What happened to the autogen?

[_YoYo_]

Its a reason of better fps? In the last beta no clouds/grass, and now cuts autogen? Didnt noticed this in last beta :( . Tested near the ground. From high altitude looks like ok but near ground sometimes no autogen.

xnmAlD1avAE

Settings of video in CoD: http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/3954/nowy2t.jpg (medium/high)

[il_corleone]

yoyo i had the same issue, but i changed the settings of the trees to High, i had it very high so i put it lower, and VOILAh! the "autogen" started working for me in the ATAG server, i watched trees in 10 km or more, like before, try it, or its a bug or something like that

[senseispcc]

NO, definitely the effect of the trees at 2000 ft. is not fine at all. It is simply horrible. The tree does appear like little dots in front of the plane and disappear in the back. And because there are no tree at greater range the scene is bad at long range it is difficult to look at. It is a steep back. The previous patch for this was better, far better. Also there is no FPS benefit.:evil:

[il_corleone]

hey i think its a bug, for me i lowered the trees and its seems like its working at before, but i dont know at 100%, but yes, the times i played whit that its HORRIFIC, and Not Atmospheric, Its a Very BIG issue to fix its it a bug or its "deleted"

[_YoYo_]

It is a steep back. The previous patch for this was better, far better. Also there is no FPS benefit.:evil:
I agree, looks awfully, B6 is possible to have fix for this?
In beta 1.06 was ok with this distance and fps was too same. Its something looks like from 2000 ft till the ground. From higher alt is ok, so very strange option and no any benefit.

[SQB]

To fix the problem with autogen:

Change your forest or trees setting to a different level, restart the game, change it back to whatever you want.

That should fix it.

[Aer9o]

To fix the problem with autogen:

Change your forest or trees setting to a different level, restart the game, change it back to whatever you want.

That should fix it.

No, it did not done the trick for me. I have opened another tread about it and was quickly locked. Terrible support for this title, I really cannot see what they have done this time. The cockpit visual glitches are still there in 109, more stutter and lower FPS. Mind you I have invested in a top system based on a 3930K oc at 4.8 GHz and 680 GTX, 16gig DDR3.

[ATAG_Doc]

pitiful

[addman]

I think everyone can now safely agree that using Speedtree trees for CloD was a very VERY bad move(decision) and I thought the FSX tree-gen was crap but at least the distance at which the trees appear/dissapear are greater and can be adjusted. Speedtree is just not suited for a complex flight combat game, more for 3rd/1st person shooter stuff I guess. Hope they'll wrap their heads around it though.

[_YoYo_]

To fix the problem with autogen:

Change your forest or trees setting to a different level, restart the game, change it back to whatever you want.

That should fix it.

Thx, but not work for me. Still no autogen: trees/shadows after new beta. Tragendy. How is possible than one thing is solved and one bug is added?

x2su9U5jmEQ

[JG52Krupi]

Its a smegging beta you ?£$££$£, do you not know what beta means!

[Aer9o]

yes... some of us are beta testers for other sims this is why we are cheesed off! the quality, in comparison with other developers (which I am not allowed to mention), timing and communication is the least to say poor for this title!...o sorry I should not speak for the community as some sensitive chaps here will get upset!

[JG52Krupi]

yes... some of us are beta testers for other sims this is why we are cheesed off! the quality, timing and communication if the least to say poor!

If you don't like being a BETA tester don't download a beta patch... and here I was thinking it was a pretty obvious solution!!

[Aer9o]

I will download anything which promises to better this game which I have paid for and wasted time and money on new hardware to make it work! please consider the release day was more than a year ago!!!

[addman]

Beta or no beta, the Speedtree trees are probably not suited to be rendered at such a vast distance as a flight game requires without a massive performance hit. I have a sneaky suspicion that it's the reason why the programmers have chosen to create "the box" autogen rendering as it only renders the closest environment and therefor increases performance. I'm not sure there is any way to solve the trees performance without either replacing Speedtree with something else (which would be a very costly and time consuming endeavor) or throwing massive amounts of powerful PC hardware at it. I guess the latter will be the case. I'm aware that it's a beta and luthier has said before that the trees are one of the main culprits when it comes to the performance problems of the game. The current box rendering is improving performance for most of us which is good but it looks horrendous.

