Slitherine

Hi, I'm new to the series and played some time with the original game. I decided to try the beta for FOG(U) and I see a huge difference in graphics for both version. In original FOG the terrain, unit models and all white icons on top of the units are very smooth and anti aliased but in FOG(U) everything is very pixelated. Not only when zooming in the units are very pixelated compared to the original one, but the icons on top of the units have rough edges and the terrian is less colorfull and pixelated. When zoom out I can barely see any detail and it looks even worse. There is no sharpness/smoothness at all in my game.
It doesn't matter of I set my configuration settings to "fastest" or "fantastic". There is no difference at all. It looks like the anti aliasing isn't working at all for me in FOG(U).

I wonder if it's something on my end or my configuration cannot support the new engine.

My system: Windows 10 64bit, AMD Radeon R7 250 2 GB, Crimson driver 16.3.2, 8GB, Intel Dual Core 2.66

The graphics should be fine. Have a look for example at the screenshots the users posted in the _[BUG] v2.1.00.1000 (GC4) Missile Unit Change Facing Freeze thread.

Is that the graphics you see, or not? Because if it is not, as it seems to be the case from what you are saying, then the problem is most probably related with your system.

Can you please post some screenshots to show us what you see, please?

Hi, because Slitherine requires my pictures are 256 kb or less I can't share them here at the original resolution I use (1680 x 1050) so I made a Google album I hope I can share with you.
I put two pictures of the same map with the same system configuration, same resolution, same monitor for both original FOG and FOG(U).

https://goo.gl/photos/1Zwd44Tfu1y1cKiMA

Besides of the picture comparisson where my white icons above the units have rough edges, the terrain have rough edges and less bright colors and the units are very pixelated I can't see any difference between the five different quality settings. Can you tell me what the differences should be when I set my game to fastest quality or fantastic quality? I can make another screenshot comparisson to show you there is no difference on my configuration.

Another question is about the auto center on enemy units when they move. It doesn't happen in FOG(U) while in original FOG this worked well for me.

Sorry, but the differences I see between FoG(U) and FoG(RB)'s graphics in those images are really, really minimal. And most probably cause by the fact that the zoom is by far greater in the FoG(U) images (compare the area you see in FoG(U) viewport and FoG(RB) viewport. If you really want to compare them, please try to use the same zoom in FoG(U) as FoG(RB)'s maximum zoom in.

The auto-center from FoG(RB) only activates if the moving enemy BG is outside the screen (to avoid continuous jumps which are tiring to the eye/brain).

For me as an end user of the software you provide the difference for the eye is huge. I see a clear, smooth and bright terrain, unit model and trait icons compared to very pixelated, less bright and rough edges around traits icons and terrain textures. The units are very pixelated, not anti aliased and less smooth and this happened whit ever zoom level I use.

I should make some other screenshots with exaclty the same zoom level and with different zoom levels. If you as a developer think those differences are minimal I have totally lost all my trust in the end product. I really thought it has something to do with my settings or the engine not yet optimized for new hardware. I provide feedback as an end user and a new player and I thought you like to hear that.

One of the reasons I spend over 100 dollar for a very dated game was to support the development on the new engine. It's not that I don't like the game and I will play it in the new engine but the difference in graphics on my system is huge. Not minimal.

For the auto center it doesn't work for me at all. Not for any unit outside the viewport.

My other question was about the graphics changes between "fast", "good" and "fantastic". I can't see any difference. Can you provide some info what should change exactly when I experiment with those settings?

Thanks in advance.

I added another two pictures with exact the same zoom level. I can see a very clear difference between them. You have to view them in the original resolution I use (1680 x 1050) otherwise you can't see the difference that well.

The unit models are very pixelated. The terrain have missing textures. The terrain textures are less smooth and pixelated. The white trait icons have rough edges. The colors are less bright.

https://goo.gl/photos/BhCpnfLtgABWPrdY8

Besides the huge difference in quality of the assets on my configuration there are a lot of other things that seems designed for Ipads/tablets instead of PC. That's fair, but as a PC only user I don't like the changes at all. The minimap is a huge map in the FOG(U) version which covers half of my screen while in the original version it's a small map fit in the UI.

I don't have any mouse over info on units in FOG(U).

I don't have a terrain example in the lower left of the screen in FOG(U).

The auto center on moving enemy units isn't working in FOG(U), even when they are outside the screen/viewport.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 23&t=55634

in the latest version it's good enough if i tinker with the zoom level. but if i zoom in or out of that sweet spot, it's not good. it's bearable but the old version sure looks sharper.

It's not only the units are more pixelated. It's the white icons on top of the units that all have rough edges in all different zoom levels. You can see the difference clearly in my screenshot comparisson (I count the amount of hexes to us the same zoom level). You see the archer icons on the picture are smooth in FOG(RB) and blocks in FOG(U). This is for all icons.

