Trees are never destroyed?

[IckyATLAS]

Even using the larger bombs in the middle of a forest, there is a huge explosion but the forest remains intact.

Shouldn't it be a large opening in the forest (at least the size of the black burning bomb crater) as tree should be leveled or cut short by this explosion.

I do not know how forests are modelled, maybe it is difficult to implement but it is weird to see no impact at all.

Edited February 8, 2017 by IckyATLAS

[EAF_51_FOX]

Yes.. another killer immersion...

[Finkeren]

That would be a very cool feature, but I guess having the thousands and thousands of trees all have a damage model (no matter how simple) will just be too big a load on the system.

 

I'm just glad, the trees are actually solid objects that you can crash into unlike some other sims - including both predecessors of this sim - where you just clip right through them

[9./JG27golani79]

I guess it would be too much of an impact on performance - even if only larger groups of trees and not every single one got their own damage / collision model it would be too much.

Edited February 8, 2017 by 9./JG27golani79

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Trees cannot be destroyed in Soviet Russia

 

 

Where do you think they harvest the Stalinwood for their Pe2s ? 

[Blutaar]

Yeah it would be nice but not important, we should be thankfull to have solid trees and not just some painted ones without a collision model like we have in other titles.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Clearly it's just me but I fail to see the entertainment value/return on investment for giving trees a DM. 

 

If anything, trees need to be less solid at the top 1/3 of the tree.

 

And to call it an immersion killer..? I thought this was a combat flight simulator, not Logging Simulator 2017.

Edited February 8, 2017 by 4./JG52_Space_Ghost

[F/JG300_Gruber]

I don't know if it could be ever doable, but on summer and autumn maps, maybe a tile of trees that takes a big bomb could be replaced by a tile of winter map trees (without the foliage).

[EAF_51_FOX]

I don't know if it could be ever doable, but on summer and autumn maps, maybe a tile of trees that takes a big bomb could be replaced by a tile of winter map trees (without the foliage).

This could be a good compromise and not too much cpu stress (IMHO..).also a tile of winter painted black trees could be also a credible fx aircraft bomb/round tank hit effect. 

Edited February 8, 2017 by EAF_51_FOX

[Lusekofte]

Flying cod for years I am very happy for the trees we got, hit it on top and the tree bend and act like a spring . 

[Feathered_IV]

Yeah the current trees are very good with their collision model. I clipped the treetops in a Pe2 and the aircraft broke up as it tumbled from one canopy to the next. Eventually the cabin section and half a wing lodged in the branches and came to rest there, swaying in the breeze. With physics like that, I don't regret the lack of damage model.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

CPU stress? Not overly a problem.

I mean it runs great on 4 cores +
They rarely over 45% usage on a LOW END cpu like my FX-8350

All thats really needed if effect generator that sends grass and leafs flying when you hit a tree.
(eg every tree top has a leaf pumper and contact with it or very near makes the leaves come out.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

CPU stress? Not overly a problem.

What's it like programming the Digital Nature engine?

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

i was meaning by how little the game currently uses from a low-medium Cpu like mine.

There is a lot of overhead room for extra stuff. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

There is plenty of other "stuff" I'd rather they use that overhead on. Trees are more than acceptable as they are.

 

FCFCFCFCFCFC

[Yogiflight]

If your CPU with 45% usage is low-medium, then mine with up to 80% usage is sub-low, right?

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

What are you pegging with at 80% or what is it?

4 core 3ghz or less intel?
 

[Beazil]

What's it like programming the Digital Nature engine?

I see wut you did there.

 

/thread

 

And count me among those glad to have the trees that we do.  I've had some epic crash landings in them, and they add to the atmosphere of the game.  While it would be nice to have completely life like trees, there seems to be a lot of clamoring for extra features lately.  These guys are pretty amazing for such a small team with limited resources.  Let's be realistic though.  They have an ambitious schedule already.  Just my 2cents.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Beazil

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

That thing could be cool if we had every more needed things modeled to enough accuracy and there still would be some free CPU cycles to fit, then why not. Unfortunately devs have limits to all resources and can't afford to do all more important stuff at ones.

Edited February 9, 2017 by 307_Tomcat

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

IMHO, I would rather see bomb craters that effect aircraft rather than destroy-able trees. Cratering a runway as a means of impeding it's usability would seem much more utilitarian than creating firewood. Just my thoughts.

[Uriah]

Pilots come and go but the trees abide.

[CUJO_1970]

If anything, trees need to be less solid at the top 1/3 of the tree.

 

 

 

This X 1,276,684.5

 

Nothing quite like hitting a small branch and watching your plane come undone.

[curiousGamblerr]

This X 1,276,684.5

 

Nothing quite like hitting a small branch and watching your plane come undone.

 

Eh, I've hit tree tops with an IL-2 plenty of times and gotten shaken up but kept flying. I've never taken a closer look with a track, but you can definitely nick a tree and keep flying.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

IMHO, I would rather see bomb craters that effect aircraft rather than destroy-able trees. Cratering a runway as a means of impeding it's usability would seem much more utilitarian than creating firewood. Just my thoughts.

That would only work for non primary AF where players take off from.

