Ground vehicles in DCS and reguarding trees

[graywo1fg]

i dont get why it would be a performance issue??? the trees are there and we cant see through them so how would it be any different then a building? just make it solid? but then again i'm no modeler :P

[Slayer]

i dont get why it would be a performance issue??? the trees are there and we cant see through them so how would it be any different then a building? just make it solid? but then again i'm no modeler :P

 

My limited understanding of it:

 

Now, the trees are no more than a texture.....eye candy

 

To render all the trees as solid objects, you'd have to make tree models and render them using polygons instead of just painting a texture on the screen. Texturing uses considerably less horsepower than rendering then texturiing. Potentially a big performance hit but its possible. Arma does trees and grass really well. You can crush over the smaller trees with your tank and get stuck against larger trees. If you fly into them with a chopper you will definately crash.

 

They are woking on a new engine for this series because the orignial engine was made for DX8 and even though its upgraded to take advantage of DX9 in this version, it would require so much recoding it's not worth it.

[EvilBivol-1]

We've covered this in pre-release in our Q&A and FAQ. Making collidable trees in the current engine at this time was not practically possible. They tried making the native trees collidable and they tried implementing the Speedtree engine. Neither solution was practical. Not only because it severely impacted performance, but because the AI had no idea how to operate with solid trees in their way. This is not a trivial problem and finding a solution will require a more "ground up" approach, where the game engine, the AI, the weapons modeling and the sensors modeling can account for solid trees.

 

Again, I want to remind our newcomers that this is something we covered extensively over the past couple of years.

 

ArmA uses a completely different game engine designed around different priorities. The fact that it has solid trees has nothing to do with DCS.

Edited November 24, 2008 by EvilBivol-1

[Slayer]

I didnt mean to imply that it was viable in the current engine. I just meant that it was something that could be done on current hardware.

 

Personally I could care less about the trees being solid in this sim. I still marvel at how good Lockon looks even compared to FSX. It's 4 or 5 years older and still looks better than FSX.....and you can blow stuff up :P

[EvilBivol-1]

Rgr Slayer, my reply was to the audience in general, not you specifically. :)

[JimMack]

Please understand that collidable trees is a function of the area to be modelled. Arma has a tenth of the area of the 300,000 sq kms of Black Shark. It is cpu bound.

[Blacknemisis]

Lockon looks nowhere near as good as FSX.

[Peyoteros]

FSX Flight model and weapon systems (if any) is nowhere near as good as LockOn.

[patricio_z]

Could this be so difficult to add in a mod??? they are already importing new/custom structures in FC which if I´m not mistaken are collidable, so whats the problem in adding invisible and very simplified boxes/extruded shapes roughly covering the areas with trees that matters (we dont need that on mountain sides), as someone already said, those shapes are alerady on the map editor, is this so crazy to implement? I would hate being fired upon by enemies buried in the middle of a forest who I cant see...for me this is the biggest letdown of an otherwise perfect sim

[patricio_z]

On second thought, this also could be implemented with coding, X meters above area with trees, helicopter explode, missile/round disappear...I dont mind AI keep seeing me, shooting at me or running through the trees, I only want that those rounds never reach my chopper

[Tango]

Hi,

 

Why not just have simple bounding boxes that if you fly into them, you crash, and if bullets/rockets/whather try to fly through them, "crash" as well? Other than that, it shouldn't impact AI (make them invincible to it or something).

 

It's only a human pilot problem really. I can't believe it wasn't manageable.

 

Plus side is in human MP, the trees really exist, so human vs. human, you get all the benefits.

 

Just my 0.016c (better post now before the exchange rate collapses completely, LOL).

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[Bucic]

Making collidable trees in the current engine at this time was not practically possible.

 

Please understand that collidable trees is a function of the area to be modelled. Arma has a tenth of the area of the 300,000 sq kms of Black Shark. It is cpu bound.

 

It still doesn't explain why not reach for robust solution I drafted.

[Maverick-GER-]

1st off trees and bushes arent the best thing in ARMA either! 1st off AI can see through them too (except you got durgs vegetation fix)

2nd and probably most important Do not compare ARMA with a real simulation, arma has nice eyecandy yes... but no vehicles are really as detailed as any in DCS, Terrain is way smaller. (in my eyes arma is no combat simulation but a tactic shooter GAME)

 

why should they be working on a fix for trees if they are working on a new engine already

your fix of the trees issue is not the best either, by just by putting a "box" over tree areas you would hear people screaming like "i was 1 meter away from the tree, still my rotor broke" or something like that.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Maverick-GER-

[Legolasindar]

ArmA, or more good say, original OFP, is a SIMULATOR of infantry combat, with aditional of vehicles.

