my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Genre)   » Helos   » No hardcore for Gunship?? :0( (Page 2)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: No hardcore for Gunship?? :0(
Tusk
Member
Member # 3095

posted 02-21-2000 10:33 AM     Profile for Tusk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Dr. Claw:
Tusk,

It's good to see your presence here. But there's one thing I have to ask of you or most any developer - why don't you conduct a survey to see want users want in a sim ( and I hope this is a simulation, not merely a game ) before starting on it? I absolutely HATE when a sim is rushed out the door without taking a LOT of good ideas into account. After all, we're the ones buying it ( maybe ). Sometimes just a few more additions or tweaks can make all the difference between a good or average sim and a great one.

BTW, do not dump Falcon! It has the potential of becoming a masterpiece if developers only listen to very good suggestions ( some I would call necessities )AND impliment them.


Dr. Claw,
First off, sorry for the delay in response. I was off a few days last week. We're still here!
Great idea! a survey *very* early on would be very beneficial. Personally I don't have any say in this... but I'll make sure the teams here know that there is a cry for this. Sometimes the obivious just isn't to some. = )
As for time constraints? We're working on the "higher ups" in Corporate to consider this. The Development Team in the Studio is usually forced to jump the hoops of others. In their defence, they do a great job for the times THEY are given! But this does get old! We as a developer need to address this! I just hope we can soon. (so says the QA guy..i.e. no official say)

Lastly the Falcon Team resided at the Alameda studio. So they are pretty much gone. If anyone hasn't heard, check out www.ibeta.com. Most of the team was working on more F4 stuff there.. of course not officially supported by Hasbro.


Posts: 45 | From: Hunt Valley, Maryland | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tusk
Member
Member # 3095

posted 02-21-2000 10:37 AM     Profile for Tusk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Blaze:
Just FYI, Tusk (aka M.Gutknecht from MPS) has jus corrected his earlier statement on the LB list, the Havoc *is* flyable in GS3.

Many Salvos of Thanks to Blaze and Scout for the help! I'm working hard to deliver honest and accurate info... unfortunately I'm NOT perfect!


Posts: 45 | From: Hunt Valley, Maryland | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tusk
Member
Member # 3095

posted 02-21-2000 10:47 AM     Profile for Tusk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lloyd cole:
[B]

-1. How steep is the learning curve and just how much realisim will it have? Will it attempt to be as deep as falcon was?

I'd have to say that the learning curve of course will be higher for those not familiar with this genre. But most of you guys who read this will have no trouble at all jumping in and learning a few keys for weapons and avionics etc...

-2. I have heard that it will be possible to interface with the upcoming M1 Tank platoon

That's what we're shooting for!

3 . If this is so, then you will have created something that hasn't been done before: simulate a air-ground combat situation. This would be awsome as you'd have the ground commander be able to call in a strike to another guy who's flying the AH-64 if they were playing multi player. Will this be a feature?

Right now the next Tank is still in the design stage. Things tend to be changed around to accomodate do-able vs. time etc.. But that sounds like a "can-do" at this point. I'm not sure about real time chat but ROGER-WILCO or the like would probably work great for this.
I do know the plan is to have multi-crew tanks in multi-play! Here's hoping!



Posts: 45 | From: Hunt Valley, Maryland | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
TKorho
Member
Member # 3215

posted 02-22-2000 04:02 AM     Profile for TKorho   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Air starts?
No dynamic campaign or even random mission generator?
Relaxed "tunable" realism for "quake flyers"?

Sorry Hasbro/Microprose, you've done it. The greed overcomes the intention. If you want to do arcade games, do them on other premises than on the old and venerable, perhaps the most successful simulator heritance.

Besides, Falcon4 was such a scandal. Maybe so much that you don't even loose a sale with the air starts: I may have been lost already.