I wonder why I don't see any difference in any of the Unity quality settings used when starting the game. If I use "fastest", "normal" or "fantastic" it all looks the same. It just feels to me that there is no difference at all between the different settings.

The terrain is absolutely broken. You can see it in my screen comparisson. The fields and bushes are just half images of the original. It looks like there is some problem with anti aliasing and shaders as well.
https://goo.gl/photos/BhCpnfLtgABWPrdY8

The icon displayed beneath the unit token when turning have rough edges and doesn't look good.

The terrain is less bright, the buttons and the minimap take a huge part of my screen, there is no terrain example in the lower left of my screen, the unit mouseover info is gone and the center on units functionallity is broken.

For me personally I like the style of the UI in FOG(RB) because it takes only a small part of my screen and it's smooth to look at. The new buttons make it look like a tablet game which I don't like at all.
One reason I support Slitherine with their pretty highly priced games is that I'm an old fashioned PC gamer and they are one the last companies that fully understand this.

My biggest fear is that this version in time replaces the original version and the original version becomes obsolete. I prefer to use the original version now because the artwork and UI is much better. Whatever the developer say and the technical explaination of the engine is for me it's just a huge downgrade. I simply don't want to accept any graphical downgrade as a PC gamer just to make a game compatible with tablets. My support ends there.

I'm not beta testing a game to tell the developer that he did a great job just because I respect the work he did.
As a new player who compare the two different versions now I just give my honest opinion of what my experience is.
It's up to the developer and/or Slitherine to ignore my post and release the game in this state or to improve the game to make it at least as good looking as the original game.

This would be my last and only answer to a person which, even if though just started with FoG (just "happened" bu buy the old FoG(RB), which btw. doesn't bring any support to the new FoG(U)) only posted in this thread, and in a very aggressive and biased manner. I think no other developer would even bother to read such posts, nevermind answering them, and without mentioning the fact that this kind of attitude would have lead to an account ban almost instantly.

There is no downgrade in FoG(U) to accommodate the tablet versions at all. None. Zero. The FoG(U) uses the exact same textures FoG(RB) uses.

The only difference someone might observe would be caused by the different way the FoG(U) and FoG(RB)'s renderers are working (including any quality settings). FoG(U)'s renderer is Unity 5's one. The only quality settings of Unity 5's which could really influence FoG(U) are the antialiasing, anisotropic and v-sync ones. All the other settings from Unity 5' default quality settings levels are not influencing FoG(U) at all, as FoG(U) doesn't uses mipmaps, LODs, soft particles, shadows or reflections.

The quality settings you are seeing in the launcher are Unity 5's default ones. While it is true that FoG(U)' code should have cleaned them up (ie removing all the irrelevant ones), they are not really affect the graphic outcome in any way, as all the relevant quality settings are actually manually set at app's initialization (and thus over-writing any chosen quality setting level from the launcher). Unity 5's default quality settings levels are:

• - Fastest (texture quality: half res, anisotropic: disabled, antialiasing: disabled, v-sync: disabled)
  - Fast (texture quality: full res, anisotropic: disabled, antialiasing: disabled, v-sync: disabled)
  - Simple (texture quality: full res, anisotropic: per texture, antialiasing: disabled, v-sync: disabled)
  - Good (texture quality: full res, anisotropic: per texture, antialiasing: disabled, v-sync: full)
  - Beautiful (texture quality: full res, anisotropic: forced on, antialiasing: 2x multisampling, v-sync: full)
  - Fantastic (texture quality: full res, anisotropic: disabled, antialiasing: 2x multisampling, v-sync: full)

By default, FoG(U) sets them at initialization to (texture quality: full res, anisotropic: disabled, antialiasing: disabled, v-sync: none)

Now, getting back to person's statements:
- "the units are more pixelated" - not true, the units are using the same textures as in FoG(RB). The zoom in FoG(U) allows you to get closer, which means any 2D texture will be seen as more pixelated the closest you look at it. FoG(U) doesn't uses any anisotropic as a choice between washed up units all the time (anisotropic active) and sharp textures looking more pixelated when looked at close (anisotropic off)
- "no difference between Unity5 default quality settings" - true, FoG(U) overrides the set quality settings
- "the terrain is absolutely broken" - this is the only real problem, as it seems there's a zbuffering problem with the terrain detail layer (plantations texture appears half cut). no one had this problem and reported it until now, and we never encountered it. might be related with Windows 10. You should fill up a bug entry for this.
- "the units' indicators have rough edges" - might be, even though the units indicators are using the same textures as in FoG(RB). The zoom in FoG(U) allows you to get closer, which means any 2D texture will be seen as more pixelated the closest you look at it. FoG(U) doesn't uses any anisotropic as a choice between washed up units indicators all the time (anisotropic active) and sharp textures looking more pixelated when looked at close (anisotropic off). FoG(U) also doesn't have antialiasing enabled, as the visual gain on the units indicators would be too small
- "the terrain is less bright" - might be, even the terrain is using the same textures as in FoG(RB). The lighting FoG(U) amibient light is used with color white and intensity 1 (Unity5's defaults), which should render all the textures exactly as they are. The FoG(RB) might have used a slightly different settings, but the differences are so small (FoG(U) appears a very tiny little bit darked then the FoG(RB)) that they are insignificant.
- "the auto center on moving enemy units isn't working" - this might be a problem. You should fill up a bug entry for this.
- "the buttons and the minimap take a huge part of my screen" - not true, the FoG(U) in-game UI is completely customizable, meaning you can even completely remove it from the screen if you like to. Due to the larger zoom and this, the FoG(U) gameplay displayed area on screen is actually bigger than FoG(RB).

