These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

New capital wrecks...
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tysun Kane
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#41 - 2014-01-24 02:19:58 UTC
Kuronaga wrote:
These are cool and all, but isn't CCP just wasting artistic manpower by creating high quality static wreck models?

I was under the impression that a new physics engine would be replacing ship wrecks are we know it, allowing them to break apart on the client side and each be unique little snowflakes? And didn't we just upgrade to DX11 for this very reason?

Implementing these into the game seems to directly contradict that effort. If it has taken them this long to get so far on the issue of space ships exploding in a more pleasurable fashion, why stick a rock in their own shoes by draining this much artistic resource on something temporary unless they have no plan on making the new explosion effect at all?



Seems like CCP is overhauling all aspects of EVE all additions including new stations and ship wreck shows there effort told a better visual EVE which imo is a great thing.
SmilingVagrant
Doomheim
#42 - 2014-01-26 09:34:48 UTC
Skill Training Online wrote:


I'll have you know pal that I have a 1Mbps connection via DSL

And to answer another point the HDD is apparently much larger than the HP sticker implies, it has 280GB free currently.


Slow computer and slow internet.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2014-01-26 10:00:47 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
This could have an interesting effect on the market for corpses.


There's a market for corpses???

Where? I have a fair few. If there's isk to be made, I wanna know.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Austin McLaren
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2014-01-26 10:04:36 UTC
Macabre Combine wrote:
I personally want the option to have sex with my character while in my captains quarters utilizing the oculus rift, and a fleshlight thats usb connected to stimulate kegels and sucking.

You are a genius.
ctx2007
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2014-01-26 11:34:10 UTC
Skill Training Online wrote:
Kuronaga wrote:
These are cool and all, but isn't CCP just wasting artistic manpower by creating high quality static wreck models?

I was under the impression that a new physics engine would be replacing ship wrecks are we know it, allowing them to break apart on the client side and each be unique little snowflakes? And didn't we just upgrade to DX11 for this very reason?

Implementing these into the game seems to directly contradict that effort. If it has taken them this long to get so far on the issue of space ships exploding in a more pleasurable fashion, why stick a rock in their own shoes by draining this much artistic resource on something temporary unless they have no plan on making the new explosion effect at all?



I run this game just fine on a Pentium 4 I don't plan on upgrading any time soon.
Statics are good enough for everyone.

Pentium 4 (3.2 GHZ)
768 MB ram
4GB HDD 5400 RPM Seagate
nVidia Geforce 6800




Jeez, I thought my PC was old at 3 years Roll

I7 @ 3.2 GHZ
6 GB ram (x58 chipset triple memory slots)
128 GB SSD
2 X 1TB HDD
670 gtx upgraded last year

feel much better now Big smile

You only realise you life has been a waste of time, when you wake up dead.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#46 - 2014-01-26 11:41:51 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
Speaking of, CCP should change corpses in space. If you use an overwhelming amount of firepower, or strike the pod a certain way, we should see floating body parts and maybe some pod goo. If you strike just right, a corpse may remain. This could have an interesting effect on the market for corpses.


I'm all for the added degree of "EVE is REAL" by having corpses of pandas... and "entitled" yuppies/Baby Boomers...

Blink

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Billy McCandless
Zacharia Explorations Group
#47 - 2014-01-26 11:53:37 UTC
Felicity Love wrote:


I'm all for the added degree of "EVE is REAL" by having corpses of pandas... and "entitled" yuppies/Baby Boomers...

Blink


Aren't "yuppies" in their 50s and Baby Boomers in their 60s and 70s by now?

"Thread locked for being deemed a total loss." - ISD Ezwal
Kuronaga
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#48 - 2014-01-26 12:17:33 UTC
I have officially lost track of what this thread is about.
illirdor
Upper Class Goat
#49 - 2014-01-26 12:32:42 UTC
Erufen Rito wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:
Jassmin Joy wrote:
Kagura Nikon wrote:

These peopel are still far etter than the ones that spend 10K US$ in their computers, the make pirate copies of the games becaus the "games are too expensive".


You just made not one, but two generalizations on groups of people based on their rigs, and did it in a way that would make my four year old cousin look clever, i'm not even going to bother going into details or argue about this, it's just astounding people like you remember to breath without thinking hard.

You're dumb.



Yest I am hundreds of times more inteligent than you because I did missinterpreted what someone wrote, replacing it completely but whatever crap was in my head. You just made yourself look dumber than my 4 year old dog.

NO WHERE IN MY STATEMENT THERE IS ANY GENERALIZATION!! If you read any there, you need to learn to use your brain!

Simple lesson to you A ->B is not same as A=>B .

Bolded it for you.
Actually, let me break it down.
The ones that spend 10k US on their computers pirate software
The ones that spend 10k US on their computers can't afford expensive games (lolwat)

And you think yourself smart?


You might wanna read the part you bolded yourself he does not state that all ppl with 10K rigs does that... moron

Soooo this is my sig.... 
Teinyhr
Ourumur
#50 - 2014-01-26 13:55:15 UTC
Other Minion wrote:
Not everyone has money and the large part of EVE-Online's player base that have low end specs and cannot afford newer hardware are not in the United States. This game is international. For example I know many players in "developing countries".


He could get at least two-if-not-four-times as powerful computer than he currently has for less than $500. If he also has a smartphone there's no excuse he couldn't afford a new, albeit lower end DX11 capable computer. Because I live on benefits and even I could afford a new computer and a smartphone (with a couple of months of saving, obviously not both at the same time).
RAIN Arthie
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2014-01-26 14:49:53 UTC
Kuronaga wrote:
These are cool and all, but isn't CCP just wasting artistic manpower by creating high quality static wreck models?