God, I hate marketing assholes with their lies ("the ultimate realistic flight model" "most advanced AI ever seen" Sound familiar? Christmas release, buggy as hell. And "reduced realism" for larger audience)
And they aren't even correct.

------------------
TKorho/Ghost - Hornet coder, Falcon4:www.87th.org, snowboarder


Posts: 388 | From: Tampere, Finland | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Zero G
Member
Member # 311

posted 02-22-2000 04:16 AM     Profile for Zero G   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Guys I think we need to keep cool when talking to developers. They usualy stay clear of msg boards as it is and from some of the posts made to the guys working on gunship I can see why.

I am not saying we souldn't tell them that we think some things are wrong with their design but lets try be some what polite

Z


Posts: 374 | From: Canada | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Krusty
Member
Member # 2587

posted 02-22-2000 05:18 AM     Profile for Krusty   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Zero G

How's this matey...

Dear Hasbro/MPS Gods...

Please oh please oh powerful ones...may i please request that you dont ruin this potential master piece by making it air starts only....oh the horror...

Thanks in advance

Your obedient cash cow
Krusty

PS Graphics look groovy!


Posts: 4 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
SimFan
unregistered

posted 02-22-2000 07:58 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
He, what about supporting the companies bringing us these sims ? If we don't then soon all stories will end like Falcon4 (still my favourite sim).
From what I have learned so far, there is
nothing at all wrong with Gunship!
Sure, it won't be perfect.
What I do know for sure is this: I will buy
both Gunship! and C-H. Both Helo sims may very well appeal to a different type of simmers.
But that, to me at least, is what makes me
anticipate these titles even more.
So my advice is this... buy both, state your
gripes after having actually 'flown' these birds.
Or, sit it out, and wait till the first actual REVIEWS are in.
But please, don't kill off (or hype) something you have never even seen, based on
prelimenary reports or even plain gossip.

IP: Logged
Shataan
Member
Member # 1976

posted 02-22-2000 08:20 AM     Profile for Shataan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
you know.... I ve been around the business meeting table a tad myself. I ve seen how policy is made. 8 times out of 10... there s always some guy at the table who s a royal kiss *** to the boss, related to the boss, or it s the boss who is the kiss *** , or who s *** you gotta kiss. And alot of the times it s these guys who stumbled into the drivers seat , and they re invariably responsible for the good things we coulda got, but didn t get.
Anyways... we re not talking about Gods here, we re talking flesh and blood people, who always one way or another make mistakes, when it come s to what the fans wants and desires are.
We see it in the gaming world all the time too. The fans start coming up with some rational logical good ideas. And the gaming company under the guise of benevolence sits at our forum tables, and like the good policy makers they are... listen in the seemingly positive ways, and leaves us with the " wow, we got listened to" state of mind.
I can see it their way too, the game is basicly their baby, and I ll bet they really don t like being dictated to about how their game should be brought to market.
But we re not beggers here, and lets not forget that we too care how our money is spent. It s a simple case of supply and demand. We want certain things from a game we spend our dough on, the developer doesn t need pre game polls on this, they know what we want, don t kid yourselves. But... how they win or lose our support depends on the ways they decide to cut corners in a game they expect to sell to us.
There s always corner cutting. It the guys who know what to cut, and what to keep, these are the developers who re gonna get our support, if they get it right. If they screw up???? Well... guess I ll have to wait a few years until someone does get it right.

Posts: 567 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
SimFan
unregistered

posted 02-22-2000 09:54 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yep, I too bought some 'screw-ups' lately. But, if companies or developpers clearly
state from beforehand what they will publish and what it will do, it is up to us
to decide to buy it or not.
You are right, Shataan, but I do not see how
blaming them before they actually were able
to prove themselves are going to help us any.
When I E-Mailed these companies/developpers
with some ideas I always kept it "positive".
On some occasions I believe I got their attention that way quite as well.