While, even if FoG(U) uses exactly the same textures as FoG(RB), there might be some small graphic output differences, they are so small and insignificant that they would not even be perceived by a vast majority of the users. The apocalyptic way in which the said person presented them is not true, biased and aggressive.

I share my feedback as a new user because I see the difference in quality between FOG(RB)2009 and FOG(U)2016. I think it is important to do it now because the game is still in open beta. The reason I share my feedback with you is that I hope you can change the quality of the game while in open beta to the same state of quality as FOG(RB) before release. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As I understand from what you wrote before there is no change at all whatever Unity setting you choose at launch while in your own readme file you state at point 4:

4. STARTING UP
---------------
While in Unity's launcher, you can also set the build to run in full-screen or windowed mode, and select the general graphics (Unity renderer's output) quality.

And you stated in your post above:

"The only difference someone might observe would be caused by the different way the FoG(U) and FoG(RB)'s renderers are working (including any quality settings). FoG(U)'s renderer is Unity 5's one. The only quality settings of Unity 5's which could really influence FoG(U) are the antialiasing, anisotropic and v-sync ones".

To state in your next sentence:

"While it is true that FoG(U)' code should have cleaned them up (ie removing all the irrelevant ones), they are not really affect the graphic outcome in any way, as all the relevant quality settings are actually manually set at app's initialization (and thus over-writing any chosen quality setting level from the launcher).
By default, FoG(U) sets them at initialization to (texture quality: full res, anisotropic: disabled, antialiasing: disabled, v-sync: none)".

I'm confused now more then I was before...
So the settings are fixed (not able to change for the enduser) at default "fast" Unity mode. That means no anti aliasing, no anisotropic and no v-sync and you are not able to change it whatever Unity quality setting you set in the launcher and in the same time you state that those are the settings that could cause the difference in quality?

The other issues I reported seperately in the bug report section.

Good luck with your game and thank you for reading my comment.

I've been following this thread and I do see something similar, but I'm wondering if it is just an AMD driver (16.3.2) issue. Does anyone with a Nivida card wish to comment? Also the fog of war shadows are different.

I5-6600K
16GB RAM
R9 280X
Windows 10 64bit

FoG(RB) v1.81



FoG(U)_2016.02.12_01s_v2.4.01.1030_GM1d(mod)_beta_(Win)

custom FXAA added and anisotropic set on forced in rev1032 (v2.5.00.1032 GM2 build)

When I first posted about the graphical differences I didn't knew anything about your dedicated work over the last years to bring this great game to a new engine.
I read about it since I visit the forum and see the history of this longtime and dedicated development.
I was just posted my experience as a new user and I really thought I did something good by reporting. Imho I was not biased because I'm not a long time fan but just a new user.
It was in no way to offence you or being rude. I apologize to you if you thought it was.

I really look forward to all the planned changes and in the future I really hope your hard and dedicated work will end in some success for you.

Thank you for the feedback and the support. Keep up the good work!

cothyso wrote:custom FXAA added and anisotropic set on forced in rev1032 (v2.5.00.1032 GM2 build)

Just downloaded 1032 and start playing a few scenarios but for me there is no difference between 1030 and 1032 graphical/FSAA wise.
I tried on multiple screen resolutions, all six different Unity settings, windowed/fullscreen and even reverted my AMD driver to the WHQL certified 15.12 driver instead of 16.4.1 new release.
No luck with any of the options. Still the same graphics as in 1030.

No offence taken.

In the FoG_v2.5.00.1032_Data folder there are two files, output_log.txt and console_log.txt. The console_log.txt should contain something like:

[SYS1] => Quality settings => texture res: Full (0)
[SYS1] => Quality settings => anisotropic filtering: ForceEnable (2)
[SYS1] => Quality settings => antialiasing: Disabled (0)
[SYS1] => Quality settings => v-sync: None (0)
[SYS1] => Application settings => target frame rate: none

Please delete both output_log.txt and console_log.txt files. Start the application, enter and play a game, then exit the application. Get both files and attach them in here. Thank you.