Fractal Softworks Forum
Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: Micromanagment on March 20, 2012, 03:42:30 PM
-
The graphics currently look nice from a decent distance away, but in my opinion up close they do not give me that majestic feeling. My recommendation is to update the graphics to something more fancy.
-
What, no suggestions on how to do it? I'd understand if this were a mechanical issue, but dumping your distaste for the art style on the lap of the devs and saying 'fix it' isn't really helpful.
-
Micromanagment, just how old are you? :-\
-
Whats wrong with graphics? Graphic for this game is P E R F E C T. 8)
-
Micromanagment, just how old are you? :-\
That's the big question here :), the graphics for this game are S P R I T E S, not AAA title graphics, or fancy 3d graphics. Stick with the current graphics. Or go play the 90's games 8)
-
I personally really like the graphics. I think Alex and company have done a great job especially given that A) the game is made in java (not known for graphical prowess) and B) there are very few people working on this.
Honestly the game looks amazing... Many RTSs don't look nearly this nice.
-
I agree, when you zoom in, the rims look blurred, I suggest they thicken the rimming.
-
Honestly, if there's a flaw here, I'd think it's the allowed level of zoom, not the graphics themselves. Currently, the first thing I do in a battle is zoom out to max - and then leave it there. Allowing you to zoom in past 1-to-1 seems... silly. Why would you ever want to do that?
-
Honestly, if there's a flaw here, I'd think it's the allowed level of zoom, not the graphics themselves. Currently, the first thing I do in a battle is zoom out to max - and then leave it there. Allowing you to zoom in past 1-to-1 seems... silly. Why would you ever want to do that?
Agree... I don't think I've ever tried zooming in past the default level. I always zoom out to max. Wish it started at max to be honest.
-
Yeah, you never do zoom in very much, but I do just to admire my ships :P
-
Really, I'd like to zoom out more, in and out of battle. The ships themselves look great, of course, but I want to see more ships at once (and be able to see up to the max range of my high intensity laser).
I don't think the graphics themselves need a change. The ships look great and something about the graphics as they are now just feels right.
-
Micromanagment, just how old are you? :-\
Please avoid the impending ad hominem. It's not nice.
Anyway, I think the graphics are fine, honestly.
Then again, I do think ASCII is also fine, so there's a possibility that I'm biased.
-
A) the game is made in java (not known for graphical prowess)
A terrible misconception.
-
No ad hominem. Just wondering how much effort I should exert in explaining to him/her what's wrong with the initial post.
-
A) the game is made in java (not known for graphical prowess)
A terrible misconception.
I don't know about that... I've never played a java game that actually managed good 3d graphics with decent FPS... Minecraft and Wurm are both poor performers for instance.
I would say it is pretty well known that heavy graphical games are not best on a java platform. Stafarer does very well on it given the 2d engine..
-
I don't know about that... I've never played a java game that actually managed good 3d graphics with decent FPS... Minecraft and Wurm are both poor performers for instance.
Minecraft suffers from the way its graphics are put together more than it being written in Java--having all those blocks onscreen ups the polygon count to extremely high levels for something that looks so simple! It doesn't help that the engine has to take into account a practically infinite variety of possible block arrangements, so there's none of the pre-coded optimisations that games with fixed level layouts can use. Pretty sure that even if you rewrote Minecraft from the ground up in raw assembly language it wouldn't perform much better than it does now.
Never played the other one you mention so can't judge on that one.
-
A) the game is made in java (not known for graphical prowess)
A terrible misconception.
I don't know about that... I've never played a java game that actually managed good 3d graphics with decent FPS... Minecraft and Wurm are both poor performers for instance.
I would say it is pretty well known that heavy graphical games are not best on a java platform. Stafarer does very well on it given the 2d engine..
Not even starfarer does well, sometimes i have slowdowns on this computer where i can run crysis 1920*1200 max detail fluid. Usually games are written in c++ for a reason
-
Pretty much all the heavy lifting is done by the graphics card - regardless of whether you're using Java or C++. The parts C++ does faster often don't matter in that they aren't bottlenecks. I'm not going to say it never matters - but in the case of Starfarer, I'm quite sure it wouldn't make a big difference.