IP: Logged
Shataan
Member
Member # 1976

posted 02-22-2000 11:55 AM     Profile for Shataan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
you re right too, I may seem like I m placing blame, but I m not really. We do have to see what it is we re actually going to get 1st, and that s only fair.
I think that developer teams try to get the best they can to work with. But , there always seems to be a bad decision somewhere along the lines made by a suit whos agenda doesn t necessarilly coincide with the wants and needs of the end user.
In any case, I hope that out of the very few sims coming soon, that at leastone of them thrills more in the areas we d like it to, than not. <S> Keep those fingers crossed.




Posts: 567 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
bighead111
Member
Member # 3318

posted 02-23-2000 07:49 AM     Profile for bighead111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tusk:
Greetings Folks,
Just wanted to introduce myself. My name is Mark and I'm the Supervisor of QA here at the Hunt Valley Studio of Habro Interactive (the company formerly known as Microprose).

The Gunship team wants to provide a presence here and dispell any rumors and answer as many questions as possible. Suggestions are welcome as well. We'll listen of course! But not everything is possible in the time allowed before we ship.

First off let me say that Gunship! will be a full tilt Sim! YES for the Hard core fans! the FM will be scalable so the newbie or the "Quake" fliers can cut things back and not deal with the "real world". Which is what the environment is geared for!

So rest asured guys, we're here and listening to what you have to say! We want Gunship! to blow all other Helo sims off the map. And it can't do that unless you give it a shot.
If you want to contact us?
[email protected]
That's me! and I'll do my darndest to answer all questions and take the comments to the team.



How high the res will go in Gunship!? Please at least let it be higher than 800x600. We're talking about realistic here, if the graphics are blur and unclear just like you're waring a pair of glasses with steam on, how realistic would that be? Tell me about it????


Posts: 299 | From: london | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tusk
Member
Member # 3095

posted 02-23-2000 08:20 AM     Profile for Tusk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by bighead111:

How high the res will go in Gunship!? Please at least let it be higher than 800x600. We're talking about realistic here, if the graphics are blur and unclear just like you're waring a pair of glasses with steam on, how realistic would that be? Tell me about it????

The res in gunship will be dictated by your Graphics card. i.e. Voodoo2 will do 8x6, TNT2...hmm We've had a P3-500 TNT2 run at 1280x1024x32! It was a touch choppy when a lot of munitions start flying. But with TNT2 or Ge-force... Crank it up!
But if you're Graphic card challenged, the Software render looks great too!


Posts: 45 | From: Hunt Valley, Maryland | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Tusk
Member
Member # 3095

posted 02-23-2000 08:38 AM     Profile for Tusk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Shataan said "There s always corner cutting. It the guys who know what to cut, and what to keep, these are the developers who re gonna get our support, if they get it right. If they screw up???? Well... guess I ll have to wait a few years until someone does get it right."

Let's hope we don't have to wait a few years! Yeah officially Hasbro Interactive has pulled the plug on "Sims", but I've pledged (Personally) to keep fighting for them. Even if we can pass them off as "action sims" and make the flight model scalable.... The clincher is to DO IT RIGHT! i.e. when the flight model is "realistic", weapon effects, environment etc..-- IS IT?
We got caught in the cross fire with Gunship! but I do believe we've got a great game coming.
Please trust me when I tell you folks I'm pushing for a bunch of your "suggestions". Also, I'm hoping we can turn a bunch of newbies on to sims and revive the genre as whole!
It's cool to vent. My armor plating is holding up! <g> And I really appreciate the support and encouragement some of you have given as well.


Posts: 45 | From: Hunt Valley, Maryland | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
bighead111
Member
Member # 3318

posted 02-23-2000 08:52 AM     Profile for bighead111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tusk:
The res in gunship will be dictated by your Graphics card. i.e. Voodoo2 will do 8x6, TNT2...hmm We've had a P3-500 TNT2 run at 1280x1024x32! It was a touch choppy when a lot of munitions start flying. But with TNT2 or Ge-force... Crank it up!
But if you're Graphic card challenged, the Software render looks great too!

