Jump to content


HD/SD client versions


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
47 replies to this topic

gunlion #1 Posted 22 May 2014 - 11:24 PM

    Community Manager

  • Member
  • 1284 battles
  • 874
  • Member since:
    11-19-2013

Starting with Update 1.4, players can opt to download two different versions of the client based on their needs: a "HD" client for players with high-performance computers and 64-bit OSes who want to play World of Warplanes with the maximum quality textures; and a "SD" client for players who do not use the maximum graphics settings, and/or would like to save hard drive space. (Those texture files can get pretty big!)

 

The World of Warplanes launcher will automatically download the HD or SD client based on your current graphics settings. Players using the SD client will be able to download the HD client at any time through the launcher. 

 

We would love to get your opinions on the two client versions; does the separation of a "HD" and "SD" client benefit you? Is there anything you dislike, or have concerns with? 



SkywhaleExpress #2 Posted 22 May 2014 - 11:46 PM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 17397 battles
  • 10,666
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

I have concerns and questions:

 

1. Is the "HD" client really an improvement for 64 bit? As in, is it 64 bit coded, to utilize more than 4GB of system RAM?

2. Is the "HD" client hyperthreading/multi-threading capable? That is, the multiple logical cores...

3. Is the "HD" client multi-core/multi-CPU and multi-GPU utilizing, or is it just another flop like WoT's "HD" client?



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


TheWhiteRaven #3 Posted 23 May 2014 - 12:31 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4559 battles
  • 247
  • Member since:
    02-24-2013

I have the same questions.

 

Generally, I'm just wondering what the point was if there AREN'T optimizations (either to make better use of high-performance PCs or to make lower-end PCs perform better with much lower texture qualities).

 

Are the HD textures "more HD" now?

 

If it's just to save the download for people who can't use the HD textures, seems kinda pointless....


White Raven Gaming - a Community for Gamers that Play Hard and With a Sense of Humor

Find us on YouTube (search White Raven Gaming) for Ace matches, funny moments, and tips and tricks!

Creator of WoWP Flight Log (wowpflights.com), a replay site for World of Warplanes


WulfNose #4 Posted 23 May 2014 - 12:40 AM

    Chief Petty Officer

  • Community Ace
  • 1474 battles
  • 2,314
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
Sounds like a great idea. Have to deploy a PC I just finished, and will comment. Wulf

Lou #5 Posted 23 May 2014 - 03:48 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 7307 battles
  • 1,105
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Also, besides the questions asked above, whats the difference in the file sizes? is it for example 10 gb vs 30gb?

I have a 128 gb ssd that I run wowp/wot, windows and a few other programs off of. I already know the size of wot will increase drastically with the new HD models.

So if this is much bigger, i'm going to have to move some stuff around to my HD. Just curious.



SkywhaleExpress #6 Posted 23 May 2014 - 04:21 AM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 17397 battles
  • 10,666
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012
The "HD" client for WoWP is nowhere near what the WoT HD client is, and I see no difference in aesthetic 


Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


FastAttack #7 Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:09 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 6799 battles
  • 996
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

someone should start a new topic on the cinematic startup.

I must say this is the worst thing ever implemented. It has no use at all , and honestly it sets you up in a weird situation on the start. it kinda gives you a headache.

 

 


Edited by FastAttack, 23 May 2014 - 05:10 AM.


pyantoryng #8 Posted 23 May 2014 - 05:41 AM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 11679 battles
  • 5,606
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I think SD client is barely 10GB in size...

 

...this might come in handy, because I don't really crank up my graphics unless it's for photo shooting...



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

woofman34 #9 Posted 23 May 2014 - 06:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 6650 battles
  • 1,889
  • [SG] SG
  • Member since:
    10-23-2013
Re-posting in proper section  oops                   

woofman34  Posted Today, 01:12 AM

Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Open Beta Tester
  • 4834 battles
  • 943 message_img.png
  • Member since:
    10-23-2013
Well happy to report that I have tried both versions of the test client and as we all know on the test server ping can be rather high .  When using the the SD version with my 64 bit computer I was having 25 to 30 frame rates per second and about a 250 ping , for some reason though that's not bad for the RU server because the game play was not all that bad , if I had those numbers on the NA server my screen would have been time jumping  . I then tried the HD version with same computer and my frame rate was about 80 and my ping dropped to about 100 . The graphics were much better very crisp and detailed on my HD monitor , I love what you have done , there were no crashes no load problems everything worked great except for the rewards and missions .. So when the those are fixed I will test the new planes .. MM was hard to tell if it was working as intended because there were only 10 people in queue ..Side note it only took about 8 battles to go from tier 1 to 5 with many medals in between ..

