Stig Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Realism is not being able to hit restart. No realism doesn't kill a simulator, it would kill the pilot. In all honesty, the more realism the better. After the launch of the DCS WWII KS one of the first questions Ilya had to answer was 'Do the trees have collision models?' Sometime later, while out walking the dog, I speculated why this particular issue was so significant compared to others. In the end I decided that Ilya should have answered thus: 'Yes, of cause the trees will have collision models, and you will be well advised to avoid the trees, because we are taking realism to a new level with this sim. Colliding with trees, buildings the ground, and so on can have very adverse consequenses. In the worst case you will (virtually) be no more, you will have flown off to meet your maker, you'll be pushing up the daisies (yes, they are modeled!), you will be an ex-ace. In other words, no Refly option if you are killed! I can just imagine how you are staring at the screen aghast now, but don't despair because having simulated Death, we will also be simulating reincarnation. So when you have been killed, you will not be able to fly anymore in the sim, but on our website you will be able to download a new license, a new lease of life (maybe we will call it that) for $10.' 1
DD_bongodriver Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Why are collide able trees so important? there have been extensive discussions regarding realistic features that present problems with cost, either in monetary terms in development or in system resources, I think tree collision falls in that category, a collision model for every tree is eating memory/processing power, for a feature that may be used less than 1% of the time..........unless I am really missing something here and crashing into trees is becoming a new fad? I have heard people argue that some people can cheat by flying below tree level, surely this simply means they are combat ineffective and can be ignored? I'm pretty sure that there are ways to address this issue without a collision model for each tree.
Dakpilot Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Are trees with a collision model needed in a realistic flight sim? you can have the most perfect AFM beautifully modeled clickable cockpits the most perfect AI but the first time i'm chasing down some prey or doing a ground run and they/I fly straight through the perfect trees all sense of immersion is lost of the simulation of flying in a realistic enviroment... Flying along a tree lined river at low level with no risk of hitting anything is rather unchallenging and quite unrealistic Anyway that is just my take on things Cheers Dakpilot
DD_bongodriver Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Flying down tree lined rivers/roads is important? of course in an ideal world we would have collide able trees, if it turns the game into a slideshow then it's a bigger immersion killer.
Bearcat Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Individual collidable trees may be more problematic but as long as when I fly into a forest and before I hit the ground my plane explodes I will be happy.
Rama Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Why are collide able trees so important? If you're only interested in fighters dogfight's, then it's probably not that much important. But if your interest is muds missions (ultra-low penetration in ennemy territory for bomber or fighter-bomber missions), then tree collision model is essential to make the simulation believable (and there are mnay other cases, including "fun flying" where it is important). I'm very glad that RoF trees are collidable and very glad that BoS trees will be. For me (and for all other peoples with same interests), non-collidable trees is a realism and immersion killer. So even if some players may find it isn't that important for them, just because they have no interest in some simulation uses, they can understand that the simulation possibilities aren't restricted to fighters dogfight, and that if a big part of the users find collidable trees important for "realism", then it is important for "realism".
VeryOldMan Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Why are collide able trees so important? there have been extensive discussions regarding realistic features that present problems with cost, either in monetary terms in development or in system resources, I think tree collision falls in that category, a collision model for every tree is eating memory/processing power, for a feature that may be used less than 1% of the time..........unless I am really missing something here and crashing into trees is becoming a new fad? I have heard people argue that some people can cheat by flying below tree level, surely this simply means they are combat ineffective and can be ignored? I'm pretty sure that there are ways to address this issue without a collision model for each tree. That illustrates very well how we all here have different approaches. First- Yes trees use resources of the computer. But they will barely use more resources of the programmers and artists than non collidable trees. Some other features are much mroe heavy money wise altough. But its not that much if well implemented. Damm I implemented physics in quite some simulation systems and it would not be even close to as heavy as makign illumination of a fully 3d cockpit, and would use less CPU than the collision calculation form a formation of b17 firing bullets. At least on this point I can tell you that such a system woudl nto be on the top cost of development features in the sim. You just need a hierachical collision system that has fine granularity only near the planes. On the case of trees a simple quadtree with an extra sweep pass on the altitude value before the search woulg be enough to make it not a huge resource hog. For you tree collision is not that important. For me they are a trillion times more important than clicable cockpits. WHy? I want a combat sim, that simmulates combat and I feel that collidable trees take more part of combat than licking on each element in the cockpit. Some peopel want a n airplane simmualtor in a combat scenario, those might see clickable cockpits as more relevant.