Sound is great!!!!! I lilke it!!!!! Looks like you guys are going to support T&L for GeForce, right!!?? If so, I am going to buy the card, please please don't say you don't!!!


Posts: 299 | From: london | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Shataan
Member
Member # 1976

posted 02-23-2000 03:38 PM     Profile for Shataan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
thx for your reply Tusk, as it s really much appreciated to see your presence. Part of the problem here is... we desperately need to be actually hands on playing a demo.{KA 52 demo didn t sate me at all.. sniffle} Anyone else feel really dry right now as for how there s seemingly absolutely nothing to try as far as demos of late????
Oh well... we must push on.. we have not yet begun to fight!!!! hehhehheh How true lol <S>

Posts: 567 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
INSPECTOR
Member
Member # 291

posted 02-23-2000 05:15 PM     Profile for INSPECTOR   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tusk:

other than the air - start widget problem, i'm quite optimistic about the game as you have relayed its points to us.

is there a company email address we could /should *flood* :-} with comments about this?

i also wish to add my thanks to some you've heard for your time in these posts as well as the longbow.list, - and glad to hear your armor is holding up :-}


Posts: 109 | From: omaha, ne | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Tusk
Member
Member # 3095

posted 02-24-2000 01:57 AM     Profile for Tusk   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by INSPECTOR:
Tusk:

other than the air - start widget problem, i'm quite optimistic about the game as you have relayed its points to us.

is there a company email address we could /should *flood* :-} with comments about this?

i also wish to add my thanks to some you've heard for your time in these posts as well as the longbow.list, - and glad to hear your armor is holding up :-}


*Salute* Inspector Thanks!
as for email floods... well, I really like my job so let's just say there's mine! [email protected]
I've been getting the comments and suggestions to the Team. And so far they've been listening! That's a start.


Posts: 45 | From: Hunt Valley, Maryland | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Sundown6
unregistered

posted 02-25-2000 06:17 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Tusk:
Even if we can pass them off as "action sims" and make the flight model scalable.... The clincher is to DO IT RIGHT! i.e. when the flight model is "realistic", weapon effects, environment etc..-- IS IT?
We got caught in the cross fire with Gunship

I appreciate your sentiment here... but there's a problem...

You're still missing Realistic Avionics...
Realistic Missions...
Realistic (Dynamic Preferred) Campaigns...
Realistic Pilot Workload...
Realistic Learning Curve...

All of these that I immensely enjoy.

These things will never fit very well into any "Action 3D Flight Game", no matter how you hide it...

In fact they'll make a pretty darned poor action game...

I've said it once and I'll say it again... history has shown that all Hardcore Flight Sims dumbed down to the masses prove to be lousy games... and even worse sims.

You guys might get lucky... the game might even be pretty fun... and I hope you do well.

But no sim can seriously bill itself as hardcore unless it was designed from the start as one... and remains true to that philosophy.

And there's a reason that I couldn't stand Team Apache or Apache Havoc very long...

Avionics Avionics Avionics.

Now if one designs the whole game as a hardcore sim, but with options to aid beginners and newbies... that's all and good. Problem is, I haven't seen very many of these be great *arcade* or *action* games. They're still sims... and feel like one. Rather than an arcade game with a few realistic trappings. Someone in the twitch community isn't going to find them especially appealing... now a new simmer, maybe. But what's your target audience? Future hardcore simmers? Or action game players?

I really don't think you can cut it both ways... or at least not in a way you can hide from the suits.

Excellence in realism in one aspect or many aspects doesn't excuse it's utter lack in others...

As a rule... hardcore sims dont:

Have the same interface and MFD layouts for every craft.

Start in the Air all the time. (Especially not with a chopper sim.)

Etc.