[JG52Krupi]

Beta or no beta, the Speedtree trees are probably not suited to be rendered at such a vast distance as a flight game requires without a massive performance hit. I have a sneaky suspicion that it's the reason why the programmers have chosen to create "the box" autogen rendering as it only renders the closest environment and therefor increases performance. I'm not sure there is any way to solve the trees performance without either replacing Speedtree with something else (which would be a very costly and time consuming endeavor) or throwing massive amounts of powerful PC hardware at it. I guess the latter will be the case. I'm aware that it's a beta and luthier has said before that the trees are one of the main culprits when it comes to the performance problems of the game. The current box rendering is improving performance for most of us which is good but it looks horrendous.

+1

[Aer9o]

Beta or no beta, the Speedtree trees are probably not suited to be rendered at such a vast distance as a flight game requires without a massive performance hit. I have a sneaky suspicion that it's the reason why the programmers have chosen to create "the box" autogen rendering as it only renders the closest environment and therefor increases performance. I'm not sure there is any way to solve the trees performance without either replacing Speedtree with something else (which would be a very costly and time consuming endeavor) or throwing massive amounts of powerful PC hardware at it. I guess the latter will be the case. I'm aware that it's a beta and luthier has said before that the trees are one of the main culprits when it comes to the performance problems of the game. The current box rendering is improving performance for most of us which is good but it looks horrendous.

indeed ...however FPS and stutter is worse for me and many other as I see. I have a top end system based on 3930k @ 4.7 GHz, 680GTX , 16 gig specially build for COD! I have had superb performance in the previous patch which I think I will revert to, the only problem is I will not be able to paly online!

[philip.ed]

The irony is that the move to speed-tree only happened within the last 2 years or so. The original development shots (showing the spitfire over Shrek Island) showed the group's own trees, which I think looked better at altitude.

[Blackdog_kt]

Once again, too many assumptions in this thread.

Nobody knows if this is an intentional thing, a bug or a limitation.

It's the same thing we had in the previous alpha patch all over again.

People wanted a patch so we got an interim one that was DX10 only. Since the effects are done in DX9 they were not included in the patch. Then people assumed that cutting effects was a "trick" to boost FPS and not something that was brought about by our own desire to get a patch at whatever cost. Then they didn't want DX9 support, even though they wanted the effects.

Now we get effects back and people say they like it, despite the fact that they didn't want to support the API that effects were coded on.

Apparently all that is not irrational and self-contradicting enough, so we get the same thing this week as well with another feature/bug/whatever :-P

As for what is a beta, it's a test. It doesn't promise to improve anything, it promises to test if the improvements work and if they don't, find out what doesn't work so that it can be fixed.

If we want to debate whether speedtree was a good choice or not, we can. But assuming too much while knowing too little will only result in us contradicting ourselves and looking like fools. Why don't we just do what the beta is supposed to be? Download if we want to test, then test and report? ;)

[addman]

Once again, too many assumptions in this thread.

Nobody knows if this is an intentional thing, a bug or a limitation.

It's the same thing we had in the previous alpha patch all over again.

People wanted a patch so we got an interim one that was DX10 only. Since the effects are done in DX9 they were not included in the patch. Then people assumed that cutting effects was a "trick" to boost FPS and not something that was brought about by our own desire to get a patch at whatever cost. Then they didn't want DX9 support, even though they wanted the effects.

Now we get effects back and people say they like it, despite the fact that they didn't want to support the API that effects were coded on.

Apparently all that is not irrational and self-contradicting enough, so we get the same thing this week as well with another feature/bug/whatever :-P

As for what is a beta, it's a test. It doesn't promise to improve anything, it promises to test if the improvements work and if they don't, find out what doesn't work so that it can be fixed.

If we want to debate whether speedtree was a good choice or not, we can. But assuming too much while knowing too little will only result in us contradicting ourselves and looking like fools. Why don't we just do what the beta is supposed to be? Download if we want to test, then test and report? ;)

I would bet money on that the auto-gen box is an intentional thing, a quick performance fix if you will and in all fairness I think it's the only thing the devs can do to really improve performance for the vast majority out there. I'm not complaining at all, it just confirms what luthier has mentioned quite a few times, the Speedtree trees are in fact, a problem. Who's talking about effects and directx versions BTW? I thought this thread was about the limited auto-gen box. Nobody's trying to look like a fool here, people are correctly reporting their observations found in the latest beta patch, in this case the limited auto-gen box. You are not giving the devs any credits here, insinuating that they are doing "tricks" to improve performance. Try to be a bit more respectful towards the intellect of the devs and exchange the word "tricks" to "temporary fixes that makes the game playable for everyone, even those that can't afford a nuclear power plant PC rig".

