Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

Official Fulqrum Publishing forum (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/index.php)
-   IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/forumdisplay.php?f=189)
-   -   Do we need new trees? (http://forum.fulqrumpublishing.com/showthread.php?t=27088)

hiro 10-16-2011 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zorin (Post 349588)
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 10-16-2011 08:06 AM

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 10-16-2011 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hiro (Post 349687)
yes, 109's

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

pupo162 10-16-2011 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kankkis (Post 349590)
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 10-16-2011 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bloblast (Post 349329)
Do we need new trees?

These are them from Rise of flight including damage model:

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a23...-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 10-16-2011 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mazex (Post 349838)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:53 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.