I was under the impression that a new physics engine would be replacing ship wrecks are we know it, allowing them to break apart on the client side and each be unique little snowflakes? And didn't we just upgrade to DX11 for this very reason?

Implementing these into the game seems to directly contradict that effort. If it has taken them this long to get so far on the issue of space ships exploding in a more pleasurable fashion, why stick a rock in their own shoes by draining this much artistic resource on something temporary unless they have no plan on making the new explosion effect at all?


You have an interesting thought that may very well be true however, there is one thing to consider. When a massive ship is blown up and all you see is a small triangle that says wreck on it, it is quite underwelming. Please leave it alone.
Kuronaga
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#52 - 2014-01-26 15:15:02 UTC
RAIN Arthie wrote:
Kuronaga wrote:
These are cool and all, but isn't CCP just wasting artistic manpower by creating high quality static wreck models?

I was under the impression that a new physics engine would be replacing ship wrecks are we know it, allowing them to break apart on the client side and each be unique little snowflakes? And didn't we just upgrade to DX11 for this very reason?

Implementing these into the game seems to directly contradict that effort. If it has taken them this long to get so far on the issue of space ships exploding in a more pleasurable fashion, why stick a rock in their own shoes by draining this much artistic resource on something temporary unless they have no plan on making the new explosion effect at all?


You have an interesting thought that may very well be true however, there is one thing to consider. When a massive ship is blown up and all you see is a small triangle that says wreck on it, it is quite underwelming. Please leave it alone.


I know its underwhelming. But so is a static wreck of any type.

The dynamic explosions wouldn't be underwhelming at all.
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
#53 - 2014-01-26 16:32:23 UTC
Don't underestimate the extra load such dynamic things add to engines. More polys etc can really have big effects on things like load times, stuttering when something pops etc. Then there is all the extra memory and bandwidth used, increased details of textures now required. I am not really sure how many fans of moar pixels/polys would really want another 50G download. Not to mention what this costs to support upstream.

But then again a highly scaleable engine is always good. People with high end cards can go "ohh shiny", and the rest don't have too. Its one of the things where appearance and effects are naturally separate. Hell you could play eve without in game models at all.. just icons if the engine supported it. Not that even i would want to do that.

As for upstream costs (yea its not cheap, try pricing up 1000G per day with a SLA of 99.99 or even just 99). This could be mitigated with bittorrent like protocols i guess. Or have a separate optional download that can be mirrored all over the place.

But lets face facts. We all love awesome explosions. You could never go wrong with more awesome explosions as long as it doesn't kill performance.

AKA the scientist.

Death and Glory!

Well fun is also good.
Logan Revelore
Symbiotic Systems
#54 - 2014-01-26 17:18:18 UTC
Skill Training Online wrote:
Kuronaga wrote:
These are cool and all, but isn't CCP just wasting artistic manpower by creating high quality static wreck models?

I was under the impression that a new physics engine would be replacing ship wrecks are we know it, allowing them to break apart on the client side and each be unique little snowflakes? And didn't we just upgrade to DX11 for this very reason?

Implementing these into the game seems to directly contradict that effort. If it has taken them this long to get so far on the issue of space ships exploding in a more pleasurable fashion, why stick a rock in their own shoes by draining this much artistic resource on something temporary unless they have no plan on making the new explosion effect at all?



I run this game just fine on a Pentium 4 I don't plan on upgrading any time soon.
Statics are good enough for everyone.

Pentium 4 (3.2 GHZ)
768 MB ram
4GB HDD 5400 RPM Seagate
nVidia Geforce 6800


Flame bait much? :)
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-01-26 18:45:28 UTC
This is CCP we are talking about here. Parallel in nature to the warp tunnel change, explosions and new wrecks will be an all or nothing affair. Once the new effects are turned on, if they affect a computer's performance or perhaps someone's health in any way, much less cause huge battles to stall out for everyone since the pretty lights of numerous dead ships are streaking across everyone's screen and some people's internet connections clunk out - oh well will be the general consensus. Twisted
Kuronaga
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#56 - 2014-01-26 19:33:16 UTC
Delt0r Garsk wrote:
Don't underestimate the extra load such dynamic things add to engines. More polys etc can really have big effects on things like load times, stuttering when something pops etc. Then there is all the extra memory and bandwidth used, increased details of textures now required. I am not really sure how many fans of moar pixels/polys would really want another 50G download. Not to mention what this costs to support upstream.

But then again a highly scaleable engine is always good. People with high end cards can go "ohh shiny", and the rest don't have too. Its one of the things where appearance and effects are naturally separate. Hell you could play eve without in game models at all.. just icons if the engine supported it. Not that even i would want to do that.

As for upstream costs (yea its not cheap, try pricing up 1000G per day with a SLA of 99.99 or even just 99). This could be mitigated with bittorrent like protocols i guess. Or have a separate optional download that can be mirrored all over the place.

But lets face facts. We all love awesome explosions. You could never go wrong with more awesome explosions as long as it doesn't kill performance.



A few things. First, it probably would all be client-side effects. That means zero bandwidth used. Any collision happening with other spacecraft would probably result in a shield deflection effect similar to how the demo with the asteroids smashing into the Revenant looked. All manageable client side.

Second, because its client side that means it can be toggled on or off. That removes the problem of forcing it down the throats of people who refuse to update their fossil rigs.
Previous page123