 

That difference has a game? A game is simple, with no touch of realism, of total linearity in its execution. A simulator focuses on the dynamics of a realistic and allows face the same problem in different ways.

Not only aircraft are simulators, so are the infantry, tanks, ships, submarines, helicopters.

Armed Assault is an unworthy successor to OFP, if I totally agree.

OFP is much better than Arma even with its limitations. And I have good hopes with OFP2.

Sims (Sims Party, Sims Dogs) that is NOT a simulator.:thumbup:

 

Sorry for my offtopic.:P

[EagleEye]

your fix of the trees issue is not the best either, by just by putting a "box" over tree areas you would hear people screaming like "i was 1 meter away from the tree, still my rotor broke" or something like that.

+1

I hate those tree`s in ARMA! They are like concrete blocks.

[McVittees]

Could this be so difficult to add in a mod??? they are already importing new/custom structures in FC which if I´m not mistaken are collidable, so whats the problem in adding invisible and very simplified boxes/extruded shapes roughly covering the areas with trees that matters (we dont need that on mountain sides), as someone already said, those shapes are alerady on the map editor, is this so crazy to implement? I would hate being fired upon by enemies buried in the middle of a forest who I cant see...for me this is the biggest letdown of an otherwise perfect sim

 

Darn! I was going to suggest that! :) Even if they weren't made collidable with the player (which isn't to much of a biggie for me) they should block AI LOS calculations and ground vehicle movement.

 

I'd be over the moon if ED added this!

[Acedy]

even in future DCS consoles i would be fine with being able to fly through trees but i just hate the ground units being able to see YOU through them :\

 

Well there is more truth in the first part of your statement than you might think. I completely agree that collidable trees that block the AI's view are needed for a helicopter sim, however 100% collidable trees aren't realistic either. If your read "Chickenhawk" for example you will be surprised about the stunts Huey pilots in Vietnam pulled off to get out of a small clearing when they couldn't hover and climb vertically. They flew right through the treetops, cutting off branches with no or little damage to the rotors. That's why I would like to see a more sophisticated tree collision model that does not just distinguish between no collision at all or 100% collision = crash.

[Coolhnd1]

Well there is more truth in the first part of your statement than you might think. I completely agree that collidable trees that block the AI's view are needed for a helicopter sim, however 100% collidable trees aren't realistic either. If your read "Chickenhawk" for example you will be surprised about the stunts Huey pilots in Vietnam pulled off to get out of a small clearing when they couldn't hover and climb vertically. They flew right through the treetops, cutting off branches with no or little damage to the rotors. That's why I would like to see a more sophisticated tree collision model that does not just distinguish between no collision at all or 100% collision = crash.

 

Now that would be cool. Fly through the tree tops and watch as branches and leaves go everywhere.:thumbup:

 

What people forget about games like ArmA is that as others have pointed out it's primarily a ground combat game. That means among other things that rendered distances are much smaller than in a sim like DCS. I don't know the specifics about ArmA but I'm guessing we're talking about the difference between say rendering 5 square miles as opposed to say 15 or 20 for DCS. That's a huge difference in terms of the number of trees it would have draw between one and the other. That's where the performance issue comes in.

[Bucic]

(...)I would like to see a more sophisticated tree collision model that does not just distinguish between no collision at all or 100% collision = crash.

 

My robust model does distinguish between gradual damage and collision :vertag: It inherits damage extent from modeling of collisions with power lines. :vertag:

[D__E]

In ARMA you could set draw distance from as little as a few hundred meters out to make my computer grind to a stop. Also when you crashed in the trees you would take trees out, cool effect :thumbup: Now cutting my fps in half for this to happen.... no thank you. I would be happy with a simple collision system with trees. Something with a little tolerance to chopper and blades as stated befor, and it doesnt have to happen today. Trees or not, I love this sim. :) Happy Flying

[Bucic]

I wonder if my post regarding possible simple solution to this is visible to anone except me...

[ocram]

I could live with non-collidable trees.

 

But that the trees give you no cover against AI is really bad.

[Maverick-GER-]

bucic come down from planet bucic...

it is a possible fix but not a perfect one either!

[Bucic]

bucic come down from planet bucic...

it is a possible fix but not a perfect one either!

And who says it's perfect? It is perfect in the meaning of:

- it is possible (not to say simple) to imnplement in the current engine

- it could have great effect/CPUcost ratio.

 

In fact it has a potential to get to the new DCS engine as future collidable trees alternative (option to choose) for lowER end computers IMO.

Edited November 27, 2008 by Bucic

[JHepburn]

Darn! I was going to suggest that! :) Even if they weren't made collidable with the player (which isn't to much of a biggie for me) they should block AI LOS calculations and ground vehicle movement.

 

I'd be over the moon if ED added this!

 

Made me think of this...great video.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4CQfaBGWSo

 

Jeff