Poll: Is there anyone here particularly attached to dynamic skies?

[x4000]

Hahaha, wow.  Most comments on the dynamic skies have been positive to neutral at worst.  I didn't create them in the first place, so I don't have any particular pride of authorship or anything.  I really love the way they look as well, aside from the things I've already mentioned (but these only came to bug me after months of staring at them all the time).  It's interesting to see how some others feel right from the start.

[Dizzard]

Dynamic skies work fine for me but I don't like them, the clouds look strange imo.

They seem too liquid like.

So I voted probably should be removed.

[TechSY730]

From what I could remember back in like the third public beta or so, they were nice looking, but I had to turn them off due to annoying amounts of lag.

If you do remove them, please keep the code around. They are a nice touch, and once the average graphic capabilities in the customers' PCs go up, you can reintroduce them (with touch ups) in a later major version.
Or maybe a less extreme option would be to have them off by default, even if the program can tell the computer can handle it without extreme amounts of lag, but give the user the option to turn it on, with the warning that it is a very intensive effect. (The current "blacklisting" of the option if the computer is not up to it, unless the user checks that advanced option override, can stay of course)
As others have pointed out, the perspective of it may need a touch up.

[x4000]

They pretty much are what they are -- there's not going to be much touching up of them, as it's third-party code that is difficult to maintain.  Something like the perspective in particular is almost impossible to change here.  If most people aren't liking them, then they should go away regardless of performance considerations, as maintaining two sets of sky logic is not my favorite thing to do.

And consumer hardware isn't likely to catch up anytime soon.  My GPU is now 5 years old, an nVidia 8800 GTS.  It was the most expensive card I'd ever bought when I got it, and it still works awesomely well for this sort of thing even now.  But it's been 5 years, and most cards that are less expensive than my 8800 still can't run this stuff. :/

[Hyfrydle]

I also have an 8800 GTS and no lag with the dynamic skies. They are nice to look at but in combat I don't have time for sightseeing so probably wouldn't miss them and if the performance can be improved allowing for more content so much the better.

[GrimerX]

I really like them!  I love procedurally generated things in general, so it's both eye and brain candy for me at the same time :-)

Also, over time GPUs will catch up -- unless you're having to maintain the code, I'd leave it in.  Moving it to 'opt-in' is fine.

[Bluddy]

It works nicely on my 2011 MBP, but a 2d retro style indie game probably wants to appeal to people with slower computers, so I say let them go and work on getting the static skies to be as good as you can make them.

I've never had them off so far though, so I'm going to test that out and get back to you.

EDIT: OK yeah. They can go. I don't think they contribute enough and they also clash with the rest of the game's art.

[BobJustBob]

I was really impressed by them when I first started playing the game, but now I hardly notice them because I'm too focused on trying not to get hit. I'd miss them but I'd get over it.

[Coppermantis]

I turned Dynamic skies off long ago since they were hurting my performance pretty badly. So I wouldn't miss them too much but the option might be nice to have for higher-end machines.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

I took a look at them and personally would prefer you kept the dynamic skies.  But I also noticed that Dynamic causes some minor performance issues as well, but it did look better than the pink...background...thing.  I mostly noticed the issues near entrances to subterranean areas.  I'm not sure why it would cause that. 

So I'm thinking keep myself, and keep it opt-in.

King

[x4000]

Pink background thing?  If you're seeing a pink background, then that's probably because dynamic skies aren't running at all.  The dynamic skies have clouds that are roiling and heavily animated.  Regular skies have really vibrant colors of blue or whatever else (sunset colors, sunrise, nighttime, etc), but don't have any motion to them.

[KingIsaacLinksr]

Pink background thing?  If you're seeing a pink background, then that's probably because dynamic skies aren't running at all.  The dynamic skies have clouds that are roiling and heavily animated.  Regular skies have really vibrant colors of blue or whatever else (sunset colors, sunrise, nighttime, etc), but don't have any motion to them.

My bad, I meant that Dynamic skies are better than the pink blobs of clouds that are not dynamic.  Imo. 

King

[x4000]

I gotcha.  The pink blobs are just at sunset, you know.

[eRe4s3r]

Only remove them if you have a good or better looking replacement.. ;p

I see no impact on performance from them.. but then i play BF3 on ultra...

[x4000]

Okay, the next version is removing the dynamic skies, but now the "static" skies are actually animated instead: http://arcengames.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=AVWW_-_Beta_Series_2_Release_Notes#Beta_0.568

This should give us animations that are almost as good, colors that are better, better variance between areas, vastly better performance, and some new functionality in general such as the ability to have the daytime hours vary by season, etc.

Hopefully this winds up being as close to the "best of both worlds" as we can.