Well...we said it would be a problem..
 

Just been flying on the Repka full real server (nice server), when this happened...

I had just taken of in my spit 1a and just after the sound cut out (no thats not this problem :) ) i get bounced by a 109 flown by a guy called "BERLIN" he gets hits on my right wing before i can get out the way.
He flys past and dives...i half roll and im after him, just as im about to fire he dives down to ground level and starts flying through the trees! i cant believe someone would do that, i pull off as i cant bring myself to cheat as well.

So i ask him why hes flying through the trees to escape?
He says on chat its a "tactic" and not cheating! and he always does it, its his "escape tactic"!!

This is about the 3rd person ive seen doing this...but i guess thats what you get, if the trees cant hurt you. :(

I believe it was said that each tree would need a "collision box" that would need to be constantly updated relative to all planes in the map and would eventually require so much resources it would bring the sim to a halt.

Rise of flight has collision trees, but look at how many houses we have in CloD compared to ROF, and all of CloDs buildings have collision boxes. So if the same performance rules applies to ROF, they can have collision boxes for their trees because the total number of collision boxes are the same as CloD with ONLY collision boxes for the buildings.

Solution!?

Dunno, but I'm sure that if they find a way to implement it without killing our performance it will be done :) I'm just happy we lost the "invisible trees" from IL-2 1946. God I hate those.

Seen it loads of times... a well known 110 pilot does it on Repka#1 all the time...needless to say everytime ive encounted him doing it hes been punished for being a 'loser'

Tactic my #rse... thats just lame and someone exploiting a 'Bug'.. let them do it thats what i say, if they need to resort to such rubbish to evade you then they obviously suk at understanding their AC

Why on earth are you following him down to (literally) treetop height?

Stay high and conserve your energy. Let him go down while you stay high and build more E. By the time he tries to come back you'll have an enormous margin.

lol, the fact is that being able to fly through tree's is simply not acceptable in any Sim, hell you cant even do it in WOP, this needs fixing urgently or it will kill online play.

He'll get the shock of his life if/when they fix it.

He'll also probably be rubbish at online if he relies on it now.

The sim is being worked on.

The trees really, really, really are not a very urgent issue. How much action happens at treetop height? What servers are you guys flying where everyone is down at the trees and can I join so I can get some free kills?

I'd rather see the sound issue fixed than this issue that only affects noobs who insist on doing TnB combat on the deck.

Luthier as already said it will never be fixed, its funny really we have realistic(ish) engine management and then you can fly straight through a forest, this makes it a 'game' not a sim.

Unless the amount of trees (a graphics detail setting) can be enforced by the server there is no real fix to this.

If i'm flying with trees set to low and the server is using trees set to medium to calculate the collision boxes then i'll end up crashing into tress i can't see, if on the other hand i'm flying with a higher setting than the one used by the server i'll be able to fly through some of the trees i see (because they are not there in the server's "version" of what's rendered) and crash into others.

And since servers need to be populated and make an effort to cater to a variety of players and not just those who can crank up all the details to maximum, this can only mean one thing: the server forcing the players to fly with trees set to low no matter their own settings, because otherwise there will be a mismatch between players in what constitutes collision material.

I'm perfectly ok with this, i just have a feeling that as soon as we get a rough collision box outline for the main forested areas there will once again be people complaining about having to fly with lowered detail :-P

Well, you wont get any kills if you cant see them because of the Tree's wiil you?? And it wont be fixed, Luthier as aleady said its not fixable.

Guess you didnt read the first Post.... he got bounced as he was taking off, he then half rolled because the 109 obviously buggered up another bounce and gave chase..why would you not give chase in a Spit against a 109 who just messed up a bounce?...id chase up untill i knew i wasnt going to catch him..

