Are we already seeing 'graphical improvements'?

I was just wondering this given what we've seen in recent times, namely:

The Power Customisation issue (though this is obvious and the first stage presumably in a rollout of power customisation which includes animations);

The additional small touches to the UI including level indicator, badge categories, minimap and level indicators for missions plus detailed explanations of the UI options;

And finally the information regarding the Halloween Event where a Raid Event indicator plus UI will apparently appear, along with additional minimap markers.

Is this the beginning of what we should begin to expect as GR moves towards and the overall level of the interface improves and becomes more as I call it, '2009'?

I won't deny I like the simplicity and ease of use of the other superhero MMO's interface, but that's predicated on the notion that it is a simpler game by design, and more action-oriented, by which I mean that there is more done with 'interactive' systems relying on less clicks and is more like a console game. Again, by design.

I'm hoping we see a more flexible UI (though as it is, it's pretty impressive), along with a cleaner '2009' look for the game. It's hard to deny what games can render these days with the looks of characters and environments, and whilst I'm not looking for anything specifically, I am hoping this is the beginning of the sort of things we can expect to see.

S.

If they throw in too many graphical bells and whistles, they run the risk of increasing the system requirements (look what happened to Windows Vista with all that animated-menu faff and suchlike), which is a mean thing to do to an established user base. Which isn't to say they mightn't do it anyway, I just rather hope they don't.

There was a HUGE overhaul on the resolution of textures shortly after CoV came out. Then there was the hodge podging (is that a word?) of things like bloom, physX and several minor options shortly after that. CoX's requirements are actually much higher than what they should be, it's just that so much stuff was coded in after the fact, it's very inefficient.

However, if you want to keep playing this awesome game, you must upgrade! I hope for more improvements soon.

wanted to sort of comment on this thread.

One of the things to keep in mind about CoH is that it's built on OpenGL, not DirectX. This actually matters a lot in the past / current performance. OpenGL 2.0 was specified in full in October 2004: http://www.opengl.org/documentation/...0/glspec20.pdf :: OpenGL 2.1 didn't hit until 2006: http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/g...1.20061201.pdf :: OpenGL 3.0 came in 2008: http://www.opengl.org/registry/doc/g...0.20080811.pdf :: and OpenGL 3.2 just arrived a little over a month ago : http://www.opengl.org/documentation/current_version/

City of Heroes was launched in early 2004: http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/dos...ta/536558.html and City of Villains was launched in 2005 : http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/dos...ta/920475.html

This would have placed the bulk of City of Heroe's development graphics code against OpenGL 1.4: http://www.opengl.org/documentation/...4/glspec14.pdf

That's actually an issue on today's graphics cards which are geared towards running Shaders. Take a look at TechARP's GPU Comparisons when you're bored, like this list here: http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=88&pgno=3

The Radeon x1800 XT, for example, can pump out 10,000 megapixels and 10,000 megatexels. It actually produces the same megapixel fill rate as a RadeonHD 4850, but less than half the texel fill rate. (25,000 on the 4850). In certain applications, the old x1800 XT would be able to stand toe to toe with the much more powerful 4850.

One of the big rumors with the upcoming Going Rogue is that the investment from NCSoft has allowed Paragon Studios to hire enough developers to re-write the graphics engine to take advantage of OpenGL 2.0+... some have even suggested that the "new" graphics engine will be built against OpenGL 3.2 to take advantage of tessellation: http://www.opengl.org/news/comments/...mes-the-speed/

***

There's also other performance factors to think about as well. One of the big launch items with City of Villains was the inclusion of AGEIA's PhysX engine. Well, almost nobody bought a PhsyX card.... and if you've got an ATi or Intel GPU, you can forget accelerated physics. Even if you did pick up a PhysX card... or you have an Nvidia system capable of running PhysX... the in-game impact honestly is not noticable.

So, there's rumors that PhysX will be dropped in favor of OpenCL... which makes a lot more sense from a performance standpoint. OpenCL can be accelerated across all OS platforms.... using either CPU or GPU processing. Not only would make Transgaming's porting job a lot easier in being able to offer feature parity in Cedega / Cider... even if you buy a computer with a low-end Intel GPU based on Larrabee next year, you'll still be able to take advantage of GPU acceleration of physics.


***

The good news is that if this is the approach Paragon Studios is taking, anybody with a Radeon 9700 or Geforce 6600 onwards should theoretically get a performance boost. The bad news is that if you have a Radeon 8500 or Geforce FX (or older), as well as Intel Extreme Graphics, the game could turn into not supported at all

Interesting. Thanks for the insight, je_saist.

I will be VERY surprised if any kind of actual engine upgrade occurs. Pleasantly so, but surprised nonetheless.

[quote=je_saist;2296720]
One of the big rumors with the upcoming Going Rogue is that the investment from NCSoft has allowed Paragon Studios to hire enough developers to re-write the graphics engine to take advantage of OpenGL 2.0+... some have even suggested that the "new" graphics engine will be built against OpenGL 3.2 to take advantage of tessellation: http://www.opengl.org/news/comments/...d/ [/quote]

All Positron has said is that they're doing something to keep up or ahead of the competition - but there's been nothing said at all about rewriting the graphics engine.
I think any upgrade would be more likely to be an extra level of detail, so those with powerful computers could crank up the graphics another notch or two, but those with less pwoewrful systems could keep running on the settings they use now.

It's also been stated that the engine is capable of doing a lot more than what they have implemented now.

I remember a long while back, before NCSoft took over, BaB mentioned that power customization would require rewriting the graphics code almost completely. They weren't going to do that unless there was a good reason to do so.

Well, now we have power customization, there's a new box expansion coming out, and a competing game just launched with state-of-the-art graphics. I don't think this is rocket surgery.

Some laptop users are stuck with intel...poor bastards.

I really wouldn't mind a graphical update. After... What? 3-4 years without upgrading the requirements of a game, since CoV (and that's being VERY modest, considering it's closer to 5+, since CoV didn't do too much to warrant an upgrade, if any) the game could REALLY use it.

Just crack down on the things that players have been asking about; fingers, smoother graphics, more options, etc.

Animated hair?