SystemRename_999888 #10 Posted 23 May 2014 - 02:07 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 22888 battles
  • 2,860
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostRocketSpammer1, on 22 May 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

I have concerns and questions:

 

1. Is the "HD" client really an improvement for 64 bit? As in, is it 64 bit coded, to utilize more than 4GB of system RAM?

2. Is the "HD" client hyperthreading/multi-threading capable? That is, the multiple logical cores...

3. Is the "HD" client multi-core/multi-CPU and multi-GPU utilizing, or is it just another flop like WoT's "HD" client?

 

It's still a 32-bit application.  It's just an exceptionally poorly written description.

 

Some more GFI good news:  the New and ImprovedTM HD version of the CT takes up a whopping 27.9 GB installed in its default out-of-box configuration.  Yes, seriously.  And -- here's where it starts getting really funny -- about 8 GB of that is leftover trash in the \Updates\ folder that the installer STILL fails to delete automatically.

 

 


A deeper understanding of the difference between a fad and a fashion statement will enable you to win a fashion fueled guessing game. 

pyantoryng #11 Posted 23 May 2014 - 02:12 PM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 11679 battles
  • 5,606
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostRock18, on 23 May 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

 

It's still a 32-bit application.  It's just an exceptionally poorly written description.

 

Some more GFI good news:  the New and ImprovedTM HD version of the CT takes up a whopping 27.9 GB installed in its default out-of-box configuration.  Yes, seriously.  And -- here's where it starts getting really funny -- about 8 GB of that is leftover trash in the \Updates\ folder that the installer STILL fails to delete automatically.

 

 

 

...that makes "1GB larger than 1.3.1 client" true...for some reason auto-delete of patch file still not planned.



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

TwistedKestrel #12 Posted 23 May 2014 - 03:01 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 11640 battles
  • 299
  • [KAIJU] KAIJU
  • Member since:
    04-07-2012

View PostRocketSpammer1, on 22 May 2014 - 07:46 PM, said:

I have concerns and questions:

 

1. Is the "HD" client really an improvement for 64 bit? As in, is it 64 bit coded, to utilize more than 4GB of system RAM?

2. Is the "HD" client hyperthreading/multi-threading capable? That is, the multiple logical cores...

3. Is the "HD" client multi-core/multi-CPU and multi-GPU utilizing, or is it just another flop like WoT's "HD" client?

 

I know these things would be nice, but the first probably doesn't matter and refactoring the code for the last two would be non-trivial. I doubt the game as it is will ever need to load more than 4GB of assets at any one time. The only game I have that claims to need 64-bit is Titanfall, and that is possibly due to the weird laziness with the game's audio assets (all uncompressed).  Multi-threading is a feature the engine needs to built with in mind from the ground up, and the Big World engine that WoWP and WoT use was not.

 

SLI and CrossfireX support is a bit different. I don't know why these are not better supported. I know it seems like there are a lot of people running WoT/WoWP on old computers, maybe they think there's not enough users to justify the effort. But then why bother with "HD" models/clients?


There are no bombers in the game.

GhostPrime #13 Posted 23 May 2014 - 03:34 PM

    Community Coordinator

  • Administrator
  • 1337 battles
  • 1,486
  • [WGA-B] WGA-B
  • Member since:
    04-22-2013

The HD client version is much larger than the SD version, and will not run on 32-bit systems. 

This is where the SD version comes in. It's for older PCs with not as much power, or Hard drive space, and will run on 32-bit systems. The SD version actually looks very nice, even at the lowest settings.

 

That said, the HD version looks very nice and runs well on newer systems. 

 



Please read the WOWP Game and Forum rules.
Forum Rules - Game Rules - EULA - TOS
Find us on Facebook!