The 109 pilot obvioulsy messed up big time trying to be Johnny Big balls and bounce a second time before making sure hes got enough E to follow it through...if hes had to resort to then flying through Trees to evade a Slower AC then hes a Tool, and id let him escape probably through pitty, bless him

I get lots of kills, because I don't furball below 100 meters. I spend my time attacking aircraft up high.

Ah yeah, didn't see that bit earlier.

My point stands, though. Pilots should not be engaging in combat at altitudes where literally diving into the trees is a viable escape, because anyone with an altitude advantage and a little bit of patience is going to catch and kill you sooner or later. There's no avoiding it, and if you're already on the deck there's nowhere to go.

Well, if the object of the server is to defend certain ground targets then if we all flew high there would be no challenge, anyone knows you can just keep high, but if your a 'team player' you try and win the map.

Did you read my post? i had just taken off.

oh and its the Repka full real server, its the only full real server with more than 2 people in it, if you know any others that have lots of people flying in them at realistic heights flying full real can you please tell me...jeez :rolleyes:

Apart from through the tree's!!

Hmm not sure i agree with that fella, if there are no EA around and im Low enough to see an even lower EA then i will bounce him regardless of his height...its up to me to guarantee that there isnt any EA higher than me however before i make a move, then it becomes a problem but if not i dont see there being an issue of bouncing a very low target as long as you keep fast and have your escape route planned

Sure, I can cherry-pick conditions too.

Sure: IF there are no other EA around, and IF you spot a lone bandit without a wingman then yeah, go ahead and dive after them.

But IF another enemy arrives on the scene then you are likely dead meat.

I like how Tree_UK can't refute my arguments and has now lowered himself to personal attacks like saying I'm not a team player because I fly high.

------

How many of you people in this thread spent most of your time flying il2fb on the deck? Did you ever venture into a server with good pilots like Warclouds or Spits/109s and try it there? How'd that end up?

Lots and lots of combat happens at altitudes where you can barely see the trees, much less fly through them.

I guess I just don't think this is cause to stand up and start screaming about the end of the sim. :confused:

I fly both sides mate so depends on what im flying im guess..a Spit especially the one we have in game isnt a very good BnZ though in Il2 i could get away with it...on the other hand the 109 we have here is a better TnB Ac than in Il2 imo..

im not side biased.. not a luftwiner or an easymode pilot (ww2ol phrase :) so i do whatever and depends on the map too

Agreed..

I'm not saying it's fine and dandy that we can fly through trees.

I'm saying it ought not to be such a huge issue (and won't "kill multiplayer" as Tree insists) because when servers are populated people start climbing, or at least ought to, if they have any sense at all.

Some people fly on Repka 3 only because they have low fps on Repka 1 even with forest completely OFF. In case there would be a server side setting for forest there is a good chance it would be OFF server side to allow more players play with reasonable fps at least for 6-12 months before majority of players make an upgrade.

Please reread this:

It's the sim's fault and you need to blame the dev's on this one.

I've seen this behaviour so many times in other games, some humans can't bring up the decency themselves to play a fair game. You won't get rid of it unless you take the toy from the child's hands.

I frequently fly through trees, because I simply don't see them and have no reason to see them. :)

Didn't kill online for IL2.

Can they group trees into one solid hit block? Say each group of 100 trees would be an obstacle where an airplane would crash on contact...... I can see it as a stop gap measure. It would be like hitting a wall. Hmmmmmmmmm. That wouldn't be realistic either, but maybe it's a start where someone can work from there. IDK


Just free associating, trying to think of a solution. Pay no attention to the man behind this curtain.

even if it was random...say 3 in 10 trees(don't ask me how) it prob would stop this.

Yeah, I think my 'solution' would end up with trees being landscape elevations instead of trees. If anyone played the arcade WW1 flight sim, Wings of War, trees looked like they were represented with changes of elevation instead of individual trees. Interesting solution that looked pretty okay for 2002, but not today.

I like the one in three option where a hit box could be randomly placed.

