Cannon smoke trail.

[Ned Loe]

Hello,

 

is current in-game cannon smoke final or there will be more work to improve it?

 

My suggestion:

 

1. Add smoke trail. ---------> o

2. If there is wind direction then make smoke cloud follow it.

 

Video example 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES1k_RyfQgI

 

 

 

 

I do not like the current smoke in this beautiful game. Just my 5 cents

Discuss plz.

[OTMatt]

I think if players can learn to accept the current smoke animation then that will probably help reduce the framerate loss.

 

Though I have to admit after seeing that first battle in Master & Commander the smoke effects would do a lot in adding to the immersion.

[admin]

Smoke kills FPS

[Ned Loe]

That sucks, so this means no ship explosions, fires etc...

[BungeeLemming]

Its not the ammount of smoke in the first place (I think).

I feel that right now theres a good amount of smoke wich obscures the vision quite effectively.

 

But before this hits early acces.. please make the smoke go with the wind.. pleease

[blokzeil1]

a graphic option for smoke maby?

[SeaDog]

I think the quality is fundamental rather than the quantity ( smoke that go with the wind, trails , etc )
 
For example, this video shows how the smoke should be,  how it moves violently at the time of the shooting and how it dissolves

 look at 2:50  

 

I know this is a small charge but himself explains what I mean

[SeaWolf_]

i like the smoke as it is but smoke moving with the wind would be cool

[Chilly Willy]

That sucks, so this means no ship explosions, fires etc...

¤ unlike this.

¤ unlike this

¤unlike this

[maturin]

We should be clear that Wind is talking about the shape of the smoke, not the amount of it.

 

Hearts of Oak does it very well:

[SeaDog]

Yes maturin , of course the color of black powder when it burns should be more white

[Johny Reb]

Btw, I read that Heart of Oak has switched to the Unity Engine.

[Mirones]

yes thats true

[admin]

better smoke could be possible - right now there are other features that need to be added.

We are 95% sure that the number of buyers for just a Smoke Simulator will be low. 

 

We should be clear that Wind is talking about the shape of the smoke, not the amount of it.

 

 

Hearts of oak does it: with no sails, with 1 ship model (not using texture memory), with no damage to hull. on standing ships. 

One day they will start optimizing and then we will see

[Johny Reb]

I saw a hearts of oak video that had, I believe over 100 ships bobbing in the water independently just to prove that the engine could handle it. I always figured, though, that it was because its designed to be primarily, a single player game and that the issues arise when you have a multitude of individual computers exchanging information with a single server.

The physics in Hearts of Oak is amazing but I'm not interested in a single player game.

[Clinch]

Couldnt understand why they would make a single player sailing ships game. Maybe they figured they couldnt compete with Naval Action. Anyways...if smoke is a client side feature, couldnt it be modded for those that would want it?

[Leviathan]

Anyways...if smoke is a client side feature, couldnt it be modded for those that would want it?

I think the thought with the smoke is that it's essential for everyone to have the same smoke to assure a level playing field. Since the smoke can obscure vision, at least briefly until it dissipates, it could lead to visual and accuracy advantages over other players. That's why a 'on/off' smoke feature would never work.

 

I would like to see the smoke a little closer to what's in the videos, but the smoke we have now is pretty good. I can live with it and let the focus be on other aspects of the game.

[BungeeLemming]

 

I saw a hearts of oak video that had, I believe over 100 ships bobbing in the water independently just to prove that the engine could handle it. I always figured, though, that it was because its designed to be primarily, a single player game and that the issues arise when you have a multitude of individual computers exchanging information with a single server.

 

They changed their game engine. They now run on the Unitly engine, just like Naval action does.

So we cannot say anything about this. What worked on the cry engine may break the unity engine. (an extreme but I hope you get the point)

 

 

Still its good news you are open to a change on such aspects.

[NorthernWolves]

The smoke doesn't look bad, but it leaves a lot to be desired. I've always wondered why do the people in the cheap seats get to dictate how the band plays?

 

It's 2014, why do the tastes, desires and opinions of the considerable number of us who have invested in a decent computer always have to take a backseat to people who are concerned with FPS? This happens on every PC game, this isn't new with Naval Action.

 

You can get a really good gaming computer for 1/3 the price it cost in 2009. You can now get a great GPU for about $200. If you're a gamer who spends more than 4 hours a week on any game, you can afford to get yourself a good rig.

 

This is a frustration that has been building for a couple of years now and it is not directed at anyone on Naval Action forums, I was just hoping to not run into the ever present FPS chasers.