[SlipBall]

I would bet money on that the auto-gen box is an intentional thing, a quick performance fix if you will and in all fairness I think it's the only thing the devs can do to really improve performance for the vast majority out there. I'm not complaining at all, it just confirms what luthier has mentioned quite a few times, the Speedtree trees are in fact, a problem. Who's talking about effects and directx versions BTW? I thought this thread was about the limited auto-gen box. Nobody's trying to look like a fool here, people are correctly reporting their observations found in the latest beta patch, in this case the limited auto-gen box. You are not giving the devs any credits here, insinuating that they are doing "tricks" to improve performance. Try to be a bit more respectful towards the intellect of the devs and exchange the word "tricks" to "temporary fixes that makes the game playable for everyone, even those that can't afford a nuclear power plant PC rig".


Good post there :cool:

[Dano]

I would bet money on that the auto-gen box is an intentional thing, a quick performance fix if you will and in all fairness I think it's the only thing the devs can do to really improve performance for the vast majority out there. I'm not complaining at all, it just confirms what luthier has mentioned quite a few times, the Speedtree trees are in fact, a problem. Who's talking about effects and directx versions BTW? I thought this thread was about the limited auto-gen box. Nobody's trying to look like a fool here, people are correctly reporting their observations found in the latest beta patch, in this case the limited auto-gen box. You are not giving the devs any credits here, insinuating that they are doing "tricks" to improve performance. Try to be a bit more respectful towards the intellect of the devs and exchange the word "tricks" to "temporary fixes that makes the game playable for everyone, even those that can't afford a nuclear power plant PC rig".

If it is intended as a quick performance fix it's failed miserably on my system.

[PotNoodles]

If this is an intended fix for the trees will the Readme file confirm this next week? I actually sent returned FlightSim X because this was such an irritation when flying, and it looked alot better in that Sim then it does in this one. I really hope they are not going with this as a fix for the trees because I agree it looks horrendous.

[_YoYo_]

If this is an intended fix for the trees will the Readme file confirm this next week? I actually sent returned FlightSim X because this was such an irritation when flying, and it looked alot better in that Sim then it does in this one. I really hope they are not going with this as a fix for the trees because I agree it looks horrendous.

+ 1
I returned to Rise of Flight now with weapon mods, I bought all mods, nice to see many good changes in this beta patch, but this flashing trees are very annoying. Sure, know its a "beta", but looks like broke beta with autogen subject and step back.

[Force10]

Its a smegging beta you ?£$££$£, do you not know what beta means!

Most of us know what an Alpha is as well. Apparently, the devs don't though since they took an Alpha, boxed it up and put it on a shelf for $50.

[Kranak]

YoYo, I think you have stumbled upon HarryPotterland and the magical forrest in that video.

[furbs]

If you don't like being a BETA tester don't download a beta patch... and here I was thinking it was a pretty obvious solution!!

Really good advice Krupi, dont use the beta with all the bugs and problems, use the last official patch that no servers run with all the bugs and CTD's.

You know they just call it a beta because its a easy way to explain why the patch still hasn't fixed the bugs, every patch including betas, alphas and official has not fixed the problems, its like putting on a plaster on a missing leg.

This is never going to be fixed, its never going to be a BOB sim,the core engine is flawed and clunky and badly coded, and the devs dont have the time,expertize or skills to turn it around.

[AbortedMan]

Really good advice Krupi, dont use the beta with all the bugs and problems, use the last official patch that no servers run with all the bugs and CTD's.

You know they just call it a beta because its a easy way to explain why the patch still hasn't fixed the bugs, every patch including betas, alphas and official has not fixed the problems, its like putting on a plaster on a missing leg.

This is never going to be fixed, its never going to be a BOB sim,the core engine is flawed and clunky and badly coded, and the devs dont have the time,expertize or skills to turn it around.

+1

At least 1946 is still decent.

[Madfish]

Speedtree doesn't eat much performance. It's widely used, even by other "flight" games. :rolleyes:

[tintifaxl]

For the records, I don't have any problems with the trees.

[JG52Krupi]

Really good advice Krupi, dont use the beta with all the bugs and problems, use the last official patch that no servers run with all the bugs and CTD's.

You know they just call it a beta because its a easy way to explain why the patch still hasn't fixed the bugs, every patch including betas, alphas and official has not fixed the problems, its like putting on a plaster on a missing leg.

This is never going to be fixed, its never going to be a BOB sim,the core engine is flawed and clunky and badly coded, and the devs dont have the time,expertize or skills to turn it around.

Jeez throwing your toys out of the pram again, really you sound so depressed you should be on drugs....

