Bussard_x Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 The graphics look great in the sim, but the only thing I can't get use to are the dancing trees. The 2d graphics turn towards you when passing them at a distance. When you get close graphics look nice and stable. May be it's asked too much for a change, but would definetely be a big improvement.
Finkeren Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 It's a tradeoff that's been around since RoF. Not rendering trees in full 3D is what allows the creation of huge forests made of individual trees. Right now there's no other efficient way of doing this if we want individual trees.
Feathered_IV Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 The visual aspect of trees can be modified in RoF, as mods are allowed via an on/off switch. BoS unfortunately does not have this option due to... I don't know. Budget cuts or something. So we are obligated to hope the devs spend development time on all these little tweaks and fixes. Maybe start a poll or something to take your mind off it?
Leaf Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I think the trees/vegetation in BoS is outstanding compared to RoF -- much improved. 1
6./ZG26_Emil Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 I think the trees/vegetation in BoS is outstanding compared to RoF -- much improved. and you can't fly through them like in some simulators :D 4
Bussard_x Posted March 4, 2015 Author Posted March 4, 2015 and you can't fly through them like in some simulators :D Hm yes I already forgot about this.
StG2_Manfred Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) It's a tradeoff that's been around since RoF. Not rendering trees in full 3D is what allows the creation of huge forests made of individual trees. Right now there's no other efficient way of doing this if we want individual trees. Wait for a reply of [Edited], he will tell you that PCs 20 years ago were already capable of Edited March 21, 2015 by Bearcat Calling out another member who is not as of the post a participant in this thread.
-TBC-AeroAce Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Lol do u remember the layered 2d trees in 1946 that u could not see if u were flying low until the last second 1
Potenz Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Wait for a reply of [Edited], he will tell you that PCs 20 years ago were already capable of LOL Lol do u remember the layered 2d trees in 1946 that u could not see if u were flying low until the last second those were evil Edited March 21, 2015 by Bearcat
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 Wait for a reply of AceofAces, he will tell you that PCs 20 years ago were already capable of Poor Manfred and Potenz.. Still upset about being wrong about air flow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Unlimited <-- 1995 2015 - 1995 = 20 years Let it go! You will sleep better
Potenz Posted March 20, 2015 Posted March 20, 2015 (edited) Poor Manfred and Potenz.. Still upset about being wrong about air flow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Unlimited <-- 1995 2015 - 1995 = 20 years Let it go! You will sleep better never upset, it's funny to [Edited] a wee [Edited] like you Edited March 21, 2015 by Bearcat
Potenz Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) get some German lessons, mate I think you wanted to say Ich verstehe nur Bahnhoff Edited March 21, 2015 by Erg./JG54_Potenz
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 8 I was wrong, your not upset, your obsessed! Somewhat flattering, in that I never had a groupie before! In any case, Manfred was still wrong, i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Unlimited <-- 1995 20 = 2015 - 1995 Hope that helps!
Potenz Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 He means No i know mate, just trolling the troll 1
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 i know mate, just trolling the troll You might want to look up the definition of troll.. Because you clearly have it wrong.. Note.. Manfred started the 'trolling' in this thread by taking a swipe at me and bringing up an 'computational fluid dynamics' thread into this thread.. That is an example of 'trolling' Me responding to the troll, was simply setting the record straight.. Manfred said modern PCs are not capable of doing 'computational fluid dynamics' in flight simulations.. I simply pointed out that a flight sim did it over 20 years ago.. That clearly upset him greatly, such that he disregarded the Flight Unlimited link I provided and said in so many words that "they can claim what they want" Which is just a nice way of saying the sim makers 'Looking Glass Tech' was lying and that Manfred is still right.. Well, at that point, what can you do? I mean if Manfred is going to ignore what was done and go as far as to imply they are liars, it is clear that no amount of proof will allow him to admit he was wrong. Than again, it takes a 'big man' to admit he was wrong. Hope that helps!
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 (edited) Langweilig... Ah good, so you agree that Manfred started the trolling in this thread, and that he was wrong about real-time CFP not being done 20 years ago in Flight Unlimited.. Boring as that may be, it is the truth Edited March 21, 2015 by ACEOFACES
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 no, you are the troll here. Well that is your opinion and your welcome to it.. But in light of the FACT that Manfred started the 'trolling' in this thread by taking a swipe at me and bringing up an 'computational fluid dynamics' thread into this thread.. I think most would agree that is the definition of 'trolling' Where as me responding to the troll, was simply a case of me setting the record straight.. That case being.. Manfred said modern PCs are not capable of doing 'computational fluid dynamics' in flight simulations.. I simply pointed out that a flight sim did it over 20 years ago.. That clearly upset him greatly, such that he disregarded the Flight Unlimited link I provided and said in so many words that "they can claim what ever they want" Which is just a nice way of saying the sim makers 'Looking Glass Tech' was lying and that Manfred is still right.. Well, at that point, what can you do? I mean if Manfred is going to ignore what was done and go as far as to imply they are liars, it is clear that no amount of proof will allow him to admit he was wrong. Than again, it takes a 'big man' to admit he was wrong. end of discussion Agreed
Bearcat Posted March 21, 2015 Posted March 21, 2015 OK guys.. let's just ratchet back the personal stuff or this thread will be locked.
Recommended Posts