I agree, it would scare people off enough to avoid flying through trees. Maybe it would also simulate the possibility that the tree gives way, and not the aircraft wing. (If you hit a tree that does NOT have a collision box, one can imagine the tree got cut in half instead of the wing and still keep a "plausible" outcome to the collision. Of course the tree would have to be really thin IRL to break instead of the wing :D).

At least that way you put doubt in the mind of the pilot,may work may not.
So you could end up with a small hit and run raid flying low over the channel,up into the trees and staying below tree height until they reach the target,mmmmm.

Surely they could put an object in amoungst a group of say 8 trees, like a brown telegraph pole or something, going back to Robert regarding IL2 i dount remember being able to fly through tree's?

Where did he say it would not be fixed?

I call BS on this...

No BS mate, he said it during development.

Funny how you adapt what is said to suit your arguments, one minute anything mentioned in development is a 'broken promise' and the next thing is taken as gospel as long as it fits with your pessimism.

Actually, Tree seems to have come up with a sensible suggestion for a fix - there must be objects that can be added to server maps to deter this sort of tactic. They don't need to be in amongst every group of trees, just the ones most likely to be abused - i.e. near airfields, and exposed ones on hilltops etc. Perhaps someone should look at the server map with 'low' trees setting (so they avoid putting too many hazards where there are few trees visible), and add some at random - to discourage cheating, they could be moved around every so often. I've no idea how many could be added before it started to cause problems though - this might need a little experimentation.

10. Q: I can fly through trees without receiving any damage.

A: Since Cliffs of Dover has more shrubbery in it than perhaps any other flight sim developed so far - hundreds of thousands of trees around the player - enabling collision for the trees grinds the game to a complete halt, especially as they need to be tracked around every plane on the map and not just the player's. Making collisions less precise leads to equally poor results, when planes may fly through a tree but crash into seemingly empty space.
We know this is extremely important. The solution is there, but it still eludes us.

Taken from Luthier's FAQ:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=19819

+1 on the every 3rd tree having a hitbox . . .

they'd have to code it so when forest is selectable to remove the hitboxes w/ the trees when forest is unchecked, or we'd be back to the invisible tree thing.

Heck I wouldn't mind even if it was every 10th tree had a hitbox, most planes going low will quickly smack the 10th tree.

Unless the game's architecture is designed that putting hitboxes for trees will lead to a cascade effect that breaks more stuff than fixes, but that is just merely speculation . . . why Luthier said it was a no fix.

Also if he said that, did he give a time frame? In a situation like this, it would be a no fix because bigger fish to fry but once its up and working find and dandy . . . then it would be doable.


TreeUK, any chance of finding that post where Luthier said he wasn't going to fix the no collision tree thing?

Tree reinterprets the facts to fit his personal viewpoint. I've gone through pages of Luthier's posts and only found a couple where he mentions it's a severe problem but nowhere that I have read does he say it will not be fixed.

Tree, either provide a direct quote or stfu.

What does STFU mean?? Anyway Im sorry guys you are right, just found this quote from Oleg,

"In Il-2 we have two types of trees - with collision model and without. These that are without are graphical feature and loads with maximum settings. It was don that to make equal gameplay of players with different power of their PC and its settings. In BoB we will have only type with collision model".

So it appears that the collision model is working its just that we are not tuned into it correctly.

Maybe a solution to this could be to limit the collision detection boxes only to those trees with some likelihood of an aircraft collision.

The whole map may have hundreds of thousands of trees, but most missions only have aircraft over a small portion of this - usually in fact a very limited area. Activate the collision detection within say a 5 or 10 mile radius of where the planes actually are and ONLY if they are below a certain altitude.

It would be similar to the way the lod switching is done - only it would have to track all aircraft not just the player's.

I raised this idea before and it still seems like a good solution to me. But it is also true that I know absolutely nothing about game development, so it may not be technically feasible for some reason or another? :confused:

Heres a question.....this speedtree stuff, lets say you are playing online and you flew past a tree, would the same tree be in the same place on the other machines world? or are the trees randomly generated by each machine?

