CoD vs some other sims that model Kent?

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Uh hu
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...607#post272607

your trolling is getting old - you sitting here more or less by yourself protesting about how much WOP sucks (oh you smart one, you can even make jokes about its name!) and when others disagree all you do is insult them, except you are coming from a mostly subjective POV and you really have nothing to back up what you are saying. Also in those photos if you look into the distance there is a haze btw.

Its actually kind of funny seeing all your sad 1 line retorts. Maybe I wouldnt have to call you on this if you had not harrased me earlier with smart ass comments?

Heliocon, look at all the photographs I posted. The real world is not covered in green puke like the WoP world. That is not a subjective view, that is a fact.

There is haze in the distance in the photographs I posted. It is virtually identical to the haze in CoD.

[David Hayward]

Real world = no green puke

[David Hayward]

No green puke

[David Hayward]

Even with overcast sky there is no green puke.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

That's why I never have to worry when I respond to your posts.

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Heliocon, look at all the photographs I posted. The real world is not covered in green puke like the WoP world. That is not a subjective view, that is a fact.

There is haze in the distance in the photographs I posted. It is virtually identical to the haze in CoD.

I agree with you, COD's visuals are in many ways more realistic (although I think they should tweak the color scheme, but it may look perfectly fine when they implement weather). Of the pictures on this page, the last one I can see a haze in, and the first two posted here I see a distinct haze in the distance which while not as obvious as WOP, is definitly there.
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=22249&page=7

So then the problem comes down to yet again optimization, the "green puke" (which I really dont think is as bad as you say, because its a background technique and very discrete) is a work around for display far off objects. Now in COD you can see further technically, but that doesnt actually mean when your playing in the game, even at full zoom you can make out details that far away. They could easily implement trees at a certain distance as sprites, same with buildings (lots of games do this) and have the speed tree operate only at a distance where you can tell if the tree is a sprite. Same with buildings.

As for collisions while they do have to track each plane, all they need to do is: P=plane, G=ground, A=altitude from nearest ground surface, V=velocity.
Using simple equations they should create a bubble around each aircraft. So trees only receive hitboxes when a plane is within a certain limited distance, adjusted for velocity/speed so a plan flying low speed at low altitude has a larger spherical bubble around it for tree generation BUT a plane diving at high speed would warp/extend the bubble in a direction in order for the game to make required calculations in time for a potential impact (helping to eliminate lag/stutter). I have minimal programming knowledge, as I have said I am more into graphics design, but there are techniques out there that have been used for years to remedy these exact issues. With todays tech it should not be an issue at all, especially the horrible performance over cities. (This is why I was jumping up and down for the later quater of 2010, because I knew there was going to me some major bottlenecks in the game if they wanted to implement everything they said without DX11).

But thank you for the polite reply, so I will pay the same respect back to you.

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

So then the problem comes down to yet again optimization, the "green puke" (which I really dont think is as bad as you say, because its a background technique and very discrete) is a work around for display far off objects. Now in COD you can see further technically, but that doesnt actually mean when your playing in the game, even at full zoom you can make out details that far away. They could easily implement trees at a certain distance as sprites, same with buildings (lots of games do this) and have the speed tree operate only at a distance where you can tell if the tree is a sprite. Same with buildings.

They are clearly not done with CoD. I'm sure they will continue to work on making it look better. But it's pretty clear that they have an excellent base to start with.

Originally Posted by Heliocon

As for collisions while they do have to track each plane, all they need to do is: P=plane, G=ground, A=altitude from nearest ground surface, V=velocity.
Using simple equations they should create a bubble around each aircraft. So trees only receive hitboxes when a plane is within a certain limited distance

The problem is that they still have to calculate all these things for every tree on the map. When you say "within a certain limited distance", they currently still have to calculate what the distance is for every tree and every aircraft. That is a lot of calculations even if you're only checking for aircraft which are close enough to trees that you should be checking for collisions.

I would fix it by breaking up the map into boxes. I would constantly keep track of which box the aircraft is in and only check it's distance from trees in that box. However, I have no idea if that is even possible with their engine. It might not be. But eventually I am sure they will find a fix.

But thank you for the polite reply, so I will pay the same respect back to you.