Not even starfarer does well, sometimes i have slowdowns on this computer where i can run crysis 1920*1200 max detail fluid. Usually games are written in c++ for a reason
I bet most of the work Crysis does is in shaders (which would be the same in either Java or C++, since it's just binary code running on the graphics card). Also, it's actually a easier to optimize for 3d stuff than it is for 2d - if you're pushing 10,000 triangles at a time for a 3d model, that's not *nearly* as bad as drawing the same 10,000 triangles as individual sprites.
2d vs 3d performance is really an apples-to-oranges comparison.
I'm curious what your graphics card is, though - mine can't run Crysis on max detail smoothly, and yet there are few cases when there's any slowdown in Starfarer (often due to "clearly inefficient code" reasons - for example, the flak/frag bomb proximity fuse AI is atrocious, so having lots of frag bombs in play at the same time is rough).
-
A) the game is made in java (not known for graphical prowess)
A terrible misconception.
I don't know about that... I've never played a java game that actually managed good 3d graphics with decent FPS... Minecraft and Wurm are both poor performers for instance.
I would say it is pretty well known that heavy graphical games are not best on a java platform. Stafarer does very well on it given the 2d engine..
:edit: Please ignore any duplication with Alex's reply above - this post was authored simultaneously.
Why do you consider Minecraft & Wurm to be examples of poor performance?
Yes, they're both graphically very primitive, neither utilizing many of the 'fancy' gpu features seen in modern titles.
However poor visuals shouldn't be equated to poor language/compiler performance. The vast majority of the eye candy seen in modern AAA games is handled predominantly by the GPU, as such the language/compiler used for instructing the CPU is of nominal importance.
As for Starfarer, I guess you realize that for rendering it uses lwjgl; a lightweight wrapper for opengl - a native code rendering library.
The most demanding logic the Java code will have to deal with is probably collision detection, and without knowing whether the game uses a bespoke or off-the-shelf library, I wouldn't be surprised if this too were delegated to native code.
Ultimately it's about using the right tool for the right job.
You could write an entire game in assembly.... and when performance was paramount most developers did!
However today it's the performance of the programmer (lines per hour!) not the code (instructions per second) that matters most.
Traditional AAA games typically execute the core engine in native code (C/C++) and the game logic in various bespoke managed high level scripting languages.
It's a small step to do what Alex (and others) have done to write the game in a managed language (such as Java/C#), and then delegate the performance critical sections to native code.
Given the geometric growth in development time for AAA games I strongly suspect we'll see this become the norm when the next generation of consoles are released.
On a side-note managed higher level languages such as Java, C# and others make programming for multiple cores significantly easier - a common failing found in most current-generation AAA titles - Crysis included!
-
As for Starfarer, I guess you realize that for rendering it uses lwjgl; a lightweight wrapper for opengl - a native code rendering library.
The most demanding logic the Java code will have to deal with is probably collision detection, and without knowing whether the game uses a bespoke or off-the-shelf library, I wouldn't be surprised if this too were delegated to native code.
Surprisingly, collision detection is a complete non-issue performance-wise, even in the most crowded battles. The game is using custom bin-based data structure to avoid the O(n^2) stuff (though the AI is not, where the aforementioned frag bomb proximity fuse performance comes from - need to get around to this eventually!).
Pretty much nothing done on the CPU is a problem. Graphics are almost always >>50% of the work.
It's worth noting that Java can compile bytecode into native code on the fly, which includes usage-pattern based optimizations - something that a C++ compiler can't do. So with the way the JVM is configured, it's actually running native code for all the performance-critical parts - including ones originally written in Java.
Ultimately it's about using the right tool for the right job.
You could write an entire game in assembly.... and when performance was paramount most developers did!
However today it's the performance of the programmer (lines per hour!) not the code (instructions per second) that matters most.
That's just spot on.
-
As for Starfarer, I guess you realize that for rendering it uses lwjgl; a lightweight wrapper for opengl - a native code rendering library.
The most demanding logic the Java code will have to deal with is probably collision detection, and without knowing whether the game uses a bespoke or off-the-shelf library, I wouldn't be surprised if this too were delegated to native code.
Surprisingly, collision detection is a complete non-issue performance-wise, even in the most crowded battles. The game is using custom bin-based data structure to avoid the O(n^2) stuff (though the AI is not, where the aforementioned frag bomb proximity fuse performance comes from - need to get around to this eventually!).
