Quote:
Originally Posted by LoBiSoMeM
(Post 308128)
"How much work" the terrain need, Philip, besides some tweak in general colour and tree placement?
You talk like the terrain engine is a lot of crap and is totally wrong... The elevation data is great, 1:1, town and landmarks placement... The only MINOOOOOOOOOORRRRR flaws that I see in visuals are tweaks needed in colour and vegetation placement. The big part of problem still perfromace and optimization. And the water... I really will like the promised for future new water!
|
It sounds minor on paper, but it could be a huge undertaking. Let's put it this way (sorry if I sound like I am reciting the landscape-critics official hymn):
-the trees themselves need work. Obviously this is probably down to speed tree, but they need to be re-worked to the extent that the trunks are not visible from altitude. When driving in the country here in Kent, I can barely see the trunks of trees in the distance, so from altitude it just looks as though they are a great mass of foliage attached to the landscape. Am I knit-picking too much? Maybe, but it does make a massive difference to the landscape representation. The foliage should also be darker in colour. This is probably down to the lighting system, but it really needs looking into. Why should people revert to mods?
-Secondly, the tree-placing needs to be completely reworked. Forests should show a dense mass of foliage, and the majority of fields and roads should be relatively tree-free. Instead, the fields should be bounded by neat hedgerows which may grow steadily and smoothly into trees in a number of areas. Drive down a country lane in kent which may have a neat hedgerow, and you will observe that as the field boundary is passed, that neat hedgerow will probably become a chaotic mass of foliage, and trees will sprout within it; eventually creating one dense mass of greenery.
-Thirdly, the types of fields represented in the landscape needs looking into. Currently, the landscape looks like a patchwork quilt, when in actual fact, the landscape in England usually has large areas of grass-lands/fields which are pretty much the same colour. It is rare to look in all directions and see about 10 fields growing crops of different colours. It may sound a bit finicky, but if the landscape was seperated in a more ordered way, the surrounding would look a lot more natural (this may be difficult to implement due to the tiling system in place). At the end of the day, when flying over the countryside you will probably only see a few colour variations in the landscape here, as opposed to about a dozen or so in CloD.
Sorry if I sound like an anorak (really I'm not) but this is something which to me is quite obvious from living in Kent all my life. These things are just natural to me! I understand that most of the team have never seen the English landscape before, but IMHO that just shows that the team should listen to those of us who are quite clued-up on the matter. It's not a question of knowledge; more of common sense (which has been built up through years of living in this area). Drive around any part of England, and the majority of what I say is true. Obviously some areas of the country have their own quirky features (e.g the stone walls of some areas around the lake-district and, indeed, in the Cotswolds) but these are just extra parts of the landscape.
The landscape isn't complete and utter garbage; but it isn't Oleg's photorealism, and it really isn't the best the team could do.
