Trees

[Acedy]

Good point Jim, and it's not only true for Manpads. Recently I have been reading a few books on Vietnam chopper warfare, where the VC/NVA would often fire blindly through the foliage if they couldn't see but only hear the helicopters. Sure the accuracy was a lot lower but it still posed a real threat to the pilots.

[amalahama]

TFC/ED are looking at the collidable tree issue, but it could be a catastrophic frame rate hit, even using a bubble system over forests. There are many millions of trees in DSC.

 

Have you tested it passing all the calculation to another core or using CUDA/OpenCL?

 

Regards!!

[DMarkwick]

If I can pitch in my own opinion:

 

I'd like viewblockable & masking trees. Armed Assault has a similar number/density of trees and there's nice tree viewblock activity in there, with little impact on framerate.

 

In fact, one third-party addon for Armed Assault involves ramping up the viewblock elements of each tree, increasing the elements per tree by a factor of 5 or 10. Surprisingly, I did not see any framerate hit by using it, I guess not being rendered geometry helped out there. Black Shark would not need anything like the same number of elements per tree to get similar activity.

[GGTharos]

I think I'll remind you guys of this:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=584265&postcount=67

 

As for Armed Assault, that's great. They happen to have a pretty darned short view distance compared to DCS/Black Shark. The translates almost directly into nicer trees etc - and that's ignoring the post I linked to.

[DMarkwick]

I think I'll remind you guys of this:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=584265&postcount=67

 

As for Armed Assault, that's great. They happen to have a pretty darned short view distance compared to DCS/Black Shark. The translates almost directly into nicer trees etc - and that's ignoring the post I linked to.

 

Well, OK, I realise this is my first day here etc (having received and installed BS just yesterday) but in the spirit of conversation & the topic in hand, I'll reply :)

 

I guess the point I was making is that, if we take Armed Assault as an example (and I accept the different engine specs etc) then the visual impact of viewblock is minimal. There is no new rendering going on, the visual geometry is exactly the same. Only the AI view is affected.

 

As for collision, I guess for the purposes of BS only the helo itself needs to have collision logic, all the AI can continue to behave exactly as they do right now, i.e. no logic given over to collision avoidance with trees at all. I think that's perfectly acceptable. I guess an appropriate speed reduction to fake the effects of avoidance can be implemented, with exceptions given to vehicles on road surfaces.

[HansRoaming]

^^ I kinda fly as if the trees were solid anyway ... thats good enough for me for now..

 

Flying above (and sometimes alongside) some of the forested areas on the map can be visually very very dramatic and immersive to me ... a very good visual implementation of trees in my view.

 

Totally agree, I'd rather have them as they are than not at all.

[DarthElvis]

Nevertheless, in real life, a surprise stinger coming out of a heavily wooded area is a realistic threat. A stinger (MANPAD) would place himself in a clearing in a forest that had a reasonable field of view. Admittedly, he might wait a long time in the hope that a target would fly overhead!

Conversely, if an attack helicopter knew that a forest was in enemy territory, it would be prudent not to fly over it at a height within MANPAD range.

 

This much is true, but in real life, that manpad has to have a visual in order to lock me up. The AI in BS don't have to worry about that little detail - because they don't see the trees. In real life, I would be able to fly within 10 feet of the manpad guy, and if his view of me is obstructed by the forest canopy -no shot.

Radar guided AA has the same drawback.

I've got no problems with someone wanting to hide in the bushes (actually I do -they are damn annoying and can really ruin your day) but the visual obstruction that the trees provide should work both ways. I can see him being able to shoot at me from clearings and the edges of the treeline, but not from the middle of the freaking forest.

Again, collisions with trees is secondary to the trees being invisible to AI but not to me.

[Safari Ken]

This all sorta reminds me of how in IL-2, the AI can see at night, and through clouds. And just like in IL-2, the AI-invisible trees are disappointing but not THAT disappointing. I figure that a) the developers know more than me about developing a game, and are making an informed decision, and b) these "special abilities" for the AI are maybe just a trade-off, a way of helping make up for the fact that even good AI is still rather stupid, compared to a human (similar to how turning off the cockpit in IL-2 is available, to help make up for a non-headtracking lack of SA).

[PeterP]

Sorry to bring up a dead beaten horse again but I want to illustrate my point of view to this topic.

 

You also should know that I didn't read all posts - I overlooked them all - but It could happen that I missed some infos and what I'm writing is already said... :

 

My first impression after I discovered that there is no collide able model of the trees is similar to the one of Woodstock in post one :http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=582878&postcount=1.

