|
I've always wondered why Blizzard did the changes that they have done when it comes to the SCII graphics. I was crushed when one day enabling simplified shaders in the variable.txt didn't work anymore, and I wonder why.
So basically in this thread I have compered different graphics settings and their result. Contrast and brightness stayed the same on all pictures.
First off High models vs Low models
With the release of the new graphics for HOTS the option to enable high models while having shaders on low has not been possible. The only way to enable high models now is by going into the variables.txt. With what I am about to show you, setting models to high does not give any glitches or erros, which means it should be an option in the starcraft UI. Please click the bracket for pictures and info
+ Show Spoiler +With having everything set to low Protoss users will see their pylon powerfield as a dotted line. The only way to enable the full powerfield "image" you have to set GraphicsOptionModelQuality=1 in the variables.txt which results in this ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tHBaBeI.png) Note that it is only the powerfield that has changed. If you look at the preview of the pylon it looks dark (equal to the way of models on low) To get the same models as if you would have shaders on medium you have to set useLowqualitymodels=0 while keeping GraphicsOptionModelQuality=1 resulting in this: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t9vWldH.png) Note that the preview of the pylon is now brighter (not due to different map) and it looks like as if you were playing with shaders on medium. In my opinion this is a better look. Now why would you set your models to high? I think most Protoss players will have the most out of it because it changes a very basic animation, warp in. Having models on low does not give you a clear idea of what is warping in, whether it is a stalker or a zealot can be a big deal in pvp. Which one of these is a stalker, which one is a zealot? ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kah2Psh.png) The only thing telling you it is a stalker warping in is a little bit bigger animation, and a bigger HP bar. But this is not easily seen in the middle of a battle. And it is even harder when you cant compare them. When having models on high (same config as first and second picture) warp ins gives you way more information on the unit warping in. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nMZ4KTP.png) Note that it is way easier telling if it is a stalker or a zealot because you can see the shape of the unit.
Low shaders vs medium shaders
Previously you could set simplifiedshaders=0 and get medium shaders while keeping the look of having low on, this does not work anymore. Please see bracket for pictures and info
+ Show Spoiler +When having shaders set to low a forcefield looses most of its color and looks dull ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cn6U3Oy.png) When having shaders on medium or higher a forcefield is much clearer ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LNWjCoV.png) To actually get this kind of forcefield you have to set the shaders on medium, ruining people who want the feature and play on low graphics. As mentioned, earlier it was possible to have the forcefield look this way and keeping the look of the game as if it was on low. Look up hybrid graphics settings on TL for proof.
What I am trying to accomplish with this post is hopefully having Blizzard revert back some settings. I want to be able to set models on high in the UI, not having to go through the variables.txt. And I want the option to have a forcefield which I can actually see.
I hope this helped some of you in re-enabling high models.
|
Very good comparisons. The Force Field one especially is why I have to spend quite a bit to figure out my graphics settings whenever I decide to go for lower graphics for better performance. I think some graphic shaders should be forced in order to make sure gameplay is not jeopardized. Another example of how it's kind of lame is when looking at low graphic pylon fields and how there really isn't much of a middle ground aside from the dotted borders.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Sadly no one cares and no one, who play on low settings, will especially not care about that. It's easy for them to go to options, click everything on low and just play without looking at some details like more visible force fields or better cloaked units.
Blizzards are disabled many user-made options, like Hybridic options, normal shaders for Force Fields on low settings, and probably in future they will fix high models on low settings.
So in some words, no one cares. Everyone is ok with low textures (when High or Extreme textures don't eat memory too much but are nicer and sharper), when low textures make SC2 looking more like WC3 and more horrible, than BroodWar with sharper ground and building/unit textures.
|
On April 01 2013 09:17 Existor wrote:
So in some words, no one cares. Everyone is ok with low textures (when High or Extreme textures don't eat memory too much but are nicer and sharper), when low textures make SC2 looking more like WC3 and more horrible, than BroodWar with sharper ground and building/unit textures.
I like how you missed my whole point and then talk about a graphics option I haven't even mentioned
|
I personally liked using high models on low settings since I find the dead unit debris to occasionally be useful information. I didn't know about the differences in warp-in graphics, but that is good to know. I've already gone into the variables.txt to change my settings after 2.0 patch.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
I like how you missed my whole point and then talk about a graphics option I haven't even mentioned
I understand your point because I did hybridic settings and did many other things which were blocked by Blizzards from patch to patch. Hybridic settings allowed to have some shader effects without shiny and glossy effect and average game graphic was more matt and serious.
Nothing wrong was with those hybridic settings because they were just compromisse between low and mediums. And blizzards blocked them.
