Why does 1.0 models look better than 2.0+ models?

**Uielyave** · 01-22-2017 05:24 AM

I believe they downgraded the models because of pixel count? There was literally -too- much in the game for it to run right even with the BEST computer.
Like i think there was something soemwhere that said a planter in 1.0 had more pixels in it than a character model, and the character models had a LOOOOOOOOOT.

**Valkyrie_Lenneth** · 01-22-2017 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Uielyave

I believe they downgraded the models because of pixel count? There was literally -too- much in the game for it to run right even with the BEST computer.
Like i think there was something soemwhere that said a planter in 1.0 had more pixels in it than a character model, and the character models had a LOOOOOOOOOT.

It was polygons, but yes. A vase in 1.0 had as many polygons as a character model in 2.0.

If you can find the 1.0 benchmark run it. I score an 8000 on my machine. Using the dx9 3.0 benchmark, I score a 17000. Bit of a difference there lol.

**LioJen** · 01-22-2017 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by GMERC

If you think they can just make new textures and models for every outfit released since 1.23 at the drop of a hat, you also have no idea what you're talking about.

They don't need to go back and redo every little thing, but with the new system requirements for 4.0 I see no reason they can't return to higher resolution textures and models other than laziness. Other online games from much smaller companies than SE look much better.

You need to put this in perspective, our graphics now are DOWNGRADES from graphics we had nearly SEVEN years ago. I don't think it's too much to ask that we get textures on par with last generation's.

And normally in game development, textures and models are created at a much higher resolution and then compressed for actual release in-game, so the dev team most likely has much higher resolution versions of everything on file already and wouldn't need to remake anything at all.

**Kathryn** · 01-22-2017 08:23 AM

I don't get it people say 1.0 ran like a potatoe even on high end pc's but back then I didn't have an amazing PC but I ran it on medium to high with absolutely no issues at all and to be honest it ran just as good as 2.0 does for me now. But yeah I'd love to have a seamless world back and the asphetic that used to blow my mind was talking to a friend earlier and he confessed he missed 1.0 just as much as me.

**GMERC** · 01-22-2017 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Kathryn

I don't get it people say 1.0 ran like a potatoe even on high end pc's but back then I didn't have an amazing PC but I ran it on medium to high with absolutely no issues at all and to be honest it ran just as good as 2.0 does for me now. But yeah I'd love to have a seamless world back and the asphetic that used to blow my mind was talking to a friend earlier and he confessed he missed 1.0 just as much as me.

**Gumbercules** · 01-22-2017 09:11 AM

idk 1.0 to 2.0 in my case, cuz of my hardware i actually saw an "upgrade" in overall graphic fidelity. ppl just find it easy to forget little things like...idk no actual light sources or shadows >.> Also keep in mind the texture sizes were absurdly massive compared to how they are now. Not saying I cant see overall texture improvements going forth but I don't see them ever going back to 1.0 levels of it.

**Averax** · 01-22-2017 09:49 AM

Because they were better.

1.X->2.X was graphical downgrade, in some ways (upgrade in others). Because so few people had a computer that could run it, and they had to fulfill the promise of it coming to the PS3 (Which wasn't going to happen with the required specs of the time). Even the highest end PCs of the time chugged along.

They didn't really prioritize the graphical integrity of anything, and just made everything have as many shaders and polygons as a character model, even a simple flower pot. The player models themselves had more fluid animations back then, as well, but they had to cut them down to make them work on the PS3. IIRC, elezen did not always run quite like they have a stick lodged up their backsides.

Now that the PS3 is being dropped and the mainstream graphics cards are far more powerful than they were a few years ago, we may very well see some of the things we had to give up from 1.0 return.

Originally Posted by Kathryn

I don't get it people say 1.0 ran like a potatoe even on high end pc's but back then I didn't have an amazing PC but I ran it on medium to high with absolutely no issues at all and to be honest it ran just as good as 2.0 does for me now. But yeah I'd love to have a seamless world back and the asphetic that used to blow my mind was talking to a friend earlier and he confessed he missed 1.0 just as much as me.

I used to play wow on a dell mini laptop, 5 fps was my norm. I still can't remember the frames being as horrid as they were, but i know they were bad. I remember thinking my cousin's potato getting 12 fps was godlike.

Later, when i upgraded to a newer laptop, i got around 30 fps, and i thought that was smooth as butter.

Then i got my monster truck of a rig, and never see anything below 60 here (in wow it still stutters, but that's because of the game, not the hardware). Whenever i see something go below 60, i instantly notice, and wonder how i dealt with everything i had before.

The moral of my story is; you don't remember the frame stutter you used to have when you're doing better than you were before.

I am actually loathe to upgrade to a 144hz monitor out of fear that i won't want to go back to 60, and the hardware needed to sustain 144fps on max is just not there.

**Automedius** · 01-22-2017 10:33 AM

In reply to Averax:

This seems to be a very biased topic, so even though what you say is 100% true, I'm sure there will be several "opinionated" people to try and refute what you just said. God forbid this forum had a Downvote button haha. Anyways, I'm sure we will see improvements after/or on 4.0.

**Assirra** · 01-22-2017 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by LordMaitreya

We need a viable anti aliasing before improved textures.

Yes please.
We need actual anti alising, not this nonsense fxaa. Sometimes the shimmering is horrible.

**Averax** · 01-22-2017 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Assirra

Yes please.
We need actual anti alising, not this nonsense fxaa. Sometimes the shimmering is horrible.

You know, what's silly is that FXAA is done rather well in other games. In WoW on FXAA high, i barely notice the jagged edges, but here they're extremely obvious. Especially at distance when looking at trees. I use a reshader the blur the edges of distant object where the FXAA does not, but it barely makes a dent.

We need to be able to adjust the level of intensity of our AA as well if any settings we get are to be worthwhile. So far, the only real AA option is getting a 2k/4k monitor and rendering the game at such.

Thread: Why does 1.0 models look better than 2.0+ models?

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display