A hardcore sim isn't one unless every effort is taken to attempt to reproduce at least the very workload, situation, and switchology as accurate as possible as per real life. Many of the nitpicky and "boring" things only add to our overall experience. Simplifying things in the name of accessibility robs us of the experience we're looking for. Do this and we're no longer your target audience. I just wish some companies would be bold enough to say that...

Gunship! was looking mighty interesting at first... but in light of recent developments, I don't think I'll ever find a replacement for my aging Longbow 2. And I'm not sure if it'll even make a place on my self...

What frightens me is that Tank Platoon! will likely be even less of a sim than M1TP2, it's predecessor, was... seeing the design philosophy and Marketing slant behind Gunship!


-Al


IP: Logged
Scout
Member
Member # 657

posted 02-26-2000 01:11 PM     Profile for Scout   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sundown6,

Amen, brother! It really is beyound me as to why combat sims are seems to be targeted for "hardcore" audience, while at the same time being dumbed-down in order "to make it more accessable to masses". Let me ask this one question - if its all about sales and money... then why in the name of Jesus is MS Flight Sim is selling so dandy? Nobody tries to dumb that down. REALISM is its trademark, and that's why this piece of software attracts so much audience from 11 years old to 98 years old.

"Hardcore" sim shouldn't equal unpolished GUI and Mission design. Quite on contrary - and the best example is LB2.
AH is another example of not-so-polished gem. Had Razorworks team been given a little more time to polish this one up - you'd forget about LB2 by now.

My point is - if MPS wants to make Playstation titles,why, its just peachy... Just don't label it realistic...people will laugh at you.


Cheers,
Scout


Posts: 715 | From: Israel | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged
Sundown6
unregistered

posted 02-28-2000 01:45 PM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Scout:
Sundown6,

if its all about sales and money... then why in the name of Jesus is MS Flight Sim is selling so dandy? Nobody tries to dumb that down. REALISM is its trademark, and that's why this piece of software attracts so much audience from 11 years old to 98 years old.

Cheers,
Scout


Thing is... the reason MS Flight Sim is selling well is because there are a lot of General Aviation enthusiasts... and a lot more people are willing to buy something that helps them with their real flying skills... or at least introduce them to something they're facinated with. It's a ramp up to doing something for real... and it's a real world possibility to be able to do this.

However, Hardcore sims appeal to a slightly more limited audience... because not everyone wants to go through ground school and pilot training to be able to blow things up. And they can't ever take those skills into the real world and fly an AH-64 around as part of their hobby.

Sure I'd want to do this... lots do... but not everyone.

MPS/Hasbro has gotten bloated to the point where the bottom line is the dollar, not whether or not they perpetuate the vision of computer flight simming. They don't really give a rat's *** about creating a game that a hardcore player would want to play... and they're not hardcore players themselves likely. The development team might be a little more on our side... but they're always under the hand of the Pokemon-drugged management.

They're not around to make good games... they're around to make cash. If they could make as much selling cow patties, they would.

But as the record stands, all flight sims dumbed down for the masses have suffered greatly... there are too many sim trappings to make a good action game... and the rest of the sim elements are just thrown out... making a lousy sim.

I give you Exhibit A:

Saber Ace
Screaming Deamons Over Europe
Jane's Fighter Pilot

And a few I'm sure I've forgotten.

Gunship! is obviously not full on hardcore... it's a sim-lite... along the lines of USAF. Please just don't insult our intelligence and say otherwise.

I mean the very fact that we're having this discussion, and that we're getting qualified answers... ought to tell you something.

I'm sorry, but simplified avionics and MFDs make the WORLD of difference in a flight sim... it effects in essence your whole workload and reaction time... and your whole approach to combat and the experience itself. Sorry... hitting "next ground target" just isn't enough anymore.

