Do we need new trees?

[Bloblast]

Do we need new trees?

These are them from Rise of flight including damage model:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a23/bloblast/Rise-Of-Flight_29.jpg

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a23/bloblast/Rise-Of-Flight_16.jpg

[Topo]

No, they are fine.
Maybe when all bugs/problems are solved, but not at the moment IMHO

[Sven]

Tree's having no collision model is a bit awkward of course, but I wouldn't consider it top priority at the moment.
It's till tweaking and performance they have to focus on and having collision models on trees only slows the game down. :(

[pupo162]

yes.

these are a performance whore, little overdone, and give a very poor impression of florest areas, tough they look fine by themselfs.

we also need bushes, headgrows and all that stuiff missing from england.

oh! and colissions!

[Mad G]

Yes. Overall they´re fine, but the array is funny, that´s not much England IMHO.

[LoBiSoMeM]

It's much better have nice trees without colision mesh.

In the past we had INVISIBLE trees WITH colision mesh...

[JG52Krupi]

yes.

these are a performance whore, little overdone, and give a very poor impression of florest areas, tough they look fine by themselfs.

we also need bushes, headgrows and all that stuiff missing from england.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y146/Ocelot48/1302733878503.gif

I would like to say that I am from Britain and unlike the majority of my fellow country men I could not care less about hedgerows, yes they would make it look more like the UK but would they improve the FLIGHT sim... not one iota.

Thanks for your time....

[pupo162]

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y146/Ocelot48/1302733878503.gif

I would like to say that I am from Britain and unlike the majority of my fellow country men I could not care less about hedgerows, yes they would make it look more like the UK but would they improve the FLIGHT sim... not one iota.

Thanks for your time....

I would like to say im from portugal and likewise you i have an opinion who happens to be different from yours, visuals improve the FLIGHT sim otherwise we would have stayed with 1946 with a CEM remoddeling.

i would fix a smiley for you, but i dont want to be rude.

have a nice day.

[Qpassa]

less trees and collison model

[major_setback]

Less complex trees and a lot more of them. They look terrible from a distance.

They don't 'glitter'.

[JG52Krupi]

I would like to say im from portugal and likewise you i have an opinion who happens to be different from yours, visuals improve the FLIGHT sim otherwise we would have stayed with 1946 with a CEM remoddeling.

i would fix a smiley for you, but i dont want to be rude.

have a nice day.

lol what a tool

[6BL Bird-Dog]

yes.

these are a performance whore, little overdone, and give a very poor impression of florest areas, tough they look fine by themselfs.

we also need bushes, headgrows and all that stuiff missing from england.

oh! and colissions!

+1

[NedLynch]

If it serves performance then yes, however that voting option is not persent.

The more important perfromance killer are still clouds, but it is my understanding that these as well as other things are not final so I am hoping for a serious performance increase once the graphics engine is at a somewhat finalized state.

[Timberwolf]

I don't really get the game .. When everyone was told of the game coming out it would be much like the other IL-2 series but improved Then we were told they were starting with a whole new platform Yes the grafixs were great ( For those who could play it ) people were told that they would need top of the line computer to play it .. People with high end PC's ended up having the most problems due to SLI/Crossfire non programs and multi-core issues

grafix vs proformance. Combat Flight Sim vs Arcade ?

there will be a limit to any game I'm not even going to get into Rain Fog or the heavy cross winds of dover ...

Take the planes and trees and if you hit them you blow up no loss wing anything passed 30 mph or 50 kms

[combatdudePL]

Devs should check trees from ROF - They look perfect, has good dmg model, and they are fps friendly.

[klem]

The current trees look very poor. They are also a resource hog and it is not necessary to populate the whole of the countryside with individual trees. They are so numerous that the collision model has had to be removed as it would cause even the top PCs to grind to a halt. Far better to use fewer larger forest and hedgrow models and perhaps, where necessary, some individual trees and all with collision model. Larger, simpler, but graphically acceptable forest models could replace the current tree count at a rate of 100 to 1 or more and include collision modelling.

The trees we have at the moment are daft. They are tree shaped but all that glistening caused by artificial 'breeze' effect looks mickey-mouse, unrealistic and IMHO pointless. Its one area where the attempt to meet the film-makers wishes has gone badly wrong. By all means include them in the SDK if that is to have map-making capabilities but remove them from the core game.

Start again with several different sizes of forest blocks that can be built into larger forest areas and the same for a few hedgerows. I live in Southern England and it doesn't look like the mickey-mouse result you get when you turn Forest 'on'. In fact I turn Forest Off or very Low and from height the underlying map forest area images are good enough for me, a bit like flying over photo-terrain in FSX with scenery Autogen turned off (but not as good/realistic obviously). But I would prefer to have 3D forests, hedgrows and even individual trees with a collision model that our PCs can handle.

Also, once the trees are sorted and playable I'd like to see Forest become a server setting.