Which problems are still remaining for you, the only thing that is bad for me atm really is that smoke reduces my fps oh and the defects in the 109 cockpit other than that 55-60fps average so can you tell me something, are you still experiencing bad things with the game or is it that you and tree got your knickers in such a twist that you are struggling to undo them because as far as I can tell one of your squad mates is flying COD basically every night! Perhaps you should ask him how he installed the beta looks like you might be doing something wrong!

[furbs]

The problem Krupi is COD will never be a BOB sim, lets say they fix all the bugs(unlikely i know), what then? How do sqds get involved? how do we have online wars? we dont have proper COOPs, yes we have a sort of COOP that needs workarounds but its no use for online wars.

We have no single player experience to speak off, you cant enter a pilot name or join a sqd and fight a campaign. Where is the sense of fighting the greatest air battle ever? where is the immersion and history? Where are the scrambles, radar and ground control?

So COD will always be a small engagement sim over the coast at zero feet, single fighters flying across the channel to fight other single fighters or vulch single aircraft taking off. Its a deathmatch with planes nothing more.

The sims concept is flawed and limited, unless that changes (it wont for COD we all know there is no more content) with BOM, all we will have is the same sim experience again only with a new map and planes.

So no knickers in a twist here, just the hard truth.

[robtek]

There will never be a BoB-sim with that much detail!!

Now the developement time is too high and the customer base too nitpicking and too small.

In the future there might be ways to get high quality models and content in a reasonable timeline, but then the customerbase isn't there anymore or wants to play the sim on a console.

[JG52Krupi]

The problem Krupi is COD will never be a BOB sim, lets say they fix all the bugs(unlikely i know), what then? How do sqds get involved? how do we have online wars? we dont have proper COOPs, yes we have a sort of COOP that needs workarounds but its no use for online wars.

We have no single player experience to speak off, you cant enter a pilot name or join a sqd and fight a campaign. Where is the sense of fighting the greatest air battle ever? where is the immersion and history? Where are the scrambles, radar and ground control?

So COD will always be a small engagement sim over the coast at zero feet, single fighters flying across the channel to fight other single fighters or vulch single aircraft taking off. Its a deathmatch with planes nothing more.

The sims concept is flawed and limited, unless that changes (it wont for COD we all know there is no more content) with BOM, all we will have is the same sim experience again only with a new map and planes.

So no knickers in a twist here, just the hard truth.

Unfortunately the hard truth is that COD was never going to be a complete BOB simulator...

You would have to make shortcuts in other areas of the game to be able to field the huge number of aircraft that would have to be flying to fully simulate bob.

[furbs]

it doesn't have to be 100's of aircraft, 50-60 would be fine, Its not the numbers that's important, its more about simulating what it was like to take part in the battle.
Missions should be about Scrambles (British) and being vectored onto targets by ground control, its about joining frontline sqds after training and having fellow pilots to fly with, logbooks and feeling of trying to stay alive to the end of the battle.
Its not about a crap storyline driven series of missions where no mission is relevant to the next or it doesn't matter if you live or die and no flippin SPITGIRL!
Flight sims have managed this for the last 20 years, why not COD?

Online needs more than pointless dogfights with a few aircraft at zero feet, your telling me online resembles taking part in the battle or any sort of real life missions for that matter? give me a break.

The missing COOP's are almost criminal, the one chance of giving COD a long life and having online sqds(or anyone else) take part in wars like VEF has been dumped in the bin.

Im not depressed, im just fecked off at the bleedin shambles COD has been from before release right up to this moment.

Edit. This in no way is a dig at ATAG or any other servers, ATAG does a great job with the tools available and ive always been impressed by them.

[Volksieg]

The thing is.. I understand your frustration, Furbs, as I can see that the devs did make some rather odd decisions along the way. It would also be great to have more purpose and meaning behind the missions in single player also. Multiplayer, on the other hand, is a case of getting out of it what you put into it. Sure... for some it is just airquake, and there's nothing wrong with that, but there are people out there beavering away constantly making campaigns, historical missions etc. It may not be exactly like the Battle of Britain, maybe, but the technology for that kind of thing is still years away and, even then, until they find a way of building holodecks like in Star Trek, with the added ability to convince you that, if you fail to open the hatch, jump out and engage your parachute... you really ARE going to die..... You will never have a simulation that comes even close to the real thing. To be honest with you, teeth curling, eye popping terror and heavily browned underwear isn't really my cup of tea when it comes to entertainment. :D

I think many of us jumped into this with high expectations and, whether we want to admit it or not, fairly unreasonable ones at that. I would go so far as to say Oleg (Who is responsible for much of those expectations) was a dreamer... and dreamers are great! They are the people of vision who make this world what it is and, where you find a dreamer, you find innovation.... but for every great idea they have, there are the 100 that just aren't practical. What we do have, though, is a simulation as close to that vision as is possible for now.... of course it would help if it worked properly. :D

As for coop..... you just open a mission in the FMB and reconfigure it to allow coop. It is there... just not signposted.

