A slider to scale back the number of unimportant buildings

[Capn kamikaze]

In the interests of performance if we could scale back the building density of small buildings such as houses to reduce the memory burden on systems.

[Weta43]

Hmm, but then some missions that depend on no LOS will not work, and tracks (assuming they work) may not be transferable from person to person because someone took a gap that doesn't exist for another player.

 

Helicopters & CA being the obvious problem children, how do they play online if there are different cities depending on your graphics settings ?

 

That was part of why the old trees - that you could turn down - had no collision models or LOS blocking - so graphics options didn't break MP.

[dolfo]

Make it a Mission Editor feature not adjustable by players/clients?

[RagingIguana]

I can understand where you are coming from with this, but I would have to say this could be a bad idea.

In some of the missions I have created, and I suspect I am not the only one to do so, I prefer to use the actual scenery objects as legitimate targets instead of the static objects as there are not enough different varieties of static building types.

This is a somewhat laborious task to do as it involves placing zones over each building I want as a target, and then running a script to detect the scenery ids for these objects which I then write to a file to be used in my missions.

 

As you can imagine, this could lead to some users not having those scenery objects in game if they were able to reduce the amount that were shown

[shagrat]

Make it a Mission Editor feature not adjustable by players/clients?

 

That is already in. A zone that removes "Scenery Objects"...:smartass:

[dimitrischal]

Buy some more memory. It might sound harsh but it’s the better option all around.

[dolfo]

That is already in. A zone that removes "Scenery Objects"...:smartass:

 

As I read it, OP asked for density control, not total area cleanup.

[shagrat]

As I read it, OP asked for density control, not total area cleanup.

I was answering to the ME feature. Place dozens of small zones and you can "reduce the density" in a Mission if necessary.

 

In general, the whole idea of having a user controlled slider that changes the environment is a bad idea for the reasons above.

 

It may sound harsh, but either tweak the settings or worst case invest into hardware.

[Capn kamikaze]

Sorry but how can giving the user the ability to change something be a bad thing...... you don't have to use it....

 

If a building is specifically an important building, ie you've made it a target in the ME then it could be excluded from it so it shows up regardless of setting.

[Capn kamikaze]

Buy some more memory. It might sound harsh but it’s the better option all around.

 

Not all of us have a budget that allows us to just do that, so making a request to scale back something like that is not unreasonable, and again, if you don't want/need to do it then don't, also MP servers can enforce rules so if they want everything shown then it is, so MP is not an excuse to not do it.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Cap'n kamikaze

[Capn kamikaze]

Helicopters & CA being the obvious problem children, how do they play online if there are different cities depending on your graphics settings ?

 

Simple, the server settings are enforced on everyones computer, if that means that I can't go on that server, then I find/host another one with more reasonable system demands, and servers can always put an indication of what they've set it to in their description or even have it visible in the lobby so you know what you're joining before you hit join.

[shagrat]

Simple' date=' the server settings are enforced on everyones computer.[/quote']

That is why I recommend trying to use the zones in ME. That may be an option that is at least implemented.

My personal guess is, by the time a slider to reduce the buildings is on top of the list, there are other performance problems with the 8k resolution 280° FOV Virtual Reality headsets...

[dimitrischal]

Not all of us have a budget that allows us to just do that' date=' so making a request to scale back something like that is not unreasonable, and again, if you don't want/need to do it then don't, also MP servers can enforce rules so if they want everything shown then it is, so MP is not an excuse to not do it.[/quote']

 

I agree but this could cause complications regarding collisions and obstacle detection in missions or tracks as pointed out even if the settings are synced. And besides why should a mission maker play test an mission in all object count settings? As if he doesn’t have enough work already. And besides everyone has Caucasus which has huge numbers of objects and trees and few rarely complain.

Edited June 12, 2018 by dimitrischal

[Capn kamikaze]

I don't think you understand how this will work, it wouldn't just remove them visually, it would remove them in sim, so if you don't see it, it isn't there, so no collision, and in MP it would be determined by the server settings, and if you DL the mission and it would then reference your slider, I'm sure the AI would avoid a building if it's in their path if the slider makes it appear in mission, since they already do avoid obstacles.

 

I really don't get all the negativity to something you can CHOOSE to use or not.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Cap'n kamikaze

[shagrat]

I don't think you understand how this will work, it wouldn't just remove them visually, it would remove them in sim, so if don't see it, it isn't there, so no collision, and in MP it would be determined by the server settings, and if you DL the mission and it would then reference your slider, I'm sure the AI would avoid a building if it's in their path if the slider makes it appear in mission, since they already do avoid obstacles.

 

I really don't get all the negativity to something you can CHOOSE to use or not.

It seems you don't understand how an object database works. For example, objects in DCS have a unique ID (number) that you can use to reference e.g. in scripts to identify a bridge destroyed or a certain building bombed to rubble. Now, to "remove" objects from the database (with a slider or whatever) isn't just "create less buildings" it would require to either compile a new database at runtime, or to flag objects in the database as "deleted" so they are not rendered/visible along with their 3D collision model.

 

Flagged as deleted will remove the objects from the scene, yes. Unfortunately after the CPU cycle to identify the object as deleted has already been used.

In the end the result is less objects with a marginal better performance if at all, as I doubt the rendering on the GPU is eating the performance, but to check each object in the database is.

To compile a new database at runtime means you need someplace to store the new one in memory, ignoring the fact this takes usually some noticeable amount of time, plus it will likely cause consistency issues with scripts, other parts of the sim etc.

 

TLDR a slider to dynamically reduce scenery objects is a bad idea. Use the normal graphics settings to adjust to your hardware.

[gavagai]

Just set visibility range to medium in settings.