von_Tom Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Collidable ground objects, including trees, are important. Many many times I've got stuck in a furball down low, or beside a mountain etc, and the presence of trees was the killer in the end. Running fast down low between groups of trees, hoping the chaser would hit them, was also good. Dragging a plane in for landing over a forest when there was a risk of the trees causing me to "die" etc. As I like Jabo stuff I'm quite often closer to them too. Maybe if I were at 10,000m all day long it'd be different. Hood
VeryOldMan Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 By air displacement do you mean as in when a plane flies by the air around it is displaced..? Like a very low fly by making affect vegetation and small objects. When you make that pass just above the trees with a b-25... would be so cool to see the trees feel the passage of the plane. Its just an example as you can find a miriad of things that people find to be more or less relevant for immersion. I woudl pay more attention to that than to clickable cokpits (specially in a ww2 sim, in somethign like DCS Black shark the clickable cockpit is interestign simply because there is too many commands to map and use by keyboard)
Mac_Messer Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Why are collide able trees so important? there have been extensive discussions regarding realistic features that present problems with cost, either in monetary terms in development or in system resources, I think tree collision falls in that category, a collision model for every tree is eating memory/processing power, for a feature that may be used less than 1% of the time..........unless I am really missing something here and crashing into trees is becoming a new fad? I have heard people argue that some people can cheat by flying below tree level, surely this simply means they are combat ineffective and can be ignored? I'm pretty sure that there are ways to address this issue without a collision model for each tree. Good point. I`ve put hundreds of hours into IL2 Sturmovik and It was literally a few times when my aircraft hit a tree. Actually, I`ve hit factory chiimneys far more times. The other example when a collidable tree made influence on my sim experience was when I bailed out and my parachute hit it, causing PK. However, I can imagine 5 Sturmoviks flying at tree level not to get spotted, so it would be a problem with big tree fields - although we could just randomize it so instead of all of the 500 or soo trees, maybe 200 would have the collision model on them. If the trees can be made collidable and at the same time not eat too many fps it is obvious. But when it has bad effect on the game perofmance, I wouldn`t think twice about it.
DD_bongodriver Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 OK we get it, you don't like clickable pits.
VeryOldMan Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) Its rather easy to make it in fact. The forests just need to have a bounding box with a randozmized factor to simmualte that not all brnache swil be strong enough to cause a HIT. That works as long as you want forests roughly same height, like european pine tree forests. Things woudl get nasty if you wanted to make a sysmte to simmualte tropical forest trees that can be 3 meters high for hundreds of meters then suddenly a random 80 m tall trees appear in front of you. A sparsely planted field, like a savanah also would be a bit more complicated to make without much CPU usage.. OK we get it, you don't like clickable pits. Nope.. that clearly shows how you do not get our point. I like clickable cockpits. I just think that there are things that should not stay behind clickable cockpits when of the allocation of resources on what can and cannot be one in time for the game. I bet if you went to 777 studio and gave them a briefcase with 1 million dollars to cover the cost of hiring more people , they would do whatever realistic feature you asked. But money does not grow in trees.. we all know that. That is why is so hard t have a conversation in these forums. When someone does not support an idea, the other automatically thinks he is against it. They fail to realise that the world is not black and white... its about PRIORITIES! Peopel have really low level of flexibility here... Edited October 10, 2013 by VeryOldMan
Mac_Messer Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 For you tree collision is not that important. For me they are a trillion times more important than clicable cockpits. WHy? I want a combat sim, that simmulates combat and I feel that collidable trees take more part of combat than licking on each element in the cockpit. Some peopel want a n airplane simmualtor in a combat scenario, those might see clickable cockpits as more relevant. Well I think that being able to correctly manage the aircraft has far more influence and role in combat. Taking it out of the equation is the same as not deploying flaps during landing approach. You are landing but not necessarily in a way how it was done in real life. When talking about combat, one of my main reasons for getting gradually better results was understanding the idea of flight and how a fighter aircraft functions. For example, if you fly an escort mission in a P51 without being able to manage fuel tanks, you lose the ability to get the most out of it. I would imagine letting the clickpits becoming a casualty to modelling the aircraft systems as detailed as possible but certainly not to tree collision modelling.
