Not to be too picky, but in the credit where credit is due department, it was my idea to poll users to find out what specs people have.Renwood TWA wrote:O yea and good idea pyro we should all list our system specs:
I am not forgetting any of those things, but since none of them are in public release we might as well be talking about magical fairies and unicorns. This isn't to disparage the people creating these wonderful additions to Myth, or to say that they aren't being worked on and aren't the coolest thing since TFL, I am just saying that counting on/planning for things that aren't done yet is a foolish endevor. For example, can you give me even an estimated release date for ANY of the high res units you cite above?Renwood TWA wrote:VR dont forget the 24 bit color maps that Oak can create, and the super high res units from the likes of our dev team, Hooligan and Carlinho.
I'll be happy to talk about them WHEN they are released to the public and become part of the playable Myth II world. I haven't heard a release date for Myth II v1.7 yet (that has the map textures, right?) and last I heard there were potential issues with displaying the beautiful huge high res graphics that Carlinho is employing (and you and Holigan are planning on employing) . So... MAYBE those things will make it into the community, maybe they won't. Maybe Myrd or Iron or whoever has the latest Myth II source code will get hit by a bus and no one will have access to their encrypted backup files so all the enhancements in 1.7 will dissapear from the face of the earth.Renwood TWA wrote:They look really good, even much better then other RTS games like the total war series.
See my earlier comment about counting on or planning for things that aren't done. [Also, I am sure you didn't mean to equate the two, but in your sentence above, it SOUNDS like you are saying that multi-angle scenery is the same as 'high res scenery'. Probably your project is doing BOTH, but of course they aren't the same thing]Renwood TWA wrote:We are even making all new high res screnary, like multi angle trees and bushes/weeds/grasses.
Why shouldn't they be? It's only hardware that is the limitation. Increase the hardware enough and an RTS game COULD compete with an FPS - at least if you zoomed in enough. If you have enough power, then intelligent switching of detail resolution depending on camera distance is all it would take, right? Look at the 'Massive' computer app that they created fany or the Lord of the Rings battle scenes - that's an RTS that competes with FPS in terms of graphics. It's just a matter of having enough fast enough hardware...Renwood TWA wrote:Yes myth will never look like crysis or some other super fancy first person shooters, but then again RTS games are NEVER on par with FPS games in terms of graphics.
I believe your comparison is flawed because there is a very distinct difference in the two examples you compare. In the case of upping the projectiles or hardware or system specs you are talking about making new maps that players with older computers WON'T BE ABLE TO PLAY, or which if they do play will cause OOS with everyone playing the game. In the case of detail textures EVERYONE can play all maps and see a normal Myth II map, in ADDITION IF you have the right hardware (Open GL) THEN you can see ADDITIONAL detail, but whether you have old or new hardware YOU CAN STILL PLAY THE NEW and OLD MAPs. I am sure you understand the difference between adding features that gracefully reveal themselves if you have the right hardware vs. adding features that stop people from being able to play maps that take advantage of the new features. Graceful reveal of additional features=Goodness. Breaking people's ability to play Myth on new maps=Badness.Renwood TWA wrote:Also my fellow mythers, never forget increasing system specs with more units on screen or more projectiles wont make any map for myth 2 made not work for people with older computers, because they would only make a difference on NEW maps. All the current myth 2 maps ever made would work just fine like they allways did for evreybody.
I belive its kinda like the detail textures feature in 1.7 with Oak, what are you gonna do, not support great new things like Oak because some people who dont have OpenGL cards wont be able to see the new 24 bit map textures?
As a programmer, I appreciate and applaud the solution Myrd/Iron (or whoever worked on this bit) came up with for implementing the textures - it's a very elegant and no-impact solution to the question of how to add functionality without having an adverse impact on gamers with older computers.
I LOVe Myth, it's the best computer game I have EVER played by far (and I've played a lot of computer games) but I really think you are living in a dreamworld if you think upping projectile limits and camera zoom and allowing better 2D sprite images for units/scenery is going to bring in more than a few new players to the Myth community. and unless I am forgetting something (which IS a distinct possibility) none of the enhancements you've talked about for either Myth II 1.7 or The Wind Age make Myth "more action packed". Destructable and more realistic scenery? Multicolored blood and gore and realistic body parts when units die? More detailed and colorful unit and model bitmaps? Textured colormaps? All cool no doubt (except the multicolored blood and gore - I'll have to see that before I have a strong opinion one way or the other), but not more 'action packed'. The action is in the Myth engine and it was there back in the days of 480x640 pixellated goodness and it's there today at 1290xwhatever resolution.Renwood TWA wrote:...and maybe draw in some more people with the updated more action packed nature of new myth content.
note: This isn't meant to disparage people who live in general in a dreamworld, or