Its not cheating. Its open to everyone. If you want to do it, you can do it. The fact that you don't is commendable, I don't do it either, but its a choice not "cheating".

Eventually what needs to be added is invisible low poly "fences in the large wooded areas to insure that if you do it enough you will pay the price and not know where you can and cannot do it..

No they should be the same for all, the problem only arises when one player has trees on low and another has it as a higher setting then you could see someone flying through a tree that you see but he doesn't therefore I expect until a solution is found most will fly online with trees on low.

Solution? Perhaps model all trees with crashboxes, then have a server-enforced graphics setting forcing all players that join to have the same tree detail level. This way it would be equal for all, and yet optional.

Thanks for the tactical tip-off Furbs, I'll try and remember that one, once the online stuff works!

Gentleman? Honourable? Naaaah!:grin:

in il2 1946 it didnt. i had a very heated argument on how a friend managed to crash land only 15 cm from a tree, and he insisted there was no tree. we both took prints of the situation and trees were scatered in differente places!

In 1946, it would depend on whether you were both running in open GL or Direct X, and if in open GL, whether your conf.ini's were set the same. i.e. Forest=1,2,3 or 4.

I've seen 3d trees on the runway many a time in IL2, and you could take-off and land straight through them, so this isn't a new thing for the IL2 series.:)

Hi Furbs,

The thread became five pages long already so please forgive if somebody has posted the solution/ comment already.

Trees, well don't sit around, grab an axe... sorry it is not mine, but it is hilarious... in a way.

Trees, why on earth do YOU have so many trees in YOUR settings! :-o
You have no sig with your rig so I presume you run with two GTX580 and decided to sacrifice some of your 150Fps (obviously with mirrors on) to get some trees in :-D

We fly on the same server so on my settings, there are no trees ;) Ecologically embarassing ;) but, it does the trick.

The same discussion took place when the clouds model came after one IL2FB patch. The guys who had realistic and many clouds were trying to hide inside and were screaming at the "cheaters" who were able to see and shoot through clouds :-D
Until they realised they had to better take them off just as everybody else....

So yes, tactic! maybe but with limited strategic value. You can fix it and that is the end of it.

Of course it would be nicer to have damage models for trees but we have way too many trees and they are an fps killer (for this generation of graphics cards).

My 2cts.

~S~

Talking balls, trees can't have "hitboxes because it would kill the server". Tree with no hitbox = 1. Tree with hitbox = 2. It's a data-point with a nominal value. The reason the trees have no 'hitboxes' is because the game was coded by chimps. That's why the entire enchilada is a bus-wreck.

+1, I was about to suggest something similar.

Not having flown through the trees before, what is the graphics like. You'ld have to be a bit desperate to be flying below 10m completely blind. Maybe they could just have irregular terrain in forested areas?

Cheers!

Yes, good idea in the interim. Couldn't this be done in FMB anyway?

Also, I don't see how it can broadly be called cheating when you can turn forests off. The pilot may be flying low but not in forest on his machine.

Anyone see this, or am I on everyone's ignore list?:rolleyes:

Perfect!

Just turn off forest in competitive MP. Simple as that.

What if there were collision boxes for, say, 1/4 of the trees.

Then you would never know which ones they were and it would make this stupidity very risky.

Are you serious? So creating a configuration file variable auto-magically does all the coding for you in the back end? I'm going to open my config file tonight and put in fw190=1 and I'll be flying the butcher bird all night! Sweet! :grin:

Your solution ignores creating the objects in the physics engine. Sure the flipping a bit from 0 to 1 is simple but that's only a parameter value, what happens in the background? Going from no collision model to suddenly every tree has a collision model would require creating each tree in the physics engine. I'm not a software developer so I don't even know what goes into creating hit boxes but I can appreciate that just doing that would eat up resources with a map of this size.