DD_bongodriver Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Nope.. that clearly shows how you do not get our point. I like clickable cockpits. I just think that there are things that should not stay behind clickable cockpits when of the allocation of resources on what can and cannot be one in time for the game. I bet if you went to 777 studio and gave them a briefcase with 1 million dollars to cover the cost of hiring more people , they would do whatever realistic feature you asked. But money does not grow in trees.. we all know that. That is why is so hard t have a conversation in these forums. When someone does not support an idea, the other automatically thinks he is against it. They fail to realise that the world is not black and white... its about PRIORITIES! Peopel have really low level of flexibility here... You mentioned your lack of enthusiasm with clickable pits in several posts long after discussion about them had more or less fizzled out and we moved on, so no it's not a case of me not getting the point, clearly a case of your inflexibility to move on to another discussion like I did.
VeryOldMan Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) You mentioned your lack of enthusiasm with clickable pits in several posts long after discussion about them had more or less fizzled out and we moved on, so no it's not a case of me not getting the point, clearly a case of your inflexibility to move on to another discussion like I did. Nope. I never was on the stubborn discussion if clickable cockpits are better or not thatn mapping on hotas. Go back read the thread. I did not post A SINGLE TIME regardign that. All my posts were about the TITLE of the post. about how excessive lure of realism may kill the flight sim. You are the ont that is fixated and want to read in other posts attacks on your ego. I keep using clickable cockpits as an example of high cost feature exactly because they are the HIGHEST COST FEATURE in modern flight sims. Not a single time I said I dislike them, and if you cannot perceive that, maybe you need to train a bit interpretation of text. Well I think that being able to correctly manage the aircraft has far more influence and role in combat. Taking it out of the equation is the same as not deploying flaps during landing approach. You are landing but not necessarily in a way how it was done in real life. When talking about combat, one of my main reasons for getting gradually better results was understanding the idea of flight and how a fighter aircraft functions. For example, if you fly an escort mission in a P51 without being able to manage fuel tanks, you lose the ability to get the most out of it. I would imagine letting the clickpits becoming a casualty to modelling the aircraft systems as detailed as possible but certainly not to tree collision modelling. I agree its something nice to have, specially for people that want to simmulate missions, not simply go into a dogfight server and have some 30 min of fun. But as I stated, the bennefits must be balanced with what would we leave out of the sim to open resources for that (moneywise). And that is where different opinions clash and we must learn to accept others views. I for once would put trees collision ahead of clickable cockpits. If i wanted to fly a B17 sim, I would revert these priorities and like a clickable cockpit more than collidable trees. But since this game is in a scenario where you will make very low passes on bombers, or while bombing and the cockpits of the planes are already VERY simple, i still prefer "tree collision" on this scenario. The P51 fuel management was a great example, but on Stalingrad battlefield , I form memory at least, cannot remember any plane with such a need for manual intervention that would affect performance as much as this example of yours. I might be wrong, but , I cannto remember any on the same level. Edited October 10, 2013 by VeryOldMan
DD_bongodriver Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 That illustrates very well how we all here have different approaches. First- Yes trees use resources of the computer. But they will barely use more resources of the programmers and artists than non collidable trees. Some other features are much mroe heavy money wise altough. But its not that much if well implemented. Damm I implemented physics in quite some simulation systems and it would not be even close to as heavy as makign illumination of a fully 3d cockpit, and would use less CPU than the collision calculation form a formation of b17 firing bullets. At least on this point I can tell you that such a system woudl nto be on the top cost of development features in the sim. You just need a hierachical collision system that has fine granularity