SkywhaleExpress #14 Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:06 PM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 17397 battles
  • 10,666
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

View PostGhostPrime, on 23 May 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

The HD client version is much larger than the SD version, and will not run on 32-bit systems. 

This is where the SD version comes in. It's for older PCs with not as much power, or Hard drive space, and will run on 32-bit systems. The SD version actually looks very nice, even at the lowest settings.

 

That said, the HD version looks very nice and runs well on newer systems. 

 

 

How would a 32 bit application not run on a 32 bit system ?

 

 

Also, I've tested both SD and HD on the CT server ... They're the same. Almost no difference in aesthetics. At least in WOT , the HD client utilizes an extra core for the physics engine and actually aesthetically pleasing compared to SD



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


SkywhaleExpress #15 Posted 23 May 2014 - 08:09 PM

    noob leader

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 17397 battles
  • 10,666
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    09-09-2012

View PostTwistedKestrel, on 23 May 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

 

I know these things would be nice, but the first probably doesn't matter and refactoring the code for the last two would be non-trivial. I doubt the game as it is will ever need to load more than 4GB of assets at any one time. The only game I have that claims to need 64-bit is Titanfall, and that is possibly due to the weird laziness with the game's audio assets (all uncompressed).  Multi-threading is a feature the engine needs to built with in mind from the ground up, and the Big World engine that WoWP and WoT use was not.

 

SLI and CrossfireX support is a bit different. I don't know why these are not better supported. I know it seems like there are a lot of people running WoT/WoWP on old computers, maybe they think there's not enough users to justify the effort. But then why bother with "HD" models/clients?

 

While the first would be true of a game that want plagued with memory leaks up the wazoo... A 64 but version would allow it to not crash to desktop as often due to Out of Memory issues.

 

Also, it's right time they got up to date with other developers and went 64-bit and multicore. Multicore alone would help even older PCs that are like let's say a Core2Duo or a CoreDuo... 

 

Multithreading would also help. 

 

 

SLI/Crossfire, or the latest dual GPU cards should also be supported



Air Raid 8 Champions - BrushFyre

MIA - pappabear


FastAttack #16 Posted 23 May 2014 - 09:38 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 6799 battles
  • 996
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

I honestly did not see a difference between both versions.

 

 



pyantoryng #17 Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:51 AM

    Major

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 11679 battles
  • 5,606
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Try cranking graphics all the way up in the SD client...you can't.

 

 



WoWP makes a great jousting game...especially with the 262 and people busy in furballs...
I am deaf, silent, and fly with unrealistic controls. Do not count on me to carry - my back's already broken from overweight.

Cpt_ZigZag #18 Posted 24 May 2014 - 03:09 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2774 battles
  • 294
  • [TEE] TEE
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013

I have a 'high end computer' and am downloading the additional files now,  I flew 5 sorties with the 'sd' settings, all be it a small sample ill use that to compare.  

 

 

The 'hd' is awesome looking.  It is the cleanest i think ive ever seen a game of this kind.  The clouds are sick looking, the density seems real.  The only negative is that it is VERY GPU demanding as you would expect.  My card got hot quick, and stayed hot. (manageable) Some maps, even before i did the HD switch were maxing out my card, some were not,  


Edited by Cpt_ZigZag, 24 May 2014 - 04:58 PM.

Pack your own chute. 


Cpt_ZigZag #19 Posted 24 May 2014 - 05:15 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 2774 battles
  • 294
  • [TEE] TEE
  • Member since:
    11-11-2013
I see a major difference between the 2.  My monitors are cheep Acers, but my tower is a juggernaut.  The GPU is a GTX780, i have 16 gig o ram.. no special storage as of yet.  My processor i think might be the key, ( i7-4820) i am downloading the HD on my lower set up to see if the diff is much less. (GTX 650ti with a strong i3 pushing it all...   

Pack your own chute. 


Sandman1969 #20 Posted 24 May 2014 - 10:01 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 4515 battles
  • 2,173
  • Member since:
    01-28-2012

Why can't we select which version we want manually?

I wanted to try the HD version, but it's downloading the SD version instead & not allowing me to switch it.

I have a quad core system with 8GBs of RAM & an HD6870 video card.

Surely that should be worthy of an HD client?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users