Trees, I don't get it.

[Dmut]

you know Armed Assault(ArmA) is able to render 3D trees for kilometers away complete with infantries, tanks, vehicles, buildings, other choppers, etc fighting each other with an acceptable FPS, ONLINE! not to mention offline.

 

maybe ED should contact BIS studios and "Ask" them how they're able to do it.

 

Try to contact BIS and recommend them to modell 1000km terrain, will see the number of 3D trees and FPS then ;)

[VMFA117_Poko]

:)

 

I wonder which has a bigger hit for FPS - unvisible model but which one is collidable or visible model but not collidable? The solution to collidable trees as I said earlier would be (if it's possible ofcourse) not placing so many collidable models but one big box on high of tree top to allow ground units move under. Shape of this box would be what we see from satelite photo. In example if trees go parallel to the road - make a invisible collidable wall, if it's forrest - make a box with base in shape of that forrest seen from above. If it's wood on the hill, let it be box with planes parellel to the hill planes.

[Groove]

I`m interested in the performance of the new BIS Engine in terms of 20 km viewable terrain in front of you.

 

But it looks amazing.

[VMFA117_Poko]

Don't get it... You have seen new engine's possibilities already?

[Bucic]

ED team members are right. At least up to a point. You can't compare ArmA engine with BS engine taking into acount only view distance in kilometers. It's because scale in 3D world is relative.

 

IMO a fair comparison factor is POLYCOUNT. Prepare a scene with certain polycount level in both ArmA and LO/BS and you get two things you can base your >true and final< judgement on. One is the FPS and the second is overall look which is unmeasureable (yet possible to evaluate).

 

The scene can be prepared for LO/BS for sure (press ctrl+backspace 3 times or so). As for ArmA - i don't know.

 

The result CAN be ArmA will render the same amount of polys with higher FPS and better look. Then ArmA engine is better, more efficient - no matter if it's used for combat flight sim or a 3D chess game. But untill someone will measure it for me this "Arma vs BS engine" discussion is just a chit chat.

[einsena]

now now.. i didn't mean to start a flame war or something, sry if that came out wrong. i know that DCS features a highly ultra realistic Aircraft avionics and physics, i'm sure it's difficult to do in its own right. the attention to detail and simulating the most minute of systems has never been don before in a publicly available game/sim. kudos for ED!

 

then again in Arma's defense, sure it doesn't have realistic avionics its primary role was never for a flight sim, but that of a battle sim. also arma does somewhat have realistic weapons ballistics, physics and an intensive battlefield filled with fighting troops and armor, etc. with collidable, destroyable, 3D, FOV blocking trees. afterall an overhauled version of arma(VBS2) is used as a training sim for armies around the world.

 

AFAIK DCS have trees, but they're not collidable nor do they blocks AI FOV. a few months ago a forum member asked why ED didn't make it so, and the answer was that if such a thing was implemented then it would cause major slowdowns that it would render the game into a slide show. at this point all i really want is for ED to realease DCS ASAP! lol.

 

so i don't really mind about the trees now, but i hope in the near future ED will release a patch or addon that makes the trees more realistic. since i think that trees plays an integral part in a chopper maneuvering and battle strategy. peace out!

[amalahama]

Hi einsena.

 

Have you read this?

 

Q: There was earlier discussion of the use of “Speed Trees” in Black Shark. Will DCS use “Speed Trees”?

A: For this first iteration of DCS the answer is no. We experimented with “Speed Trees” in earlier builds but found that our proprietary tree generation technology provides much better results at medium and high altitudes and provides much better frame rates. We will revisit this technology in later iterations of the DCS.

 

Probably they know better than you if 3D trees are possible in the current engine :)

 

Regards!!

[AndyHill]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK Whirlwind over Vietnam used SpeedTree and it was neither smooth nor good looking. When ED get their new engine running it's going to be interesting to see what they can come up with, they're going to have a lot of extra computing power available in the form of multi-CPU support.

 

If you want examples of collision detection and trees I think FSX would be a better candidate for comparison than ArmA, it has trees and objects in comparable quantity and quality. By adjusting the number of visible objects it's possible to sort of determine how much of a performance hit they have (use low resolutions so that the video card isn't the bottleneck). I'm too lazy to run the comparison myself, but if someone goes through the trouble it would be interesting to see the results.

 

____________________________________________________________________

Lock on MUST have toe-brakes on an axis AND a dynamic campaign engine AND proper radio traffic