Sorry, must have missed it.

The trees on runways were always a pain.

It wouldn't be so bad it the programmers had a bit of a sense of humor. Like getting a screen full of leaves or a squirel spread eagled accross your centre of view. Still you'd need hit boxes!

Maybe they could check for forested areas and cause damage if your below a certain height

Cheers!

+1 on the squirrel, great idea!

If it was a forest sim yes, but as the idea is to simulate ww2, then I dont think this turns a sim into a game, how many times in the BOB did pilots fly below tree top height?

well when you have to finde a flat space for a crash landing, this is most about killing inmersion and online fairness, plus you said RoF doesn't have the same amount of trees/buildings, but even the dead trees in nomansland has collition boxes, and you have entire huge forests with collition boxes that make a low level fight a challenge, touch a tree top and you can end up in the ground

Only once I would think! ;)

What Luthier said was that there were so many solid objects (buildings) on the map, if they made the trees solid it would bring the game to a standstill. But several people have already given the solution, make a small percentage of trees solid, it could be a low amount, say 5% (or less) of the total, so it you flew into a forest you would not last more than five seconds without hitting one, this would deter losers from trying this tactic. I would have no problem if they reduced the amount of buildings (a small amount) and added them in as tress in to keep the number of soild objects the same or close to the same.

Though I agree this is not a cheat, it certainly is a lame exploit.

JD
AKA_MattE

IMO this issue is a large immersion killer, and I would be quite annoyed if I saw people using trees to hide in. Obviously the effect becomes much more noticable with ground attack missions, which quite a number of people focus on.

IL2 seemed to do it alright - except for the "invisible from underneath" bit.

I don't buy the "can't do it" argument, I think it's more "can't be bothered to do it", since it seems a pretty important thing to me. The dev's can't simulate each and every eddie that occurs with turbulent air flow, but they have written some good simplified algorythms to give a practical result. I would have expected the same with trees collisions.

With individual random style trees I don't particularly care, but not with forests.

Thats why i asked him first, he admited it...it was his "escape tactic" :(

Even the Speccy had solid trees!

http://www.twinbee.org/hob/play.php?snap=deathchase

I played that! (shows my age)

Yeah, that's pretty poor form. Definitely an exploit.

I don't see the big issue or why people are getting their knickers in a twist.

Flying through trees will hardly keep you alive.. I find it hard to believe its a successful tactic. They can hardly stay in the trees long enough to loose you.

The lack of collision mesh is a suitable compromise. If you look at the other sims we can compare to.. neither DCS BlackShark or A10c have tree collision mesh, Rise of Flight has a poorly modelled one that does not truly represent the actual tree. You can fly very close to the tree but hit its mesh, i find that more annoying.

i don't expect collision mesh will ever be added and it does not concern me one iota, flying through then is hardly a big exploit.

+1

If the trees 'aren't there' (no hit box) why bother looking at them? BERLIN and the other dweebs will get a surprise when you shoot them down at 30 feet :)

I suggested ages ago the simple solution of a selection of different size Forest blocks with single hit boxes, acting rather like a vertical terrain extension as someone else suggested. A large forest can be built with a few larger blocks, a copse with a small one. After all where in CoD is there a historically accurate forest and who really cares if individual branches aren't waving? They could always put a perimeter of the 'no hitbox' trees round the edge if people want that. The individual stand-alone trees with no hit box don't matter and can stay as there's nowhere to hide.

That would also bring a huge improvement in fps.

If you like the idea go here to vote for it:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...d=1#post305762

Why not? If escaping player has trees off, he only need to find large patch of green (where forest is supposed to be) and fly over it low enough. Not very hard thing to do.

But the problem is not that escape exploit only. In old IL2 or RoF there is always a reason not to fly over large forest with dying engine, in CoD there isn't any such reason. It is bizarre how ditching inside forest works well in CoD. This will become even more obvious and annoying when we will get to Eastern front, where fighting altitudes are lower.

