Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > Technical threads > Vehicle and Terrain threads

Vehicle and Terrain threads Discussions about environment and vehicles in CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-17-2012, 10:34 PM
JG26_EZ's Avatar
JG26_EZ JG26_EZ is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 600
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-19-2012, 01:11 AM
Thee_oddball Thee_oddball is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 812
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG26_EZ View Post
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.
until or if the trees are done in .NET and not C++ they will most likely leave the option to turn them off because of the FPS/stuttering the interop causes
__________________
Gigabyte Z68
Intel 2500K (@4.3 ghz)212 CM Cooler
8GB Ram
EVGA 660SC (super clocked) 2GB Vram
CORSAIR CMPSU-750TX 750W
64 GB SSD SATA II HD
WIN7 UL 64BIT
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-19-2012, 01:49 AM
Blackdog_kt Blackdog_kt is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG26_EZ View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-19-2012, 02:55 AM
JG26_EZ's Avatar
JG26_EZ JG26_EZ is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt View Post

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.
A "Tree setting" similar to IL2's would be a great idea for the team to do, combined with the ability for a server to lock trees as "on" would be just excellent.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:04 PM.


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