 

But after I discovered the true depth of this sim/flight model ,I able to say that I can really life with it without lose of immersion.

 

#1

When fling a real helicopter you hardly would do what we "desktop pilots"

doing.

(edit: Serious: its not about the paperwork after your mission or having discussions with the maintenance/supervisor how the aircraft looks/your handling - its about Your life and the life of others!)

 

- A Real pilot would always be aware that only a slight touching of a treetop (even if its only the belly of the helicopter) can cause a fatal end of his mission.

And being only in the near of trees can also have the same cause - the downwash of the rotors can blow leafs and other parts of the trees up and collide with the rotors or be sucked into the airflow of the engines.

 

#2

Not to be able to hide in the trees when being under attack is sometimes annoying... , but a real operation wouldn't be done like in the "airwolf /rambo" style (sneaking trough small forests/buildings to your target) - because it can cause the same situation as in #1. And a combat helicopter is not made to hunt small vehicles/troops and also to fight against it - you have to clear the way for your own troops to be able to take them out.

So what I'm doing now in DCS when I enter this two situations above? :

 

When I'm flying a mission and take it very serious - and I'm sure that I have touched trees that would irritate my flying ... -I simply cancel the mission and redo it until I have done it without taking this unnecessary risk.

 

When I'm in situations that I'm know that the enemy can spot me through trees - I just try harder and work at my tactic. - or/and waiting the next generation of computer architecture that can handle a collide model of 10.000 trees at once.

 

Last sentence : what we have up to now in our hands is way more than I expected one year ago!

 

edit again ;): the only solution to issue #2 that comes in my mind is that someone of the devs would sit down and edit the whole map- and set something like trigger zones in it where the AI has a chance of , let's say, of 50% to spot a target. And this only to the areas where you have trees. (I thing it's quite a work - and this workaround would maybe cause other problems)

This would make it a little more real - but not as real as everyone would like it.

Edited December 15, 2011 by PeterP
Typos/structure/ect.

[Ramstein]

Yes, it's a pity that trees are like they are.

 

But let's talk about the myth of sneaking around behind trees.

 

.....

 

I have a little experience with being snuck on from aircraft over forests..

 

while I served in the USAF, I had some work in the forests in Europe... the aircraft would fly low and slow over the forests..

 

I was down there surrounded by trees and I could not see nor hear the aircraft until they already started to passed by over my head...

 

So don't think you can see or hear them coming... unless of course it is extrmely quiet and you have great hearing and a better view...

 

:P

 

btw, there were A-10's and Cobras that would fly over..

[arneh]

Not to be able to hide in the trees when being under attack is sometimes annoying... , but a real operation wouldn't be done like in the "airwolf /rambo" style (sneaking trough small forests/buildings to your target)

 

US Army helicopter doctrine was to fly nap-of-the-earth, right in amongst the trees. They don't do it in Iraq or Afganistan, that's not what works best there. But for the European theatre it's been part of their doctrine for a long time to fly right amongst the trees.

 

Have a look at http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/536.cfm?sd=71 which is a army training video from the 70s. There's lots of footage of helicopters flying in among the trees. And it's a great film to watch in any case, as it has some interesting information about anti-tank helicopter tactics :)

But also note that for the most part they are flying slowly when doing so, not racing around at 100+ kts.

[pbrad74]

Darn! Why didn't the developers realise it was that simple! Quick - PM them and enlighten them to their ignorance!:music_whistling:

 

:lol:

[Feuerfalke]

US Army helicopter doctrine was to fly nap-of-the-earth, right in amongst the trees. They don't do it in Iraq or Afganistan, that's not what works best there. But for the European theatre it's been part of their doctrine for a long time to fly right amongst the trees.

 

Have a look at http://www.realmilitaryflix.com/public/536.cfm?sd=71 which is a army training video from the 70s. There's lots of footage of helicopters flying in among the trees. And it's a great film to watch in any case, as it has some interesting information about anti-tank helicopter tactics :)

But also note that for the most part they are flying slowly when doing so, not racing around at 100+ kts.

 

This video also wasn't taken during a mythic flight for an advertisement video ;)

 

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

[PanelBuilder]

Maybe someone could make a few buildings that look exactly like trees and we can see how that works,

[Feuerfalke]

Maybe someone could make a few buildings that look exactly like trees and we can see how that works,

 

A few trees are not the problem. A forest is.

 

The number and detail of objects already has a huge impact on the performance.