Anyone remember that development shot of the Hurricane crash landed in the tree's and we wondered how it got there?
;)

Bit of a flaw in the logic there.. as if the escaping player has trees off how the hell can even find the trees let alone stay in them!

Either way its easy to follow someone through a forest.. they are not very big in CloD.

If an individual has a big issue with it.. i suppose they will have to turn trees off.

Maybe a good compromise would be to have VERY simple collision mesh, say just a truck much like a telegraph pole.. that would make landing in them and flying through them a little more interesting! :grin:

There is distinct dark green texture where trees should be. Very easy to find.

the solution could be simple i think.

make a 2D forest like in il2 first of name who'll be covered by reall tree with high graphic option.

Good Idea, If they were inside the other forrest they wouldn't even need to be rendered.

Do they have telephone/ power line object, that could be strund at random through the forrest?

Cheers

hey guys, best WW2 sim with ghost trees....omg lol

stick it on the list please Luthier, please can you put it just above dynamic weather and DX11, but not before MP Sound.

That's why i said there's no solution until it's a server enforced setting.

The way i see it a stop-gap solution would be relatively simple to achieve:

1) Forest blocks get a collision boundary, a simple invisible outline like a fence (similar to the solutions proposed by others during the course of this thread)...this would not be for individual trees but for blocks of trees.
2) Different graphics settings means different size of forests which in turn means different placement of the collision boundaries.
3) Servers force all players to fly with the same graphics settings for trees to sidestep that mismatch
4) We now all see the same amount of trees in the server and forests are collidable
5) People cry about having their detail settings lowered "wtf? is this why i bought quad SLI GTX 590s for?"

You know it's going to happen :-P



That's exactly what this discussion reminds me of. I wasn't flying online much and i wasn't sure about how it all happened, so thanks for confirming it ;)

Collidable trees are not such complex problem. You don't need to check every tree. You only need to check nearby trees. This usually is accomplished by using octree data structure, which divides space into smaller cells, whose in turn are divided further. This way, when you search "nearby" trees, you begin your "walk" from largest cell (part of map) where aircraft is, then choose smaller one inside the previous one and so on, until you get the set of smallest ones, whose can contain part of your plane. This way even if you have million of trees, you will check only 0-10 of them. It is not something unusual and is widely used.

Problems arise when you have lots of objects to check their collisions with trees. However, if only planes were checked, that object count would not be so big. In DCS, the problem is not collision detection itself, it is possible, but people want more: fire and detection cover provided by trees. That and AI pathfinding is problematic.

I just thought...are we all seeing the same trees? If we are on the same detail level that is.

ofcourse if this wants to be a serious sim we all should see trees (shouldnt be as an option to turn off - rsather, let them optimise the sim WITH trees) but we should be able to adjust the complexity of textures and shadows of trees...like we can in other sims...serious or not

as long one can set the amount of trees, collision modell for these will not work IMHO !

In il2 there were two kind of trees, fixed ones, mostly around villags, with collision, and otheres in free area, without one.

If you cant collide with tree then the trees are not there. Its up to the developers to fix this glitch. All online games have glitchers its just the way it is.

"In Il-2 we have two types of trees - with collision model and without. These that are without are graphical feature and loads with maximum settings. It was don that to make equal gameplay of players with different power of their PC and its settings. In BoB we will have only type with collision model".

This promise was the one where I thought: this will make a difference in my gameplay. I will not use CEM or so, but out side landings are a lot of fun when you need to find a big field without trees, I really like this in ROF, and the runways there need to be shorter so it's simpler there.
When you have an engine failure in cod you can just glide to your airfield, see if you'll make it. (avoid villages) and flare when the ground comes too close, it doesn't matter that you glide through 20 trees, and for me that is a big immersion killer.
In ROF I once landed near a forest and taxid all the way trough it avoiding every tree seperatly, I got my wing stuck on one of them and I liked the realism.
With the new forest distance you can see how many forests there are in ROF, I doubt there are less trees than in COD.