only near the planes. On the case of trees a simple quadtree with an extra sweep pass on the altitude value before the search woulg be enough to make it not a huge resource hog. For you tree collision is not that important. For me they are a trillion times more important than clicable cockpits. WHy? I want a combat sim, that simmulates combat and I feel that collidable trees take more part of combat than licking on each element in the cockpit. Some peopel want a n airplane simmualtor in a combat scenario, those might see clickable cockpits as more relevant. Like a very low fly by making affect vegetation and small objects. When you make that pass just above the trees with a b-25... would be so cool to see the trees feel the passage of the plane. Its just an example as you can find a miriad of things that people find to be more or less relevant for immersion. I woudl pay more attention to that than to clickable cokpits (specially in a ww2 sim, in somethign like DCS Black shark the clickable cockpit is interestign simply because there is too many commands to map and use by keyboard) Thanks for the hint to re read, sure enough I found exactly what I was talking about, the conversation about clik pits had run its course just like I said it did, now I won't go as far as saying you just perpetuated it as a form of antagonism.
VeryOldMan Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Thanks for the hint to re read, sure enough I found exactly what I was talking about, the conversation about clik pits had run its course just like I said it did, now I won't go as far as saying you just perpetuated it as a form of antagonism. And where in thsoe sentences can you see antagonism? I cannot believe you are that limited in reading comprehension, therefore I must conclude you want to make a fight. On the very sentence you highlight i say that clickable cockpits are INTERESTING. Where , agains, WHERE do I say that I do not like clickable cockpits? How in hell is so hard for an adult to comprehend that someone can like something but still put it after other things? I liek cars, I like flight sims, I like cake, but I like my pug dog more than any of those and would never put any of those things ahead of him. Does this make me DISLIKE flight sims, or cake? Again? Why you are so interested in fighting? because there is no content that supports you accusation, therefore you are being blatantly forceful into a conflict. Somethign that I do not want to go. Again, YOU ARE THE ONE SEEKING CONFRONTATION! Geez.. stop pretending .. or learn to read, interpret and communicate ! 1
DD_bongodriver Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I see, the old turn the accusation back around routine, with some insults thrown in for good measure.......
VeryOldMan Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 (edited) I am not the one that attacked here. You accused me of something with false argument. And clearly seeks confrontation, I am no idiot, I do not stand on being accused by people that want to be manipulative and seek to make me look to be at fault on their place (again, that is valid only because I consider to be impossible for an alphabetized adult to understand from my sentences what you affirm them to be stating, therefore only leaving the option of you wanting to create conflict). Again, show me where I said I do not like clickable cockpits or retract your false statement! Edited October 10, 2013 by VeryOldMan
Dakpilot Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Good grief this is getting boring...why does every thread where the Mac_bongo team make an appearance turn into a potential thread locked mess. It seems quite possible that argument is enjoyed for the sake of it, why is it always so necessary to be so confrontational in every comment? Cheers Dakpilot 6
DD_bongodriver Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Good grief this is getting boring...why does every thread where the Mac_bongo team make an appearance turn into a potential thread locked mess. It seems quite possible that argument is enjoyed for the sake of it, why is it always so necessary to be so confrontational in every comment? Cheers Dakpilot This is why.
LLv44_Mprhead Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 I think Malinois is superior to German shepherd as working dog.
Bearcat Posted October 10, 2013 Posted October 10, 2013 Good grief this is getting boring...why does every thread where the Mac_bongo team make an appearance turn into a potential thread locked mess. It seems quite possible that argument is enjoyed for the sake of it, why is it always so necessary to be so confrontational in every comment? Cheers Dakpilot This is why. ........ Oh good grief. 1
Recommended Posts