Pretty much nothing done on the CPU is a problem. Graphics are almost always >>50% of the work.
You're right, that is surprising!
Of course, you know what that means.... we can have bigger battles with lots more ships! ;D
It's worth noting that Java can compile bytecode into native code on the fly, which includes usage-pattern based optimizations - something that a C++ compiler can't do. So with the way the JVM is configured, it's actually running native code for all the performance-critical parts - including ones originally written in Java.
Yeah, I'm aware of the funky stuff hotspot can do. Though I struggled to include it in my reply without turning it into something resembling a thesis =]
-
First of all, the game is an indie game, meaning that it is made by independent developers, not big companies like Valve, Bungie, etc. This means that the game is not going to have the best graphics in the world.
Also, I personally I think that the graphics are perfect. I love the ships design, the artists did a great job in that, and in-game you can barely even make out individual pixels. I don't see why you think the game needs a "graphical update," and I totally think that the game's graphics are great.
-
It's worth noting that Java can compile bytecode into native code on the fly, which includes usage-pattern based optimizations - something that a C++ compiler can't do. So with the way the JVM is configured, it's actually running native code for all the performance-critical parts - including ones originally written in Java.
Yeah, I'm aware of the funky stuff hotspot can do. Though I struggled to include it in my reply without turning it into something resembling a thesis =]
Heheh, yeah. I felt in danger of overgeeking there, myself :)
First of all, the game is an indie game, meaning that it is made by independent developers, not big companies like Valve, Bungie, etc. This means that the game is not going to have the best graphics in the world.
Also, I personally I think that the graphics are perfect. I love the ships design, the artists did a great job in that, and in-game you can barely even make out individual pixels. I don't see why you think the game needs a "graphical update," and I totally think that the game's graphics are great.
Thank you for the support!
-
Thank you for the support!
Haha, No Problem! I love supporting independent developers and of course the game they make!
-
I recently realized that Starfarer is written in Java. Since I program in Java for several years no, this game is even more to my liking now.
Considering performance in Starfarer: I never had any kind of FPS drop. And my GPU is a Geforce 8800 GTX 768 with a GPU Intel Q6600 2,4 GHZ x 4.
I could not run Crysis in 1920x... at 40 FPS. But still, this is a 2D game, I does not need to use "fancy shaders".
BTW Awesome job with the graphics, they look...let me quote here "P E R F E C T".
In the end it is a matter of personal taste, if one likes 2D games with good, detailed sprites , than this game will be to one's liking.
-
For some reason, I start to remeber how starcraft was actually a 2d game that looked 3d because of how the art work used shadows.
-
The only complaint I have at the moment is the background. Of course, since it's space, there isn't going to be a huge change even if you move a few light-years, but the current one is a little bland, I feel.
More nebulae, please.
-
Please ignore any duplication with Alex's reply above - this post was authored simultaneously.
Why do you consider Minecraft & Wurm to be examples of poor performance?
Yes, they're both graphically very primitive, neither utilizing many of the 'fancy' gpu features seen in modern titles.
However poor visuals shouldn't be equated to poor language/compiler performance. The vast majority of the eye candy seen in modern AAA games is handled predominantly by the GPU, as such the language/compiler used for instructing the CPU is of nominal importance.
As for Starfarer, I guess you realize that for rendering it uses lwjgl; a lightweight wrapper for opengl - a native code rendering library.
The most demanding logic the Java code will have to deal with is probably collision detection, and without knowing whether the game uses a bespoke or off-the-shelf library, I wouldn't be surprised if this too were delegated to native code.
In my experience Minecraft and Wurm both had much lower performance (frames per second, heavy cpu/gpu usage) than most other 3d games I've played. While some 3d games will suck up a lot of CPU/GPU they will rarely, if ever, cause a slowdown, or get jerky. Minecraft and Wurm did however.
I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Java and I think programming games in it is great, as it seems like java is easier to learn and thus we get more games. I'm just pointing out that in my experience java based graphical games have consistently performed poorly. Maybe the games I've tried just had poor programming, I don't really know as I'm not a java programmer.
Anywho, Starfarer looks great and so far it has run flawlessly for me without any crashes (other than mod caused ones).
