and look at Gaijiggle's Fletcher model. Its night and day difference in quality levels. And the kicker? Gaijiggle's game can still be run on older systems easy enough, but still have some amazing graphics. Hell, just last night while taking part in the Naval forces test, I was noting that I was actually getting an average of about 50 to 60 fps, which is about the exact same I get in this game, but with MUCH better graphics.

 

It is very possible to upgrade the engine and keep most if not all the current player base. But a new engine isn't JUST about graphics. A new engine would allow for a lot more features that weren't possible with an outdated one. It would also allow WG to fix some issues that were limited by the current engine... *cough*radar*cough*

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CylonRed    176
20 minutes ago, Neighbor_Kid said:

From the responses it sounds more like a community that doesn't like change instead of moving forward. Which is common in terms of people, not everyone likes change even if it's for the better in the long run. 

More of a practical matter and business sense.  On a free to play game- they are going to squeeze every bit they can from what they have and I must say - they have done extremely well with it.  Changing engines would require a lot of wholesale rewrites and retexture.  All the while still working on the current game content.  So 2 dev teams (understand there is more than one dev team now - going to have to duplicate most of the original teams) , 2 QA teams, and a good bit of time - at least a year if not 2.  At some point they would have to freeze current content and risk losing players.  And then they have to hope that the graphics can be turned down enough - no guarantee of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LowSpeed_US    33
15 minutes ago, Kitsunelegend said:

...It is very possible to upgrade the engine and keep most if not all the current player base. But a new engine isn't JUST about graphics. A new engine would allow for a lot more features that weren't possible with an outdated one. It would also allow WG to fix some issues that were limited by the current engine...

That is the only reason I could see them upgrading their engines in the future. Besides your example about the other game (Sim city). 

As for 'fixing' issues; that is debatable on a different topic. Those 'fix' (Radar consumable) are not the engine's limit. It is a feature intentionally placed into the game. 

 

As for the update of the beefier sounds or ship explosion effects? Nice to see and hear, but really not enough of selling point to promote engine upgrade needs.

 

Edited by LowSpeed_US

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CylonRed    176
6 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

Those 'fix' (Radar consumable) are not the engine's limit. It is a feature intentionally placed into the game. 

 

Please elaborate as to how you know this is the case.  Devs have no reason to break radar intentionally.  It is an old engine - it has limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LowSpeed_US    33
1 minute ago, CylonRed said:

Please elaborate as to how you know this is the case.  Devs have no reason to break radar intentionally.  It is an old engine - it has limitations.

Radar consumable is a feature included into the current game engine. Ergo, they work as intended with current engine.

It isn't a "fix" that needs to be addressed said by the previous poster. 

 

Now, if you show me a factual engine flaw which does not allow the developers to stop the radar from going beyond hard cover (islands, mountains). If that was their original intent, but could not due to engine limit. Then that is a flaw, otherwise it is working as intended.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neighbor_Kid    35
17 minutes ago, LowSpeed_US said:

That is the only reason I could see them upgrading their engines in the future. Besides your example about the other game (Sim city). 

As for 'fixing' issues; that is debatable on a different topic. Those 'fix' (Radar consumable) are not the engine's limit. It is a feature intentionally placed into the game. 

 

As for the update of the beefier sounds or ship explosion effects? Nice to see and hear, but really not enough of selling point to promote engine upgrade needs.

 

Could be more than just eye and ear candy. A newer engine could make difference as say how radar works, or calculation of shell impact on ship armoring, or even RNGesus for that matter! Beyond that performance I would suspect would see a gain. A newer engine would be able to utilize more hardware and more efficiently than what the current offers. This then allows more players in on lower end systems 

 

A testing team (made of players like ST peeps) would have all different specifications of hardware so that they could create a better game engine and still be able to support a tad bit older hardware. 

 

Also the idea of having to stop creating content to move onto the new version of the game would be obvious and expected. Over time the same game for years will lose it's player base to newer games anyway. So why should that be such a stop? if the old was just as good then games like Battlefield 2 would still have many upon many full servers running, but it doesn't as players have moved onto games like Battlefield 1. That newer Frostbite engine has paved a way to enhance graphics, sound, system utilization, gameplay changes, and more. Bf2 was only able to have breakable bridges, they originally wanted to create a destructible environment, but the engine limitations were too much that would impact even the strongest systems of then back in 2005. Now with a newer game engine, practically all buildings in some way shape of form can be destroyed which leads to different style of gameplay mechanics all while not having such a giant impact on user performance while delivering a great experience.  

 

I can see from a business stand point does an upgrade make sense, will it create more sales, or attract new players? In the overall I would say yes. No one like change, but after a while players will find a newer game to jump onto and that's when they jump ship. 

 

This is also not to say that I don't like the game or appreciate how it is now. I love the game, that is why I play it. I just wanted to throw out the question of, when can it get better than what it is now! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skpstr    1,539
45 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 


 Depending on the training and the innate abilities of the person doing the seeing....

