What's your favorite game engine?
- Thread starter LividLiquid
- Start date
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
So... the textures are higher res than ever before, and we can't *see* that they're low res... but they are?
They're *secret* low-res textures!
They're *secret* low-res textures!
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Well, I'm not actually sure if they are higher-res than WC3/4. I've never actually seen a WC3 or 4 texture file. But from what I've seen of WCP texture files, they are low-res. Like I said though, the engine does all sorts of things to make them look much better.
Still, your sarcastic remark is actually fairly accurate - in a way, they are *secret* low-res textures
.
Still, your sarcastic remark is actually fairly accurate - in a way, they are *secret* low-res textures
.I dunno, but I liked the look and feel of WC3/4 better than P. Prophesy seemed to be too contrived, the space battles just did not seem as *real* as wc3/4 were. They were able to capture that essence of realism that so many different games are looking for. For Engines, I have already stated my preference a billion times
Pedro
Admiral
Well I'm a great fan of 3d acceleration however I would like to point out that many of the WCP ships were in fact less detailed than those in WCIV so it becomes a very difficult choice.
I think the WCP was the most fun to play but unfortunatley it was the least varied
WCIV/3 probably supported the greatest number of features but nothing felt very solid to me even though it was in 3D
WCI/2 Don't like the engines too old
Privateer 2 Really liked the engine myself, shame about the lack of 3d acceleration, can't wait to get another PC capable of running it
I think the WCP was the most fun to play but unfortunatley it was the least varied
WCIV/3 probably supported the greatest number of features but nothing felt very solid to me even though it was in 3D
WCI/2 Don't like the engines too old
Privateer 2 Really liked the engine myself, shame about the lack of 3d acceleration, can't wait to get another PC capable of running it
The somewhat weak forward armament of dual lasers will be offset by the two dual mass driver cannon turrets that actually rotate and track you.
Remember that ConFed found the whole corvette thing undesirable by WC2 (you'll agree the Broadsword is far superior), so it won't be finding its way into too many later missions...save that for Exeters and Gilgameshes.
Remember that ConFed found the whole corvette thing undesirable by WC2 (you'll agree the Broadsword is far superior), so it won't be finding its way into too many later missions...save that for Exeters and Gilgameshes.
Fav engine
A 426 hemi w/ quad 850 double pumpers!....Oopps, oh game engine! Id say the WCP engine is a good one. Only complaint I had with that is the further you flew away from an object, it would get cut out as you traveled away from it. This did not happen in the FS1/2 engine, nor earlier WC engines. Of course in the first few games, after about 10k cliks the objects would simply vanish. The objects in FS and in the X-Wing games would actually get smaller and smaller instead of being cut out with increased distance, which gave a more realistic feel as you traveled away from the object. I thought it would be something with the vid card, but all other sims I have do not do this. This effect is also evident in the P2 engine. I often wondered if EA/OSI used a beefed up engine similar to the P2 engine for WCP and SO, since both cut out the objects as distance increases. But as to my favorite, WCP is my choice.
RFBurns
"Filthy lil brilliance runner, youre busted!" [militia, Privateer]
A 426 hemi w/ quad 850 double pumpers!....Oopps, oh game engine!
Id say the WCP engine is a good one. Only complaint I had with that is the further you flew away from an object, it would get cut out as you traveled away from it. This did not happen in the FS1/2 engine, nor earlier WC engines. Of course in the first few games, after about 10k cliks the objects would simply vanish. The objects in FS and in the X-Wing games would actually get smaller and smaller instead of being cut out with increased distance, which gave a more realistic feel as you traveled away from the object. I thought it would be something with the vid card, but all other sims I have do not do this. This effect is also evident in the P2 engine. I often wondered if EA/OSI used a beefed up engine similar to the P2 engine for WCP and SO, since both cut out the objects as distance increases. But as to my favorite, WCP is my choice.RFBurns
"Filthy lil brilliance runner, youre busted!" [militia, Privateer]
RFBurns:
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying that it is more realistic to show on a radar objects endlessly no matter how far away they are, than to have them disappear at a certain range. I think that the objects disappearing completely is more realistic then the distance (klicks) becoming smaller, and smaller, and never ending. Here's why: Radar has a limited range. I don't think it is incredibly realistic to assume a radar can see everything infinetly. This would mean that you could see all the ships, etc. in the galaxy. But if we assume that radar in the advanced world of Star Wars and Wing Commander has a limited range (which is pretty likely), it would make sense that objects disappear off the radar screen at the edge of the radar screen. Now, I agree with you if your point is that it is more realistic in X-Wing because you can still see the object visually. But, I think, like I said, that an object disappearing off the radar screen is more realistic than an object being on a radar screen at a 100,000 or however many klicks. (in X-Wing I have had the distance measure max out at a certain number of 9's- dont remember how many though)
Side note: I know this is probably me just being slow, but how do you put smilies when you post? Is there a toolbar or sumthin? Thanks.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you are saying that it is more realistic to show on a radar objects endlessly no matter how far away they are, than to have them disappear at a certain range. I think that the objects disappearing completely is more realistic then the distance (klicks) becoming smaller, and smaller, and never ending. Here's why: Radar has a limited range. I don't think it is incredibly realistic to assume a radar can see everything infinetly. This would mean that you could see all the ships, etc. in the galaxy. But if we assume that radar in the advanced world of Star Wars and Wing Commander has a limited range (which is pretty likely), it would make sense that objects disappear off the radar screen at the edge of the radar screen. Now, I agree with you if your point is that it is more realistic in X-Wing because you can still see the object visually. But, I think, like I said, that an object disappearing off the radar screen is more realistic than an object being on a radar screen at a 100,000 or however many klicks. (in X-Wing I have had the distance measure max out at a certain number of 9's- dont remember how many though)
Side note: I know this is probably me just being slow, but how do you put smilies when you post? Is there a toolbar or sumthin? Thanks.
