better clouds and trees in next patch ?

[Querer]

Originally Posted by Dano

It becomes complex due to the sheer number of trees involved, if you have a nice simple solution that wont require large amounts of process time then please post it for Luthiers attention.

I somehow still don't get the point, why a simple, let's say, cylinder, which is overall even invisible (no load on the GPU...) should be such a huge thing to do or should have such a huge impact on framerates. Nobody is asking for a precise collision calculation regarding trees, it is basically enough that if you hit a tree, you crash...

[Dano]

Originally Posted by Querer

I somehow still don't get the point, why a simple, let's say, cylinder, which is overall even invisible (no load on the GPU...) should be such a huge thing to do or should have such a huge impact on framerates. Nobody is asking for a precise collision calculation regarding trees, it is basically enough that if you hit a tree, you crash...

How do you tell if the aircraft has collided with said cylinder?

[Querer]

Well, how do you tell the aircraft to collide with a solid house? Come on, if all the houses would not have a texture wrapped around and LODs and smoke rising from their rooftops and more complex structure than a simple block, the impact on the framerate would be minimal. Same should be true for trees... At least my old E8400 can easily handle building amount on "high" when the building detail is on "very low". So I guess it could still handle a solid tree with actually no detail in the structure, just an invisible cylinder... Well, oviously it is not that simple, I am sure they tried something... I was just wondering, that this is maybe a russian issue, as DCS seems to be not capable of having solid trees in their engine neither, lool (just kidding...)

[skouras]

when COD is ready everybody will say
PLEASE MAKE RISE OF FLIGHT LIKE COD

[Doc_uk]

Originally Posted by Querer

I somehow still don't get the point, why a simple, let's say, cylinder, which is overall even invisible (no load on the GPU...) should be such a huge thing to do or should have such a huge impact on framerates. Nobody is asking for a precise collision calculation regarding trees, it is basically enough that if you hit a tree, you crash...

+1
I think its just Laziness, on there part

[Tiger27]

Originally Posted by Doc_uk

+1
I think its just Laziness, on there part

More likely a balancing act, you all seem to forget how limited ROF is with the amount of objects allowed in a mission, possibly this is because of the trees having hit boxes?

[dash2099]

Originally Posted by Querer

I somehow still don't get the point, why a simple, let's say, cylinder, which is overall even invisible (no load on the GPU...) should be such a huge thing to do or should have such a huge impact on framerates. Nobody is asking for a precise collision calculation regarding trees, it is basically enough that if you hit a tree, you crash...

you have to consider the CPU, not so much the GPU in these things and framerates. The game doesnt exclusively own the CPU whilst the game is running. You have windows/AV/skype/disk indexing/garbage cleaning/driver processing all happening in the background. The CPU is the one that offloads calculations to the GPU and deals with the results. Bog the CPU down and everything slows down - if windows slows down then game slows down. Its exactly the reason why you wont see a framerate increase when running a highend graphics card on low/mid end CPU. Physx cards (revamped/redone as nvidia's CUDA technology) if utilised can give the CPU another processor to offload physics calculations to (now basically nvidia's graphics card). Not everyone has an NVIDIA card or an i7 with ssd's in raid0, hence the game loses features and options to accomodate running on a variety of minimum spec machines. *before anyone says it, yes i agree it isnt running perfectly just yet.*

with the tree's and collision, you have to also consider multiplayer as well. if they have coded in wind and tree's and branches waving, then i'd imagine those collision boxes move. Even if you just apply collision boxes tree's in the immediate vicinity, factor in averaging out latency and all the warping from lost packets. Thats a lot of numbers to crunch and a lot of predicting/updating (particularly when the wind affects the whole or a region of the map). thats not all, now throw in 128 players dogfighting in that one map. its a lot of code, and people want realistic exhaust fumes with the right color in 1940's sunlight and dynamic weather based on their region (while dogfighting a bloke in another region with his own weather demands). its not impossible, but if it wasnt done from the start then a lot of things have to change, and thats probably a new game.

[Redroach]

I don't agree with you. At all.

[baronWastelan]

I would rather have the harmless tress than have a leaf brushing against the fuselage causing my Spitfire to explode. Perhaps the ideal compromise is to just put one giant hit-box in each group of trees that have 50 or more trees in them, regardless of what the user's tree setting is.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by dash2099

you have to consider the CPU, not so much the GPU in these things and framerates. The game doesnt exclusively own the CPU whilst the game is running. You have windows/AV/skype/disk indexing/garbage cleaning/driver processing all happening in the background. The CPU is the one that offloads calculations to the GPU and deals with the results. Bog the CPU down and everything slows down - if windows slows down then game slows down. Its exactly the reason why you wont see a framerate increase when running a highend graphics card on low/mid end CPU. Physx cards (revamped/redone as nvidia's CUDA technology) if utilised can give the CPU another processor to offload physics calculations to (now basically nvidia's graphics card). Not everyone has an NVIDIA card or an i7 with ssd's in raid0, hence the game loses features and options to accomodate running on a variety of minimum spec machines. *before anyone says it, yes i agree it isnt running perfectly just yet.*

with the tree's and collision, you have to also consider multiplayer as well. if they have coded in wind and tree's and branches waving, then i'd imagine those collision boxes move. Even if you just apply collision boxes tree's in the immediate vicinity, factor in averaging out latency and all the warping from lost packets. Thats a lot of numbers to crunch and a lot of predicting/updating (particularly when the wind affects the whole or a region of the map). thats not all, now throw in 128 players dogfighting in that one map. its a lot of code, and people want realistic exhaust fumes with the right color in 1940's sunlight and dynamic weather based on their region (while dogfighting a bloke in another region with his own weather demands). its not impossible, but if it wasnt done from the start then a lot of things have to change, and thats probably a new game.

The collisions could be done and should be/are normally done on the local client. That info is then sent of to the other clients therefore what you see and I see does not have to be the same thing, and even if it is, it is not an issue to implement collisions. Also collision boxes dont move with the wind, that notion is absurd. A tree branch moving a few inches wont make a differance to a hitbox.

Speedtree which is currently used to generate trees also most likely generates the hitboxes in other games, for example it was used (speed tree 1) in Oblivion, newer versions in mortal online etc. It was never meant for this type of use, maybe that was lost in translation? Its unfortunetly another sign of bad planning/managment for a feature that is ironically simple to implement. Its ALOT harder to track bullets and plane collisions with AI running.