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

Skpstr    1,535
2 hours 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.  

 

I would love to, but lack of space (and comfort considerations lol) mean my monitor is a big-screen TV. And until the Samsung 720p plasma gives up the ghost or has enough burn-in to bother the wife, (you can see the outline of WoT UI elements when the screen goes black lol) nothing new for me.

 

And even then, I'll have trouble squeezing enough money past her for something nicer than necessary to watch Netflix in 1080p. :Smile_teethhappy:

 

I'm really just grateful that WoWS looks as good as it does on 720p, with my FX-6300 and 7790 able to max everything out. (I've never seen nicer water on anything I've owned) And TBH, until I can rescale the text on the OTMs, I can't play above 720p anyway :Smile_sad:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skpstr    1,535
3 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

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. 

 

That's just it though. You imagine, WG probably has a more accurate idea. My feeling is, as much as WG likes money, if they were confident that the players drawn in would offset the players lost, AND the costs associated with acquiring and implementing a new engine, Dasha would already have her marching orders.

 

3 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

I would not have any pity over any of those that could not play anymore either. 

 

Me neither. It's not about pity though. It's about the more players, the merrier.

 

To be perfectly honest, if they did adopt a new engine, my setup probably isn't going to take noticeable advantage of it. (graphic wise anyway) And I don't care if my opponents are seeing photorealistic quality, or playing Minecraft with boats. My only concern with this is how it would affect my gaming experience as far as playerbase numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deicideusa    3

I'm wondering how a game engine that only stopped development in January 2015
is considered "very" out of date?? I see no reason why this engine would have problems running
on any new systems for the foreseeable future. 
Heck I still play Silent Hunter 3 on my gaming system with no problems and that was a 2005 title.

Seems like some people are just crying wolf for the sake of better eye candy.
Personally I like the game for it's relative simplicity (mind you I just started playing on the 11th of this month...and I suck).

The other thing I think some people are missing is that the player base on this game
has a lot of older players that their main focus is game play over eye candy.

-deicideusa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SmirkingGerbil    192
2 hours ago, twitch133 said:

 

 

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".

 

 

You do realize I never invoked FPS, I understand the fallacy of this. I only inferred FPS as a point of reference for what you think you are seeing. The human mind interpolates data between diff comparisons, and those are not the same as raw FPS.

In other words, once above a certain level, what you see is a best guess by your mind, not reality at all. Proven time and again by experiments where a subject see's  a hand that is hidden by the experiment.

Edited by SmirkingGerbil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrushWolf    1,456
2 minutes ago, SmirkingGerbil said:

You do realize I never invoked FPS, I understand the fallacy of this. I only inferred FPS as a point of reference for what you think you are seeing. The human mind interpolates data between diff comparisons, and those are not the same as raw FPS.

In other words, once above a certain level, what you see is a best guess by your mind, not reality at all.

This, as long as the FPS stay comfortably above 25 - 30 FPS and does not vary too much it is fine for all but the most twitchy of the first person shooters and even there 50 - 60 is fine.

Share this post


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

You do realize I never invoked FPS, I understand the fallacy of this. I only inferred FPS as a point of reference for what you think you are seeing. The human mind interpolates data between diff comparisons, and those are not the same as raw FPS.

 

1 minute ago, BrushWolf said:

This, as long as the FPS stay comfortably above 25 - 30 FPS and does not vary too much it is fine for all but the most twitchy of the first person shooters and even there 50 - 60 is fine.

 

Actually.... this is also a fallacy. The human eye and mind is able to physically see and comprehend hundreds of "frames per second" without interpolating any data.

 

What it is not capable of doing, is seeing in real time. Every thing that you see happened a few micro seconds ago. (The amount of time that it took for the light to reach your eye. The chemical reaction in the light sensing cells of your eye to occur. The amount of time that it takes for the electrical and chemical signals to reach your visual cortex. The amount of time it takes for for the signals to be processed in your visual cortex, and be send out to other portions of your brain needed to act on the vision.)

 

Everything you are seeing is actually in the past. Your brain uses patterns to extrapolate data that happens between it actually happening in time, and you being able to process it.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ReddNekk    405
3 hours ago, Wowzery said:

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

Many games are more for eyecandy than playability. Personally, I prefer playability. If a game has great graphics on top of great playability, it's icing on the cake, but I don't consider it to be necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BrushWolf    1,456
38 minutes ago, twitch133 said:

 

 

Actually.... this is also a fallacy. The human eye and mind is able to physically see and comprehend hundreds of "frames per second" without interpolating any data.

 

What it is not capable of doing, is seeing in real time. Every thing that you see happened a few micro seconds ago. (The amount of time that it took for the light to reach your eye. The chemical reaction in the light sensing cells of your eye to occur. The amount of time that it takes for the electrical and chemical signals to reach your visual cortex. The amount of time it takes for for the signals to be processed in your visual cortex, and be send out to other portions of your brain needed to act on the vision.)

 

Everything you are seeing is actually in the past. Your brain uses patterns to extrapolate data that happens between it actually happening in time, and you being able to process it.

This is technically true but few people are able to make effective use of any frame rate much above 50 or so and then only in the most twitchy of game situations. For the average person 50 is as good as 100 plus.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JCC45    1,045

If WG was going to spend that kind of money I would prefer that they spend it on fixing bugs, removing some of the dumber game mechanics and improving game play.  If you as a  player are spending your time oooohing and aaahhing the graphics then you are not spending enough time in battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deicideusa    3
1 hour ago, JCC45 said:

If WG was going to spend that kind of money I would prefer that they spend it on fixing bugs, removing some of the dumber game mechanics and improving game play.  If you as a  player are spending your time oooohing and aaahhing the graphics then you are not spending enough time in battle.

^^^^ So much this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twitch133    608
4 hours ago, BrushWolf said:

This is technically true but few people are able to make effective use of any frame rate much above 50 or so and then only in the most twitchy of game situations. For the average person 50 is as good as 100 plus.

 

This is patently false. The only way you will not see any kind of personal improvement out of increasing the frame rate that a shooter is displayed for you, is if you are pretty below average in skill.

 

Anybody of average to above average skill (read, decent reaction time and mechanical aim) is going to notice palyability improvement out of going to a higher frame rate. (I will never play R6 Siege on a 60hz monitor, the game is far to fast paced to drop back down from 144hz, with a GFX card that is always producing 160+FPS)

 

The amount of improvement is going to vary from person to person... But, again, if you have decent reaction time and good mechanical aim... YOU WILL notice a difference.

 

Edit.... Remember all of the gamers saying you will never need more than 4:3 on aspect ratio? Well....

Edited by twitch133

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ksix    64

New engine means new game. Its not like they can just run out buy an engine and click a button to port everything over, which is how most kids talk about it. Its also not just the visual graphics, that's really only a small piece. The biggest issue is development tools which would all need to be redesigned from the ground up and then they could start all over again on content creation. This would take a full time team years. Any plans of doing this would essentially be a hard reset. They'd never do all that then just port over accounts and their respective status, they'd want to milk everyone again.

Edited by ksix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×