So it was very long time ago, and I understand your point. I've tried to create some petition threads around bringing back variables.txt customization, but... thread just went down and never had any popularity, because no one cares, everyone is ok with current ugly low force fields and even with low model quality.
|
Thank you for this thread. I never really thought about how different some stuff looks from low to high.
|
It's only a visual effect, so while this is very useful and there is no reason for it not to be in the game, it's also something that doesn't affect anything directly. There are other ways to tell what unit is warping in ie the health bar. And forcefields are still the same size, and you can still see the outline of where they are, it's not like you can't tell where it's been placed.
Thanks for bringing it to our attention, but at the same time I doubt Blizzard will acknowledge it as it just simply isn't particularly important.
|
I want exactly same things! I was fucking mad when i couldnt set models/shaders the way i set them in wol.
|
On April 01 2013 09:39 Existor wrote:Show nested quote +I like how you missed my whole point and then talk about a graphics option I haven't even mentioned I understand your point because I did hybridic settings and did many other things which were blocked by Blizzards from patch to patch. Hybridic settings allowed to have some shader effects without shiny and glossy effect and average game graphic was more matt and serious. Nothing wrong was with those hybridic settings because they were just compromisse between low and mediums. And blizzards blocked them. So it was very long time ago, and I understand your point. I've tried to create some petition threads around bringing back variables.txt customization, but... thread just went down and never had any popularity, because no one cares, everyone is ok with current ugly low force fields and even with low model quality.
I used hybridic graphics when it was a thing. I loved the clarity I could get without impacting performance. I have yet to see any explanation for why it was removed. People mention "hacking" but I don't think you can effectively cheat using any options found in variables.txt - or am I wrong? This was a really dumb patch in my opinion - even if most don't care it's kind of a huge "fuck you" to anyone who preferred hybrid graphics. I don't see how it's at all helpful to Blizzard - at least from a customer satisfaction standpoint - but I suppose once we've bought the game they could care less if we are satisfied.
|
Bisutopia19229 Posts
Why couldn't the thread title just be "A closer look at models"!!!!! I was really excited for more of this: ![[image loading]](http://www.inrumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Starcraft-Ghost-Lady-Costume-1.jpg)
|
You can use High Models with Low Shaders by changing a couple things in variables.txt
GraphicsOptionModelQuality=2
lowqualitymodels=0
useLowqualitymodels=0
It is really stupid that they restricted certain graphics settings for no reason in HotS.
|
Can someone who actually knows what they're talking about suggest why Blizzard restricted it in the first place? They obviously did it for a reason, even if it's an incredibly stupid one. A reason which should be speculated at a minimum if not discovered/asked-of.
|
Could someone make this side-by-side picture comparison for cloaked units as well? Pretty, please!
|
They probably did it to make troubleshooting easier on Bnet forums, like when someone comes and complains about graphic bugs they can tell exactly what settings he's using, compared as before when you couldn't really tell if he installed a variable.txt or not. Maybe settings combinations via variable.txt was creating bugs for some people.
|
On April 02 2013 03:52 dala wrote:
Could someone make this side-by-side picture comparison for cloaked units as well? Pretty, please!
I don't think cloaked units change
|
Northern Ireland25033 Posts
It's just a pain in the ass in certain ways. I for one miss both this and MPQ editing. I can understand why they cracked down on the latter, even to the detriment of many user's experiences, but not the former.
It's fine for example, disabling the third-party mods i.e Stronger Colours if you replace them with something that has much the same functionality. Was really helpful for people like myself who are colourblind, and Blizzard are on the record acknowledging this.
Tbh I just hate the moves games are making to limit user-side customisation that doesn't impact on the game experience, and arbitrarily disabling certain things for no reason. There may BE a reason, but if there is, I'd love to actually hear what they are instead of logging in to find yet another little tweak is gone.
I run as much as I can at low, maybe the WC3 nostalgia, but there are things I'd prefer bumped up, as in the Op but yet I am not sure how I'd even go about it at this point.
|
Someone on battle net claimed that messing with the file could Corrupt the entire game.
For the record i dont believe it, thought i should mention it though.
|
Northern Ireland25033 Posts
Surely the kind of people who are tech-savvy enough to tweak variables.txt files are surely the kind of people who, for the most part know what they are doing?
Judging from my experience the 'makes tech support easier' might make sense, the guys who've responded to my tickets knew less than me, who has been using a Windows-based PC for less than 6 months lol.
The most frustrating part about such things are that we are never actually told for the most part why decisions were made, and thus it is left to forum conjecture and the likes. If there's a good reason behind it I would quite enjoy hearing it.
|
From your Low vs Medium shaders... Does the shaders setting also effect the brightness of the HUD? I can't work out why the HUD is so much brighter in the second picture.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