 

And then those of us who want realistic smoke get caricatured as people who want a smoke simulator...nice.

[NorthernWolves]

We should be clear that Wind is talking about the shape of the smoke, not the amount of it.

 

Hearts of Oak does it very well:

 

This is very cool.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

The smoke doesn't look bad, but it leaves a lot to be desired. I've always wondered why do the people in the cheap seats get to dictate how the band plays?

 

It's 2014, why do the tastes, desires and opinions of the considerable number of us who have invested in a decent computer always have to take a backseat to people who are concerned with FPS? This happens on every PC game, this isn't new with Naval Action.

 

You can get a really good gaming computer for 1/3 the price it cost in 2009. You can now get a great GPU for about $200. If you're a gamer who spends more than 4 hours a week on any game, you can afford to get yourself a good rig.

 

This is a frustration that has been building for a couple of years now and it is not directed at anyone on Naval Action forums, I was just hoping to not run into the ever present FPS chasers.

 

And then those of us who want realistic smoke get caricatured as people who want a smoke simulator...nice.

Because an analysis of the market may show that the best ROI curve occurs when you don't require bleeding edge hardware. Like anything else, it has to be a business decision with an eye towards profitability.

[OTMatt]

Because an analysis of the market may show that the best ROI curve occurs when you don't require bleeding edge hardware. Like anything else, it has to be a business decision with an eye towards profitability.

 

Aye its too bad players today are still unable to afford a good gaming computer. The midrange card I use is in the $100 range now but I guess it might cost around $750 for the whole thing built? Anyway it still pisses me off when one still complains about the poor fps when he expects the game to run well on this kind of setup.

 

[NorthernWolves]

Because an analysis of the market may show that the best ROI curve occurs when you don't require bleeding edge hardware. Like anything else, it has to be a business decision with an eye towards profitability.

What GPU/CPU/MB combo would be an example of this 'bleeding edge hardware'?

 

Is an $800 ready-to-play tower from Newegg with a 2013-14 model GPU with 3GB, a 3.5 to 4.0 GHZ processor, a 1TB HD and 8GB ram considered bleeding edge?  That was just my first quick google search, one could find an even better deal than that.

 

In this market analysis you cited, would that be a bleeding edge rig? I'm asking for real, not being combative, I haven't read the market analysis, do you have a source?

 

I don't expect a game that pushes my system to the limit, but I get tired of hearing the concerns of people with rigs that can't even run DirectX 11 and who get 20 FPS on other recent PC titles. And I certainly don't think they need to be catered to in late 2014.

 

The person who can't afford a decent PC in 2014 is going to whine about the DLC that they will want to sell in 2015.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

What GPU/CPU/MB combo would be an example of this 'bleeding edge hardware'?

 

Is an $800 ready-to-play tower from Newegg with a 2013-14 model GPU with 3GB, a 3.5 to 4.0 GHZ processor, a 1TB HD and 8GB ram considered bleeding edge?  That was just my first quick google search, one could find an even better deal than that.

 

In this market analysis you cited, would that be a bleeding edge rig? I'm asking for real, not being combative, I haven't read the market analysis, do you have a source?

 

I don't expect a game that pushes my system to the limit, but I get tired of hearing the concerns of people with rigs that can't even run DirectX 11 and who get 20 FPS on other recent PC titles. And I certainly don't think they need to be catered to in late 2014.

 

The person who can't afford a decent PC in 2014 is going to whine about the DLC that they will want to sell in 2015.

 

I have no direct source of hard numbers. This is all theory, common sense, and what I've personally witnessed over the years I've worked in the software business.  There is no hard, set number that can be applied across the entire gaming industry - it will differ based on the particular audience for a game/genre.  A twitch FPS that caters to young folks is far more likely to require a higher level of hardware than a strategy game that caters to older folks.  Yes, older folks are far more capable (in the main) than the younger ones to have the means to upgrade their rig, but they may lack the urge to actually do so to play.  Similarly, the younger folks may have less means with which to upgrade, but they're more likely to be willing to move heaven and earth to grab some new hardware to play a game they like.

 

There is a crossover point between overall hardware price/age, and maximizing your player pool amongst likely players.  Any gaming company worth their salt will analyze their users' machines capabilities, estimate how many can/will upgrade to keep playing (or the minimum level they can shoot for and still ensure a majority of their target audience can run it), and then make the determination as to how many it is acceptable to lose if they make a particular development choice.

[BungeeLemming]

this does not belong into this thread. there is actually a "hardware" thread on the general forums.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/1707-graphics-card-requirements/