Do we need new trees?

[JG52Krupi]

Originally Posted by pupo162

I would like to say im from portugal and likewise you i have an opinion who happens to be different from yours, visuals improve the FLIGHT sim otherwise we would have stayed with 1946 with a CEM remoddeling.

i would fix a smiley for you, but i dont want to be rude.

have a nice day.

lol what a tool

[6BL Bird-Dog]

Originally Posted by pupo162

yes.

these are a performance whore, little overdone, and give a very poor impression of florest areas, tough they look fine by themselfs.

we also need bushes, headgrows and all that stuiff missing from england.

oh! and colissions!

+1

[NedLynch]

If it serves performance then yes, however that voting option is not persent.

The more important perfromance killer are still clouds, but it is my understanding that these as well as other things are not final so I am hoping for a serious performance increase once the graphics engine is at a somewhat finalized state.

[Timberwolf]

I don't really get the game .. When everyone was told of the game coming out it would be much like the other IL-2 series but improved Then we were told they were starting with a whole new platform Yes the grafixs were great ( For those who could play it ) people were told that they would need top of the line computer to play it .. People with high end PC's ended up having the most problems due to SLI/Crossfire non programs and multi-core issues

grafix vs proformance. Combat Flight Sim vs Arcade ?

there will be a limit to any game I'm not even going to get into Rain Fog or the heavy cross winds of dover ...

Take the planes and trees and if you hit them you blow up no loss wing anything passed 30 mph or 50 kms

[combatdudePL]

Devs should check trees from ROF - They look perfect, has good dmg model, and they are fps friendly.

[klem]

The current trees look very poor. They are also a resource hog and it is not necessary to populate the whole of the countryside with individual trees. They are so numerous that the collision model has had to be removed as it would cause even the top PCs to grind to a halt. Far better to use fewer larger forest and hedgrow models and perhaps, where necessary, some individual trees and all with collision model. Larger, simpler, but graphically acceptable forest models could replace the current tree count at a rate of 100 to 1 or more and include collision modelling.

The trees we have at the moment are daft. They are tree shaped but all that glistening caused by artificial 'breeze' effect looks mickey-mouse, unrealistic and IMHO pointless. Its one area where the attempt to meet the film-makers wishes has gone badly wrong. By all means include them in the SDK if that is to have map-making capabilities but remove them from the core game.

Start again with several different sizes of forest blocks that can be built into larger forest areas and the same for a few hedgerows. I live in Southern England and it doesn't look like the mickey-mouse result you get when you turn Forest 'on'. In fact I turn Forest Off or very Low and from height the underlying map forest area images are good enough for me, a bit like flying over photo-terrain in FSX with scenery Autogen turned off (but not as good/realistic obviously). But I would prefer to have 3D forests, hedgrows and even individual trees with a collision model that our PCs can handle.

Also, once the trees are sorted and playable I'd like to see Forest become a server setting.

[David198502]

Originally Posted by combatdudePL

Devs should check trees from ROF - They look perfect, has good dmg model, and they are fps friendly.

in my view the trees in CLOD are extremely detailed...which at the moment is not necessary.those trees are as detailed or even more detailed as trees in first person shooters.once the game can handle groundcombat as well, these tree models are reasonable, but not for a pure flight sim.

i once checked out ROF and the detail of the trees and the overall look of them is just fine i think and would be good for CLOD as well...but the fact that the trees in ROF have this spinning effect really looks horrible once beeing aware of it.

[SYN_Repent]

Originally Posted by pupo162

I would like to say im from portugal and likewise you i have an opinion who happens to be different from yours, visuals improve the FLIGHT sim otherwise we would have stayed with 1946 with a CEM remoddeling.

i would fix a smiley for you, but i dont want to be rude.

have a nice day.

this +1

tress that cant be collided with.....now that is progress

[Dano]

Originally Posted by combatdudePL

Devs should check trees from ROF - They look perfect, has good dmg model, and they are fps friendly.

Ugh, no, they don't. They look awful.

I'd like to see the trees we saw in early beta shots myself.

[jg27_mc]

Originally Posted by pupo162

I would like to say im from portugal and likewise you i have an opinion who happens to be different from yours, visuals improve the FLIGHT sim otherwise we would have stayed with 1946 with a CEM remoddeling.

i would fix a smiley for you, but i dont want to be rude.

have a nice day.

errr... Your opinion doesn't count. Everyone knows Portugal is DOOMED!

j/k

A few thoughts:

RoF trees are not perfect, but they offer a good compromise between visual aspect, good FPS and DM.

I am grounded (for the last 3 months + -, I was bored to death with the performance/bug issues) but last time I tried it, trees were an FPS hog for the overall quality they offered...

~S~