No not the radar, visually. Ie: looking out the window or to the rear. But if the radar was powerfull enough, which radio waves can travel indefinately till something reflects it or absorbs it, then the blip would still appear. I was refering to actuall visual elements where the Midway for example, would appear to get sliced out of the rendering as you traveled away from it versus other sims where the object is still in visual contact, but gets smaller as you get further away from it.
RFBurns
"Begging is pointless, Sir" [Kindred, Privateer 2]
RFBurns
"Begging is pointless, Sir" [Kindred, Privateer 2]
True, that's buggy. Still, a lot of game engines suffer from pop-up, often a lot worse.
On the other hand, the WCP engine still rocks. Those 'donut' shockwaves a fighter blows up are cool - the way your ship vibrates when they hit makes me wish I had a force-feedback joystick. Also the fact that capships don't blow up is a bit of a plus - it's difficult to vaporise several thousand tons of metal, and there is nowhere to 'sink' them to. Although it would be nice if SOME of them blew up in a huge fireball (you'd probably be a bit annoyed if you were right next to it though).
On the other hand, the WCP engine still rocks. Those 'donut' shockwaves a fighter blows up are cool - the way your ship vibrates when they hit makes me wish I had a force-feedback joystick. Also the fact that capships don't blow up is a bit of a plus - it's difficult to vaporise several thousand tons of metal, and there is nowhere to 'sink' them to. Although it would be nice if SOME of them blew up in a huge fireball (you'd probably be a bit annoyed if you were right next to it though).
I don;t see why people like Vision. Personally I found it a step back from the WCIV/3 engine. As a side note Electro Magnetic radiation will continue out forever until it is absorbed or reflected (in a vacume)meaning that a low powered radar with a big/good enough reciever will be able to use radar to detect ships lightyears away, if the pilot has the patience to wait that long. the problem is that EM radiation is subject to the inverse square law making long range detection quite difficult
Master_Anarchist
Spaceman
you cant detect things light years away with a radar. radar sends out radar beams in a sphere. now, at close range there are enough of these beams so that you can cover every angle. but as the distance increases, the individual beams get further apart, because they travel along slightly different angles. as well as this, light is affected by gravity, and as such doesnt travel in straight lines when affected by it
whats inverse square law?
whats inverse square law?
Bandit LOAF
Long Live the Confederation!
Prophecy's TCS Brack should be more than enough to prove that corvettes are still in use.
Yes, I have End Run, that was a Venture-class corvette, manufactured in the period immediately previous to WC1, and no attention was paid to it by anyone except the crew.
In WC2 and WC3, as far as I know, no new Corvette-class ships are produced, and instead we get heavy bombers (the Broadsword is probably slightly faster and slightly weaker than a WC2 Confed corvette would have been, the Venture really was not a large or lumbering ship). Corvettes border the line between bomber and destroyer (at least from reading End Run, it seemed like a Broadsword with a bathroom and a bunk), and Confed simply stopped making them (at least new ones) for a while.
You will be seeing the ubiquitous Ventures in the TC, however, and a lot of other interesting things.
In WC2 and WC3, as far as I know, no new Corvette-class ships are produced, and instead we get heavy bombers (the Broadsword is probably slightly faster and slightly weaker than a WC2 Confed corvette would have been, the Venture really was not a large or lumbering ship). Corvettes border the line between bomber and destroyer (at least from reading End Run, it seemed like a Broadsword with a bathroom and a bunk), and Confed simply stopped making them (at least new ones) for a while.
You will be seeing the ubiquitous Ventures in the TC, however, and a lot of other interesting things.