[PeterP]

Panelbuilder,

take a ride in/around Krasnodar city and imagine that all trees you see while flying are also objects like this buildings. You have a huge FPS impact alone because of the buildings - and than count a battle and also the trees in it...

[btaft]

I'm not worried about having the capability of hitting trees, there are plenty of other things out there I can hit :)

[fox_111]

I'd also love to have collidable trees. In the mean time, I just avoid them out of principle.

 

Anyway, the one time I tried to take advantage of that "glitch" to stay as low as possible from SAM, I hitted a building hidden in the trees. Instant punishement for "cheating".

[RichardG]

Rise of Flight WW1 sim has fully colidable trees. Others can do it. I guess the blackshark engine is just too poopy to do it too.

 

(make a new engine)

[JimMack]

Rise of Flight WW1 sim has fully colidable trees.

 

How many trees are in "Rise of Flight?

[joey45]

Are you talking about making low poly trees...

[Devas]

A good idea would maybe be able to work large forested areas in blocks to prevent large amount of 3D objects, something like EECH, perhaps with some separation to allow some vehicles may be located there or transit. :book:

[PeterP]

Post #67:

 

Hello guys!

 

The biggest reason for trees to be non-collidable is because they consist of large 'blocks', 1-2km in size. We can make these blocks obstacles, with individual trees collidable, and get these results:

 

1. AI surface units get confused when these blocks intersect roads, they will not be able to move through or near forests areas at all.

 

2. Impossible to place surface units into the forest. Even if we force them there, they can't shoot from there.

 

3. AI aircraft & targeting get confused by corners of these blocks going beyond mountain slopes, they will see obstacles where there isn't one.

 

So, all in all, forests become just 'elevated' mountain slopes. With this block representation AI will not see clearings in the forests etc. To effectively model trees we have to keep them separate objects and then, with our huge territory, there are too many of them.

 

There are ideas on how to make trees work well, but it's not a quick fix, and I can't give you any time estimate. Really sorry about that.

 

Best regards

Grisha

[RichardG]

How many trees are in "Rise of Flight?

 

Have a look.

http://wwiaircombat.com/articles/rise-of-flight-promo-movie-7-trackir

 

More video:

http://wwiaircombat.com/games/rise-of-flight/videos/

Edited June 17, 2009 by RichardG

[CE_Mikemonster]

Just imported this from another (duplicate) thread:

 

Hi all,

I was reading the patch thread in which the issue of collidable vegetation was raised again. I realise ED have stated that this isn't going to be changed in the near future due to limitations of the current engine, but it occurred to me that there might be a way to get most of the benefits of collidable vegetation without making any major engine changes.

 

Currently the rendering code and the collision detection code presumably both use the same dataset of terrain mesh. Rather than add extra code to the collision detection to check if the heli is in contact with a tree model, couldn't a small modification be made so that the collision detection just uses a different terrain mesh? This modified mesh could have exactly the same number of verts as the original but in forested areas they would be raised to approximately treetop height.

 

In other words, the rendering engine would draw the world as in the first pic below, whereas the collision detection would "see" the terrain as being shaped like the second pic:

 

 

This would mean that bullets and missiles would no longer be able to pass through forested areas, allowing forests to be used properly as cover in pop-up attacks. I realise the proposed changes wouldn't be perfect -the resolution of the mesh might not be sufficient to allow for small terrain spikes like that shown in the second pic for the lone tree on the left, for example, but even if the height changes were restricted to forested areas rather than individual trees I think it would still be a big improvement. (The other obvious problem is that it would be possible to land on top of a forest but tbh I don't think that would be a big deal either).

 

I'm sure one of the clever coders at ED could write some kind of automatic routine which would generate the new collision terrain mesh based on the old one plus the data for tree/forest locations, and obviously this would only need to be done once in advance to generate the new dataset (so there'd be no additional overhead whilst the sim is actually running).

 

Anyway, there's the suggestion, I'd be interested to hear what you guys think.

Cheers,

DD

 

There would be one more obstacle to using such an idea.

- AI wouldnt be able to see through that terrain.

- The player (or MP Client) will.

 

No suggestion on how to solve that though.

 

IMO - the current implementation is a good enough compromise allowing AI / players to react to units hiding in a forest.

Until a new method can be implmeneted ofc ;)

 

If PanzerTard's right, couldn't trees be placed in a fence around the edges and the texture of the raised 'ground' be simply changed to a treetop collage?

Edited August 17, 2009 by CE_Mikemonster