Trees

[aledmb]

Collision detection is not graphics hardware dependent, but CPU dependent.

not with the latest hardware (i think nvidia cards already do this).

[EvilBivol-1]

Guys, please be attentive. Earlier in this thread an ED programmer already explained that making solid trees is not the problem. The problem is what happens to the rest of the simulation when you do this, because the engine handles trees in whole blocks of 1-2 square km. It just wasn't designed for solid trees and making it so effectively breaks too many other elements, especially AI. ED is working on this, but proper integration of solid trees will have to wait until the technology is developed to do this.

 

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

Edited January 11, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[zazz]

Why not include the option of removing trees alltogether? I mean, it's 2 poly's per tree, plus the opacity map... multiply that by the nuber of trees that are to be rendered each frame... sounds like it would make for a pretty decent fps boost.

Or maybe the IL-2 trees, that were just 3 layered planes?

[Trinitry]

Why not include the option of removing trees alltogether? I mean, it's 2 poly's per tree, plus the opacity map... multiply that by the nuber of trees that are to be rendered each frame... sounds like it would make for a pretty decent fps boost.

Or maybe the IL-2 trees, that were just 3 layered planes?

 

To me it seems also more realistic to switch the trees off at all. Perhaps it is possible by modifying an ini-file?

[Bucic]

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

 

Thank You for the explanation! Time to change the sig ;)

[Kula66]

Now think of 16+ million trees that now have to be rendered individually.

 

But for a sim trying to model ground combat, that's exactly whats required - it's kind of fundamental - just look at Steeal Beasts. Trees need to be modelled like millions of those TV masts, just shorter.

 

Watching TOW missiles fly through forrests is just not right.

[AlphaOneSix]

To me it seems also more realistic to switch the trees off at all. Perhaps it is possible by modifying an ini-file?

 

It's possible, forgot the file, though. :P

[hitman]

But for a sim trying to model ground combat, that's exactly whats required - it's kind of fundamental - just look at Steeal Beasts. Trees need to be modelled like millions of those TV masts, just shorter.

 

Watching TOW missiles fly through forrests is just not right.

Even todays military flight sims cant handle that kind of load. Think of FSX if you will. Now think of FSX that has everything Black Shark has. Who can say 6fps? You have to have decent frame rates in a heli sim simply because you have to pay attention to your heli, and anything less than 15fps will get your heli to blow up.

[Kula66]

hitman,

Agreed you have to compromise something for a sim costing £20 on a £2000 PC ... and in SB your horizon is much more limited. Having seen video of 'military' sims, the graphics are very poor, not a patch on BS. However, in BS on most rigs, there is at least one other core still around doing very little!

 

Still disappointing ...

 

Anyone have any idea of the time frame for 'the new graphics engine' being introduced into DCS? With the A-10 or later?

[manbird]

Vet sim pilot here as well, when I got this simulation I was 100% satisfied. Maybe there is a new generation of sim expectations floating around on this board (complaints of only 25FPS), but I never expected the trees to be collidable. I tend to hide behind hills and buildings for my missions and never once though of ducking it behind a few Pines. Reality or not.

 

But for a few bucks, there are a handfull of those who want the entire world simulated, regardless of CPU resources, memory limitations and last but not least, software development time and costs. They want the FPS friendly simulation with thousands of solid trees, Line of Sight computation and Coolidability without any performance hit.

 

Seen this for decades. You want collidable trees, but then people will complain about 10 FPS and wandering why they can't place units in forrests. Or not being able to designate targets between two trees because there's an invisible collider box blocking the laser. Or complaining why player helicopters collide with trees but AI doesn't and asking for collision detection for every object in the game to level the playing field. Or the guy colliding through trees he didn't see, because his graphic settings are tuned down.

 

I've seen complaints of people not being able to land on water and trains.

 

I've had the "simulation sickness' before, where you don't want ANYTHING to spoil your feeling of "really being there". But truth be told, you're not there, it's a simulation made for entertainment and curiosity. That's why this industry is so small, to simulate something, you have to simulate it ALL and sacrifice NOTHING. It's an addicitive sickness, and I've found that in order to truly enjoy a piece of affordable, repeat..affordable, software, you have to be willing to let go of the desire to check for every rivet to be in the "right" place, EVERYTHING to work just like in real life. Come on..relax a bit and have some fun for once. God bless the developers for making this available to civilians like us and responding so professionally.

 

P.S. in regards to the "new Engine", I wouldn't wait for anything else anymore, I would enjoy what you have..which is an exceptional peice of software.

[aledmb]

I've seen complaints of people not being able to land on water

and trains.

that's the "fun" part you were talking about...

:D

 

I've had the "simulation sickness' before, where you don't want

ANYTHING to spoil your feeling of "really being there".

i think everyone is just trying to spot something so it can be

improved, if possible... no sickness at all.

 

P.S. in regards to the "new Engine", I wouldn't wait for anything

else anymore, I would enjoy what you have..which is an exceptional

peice of software.

no doubt that it's high quality software! as for me... i just miss

multicore support (i could be getting 2 or 3 times my current fps,

who knows) and a few sound glitches. but nothing that urgent.

[manbird]

Fair enough, but I do believe in the 'sickness', some people will actually stop playing a simulator if they find that something is not modelled. You may not be that person, but they're out there. After all, most sim junkies are like that.

[Funco]

Is there a way to remove the horizontal plane of the trees around urban areas? They are shaded differently from the rest of the tree and pop out too much. At medium range, they also have a distracting flicker and I have to turn up my AF pretty high to get rid of the effect. I'm never looking directly down, so don't really benefit from them being there anyway...

 

Oh, yeah- this is my first post, so have to say: Great job on DCS! Haven't had this much fun since DI's Apache... :)

[Ed Macy]

In reply to a couple of posts:

Jg2001 Rasputin: Just as a statement: I´m reading Ed Macy´s "Apache" at the moment and I was very surprised that he´s always telling they were running in at an attack. He never mentioned something about hovering.

GGTharos: Because hovering makes you an immobile target. Even if you're 'hiding' behind a treeline, an M-1 will see you and a SABOT will happily reach you. Running in makes you a moving target = less % of being hit when you are shot at, plus you enter and exit the threat area faster. Hovering makes sense when you are standing off, your target cannot hit you, and your target is clearly available for you to strike. Once your target starts using cover/terrain/cityscape, all bets are off. Edit: also, US Army still often uses hover from battle positions while USMC tends to use more run-and-gun. BP's are cased to begin with - ie. BPs will be at known spots good for defensive fires.

Guys:

It’s not that the British Apache can’t hover because we can, even with the Longbow Fire Control Radar on, in Afghanistan.

And it’s not solely to prevent being shot either, because the Apache can take it.

It takes considerably less power to fly a fully laden attack helicopter at a relatively slow speed than it does to hover. So we use less fuel, increasing our endurance, which means we can do our job for longer. And that is, supporting the troops on the ground doing their best to stay alive. I don’t really care if Terry-Taliban survives either, just as long as everyone on our side stays alive.

My very best to you all

Ed Macy

www.edmacy.com

www.harperplus.com/apache

www.twitter.com/edmacy

[slowhand]

lol... sounds like this guy wrote the book.......and a damn fine book it is....hellfire is on my order list..keep'm com'n .....5x5

[HansRoaming]

Trees sorted would be nice but we're probably talking a few years down the line to get the consumer level computers that could handle the load to give nice FPS.

 

Am just happy they are there at all.

[nomdeplume]

Trees sorted would be nice but we're probably talking a few years down the line to get the consumer level computers that could handle the load to give nice FPS.

 

I think Operation Flashpoint had pretty detailed trees and so does Armed Assault. I think it's more an issue of the origin of the engine. Since it came from LOMAC, I'm sure a decision was made early on to basically ignore trees for reasons of efficiency, since they had essentially no relevance to the game.

 

Now that the engine is trying to run a chopper sim they suddenly become a lot more important. However, the original design assumed trees would be really simple and that lead to further design decisions being made, and trying to retrofit complex trees would be very difficult.

 

It could still be done, I'm sure. Model the majority of it as a simple opaque block (like a flat hill), and make the edges a bit more nuanced, for example. But, that'd take time to do and IMHO there's far more important things that could be improved. It's a bit annoying that they block my line of sight while the AI doesn't even know they're there; but then, the AI is really stupid in some other aspects so I suppose having a player handicap slightly balances things out.

 

For the Ka-50 in particular, it's a curious craft which I don't think would really have much role in a modern war against a well-equipped enemy. They can't fly around high and free, because their lack of RWR or any kind of defense against radar-guided missiles makes them a sitting duck for SAMs and even fighters if they get too high.

 

I would think, they would be used above the front line to provide supplemental firepower. They can be moved to the point they're needed much faster than tanks, and can deliver a huge amount of firepower in a short time period. The simple targeting system isn't much of a drawback in this kind of scenario, because you already know where the enemy is. And if you have to worry about radar guided missiles, that means you don't have control of the airspace, and therefore you're going to lose the ground battle anyway so you may as well all go home. ;)

[koyan]

ok, my two cents, but the devs have probably considered all the options and this one was not possible to implement. If the forests are build of blocks just code the top level (roof) to be a no see through plane. The sides remain as they are now. So the ground vehicles can still drive through the trees but they can't see you if they are in the middle of a box, only from the edge of a forest, which is oke.

[joey45]

nice idea Koyan

[GGTharos]

^^^^

 

That is incorrect. The trees are in there because people want the trees in there. They do add to the immersion.

This isn't a military simulation where you minimize for the sake of training - it is an entertainment product trying to give you the highest fidelity simulation it can. A lack of trees is not entertaining ;)

[nemises]

^^ 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.

[spyda]

real life training simulators don't have trees so people need to build a bridge and get over it for time being. i think the trees visual job is very important to the game

Edited May 1, 2009 by spyda

[Safari Ken]

^^ 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.

 

Same here. The lack of collidable trees doesn't bother me, because I do my best to not fly into the trees anyway. Sims like this are all about the immersion for me, and trees add to that quite a bit (and the trees in this sim look pretty nice, I might add, even if they're just window dressing). I'm not training for anything (nor am I trained for anything), so immersion is all I've got! :D

[DarthElvis]

Collideable(sp?) trees are not really a big deal to me. The big deal to me is the AI don't even see them. It would be good enough if they couldn't see or shoot through dense forest cover. Nothing worse than a surprise Stinger coming out of a heavily wooded area.

[JimMack]

Collideable(sp?) trees are not really a big deal to me. The big deal to me is the AI don't even see them. It would be good enough if they couldn't see or shoot through dense forest cover. Nothing worse than a surprise Stinger coming out of a heavily wooded area.

 

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.

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.