 

I can't tell the difference between 40-60 FPS because a) I only play about 5-6 hrs. a week of action-oriented games, so my eyes aren't highly trained, and b) my reflexes are pretty untrained, so even if my eyes can detect a difference, my perception-input loop isn't altered.

 

Offsetting that is the fact that WoWS is pretty much the only action game I play, so my brain can "fill in" any gaps fairly accurately.

 

Is that the idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deicideusa    3

Comparing a game like BF1 to WoWs isn't really fair as BF1 runs on an engine designed by the same studio
that makes the game. Also WG will never get the rights to use the Frostbite engine as the only games ever released
using that engine are from studios owned by EA (they do not sell their game engine to other studios).

Also comparing a company that releases AAA titles that sell for $60usd per unit to a free to play game with
limited resources is also kinda unfair.

As a person who has spent the last 12 years working for a pretty well known game development studio I can tell some people
have no idea the ammount of man hours and financial capital that goes into switching game engines.
I've seen it literally take years for even some of the biggest studios to pull this off and that's with large development teams.
I just don't see this happening for a free to play game that already runs very well on it's current engine.
What I might see as possible is a WoWs 2.0 sometime in the distant future....Only time will tell.

-deicideusa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skpstr    1,539
55 minutes ago, Neighbor_Kid said:

 

From the responses it sounds more like a community that doesn't like change instead of moving forward. Which is common in terms of people, not everyone likes change even if it's for the better in the long run. 

 

I think it's more of a "devil we know" thing, combined with, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

 

We know that the graphics aren't cutting edge, and we've become accustomed to dealing with it. 

 

What if a new engine were introduced, and for whatever reason, (remember who we're dealing with here) some of the lower-end machines couldn't play it well anymore? 

 

IOW, we can stick with what we have, or risk having a nicer-looking game with fewer players.

 

If there were a 100% ironclad guarantee that nothing would change, except those who were able would see improvements, I'd be behind it 1000%.

 

I'm all for change just for the sake of change, if you can guarantee it won't have a negative aspect that will adversely affect me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twitch133    608
9 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

 

I can't tell the difference between 40-60 FPS because a) I only play about 5-6 hrs. a week of action-oriented games, so my eyes aren't highly trained, and b) my reflexes are pretty untrained, so even if my eyes can detect a difference, my perception-input loop isn't altered.

 

Offsetting that is the fact that WoWS is pretty much the only action game I play, so my brain can "fill in" any gaps fairly accurately.

 

Is that the idea?

 

Pretty much...

 

I have tens of thousands of hours in FPS style games. I also practice two, very high speed shooting sports for hundreds of hours a year.  So, it is easier for me to notice the difference.

 

Will I ever be to the level of the top ESL players in shooters like CS:GO, or Rainbow Six Siege? No... Will I ever be to the level of an Olympic class skeet shooter? No... Be that as it may, my visual and mechanical skills are far above average.

 

That being said though, the main thing holding me back in games like this, or even rainbow six... is not my visual or mechanical abilities. It is my "Game sense". My strategy.

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skpstr    1,539
45 minutes ago, Kitsunelegend said:

 

Big World is very outdated, and falling behind constantly. Its a very very old engine that eventually will have trouble running on newer systems. Its a lot like those very very old games like the original Sim city for example. They have a very hard time running on new systems.

 

That's a good point, didn't consider that. It's exactly that which stops me from picking up Fallout 3.

 

I don't understand why really, but I'm certainly aware of that aspect.

 

As far as trucks, (or cars for that matter) pretty much everything I've owned is 15-20 years old. I've found that since EFI became mainstream, no babying required to keep them running, just enough tin and tar to keep the MTO off your back lol.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CylonRed    176

Also the idea of having to stop creating content to move onto the new version of the game would be obvious and expected

If their player base had another 0 to it - likely not an issue.  I am not sure they have enough of a player base to stop making new content.  I am not sure why upgrading engines would suddenly pull in large amounts of new players.  Personally I think that is wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twitch133    608
12 minutes ago, Skpstr said:

IOW, we can stick with what we have, or risk having a nicer-looking game with fewer players.

 

While I doubt that a new engine with updated graphics and physics would draw a huge crowd in and of itself...

 

I would imagine the draw of a better looking, smoother playing game would draw in enough new players to offset the ones that could not play anymore. Would it make the game an instant hit? No... but it would certainly draw a few new players in.

 

I would not have any pity over any of those that could not play anymore either. As they are the ones playing on machines that do not meet minimum required specifications right now. On top of that, they are many threads from this crowd, complaining about low frame rate and long load times, as if WG has some sort of duty to make sure the game will run on a PC that does not meet the minimum they have stated. My opinion on that is, is, if your PC does not meet minimum specs, and you are having performance issues, or are forced out of the game by an update, such as graphical fidelity, or a new engine... Too bad, so sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×