Jump to content


* * - - - 7 votes

[Sandbox] HD MAPS

Sandbox

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

Arclight58 #21 Posted Oct 12 2017 - 14:30

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 40642 battles
  • 740
  • [_F_] _F_
  • Member since:
    07-29-2011
Those maps OMG! The maps look fantastic and love the detail.  I hit the bug with one side not loading in the battle 2 out of 3 games but I'm sure that will get fixed soon   (Seems to be fixed with today's patch. :great:). It did give me time to run around the map and look without getting shot at.

Edited by Arclight58, Oct 12 2017 - 15:42.


gatorken #22 Posted Oct 12 2017 - 16:13

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 69119 battles
  • 260
  • [FATEX] FATEX
  • Member since:
    12-29-2013
We buildings and some rocks overly dark brown to black looking to other folks?  The buildings were dark on Himelsdorf and Redshire at the castle. El Hauf had dark rocks all over.

Mikosah #23 Posted Oct 12 2017 - 18:37

    Major

  • Players
  • 17515 battles
  • 3,063
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

So far have seen Sand River, El Halluf, and Murovanka. One match on Cliff had the bug where the whole team failed to load in, hopefully this morning's patch prevents that from happening again. Sometimes takes a while for the textures to load in, but usually finishes by the time the countdown is up. Framerate remains more or less stable at just under 60 FPS, but the ping of the sandbox server makes it difficult to objectively judge the smoothness of movement. Noticed the new tracer visuals, a marked improvement over the current N64 style comet trails. Would like to fire different shell types to see how that affects tracer visuals. For the time being I'll reserve judgment of the map aesthetics themselves until I've seen some more. Likewise for functional map changes, it'll take time to see whether or not they're an improvement. 

 

My current appraisal of the overall changes is that its all well and good to throw in so much eye-candy, but I question the wisdom of this effort in light of much more serious issues that remain unresolved. The eye-candy will surely make for some great promotional material, but then again, who actually complained about the current maps' aesthetics? Their balance and gameplay perhaps, but not aesthetics. Given the choice, I'd much rather have focused the effort on improving the gameplay of existing maps or creating new maps entirely rather than just toying with the visuals. Besides that, all the work put into making such detailed vehicle models, maps, sound effects, lighting, visual effects, et cetera, is ultimately betrayed when the gameplay mechanics themselves do something so ridiculous that breaks the immersion, or something so frustrating that it makes immersion irrelevant.

 

****Addendum: Bug(s) found, the controls regarding the red map border are unresponsive. Whether the border is solid or dashed does still work, but the controls to make the border 'appear always', 'appear upon pressing ALT', and 'appear upon approach' all treat the wall as if it should be always visible. Also note that the base flags do not wave, they're frozen in place. One more is that in some circumstances, the health bars of damaged tanks have unusually high opacity on the 'empty' portion. In some cases it looks solid black.



nickalaso123 #24 Posted Oct 12 2017 - 23:53

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15312 battles
  • 166
  • [9ATD] 9ATD
  • Member since:
    12-08-2012
I've been testing the higher resolutions so I can see hoe pretty they look but I've encountered a few problems. On the live server my graphics are low while on the sandbox I went up to around low/medium since I wanted to see how the havoc system worked. As I played I noticed that objects such as rocks, pathways, tank tracks, and shell craters appeared as back patches and I was wondering if anyone else is experiencing this as it just makes the game look bad...

Edited by nickalaso123, Oct 13 2017 - 00:13.


TLWiz #25 Posted Oct 13 2017 - 02:48

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17335 battles
  • 8,897
  • [DSSRT] DSSRT
  • Member since:
    12-26-2014
I gotta say the SB game looks great and I still have high fps and smooth play with my i7 CPU and 1060 Vid card.  Very nice and I am looking forward to this graphic quality hitting the main game. The effects with water, shock waves when firing, all really a big step up.

tod914 #26 Posted Oct 13 2017 - 04:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49739 battles
  • 1,852
  • [RDNKS] RDNKS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

Where there's a will, there's a way.
 

 



nickalaso123 #27 Posted Oct 13 2017 - 13:33

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15312 battles
  • 166
  • [9ATD] 9ATD
  • Member since:
    12-08-2012

View Posttod914, on Oct 12 2017 - 20:15, said:

Where there's a will, there's a way.
 

 

 

You must have a pretty good graphics card if you are able to run something like that at 70fps. On the live server I run low at like 80fps but on the sandbox as I tried to try the high settings my fps dropped to 15 :/

MoWhiskey #28 Posted Oct 13 2017 - 14:25

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 32881 battles
  • 351
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

Finally got in a game and was team killed by RU player in first min. so I had enough with the Catbox

 

Graphics were GREAT!!