If you can refrain from calling me a moron, I can try to treat you with respect. But you have to give the devs a break. What they are trying to do is not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. I have more than 20 years of programming experience with hospital software. When I make a mistake it could cause one of our users to kill a patient, and they don't get as upset when they have a problem with our software as many in here have got about this game. It's a game. No one is going to die. Lighten up a little.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

They are clearly not done with CoD. I'm sure they will continue to work on making it look better. But it's pretty clear that they have an excellent base to start with.



The problem is that they still have to calculate all these things for every tree on the map. When you say "within a certain limited distance", they currently still have to calculate what the distance is for every tree and every aircraft. That is a lot of calculations even if you're only checking for aircraft which are close enough to trees that you should be checking for collisions.

I would fix it by breaking up the map into boxes. I would constantly keep track of which box the aircraft is in and only check it's distance from trees in that box. However, I have no idea if that is even possible with their engine. It might not be. But eventually I am sure they will find a fix.




If you can refrain from calling me a moron, I can try to treat you with respect. But you have to give the devs a break. What they are trying to do is not nearly as easy as you seem to think it is. I have more than 20 years of programming experience with hospital software. When I make a mistake it could cause one of our users to kill a patient, and they don't get as upset when they have a problem with our software as many in here have got about this game. It's a game. No one is going to die. Lighten up a little.

Programming for a game vs hospital software are too entirely different beasts, even if you program for a UI etc - the crossover is very minimal.
As for the calculations - reread the post, they dont need to calculate anything until the aircraft gets to a certain altitude, then the hitboxes would be generated, no calculations need to be made unless an impact occurs. Each tree would have a hitbox which is generated around it when an aircraft gets close, since the game irrespective of trees has to track the aircraft anyway,you can impement a "if" and "then" scenario. This is likely what they they already tried (luthier mentioned that they tried hitboxes when I suggested it, but also said they have to do it for every tree in the game and every plane *facepalm*). Its not an excellent base if it doesnt work, its not that the game has problems, its that the problems it has should not be an issue/should not even be there for a modern game. Over that unfortunetly they developed it in a way that is limiting them from offloading work to additional cores/threads. For god sake a ipad 2 has 2 cores, why do people still use 1 core machines?...

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Programming for a game vs hospital software are too entirely different beasts, even if you program for a UI etc - the crossover is very minimal.
As for the calculations - reread the post, they dont need to calculate anything until the aircraft gets to a certain altitude, then the hitboxes would be generated, no calculations need to be made unless an impact occurs. Each tree would have a hitbox which is generated around it when an aircraft gets close, since the game irrespective of trees has to track the aircraft anyway,you can impement a "if" and "then" scenario. This is likely what they they already tried (luthier mentioned that they tried hitboxes when I suggested it, but also said they have to do it for every tree in the game and every plane *facepalm*). Its not an excellent base if it doesnt work, its not that the game has problems, its that the problems it has should not be an issue/should not even be there for a modern game. Over that unfortunetly they developed it in a way that is limiting them from offloading work to additional cores/threads. For god sake a ipad 2 has 2 cores, why do people still use 1 core machines?...

Programming is programming, and you're not a programmer. You are in no position to "facepalm" over anything Luthier tells you.

[Heliocon]

Originally Posted by David Hayward

Programming is programming, and you're not a programmer. You are in no position to "facepalm" over anything Luthier tells you.

Java, programming is not just programming, because when you say that it makes you look rather stupid. Any qualifications you claim here and cannot back up make you look idiotic. Programming simple operations for utilities is NOTHING like programming a game engine. Different language, different requirments. Also you are not a programmer either, unless you are willing to publish your personal details I would say argument from authority is best left unsaid.

You sound like a kid who knows how to play a song on a guitar and since he can do that, he can conduct an orchestra. Also please expand on what equipment you programme exactly? Does it use hitboxes?

[David Hayward]

Originally Posted by Heliocon

Java, programming is not just programming, because when you say that it makes you look rather stupid. Any qualifications you claim here and cannot back up make you look idiotic. Programming simple operations for utilities is NOTHING like programming a game engine. Different language, different requirments. Also you are not a programmer either, unless you are willing to publish your personal details I would say argument from authority is best left unsaid.

You sound like a kid who knows how to play a song on a guitar and since he can do that, he can conduct an orchestra. Also please expand on what equipment you programme exactly? Does it use hitboxes?

The sort of programming I do is absolutely nothing like programming a game, that's why I never even considered offering solutions to Luthier. It's also why I'm only using generalities.

You said that you have minimal programming knowledge. Where do you get the nerve to criticize something when you have virtually no experience of your own?