That's way the answer to that is lack of time to develop and implement it and not resource drain.

But it already has been discussed to death and it won't be changed. :/

Btw. a bit offtopic.



That's something I've never understood about SupCom. TA Spring has also projectile calculation (I've shout down nimble scout planes with the heavy artillery) but it doesn't use that amount of processing power that Supcom needs.

That's because SupCom units generally fire much faster, their projectiles have a longer livetime, and because the unit's also calculate what they can fire at based on 3-4 different layers of counter-intelligence. In addition to a shield-layer that also acts as a collision box for projectiles.

I dont give a flying crapping cahoot about their wasteful system, moving turrets is a waste of processing power thats not going to be of any use in the end.

you kidding me? I love love LOVE the Marza, I even think it looks better than the current Kol!

Homeworld might not be the best example to compare Sins against over turrets. Homeworld only had what, a hundred ships max when all sides were added up (also a lot lower res than Sins). Sins has to keep in memory a lot of planets, stars, asteroids, debris, nebula stuff, weapon effects AND sometimes close to a thousand ships. It also has to do it on an average level machine so the devs can actually make some money in terms of sales

It has also already been said that there will be little visual gratification for turrets due to the distance players view the battle at.

Still, if the devs can add a turret effects patch at a later date, I know I would be extremely happy.

They can't do that. The advertising is already "in the pipeline" and can't be delayed. Ergo, they must release on schedule. I'm sure they'd love to do this to a blizzard style "its done when its done", but they can't do so. They're a much smaller development house that, simply put, can not afford to do so. Blizzard doesn't need advertising -- its so big that if it released an empty box everyone would buy it -- and Ironclad Games, and Stardock, are small enough to need advertisement. Especially when breaking out into a "new" genre.

I don't think the wider gaming comunity is going to be as forgiving when they see it.

Yeah, but the gaming community is going to get a completed version, not this incomplete beta. Where there will be even more units to help make it clear that the variation isn't cliche'd different units -> different roles -> same balance setup.

there always has been, and always be noobish complaints. saying the TEC and Vasari are "closely related" is utter dribble, theres no way to feasibly wipe it out.

So here we have a screenshot from Eve:Online Trinity, not much going on here so this could easily be an RTS view as well as an FPS view before anyone brings up the genre argument. It merely serves as an example for computer generated graphics 2007/2008 for a space environment.



Now you could drop the SoaSE Planets, TEC Kol, TEC Colony Frig or Vasari Fighters into this picture and they wouldn't look out of place, kudos to IC job well done. You couldn't however add the other capships, frigs, cruisers or structures they would look clearly out of place and sit better with a screenshot from the Homeworld line.

More than anything else this is what I see as being the biggest weak point for SoaSE the divide in quality. There are some nice screenshots in the media section which I assume are from the single player campaign or Advent race which show good promise.

I'm only badgering on about it cos IC are almost there, and should have time for these sorts of minor changes in a release patch for around Feb08.

ok well SoaSE is NOT Homeworld. Homeworld is like a reference point that we are using to compare an amazing space based game to! So what if some ships look out of place? The overall game compensates big time. Yes some expectations of the Vasari were unment, but so what? This is BETA guys, just imagine what its going to be like after Beta.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!  

I think his point is that the models don't look good compared to what they could be.

EVE/Homeworld doesn't have a couple hundred ships on the screen at once.

No, they don't. And, generally, Sins doesn't try that either (Exactly how often do you have a couple hundred ships on screen in model form instead of icon form? That "excuse" works for turrets because they require CPU resources to move even if you can't see them moving, they don't cease to exist in icon form.)

And, let me also point out that a part of his point is that the Kol could in there and it wouldn't look to bad. As well as fighters, colony frigate, and planets in general.

since we are at it can we compare Company of heros to the graphics in say Call of Duty?
No, we can't. I can look at the models and eve and tell you right out their geometry limits are a lot higher than they are in sins. It's not due to any quality issues coming out of the art department. Give a modeler at ironclad a 10000 poly limit, I'm sure they'd produce some steller results. This is an RTS guys. It's a game that is running off your computers, not game servers. Everything in the game needs calculating. We can't cheat like you can in FPS's. I'm sure eve couldn't ahve 10000+ units showing on screen at once like multi managed to pull off.

I do though agree, eve does look nice. but it's a very different kind of game. The expectations for the cpu and gpu are probably very different.

I wasn't nessescarily refering to his point, there have been lots of compariosns to HW and Supcom. Its just irritateing to keep seeing "wow this reminds me so much of HW" Would tou like it if you put your work out and get a lot of "wow that looks a lot like something else"?