Well my feeling is that eventually the devs will pay it some attention, it has been shown they do pay some attention to our demands, for now is it not possible to live without crashable trees? it's a flight sim not a luberjack sim.

IRL if you fly a plane close to the ground and hit a tree what happens? This is a simulator, the effect of flying too low and hitting a tree should be simulated. It has nothing to do with lumberjacks or tactics, trees are objects in the COD virtual world that one should not be able to fly an aircraft thru, just like buildings, other aircraft or the ground.

But I do agree with Tree_UK, MP sound, well sounds all the way around, should be the top priority IMO, this can wait because I think it will take them some time to figure out.


JD
AKA_MattE

XXX ? >>>> http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=24158

Does not represent the actual tree?




And I suggest you start to use yours also before posting abuse again.

As I said before I would be good with the devs sacrificed some buildings to make some trees that would cause a collision and not add to the number of objects which would hurt FPS, that way you would have to at least attempt to avoid the trees for fear of hitting one that had a collision model. Hopefully Oleg had something in mind when he said that all trees will have a collision model in BOB, but that was a long time ago and the realities of COD are most likely different.

As for buying a new sim when you crash, really? Is that the best argument you can come up with for why this should not be addressed?

JD
AKA_MattE

I realy don t understand some people here..
some say collision with trees are not that important because fights happen in higher altitutes. For me not being able to colide with trees is big immersion killer, because if your plane was hit and you can not make it to your airfield, you have to find a place to get down without hittin trees, how it was/ is in reality, or/and also if doing ground attack with for axample bf 110. Then why simulate trees, only for eyecandy? I think the devteam must work on it, is a high priority along other issues.
My 2 cents

Steady on mate no need for that kind of talk, I think what he's saying is the graphical model and the physics model don't line up. So you can hit the tree even when visually you just missed it or vice versa.

I like this idea, even if 1 in 10 trees had a hit box, it would be very risky to fly into the forests

Ah good, so you will be fixing this issue, as I imagine only a skilled programmer would know enough about programming to be able to call other programmers chimps, so how long until you release the fix?

Actually I often look for a forest in ROF when crashing, the trees often enable you to survive a nasty crash as they break the planes fall.

The method your describing is Portal Collision Detection and only works when a collision is actually taking place, it increases the detection resolution of two objects and is only effecive in relatively low poly count environments (by low I mean a First Person Shooter type environment). The problem we're faced with still remains, the game engine still needs to track every tree in the game world. If your plane hits tree[532354, x, y, z] for example it can then use the Portal Method to do the calcualtions for all the bits flying everywhere.

The only immediate solution I can see is to group all the tress into one large bounding box, similar to how IL2 1946 works now. In fact I think it would be ok to have the 1946 style as its worked well for us for so many years.

[QUOTE=JimmyBlonde;305924]

Wow, maybe if you had managed to read all the way to the end of the paragraph it might have made more sense to you. As for why you feel the need to insult my for this opinion i really cant understand. Maybe Freud, if still alive, could tell me :rolleyes:

would, instead of hitboxing each tree(?) but hitboxing the forest, be a viable option?

ie the hitbox would be set to the size of the forest

Like in IL2, but u will still have trees u can fly through. There are simply to many individual trees to give all of them individual hitboxes. And how do we know witch has hotboxes and witch doesnt. I can just see the thread's about that.

Maby in 5 years when our pc`s can handle it.

Hit boxes for forest like the 1946 sounds like it is the only way forward.

or more powerfull PCs in around two years.....

hahah nice one

haha

maybe in 5 years :)

but, the forest I meant was the boundary (edges and tops) of the entire forest/ clump, (perhaps combining the clump into the forest proper) not individual trees