And now we get canned campaigns (oh man, when was the last time I enjoyed that?! Gunship 2000? LOL.)... and no landings or takeoffs. Back to LB2 it seems. The only thing that might have exceeded LB2 in the Close Air Support slow moving-ground pounding department was Jane's A-10. But hey, Origin's suits had different ideas...


-Al


IP: Logged
Richard 'Flexman' Hawley
Member
Member # 55

posted 02-28-2000 07:40 PM     Profile for Richard 'Flexman' Hawley   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:

I give you Exhibit A:

Saber Ace
...



Ouch, talk about hitting below the belt. Bringing up THAT one is plain unfair :-)

The others at least had a faint glimmer of respectability in comparison


Posts: 396 | From: West Yorkshire, United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Gecko6
Member
Member # 2961

posted 02-29-2000 12:27 AM     Profile for Gecko6   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tusk

I have been in your position where you are saying one thing and the execs are planning anouther. You end up being the fall guy.

With that in mind let this run down your back.

They can take my FM

They can take my graphics

I will survive with out purty avionics

But Dammit!

Dont take my FARPs and stagging areas away from me!

Helichopter ops are in no way feesable with out them.

It doesnt take much to figure this one out.

My God man who is the brain child behind this one?

How much code are you saving by not letting us start on the ground. **** I would be happy if I started with engines running.

That is acceptable.

------------------
Darreck "Gecko 6" Lisle
Virtual Pilot
3/57th Virtual Air Cav


Posts: 78 | From: San Diego | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Gecko6
Member
Member # 2961

posted 02-29-2000 12:42 AM     Profile for Gecko6   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sorry for that attack.

I am still upset that there is no Scout AC, in the sim or even the ability to do a scout role effectively.

Believe it or not an AH-64 is not a good scout platform.

Noisy as hell and a big damn target.

Please tell Tim that at least you need to include the Cobra and a Scout in the Tank Platoon add-on OH-6, OH-58D, or even a Lynx.

Just please don't take my FARPs and staging areas!

I am just shocked and blown away by this decision to start in flight.

Damn if this is the case call in the nukes and put us all our of our misery.

Again this is not aimed at you Tusk, just make sure you fight for us.

Thanks for being here to listen to us!

I envy you Man!

------------------
Darreck "Gecko 6" Lisle
Virtual Pilot
3/57th Virtual Air Cav


Posts: 78 | From: San Diego | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
bighead111
Member
Member # 3318

posted 02-29-2000 09:53 AM     Profile for bighead111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
It would be really nice if GS support the feather like bump mapping and T&L for Matrix G400 and GeForce cards !!!!??? I really want to see the metal shining!!! You know Ka-52 does!!!

[This message has been edited by bighead111 (edited 02-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by bighead111 (edited 02-29-2000).]


Posts: 299 | From: london | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Shataan
Member
Member # 1976

posted 02-29-2000 10:11 AM     Profile for Shataan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
the very coolest thing of late for us Geforce owners I ve heard, is that Nvidia just signed a deal with Savage . This means that in our drivers very soon we ll see full support for S3TC!!!!!!
And anyone who s seen what full S3TC can do for the detail that can be put into a game=photorealistic... woohoo. Imagine sims that fully exploit this new tech. ??? I can....... drOOl :0)

Posts: 567 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
bighead111
Member
Member # 3318

posted 03-01-2000 06:57 AM     Profile for bighead111   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Shataan,

But you probably should worry about fps. I heard Savage4 is a slow card. Is that true??


Posts: 299 | From: london | Registered: Feb 2000  |  IP: Logged
Shataan
Member
Member # 1976

posted 03-01-2000 07:18 AM     Profile for Shataan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The onboard GPU will handle the load that the cpu normally would in this case... nope, we ve got nothing to worry about with texture compression, TC is a good thing, that will help to more quickly herald the arrival of photorealism in our games.
High power systems won t blink an eye, and lowball systems will be helped very much by the GPU. No worries... it ll rock. <S>

Posts: 567 | From: | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved