Trees

[VMFA117_Poko]

There was another idea - invisible thin post in the middle of every tree.

Edited August 17, 2009 by Poko24

[Panzertard]

At least it illustrates that it quite hard to find a working compromise - which works for AI, SP, MP - and without killing your CPU/GPU.

I think this is some of the reason why it's not been implmented ;)

 

Ofc, we'll all love to see a working solution to this dilemma :)

[DickDastardly]

Just imported this from another (duplicate) thread:

 

Oops, yeah I must confess I missed this thread, apologies for the duplication. I wonder if the issues grisha raised could be addressed by having aircraft use the proposed modified terrain mesh for collision detection whilst ground vehicles continue to use the default mesh. With regard to weapons, perhaps projectiles firing into or out of a forest could use the default mesh whilst anything else uses the new mesh. So choppers would be able to crash into forests and target or be targetted by vehicles inside them, but a vehicle couldn't target a heli if there was a forest between them (and vice versa).

 

Of course, I've no idea what impact using two different meshes for collision detection would have on performance, perhaps it wouldn't be feasible.

Cheers,

DD

Edited August 17, 2009 by DickDastardly

[sinelnic]

The issue with DickDastardly's suggestiom is that the terrain mesh in DCS has at its best one vertex every 19 meters (probably much more) whereas for it to work credibly for trees you'd need at least 3 vertexes per meter. That creates a very heavy mesh for LOS computations, even if it's not displayed, considering that every AI unit and sensor would have to include it in its calcs in realtime. Probably not doable without true multicore support.

[Celo63]

The tactics employed on any particular mission will always depend on the individual circumstances of that mission. Depends on the terrain/weather/visiblity and how good your equipment/intelligence is and also the enemy's.

 

Gulf war for example, the coalition forces had total air superiority plus UAVs and sattelite imagery. They pretty much knew where every Iraqi was yet the Iraqis were practically blind. So, they could move to a nice spot and pick off targets from stand off distance. Despite the relatively open and coverless terrain. Attack at night, even better. Fish in a barrel.

 

If your intelligence is not "all seeing" then you need to use cover where you can and speed where you can't. Adaptability is the name of the game. Its frustrating that trees are "see through" for the AI I must admit but not alot can be done about it yet so we'll just have to adapt our tactics.

 

Try to engage at standoff range wherever possible. If in doubt as to the enemy contents of a wooded area, maybe take some extra time to skirt around it and try to pick up targets from another angle rather than flying over the woods and getting a nasty surprise. Send wingmen to scout from other angles as well. Use your resources to best advantage under the conditions present.

 

Some cool vids on helos, ops and tactics:-

BO105 ops

 

Lynx ops

 

BO105 aerobatics

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YkURsYqdcY apache rooivalk mangusta tiger

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R0dYo9SKHk&feature=related hind cobra apache

Edited August 27, 2009 by Celo63
spelling

[flow-master]

I feel like many others on this forum that I must share a sad, sad story about tree issue in DCS Black shark. Just to ease my soul :cry:

 

First of all; I like low altitude flying very much. I saw many videos and screenshots of DCS BS and I thought to my self "This sim is a musthave. I will be able to fly really low and fast, I will use nice made trees and forests as a cover to fly near target, pop-up, shoot and use trees as cover to RTB or transfer to another location and repeat the practice...". I was not even a fan of ka-50. Frankly I found it quite an ugly chooper. But a wish to simulate flying low and hideing behind terrain and trees to commence an attack was to big ;).

 

So I bought english box version of BS. I learned to fly BS pretty well. I must say that I am still amazed how superb is flying of ka-50 done in DCS BS - a pure joy. I Congrats to ED team :thumbup:. I even start likeing ka-50s shape.

 

Then I finshed my first campagin and many single missions. During combat flying I have experienced quite some strange shoot-downs of missle or AAA rounds hitting me through dense forest. Unaware of tree issue I went to this forum searching for an answer to this anomaly, and then...

 

I was shocked :huh:. I was thinking: "This I cant be possible, after all DCS BS is the most advanced attack helicopter sim ever". I have read every single thread hopeing to find patch, mod or something to make trees collidable and enemy not being able to see and shoot at me through trees... no luck :cry:

 

For the sake of holly mother, what is the point of making a combat helicopter sim with flaw like that. I have read all the anwsers from ED team pointing out that tree issue isnt so significant for the realism of sim :music_whistling:. I can say only OMG. I have strong feeling that I bought cat in the sack :mad:.

 

I wonder... DCS A-10C is on the way. Its another low altitude flying aircraft sim. Will this DCS module still have this trees major drawback due to an old engine limitations?

[Focha]

Have a look.

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

 

More video:

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

 

Don't forget that RoF does not have the complexity that BS has regarding FM, systems, etc.

That plays a great deal regarding performance.

That's why you can have beautiful graphics on RoF. I'm not saying that RoF doesn't have a great simulation, it has, but does not have a HUD, ABRIS, etc, etc.

 

Regards.

[amalahama]

Don't forget that RoF does not have the complexity that BS has regarding FM, systems, etc.

That plays a great deal regarding performance.

That's why you can have beautiful graphics on RoF. I'm not saying that RoF doesn't have a great simulation, it has, but does not have a HUD, ABRIS, etc, etc.

 

Regards.

 

In fact, FM of RoF is quite complex, probably more than BS. It has for example a volumetric wind velocity field that affects not only player but other AI planes and particle system as well. Wing vortex and prop wake is modelled and damage system is superb. IMHO RoF has raise the flightsim physics complexity standard to a brand new level. Yes, BS has a complex system modelling, but physics engine is an evolution of FC (and this is a few years old)

 

Regards!!

[Bucic]

In fact, FM of RoF is quite complex, probably more than BS. It has for example a volumetric wind velocity field that affects not only player but other AI planes and particle system as well. Wing vortex and prop wake is modelled and damage system is superb. IMHO RoF has raise the flightsim physics complexity standard to a brand new level. Yes, BS has a complex system modelling, but physics engine is an evolution of FC (and this is a few years old)

 

Regards!!

True. If one is about to defend BS he has to go for systems modeling rather than physics only.

[JG-1_Vogel]

When I started flying F4:AF after flying LO for a few years... tried to fly through a small gathering of trees and realised that they were very much collidable objects LOL :D.

 

Will be nice when we get better trees. Even if your not using them for cover there have been times when I've been flying at med altitude and being shot down. Looked at the track and found out there was a SAM in the middle of a wood or behind a treeline and I didn't see the launch flash... missile flies through the tree's and bam I'm in bits.

[DetroitDieseL]

IRL it would not be wise to expect trees to cover you from the enemy, as they are probably tracking/scanning on your heat signature making the trees useless.

 

I have exp. using a TIS and I have personally shot targets through trees as I seen right through them.

 

I think ED did the right thing with the trees to save our cpu/gpu resources.

 

Although I would like to see trees too, it looks alot more awe and some.

[Ramstein]

IRL it would not be wise to expect trees to cover you from the enemy, as they are probably tracking/scanning on your heat signature making the trees useless.

 

I have exp. using a TIS and I have personally shot targets through trees as I seen right through them.

 

I think ED did the right thing with the trees to save our cpu/gpu resources.

 

Although I would like to see trees too, it looks alot more awe and some.

 

 

exactly, they were modelled correctly for the flight sim..

:thumbup:

[Bucic]

exactly, they were modelled correctly for the flight sim..

:thumbup:

Not - still. Stick to the proper arguments and not to "I wanna hide behind a tree". Your view is obstructed while enemy's view is not. Period. An enemy column going through forest road should be blind to anything that flies. While ED provided an explanation behind the lack of colidable/view-obstructing trees (computing power/engine limits) it is rather silly to go under the "lack of properly modelled trees is perfectly fine in a helo sim" banner.

[Feuerfalke]

:sleep:

 

 

Sorry, but this is getting boring.

 

 

 

Yes, it's not in. Yes, it would be great if it would. Anybody disagrees? No? Nice, so we got 170+ posts summed up in one line and we can move along.

[DetroitDieseL]

Not - still. Stick to the proper arguments and not to "I wanna hide behind a tree". Your view is obstructed while enemy's view is not. Period. An enemy column going through forest road should be blind to anything that flies. While ED provided an explanation behind the lack of colidable/view-obstructing trees (computing power/engine limits) it is rather silly to go under the "lack of properly modelled trees is perfectly fine in a helo sim" banner.

 

I don't agree with you- hiding behind trees in this day and age of combat as well as air combat doesn't happen.

 

If an enemy colume is traversing through a forest or woods- there is Tanks and other vehicles with sights that use thermal imaging or radar making the trees out of play for either side.

[GGTharos]

Actually it really depends on the density of the woods ... averagely dense woods 300m deep will hide your heli or tank from anything out there, thermal or no thermal, and therefore hiding behind trees IS a valid method of obscurement - just as long as you aren't hiding behind a single line of trees.

[Bucic]

What GGTharos said. No one sane is talking about a single or even triple line of trees. Besides, even few big tree trunks on the line of fire of small caliber AAA would make it useless.

[DetroitDieseL]

Actually it really depends on the density of the woods ... averagely dense woods 300m deep will hide your heli or tank from anything out there, thermal or no thermal, and therefore hiding behind trees IS a valid method of obscurement - just as long as you aren't hiding behind a single line of trees.

 

In my exp. in calling for air support with an A-10 the angle of attack is a little less then a 45 degree angle if not more- making the density of the fooliage a lot less- unless the canopy of the forest/woods/jungle is great. But I do not see it being so much that TIS or any other kind of signature sight not being able to see it.

 

I've seen heat signatures inside of buildings with the TIS that I used.

 

I realize that theres a couple different arguments going on here. I think ED did a very good job with the trees for targeting purposes and cpu resource saving purposes.

 

Its realistic to me. Although I would like the option to make the line where the trees disappear/appear further out for myself, as I think my rig can handle it. I have every graphic setting maxed out and it still seems liek the trees appear right in front of my nose, buildings also.

 

Is there a setting some where where I can make it a greater distance when they appear solid??

[Bucic]

DetroitDieseL, DCS Black Shark Tweak Guide Alpha Version by Frazer

[DetroitDieseL]

Awesome- can these be used in FC2 also or no??