Quote:
Originally Posted by JG26_EZ
Something else (with regards to forests) that should be considered is taking away the option to get rid of forests in settings... Just look at some pictures of some WWII 109's stashed away in the tree line. How are we mission builders supposed to hide targets at the edge of the forest for some realism, if people can just make them vanish?
You'll have the people that have paid good money to have the ability to see trees with no FPS horrors, and those people will be the ones that won't be able to see the targets as easily as those pilots that have their trees "turned off".
And another thing is, what happens when they add collision detection to the trees and those that have their trees turned off, come in to straffe ground targets? They'll also have less to worry about when straffing?
Having that checkbox in settings is a ridiculous idea imo. Trees should be part of the map (for everybody).. period.
|
I would propose another solution, one that hopefully doesn't force everyone down a specific road.
Let's do it like it was in IL2. Back when we were flying the previous series and our PCs couldn't take high detail clouds, server admins would set clouds for low detail in their missions and just place a warning on their forums or a pop-up message on the in-game chat bar every now and then.
"Warning: setting clouds to high might result in a combat disadvantage".
This way the players are informed and the choice is up to them.
A similar thing could be done for trees and the feature expanded a bit by making the lowest possible tree setting a server enforced parameter (just like realism settings).
Once graphics are optimized, then servers could simply force people to use, for example, at least low trees: if i wanted to and my PC could take it i would still be able to set trees to high for the eye candy, but only the amount set by the server would have collision detection.
Then as everyone's hardware gradually catches up, server admins could up that setting.