Edited by MoWhiskey, Oct 13 2017 - 16:27.


84Doc04 #29 Posted Oct 13 2017 - 14:51

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 17059 battles
  • 1,044
  • [E-T-D] E-T-D
  • Member since:
    11-10-2014

I have a few things after playing these maps for a couple days.

First, the rendering and visuals are spectacular, absolutely well done.  The same tiny map now "feels" like a huge one.

That said, you had a golden opportunity to address the single biggest complaint in the player base regarding maps other than variety: Map Size.  While you redrew these all in gorgeous HD, why didn't you make them 30% or 50% bigger?  Realizing that some maps just have a corridor meta (city maps for example) the biggest issue with the maps is sheer size.....  Mines is one of the biggest culprits as is Ensk, etc....  Maps basically sized for Tier 1-4 play are just too congested for Tier 6+ (especially Tier 10) tanks, what with their very long view ranges, mobility, and play styles.  Above Tier 4 you should basically never see a map smaller than Prokorovka or Malinkova.  Pilson is pushing it.  

 

Second, I don't know what the logistics of the sandbox are, but I don't remember playing on a single, world wide sandbox before.  My ping from the Eastern US is 5 times what it normally is, and the game is laggy.  There are huge delays in load in, and post game.  With usually less than 2,500 players on, it should be fairly fast.

 

Third, I noticed a glitch when playing Swedish TDs.  When in siege mode, and zoomed into sniper view, the tank does NOT traverse to match up with aim point.  You either have to manually traverse the tank (Specifically I was in the Strv 103-B) or back out of sniper view, and the tank traverses normally.  It's a shame, I spent so much free XP on the Strv crew, and now I can't play the tank.  

 

Last, did bush mechanics change?  If there's a change in how camouflage and bushes/trees work, we really should be told what it was.  I got spotted a LOT in places and situations where I should have been completely undetected.  If there was a major change in bush density or spotting mechanics, that will significantly affect how many tanks are played.

 

So I guess this is a mixed review.  I absolutely love, Love, LOVE the new graphics, visuals, and effects.  I also like how you reworked the play area boundary line.  It's much easier to see when you're not right on it.  The new engine didn't seem to slow my PC down at all, so that's good too...  And it'll be fun to explore the new spots and mourn for old spots removed....  Down sides, a few bugs, nothing major, and I bet most are because it's a world-wide test server.  But I'm severely disappointed in the same tiny map sizes.  This was a gigantic opportunity to improve the play, and I feel like y'all missed it.



tod914 #30 Posted Oct 13 2017 - 17:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49739 battles
  • 1,852
  • [RDNKS] RDNKS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

View Postnickalaso123, on Oct 13 2017 - 07:33, said:

 

You must have a pretty good graphics card if you are able to run something like that at 70fps. On the live server I run low at like 80fps but on the sandbox as I tried to try the high settings my fps dropped to 15 :/

 

It's  a NVIDIA GTX 760.  About 4 years old.  Seems to play the game ok, but I think this is really pushing it.  The game settings are set to high.  Game is laggy.  Might be do to the 140ms though.  Not sure. Might have to test on SD to verify.  You have to make sure the power management mode is set to high performance, as well as the texture filtering option in the graphics card menu.  If not, your frame rate will decrease significantly.  Maybe you can change some settings on yours to get a higher frame.

Edited by tod914, Oct 13 2017 - 17:11.


tod914 #31 Posted Oct 13 2017 - 17:08

    Captain

  • Players
  • 49739 battles
  • 1,852
  • [RDNKS] RDNKS
  • Member since:
    12-23-2013

  Just wanted to note, the tank's physics seem hyper reactive on these new HD maps.  They are flipping way too easily.  Would rather see some of the old style terrain put back, in lieu of rock piles.   They are bouncing too much on level terrain in spots.

 

There are also some small objects on the maps that should be destructible, and are not.  I'll try to get some screen shots later.

 

84Doc summed it up real well. 


Edited by tod914, Oct 13 2017 - 17:09.


Nudnick #32 Posted Oct 13 2017 - 18:04

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 20282 battles
  • 2,154
  • Member since:
    01-06-2013
I played a few in SD and low settings. Pretty much un-playable, 15 fps, 250 ms. Maybe time for a new computer.

stalkervision #33 Posted Oct 16 2017 - 17:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 49841 battles
  • 7,834
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013
when will the sandbox server come back on?





Also tagged with Sandbox

3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users