[David198502]

Devs should check trees from ROF - They look perfect, has good dmg model, and they are fps friendly.

in my view the trees in CLOD are extremely detailed...which at the moment is not necessary.those trees are as detailed or even more detailed as trees in first person shooters.once the game can handle groundcombat as well, these tree models are reasonable, but not for a pure flight sim.

i once checked out ROF and the detail of the trees and the overall look of them is just fine i think and would be good for CLOD as well...but the fact that the trees in ROF have this spinning effect really looks horrible once beeing aware of it.

[SYN_Repent]

I would like to say im from portugal and likewise you i have an opinion who happens to be different from yours, visuals improve the FLIGHT sim otherwise we would have stayed with 1946 with a CEM remoddeling.

i would fix a smiley for you, but i dont want to be rude.

have a nice day.

this +1

tress that cant be collided with.....now that is progress

[Dano]

Devs should check trees from ROF - They look perfect, has good dmg model, and they are fps friendly.

Ugh, no, they don't. They look awful.

I'd like to see the trees we saw in early beta shots myself.

[jg27_mc]

I would like to say im from portugal and likewise you i have an opinion who happens to be different from yours, visuals improve the FLIGHT sim otherwise we would have stayed with 1946 with a CEM remoddeling.

i would fix a smiley for you, but i dont want to be rude.

have a nice day.

errr... Your opinion doesn't count. Everyone knows Portugal is DOOMED! :-P

j/k

A few thoughts:

RoF trees are not perfect, but they offer a good compromise between visual aspect, good FPS and DM.

I am grounded (for the last 3 months + -, I was bored to death with the performance/bug issues) but last time I tried it, trees were an FPS hog for the overall quality they offered... :neutral:

~S~

[Insuber]

No one Tree is enough ... :D

[T}{OR]

Voted yes because of no collision model.

[Tvrdi]

yeah, we need collision model for trees more than we need new trees....

[sport02]

collision model + more than one type of trees ( different type of trees and shrub or bush should be interesting for diversity )

always the same trees on all the map is monotone

i think it' s lake that choice in your option answers

[Osprey]

Turn the trees off if you don't like them.

[Tvrdi]

Turn the trees off if you don't like them.

yeah thats a solution...cinics

[klem]

Turn the trees off if you don't like them.

you might as well, they don't do anything except hog resources and hide 109s

[the Dutchman]

We need old trees,new trees grow very slowly..........:grin:

[Zorin]

Do vehicles drive straight through trees?

[Kankkis]

Allmost all there is saying the game performance is bad, yes it is, but if we get collision on the trees i'm sure it not boost performance.

[hiro]

Do vehicles drive straight through trees?

yes, 109's



- - - -

seriously,

its basic

a) good modeled / skinned / graphic trees

b) tree collision model for any flight SIM after 1995

The devs will be working on it but I think they fix alot of other more priority things to work on.

[BMCha]

I'm all for having collision models, though depending on the performance impact I might still vote for the way it is now. (Forests, however, could definitely use a big all-encompassing collision mesh, which shouldn't take nearly the CPU usage that checking each individual tree would. And as far as I know it would bring tree collision in line with 1946)

On the visual side, the current trees don't look all that bad to me, the only big problem is the shimmering that occurs on trees within a certain distance. Based on my observations, the shimmering only happens during the transition from the 3d tree to the 2d billboard tree.

I'd have to guess there's either badly-implemented stippling shader or there's z-fighting going on. If it's the former then one way to fix it would be to change the shader to have a consistent stippling pattern. If it is the former, then there is only one way to fix it (which would also work in the first case): get rid of the fade transition. While it's meant to be smooth, it obviously isn't working as intended. Popping between 2d and 3d trees may not be the best, but it would probably be better than what we have now, and it's not like we don't have other map objects popping in.

[Zorin]

yes, 109's

I mean cars and trucks and all. Do those drive through the trees as well?

[pupo162]

Allmost all there is saying the game performance is bad, yes it is, but if we get collision on the trees i'm sure it not boost performance.

well, if the logic was that, we should cut the CEM if it booste dperformance no?

the order should be

-realism - colideble trees
-performance - well, no sttutery trees
-looks - trees that look nice.

[mazex]

Do we need new trees?

These are them from Rise of flight including damage model:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a23/bloblast/Rise-Of-Flight_16.jpg

I really like RoF too, but when people say the graphics are better in RoF than CoD they need to look at screen shots like this. Look at those distant forests that look like some kid has used the brush tool in Photoshop ;) And seriously, those giant sterile fields with no tree lines, roads or hedges may have existed in Soviet Russia but not in 1918 France...

[pupo162]

I really like RoF too, but when people say the graphics are better in RoF than CoD they need to look at screen shots like this. Look at those distant forests that look like some kid has used the brush tool in Photoshop ;) And seriously, those giant sterile fields with no tree lines, roads or hedges may have existed in Soviet Russia but not in 1918 France...

thats how COD looks to me.