-
I'm playing this game for its amazing mechanics and depth/scope, not for fancy graphics. The graphics are just fine for what I want out of it.
-
I see it in a different way: as in all games graphic serves AESTHETIC. Aesthetic is determined by many characteristics, a game can have high eyecandy value and still use very "poor" graphics (like Dungeon Keeper 1). This game have very GOOD graphics (2d at it, so it's somewhat limited) but they serve an even higher aesthetic (and eyecandy).
-
The only complaint I have at the moment is the background. Of course, since it's space, there isn't going to be a huge change even if you move a few light-years, but the current one is a little bland, I feel.
More nebulae, please.
I have to agree with you here, though, the combat backgrounds are very nice and varied. The campaign's backgrounds do get quite boring to look at for extended periods of time.
-
I am not asking for Alex to change the graphical style, just to add a bit more when zoomed in. I myself am not a game developer, so I can not decide whether or not this is possible, or even if it is worth the time and effort. All I can say is that Alex and his team have been doing a great job with the game so far, and if it is possible to add a graphical update, I would be thankful.
-
It'd suck up resources, look worse when zoomed out, and flaws in the ship designs would be a lot more obvious zoomed in. More work, and the modders who make custom sprites would be sort of screwed.
Also, graphical 'update' seems to imply that you're working with a really old game here that's out of date, not purposefully designed to be this way. That's sort of insulting. :(
-
All the guy said was when you zoom in, the sprites lose a little quality. Then asked if it were possible to fix. Yet some of you are acting like he insulted your mothers, when you didn't even properly understand what he was saying. I've noticed this slight dip as well, because I zoom in really close a lot to increase my fps in really big battles. Now I know this probably isn't an issue that can be fixed, hence why I never suggested, buts it's no reason to get up in arms.
-
All the guy said was when you zoom in, the sprites lose a little quality. Then asked if it were possible to fix. Yet some of you are acting like he insulted your mothers, when you didn't even properly understand what he was saying. I've noticed this slight dip as well, because I zoom in really close a lot to increase my fps in really big battles. Now I know this probably isn't an issue that can be fixed, hence why I never suggested, buts it's no reason to get up in arms.
I suspect that's because his/her initial post came out all entitled, whinny and made a 'recommendation' that doesn't fit the meaning of the word in any form.
It's like saying to an artist "Not bad, but your painting doesn't make me feel majestic. Go do something about it". What part of the original don't you like? What quality do you consider to be majestic? What do you recommend Alex should do to achieve that goal?
The original post offered no constructive criticism and contained the same amount of information as a baby's "WAAAAA!"
-
I had no idea this game used sprites until someone told me. The graphics looked realistic to me, it must be I never look that close to the detail. Or it could be because I'm about 12 feet from the screen.
-
All the guy said was when you zoom in, the sprites lose a little quality. Then asked if it were possible to fix. Yet some of you are acting like he insulted your mothers, when you didn't even properly understand what he was saying. I've noticed this slight dip as well, because I zoom in really close a lot to increase my fps in really big battles. Now I know this probably isn't an issue that can be fixed, hence why I never suggested, buts it's no reason to get up in arms.
I suspect that's because his/her initial post came out all entitled, whinny and made a 'recommendation' that doesn't fit the meaning of the word in any form.
It's like saying to an artist "Not bad, but your painting doesn't make me feel majestic. Go do something about it". What part of the original don't you like? What quality do you consider to be majestic? What do you recommend Alex should do to achieve that goal?
The original post offered no constructive criticism and contained the same amount of information as a baby's "WAAAAA!"
I admit, he could have worded his post better, and as it is it is sort of misleading what he's saying. I wouldn't have even known what he was talking about if I didn't zoom way in often and have my face close to my screen. However, no one suggesting something for a game is ever acting entitled. When you have some free time, I suggest you watch this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAM1g6uU-eg&feature=g-user-u
Hopefully it will help enlighten your viewpoint.
-
I don't like that word 'entitled'. I was the first to criticize the wording of the OP, but he wasn't acting 'entitled', just not helpful.
'Entitlement', or as we would to call it in the modern age of shamed consumerism if corporate propaganda weren't so insidious, 'expressing your opinions on quality or business practices as a consumer'-- is the backbone of freaking capitalism. It doesn't work when people don't demand things, things don't improve.