[furbs]

The thing is.. I understand your frustration, Furbs, as I can see that the devs did make some rather odd decisions along the way. It would also be great to have more purpose and meaning behind the missions in single player also. Multiplayer, on the other hand, is a case of getting out of it what you put into it. Sure... for some it is just airquake, and there's nothing wrong with that, but there are people out there beavering away constantly making campaigns, historical missions etc. It may not be exactly like the Battle of Britain, maybe, but the technology for that kind of thing is still years away and, even then, until they find a way of building holodecks like in Star Trek, with the added ability to convince you that, if you fail to open the hatch, jump out and engage your parachute... you really ARE going to die..... You will never have a simulation that comes even close to the real thing. To be honest with you, teeth curling, eye popping terror and heavily browned underwear isn't really my cup of tea when it comes to entertainment. :D

I think many of us jumped into this with high expectations and, whether we want to admit it or not, fairly unreasonable ones at that. I would go so far as to say Oleg (Who is responsible for much of those expectations) was a dreamer... and dreamers are great! They are the people of vision who make this world what it is and, where you find a dreamer, you find innovation.... but for every great idea they have, there are the 100 that just aren't practical. What we do have, though, is a simulation as close to that vision as is possible for now.... of course it would help if it worked properly. :D

As for coop..... you just open a mission in the FMB and reconfigure it to allow coop. It is there... just not signposted.

Yes i had expectations, expectations of been able to fly in single player campaigns that resembled the actual battle the sim is named after.

Im sorry but COOP's dont work well enough for online wars by a long shot, not even close, but whats hard to fathom is how they were left out? how can a team that made IL2 and must of known about VEF and all the other online wars decide they are not vitally important for the long life of COD?

Whats going to happen to COD once BOM is out? there are about 50 people in the world playing COD online most nights, that's it. Once BOM is out that number will drop, and then what?

If there isn't a change in the online concept and a radical change in the net code(just ask bliss) were in for much of the same again.

They have had 4 years to work with the code and still it seems they cant get a handle on it, each patch brings more bugs and problems...you cant start the hurri on the ground?? jesus wept, dont they test there own patches? I know its a beta...blah blah blah. How many beta patches has ROF done?

Luthier now hides behind B6 and doesn't post anymore(apart from the updates that B6 copies and pastes), where have the road maps and future plans gone?

18 months after release and were still in "beta" with no end in sight, and even with all the bug fixes in the world, COD is still going to be no better in the long run or re-guarding online wars than what we have now.

[Allons!]

I have enouph trees (wheres tree_UK btw??)

Heres my config.ini if you want to try yourself:

[core]
RandSeed = 0
TexQual=2
TexFlags.PolygonStipple=0
Shadows=0
SpecularLight=2
DiffuseLight=2
DynamicalLights=1
MeshDetail=1
LandShading=1
LandDetails=1
Sky=3
Forest=3
VisibilityDistance=3
LandGeom=2
DrawCollisions=1
Water=-1
Effects=1
EffFlags.Light=1
EffFlags.SpriteRender=0
Grass=3
CordEffect=1
UseFog=0
UseLandCube=1
UseLandConnectedObject=1
LinearObjectManager=1
Roads=1
Sun=1
Clouds=1
EffFlags.LightSpritesProj=1
ShadowMapSize=5
TexFlags.AsyncLoad=1
TexFlags.ShowTexture=0
SimpleMesh.SWTransform=0
SimpleMesh.QuadTreeClip=1
SimpleMesh.InstancingHW=1
EffFlags.LightContextSprites=1
CloudsFlags.Detailed=1
TexFlags.CreateHDR=1
Decals=2
EffFlags.SWLight=0
TexFlags.CockpitOnePass=0
MegaTexture=0
TexFlags.Reflection=0
RenderTargetQual=3
MSAA=0
MeshStatics=1
MeshStaticsDetail=1
SimpleMesh.QTNoCompose=0
MeshFirstLod=0
MeshShowLod=0
SpawnHumans=1
TexFlags.SSAO=0
TexFlags.VSync=0
TexFlags.FastTransparency=1