 

You are NOT meant to bomb the Red and blue primary AF's

[LLv34_Temuri]

That would only work for non primary AF where players take off from.

 

You are NOT meant to bomb the Red and blue primary AF's

What do you mean by "primary AF"? Any airfield where players take off from would be valid, imho.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

That would only work for non primary AF where players take off from.

 

You are NOT meant to bomb the Red and blue primary AF's

 

Someone should have told the real Luftwaffe and VVS....this could have saved countless man hours, bombs, expenses, and lives!

 

Joking aside, back when I played Fighter Ace online years ago, if you bombed an OpFor factions' airstrip, the craters would last for a set amount of time to simulate "repair time". It forced teams to fall back, regroup, and rethink tactics. The same was true for bombing fuel stows, ammo dumps, and hangars. All would have a set "repair time" that would limit resources until "repaired".

 

Ammo dump= airfield has limited ammo and bombs for "x" minutes.

Fuel stows= airfield has limited fuel for "x" minutes.

Hangars= airfield has limited airframes for "x" minutes.

 

To me, it all actually worked very well and added a dynamic to the "sim/game" that I have not seen matched since the game was taken offline in 2009. It even went farther than that in the fact that, if a certain "objective" was bombed to a certain percentage (90% if I recall?), tanks would spawn from a "tank factory" and plod across the map and, if not destroyed, would capture the OpFor's destroyed asset. Then time would rebuild it and add to the capturing forces' assets. This is something that I think TAW is trying to simulate, but you cant see your results until the next server map is loaded. In FA it happened in real time.

 

Oh the nostalgia...I miss the hell out of that game. Even if the flight physics and graphics are a bit "primitive" by today's standards.

[LLv34_Temuri]

Ammo dump= airfield has limited ammo and bombs for "x" minutes.

Fuel stows= airfield has limited fuel for "x" minutes.

Hangars= airfield has limited airframes for "x" minutes.

 

Oh if we only would have this implemented in a somehow usable way in the engine...

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

Oh if we only would have this implemented in a somehow usable way in the engine...

 

Like I said, I have never seen it implemented the same way since FA went offline. I think Aces High does something similar, but when it comes to that "sim" just....NO THANKS.

[LLv34_Temuri]

I'd actually be quite happy with just being able to set some amount of available fuel for an airfield, and being able to reset/add/deduct the amount with MCUs.

[Yogiflight]

@ Sshadow, i5 with 4x 3.1GHz

[JaffaCake]

Just wanted to say that trees already have a collision model - our aircraft collide with them! All one would need is to be able to de-spawn the trees at the very least.

 

If we are talking about explosions one would not even need to have a collision model, but literally implement "if within blast radius then de-spawn the tree". Much easier than checking if the aircraft collided with a tree every frame.

 

Although removing trees may be a little more taxing on the server side, as collisions and damage are processed on the client side.

Edited February 9, 2017 by JaffaCake

[6./ZG26_Loke]

Neither is runways, roads and railway tracks. Had a 500kg bomb to detonate on the tracks only 50 meters infront of a train. It drove unharmed on and through the bombcrater.

[JaffaCake]

Neither is runways, roads and railway tracks. Had a 500kg bomb to detonate on the tracks only 50 meters infront of a train. It drove unharmed on and through the bombcrater.

 

 

That would be a lot more difficult to implement. Road damage means changes to AI to avoid bomb craters. Runways would be doable if the devs used the same method they use now to create bumpy ground in the rough - but honestly its hacky is hell, wouldn't give you a proper crater behaviour and wouldn't feel any better than it is now.

 

With 90% of the pilots taking off through the rough anyway craters on AFs matter even less, sadly

[=WH=PangolinWranglin]

Don't you know all the devs are hippies? They don't want to kill our dear environment! 

[Lusekofte]

i was meaning by how little the game currently uses from a low-medium Cpu like mine.

 

There is a lot of overhead room for extra stuff. 

 

Well changing something, just a little thing and your system will be a slide show. It is not a little thing making a map full of DM objects. After latest patch Servers struggle because of a little thing. 

One thing is never little when it interfere with a lot of other stuff. If it can be done I am happy to see it, but it is not a question on how much % used in a few´s pc. It is a lot more

Neither is runways, roads and railway tracks. Had a 500kg bomb to detonate on the tracks only 50 meters infront of a train. It drove unharmed on and through the bombcrater.

 

This would be a  question about how dynamic a mission is. I rather have bridges destroyed and kept destroyed during the mission. Trains pass damage bridges as for now

[curiousGamblerr]

That would only work for non primary AF where players take off from.

 

You are NOT meant to bomb the Red and blue primary AF's

Sounds like you're speaking from a Wings perspective. Not every server is Wings of Liberty... and again, there's nothing in the WoL rules against vulching. If suppressing an enemy airfield is your way of stopping the enemy attack on your targets, then go for it.

 

You gotta stop pushing this narrow prescription of how others should play the game dude.

 

Back on topic, this game has the best trees of any flight sim I've ever played. The collisions are awesome and way better than the instant explosions of the original Il-2. Baby steps, I'm satisfied.

Edited February 9, 2017 by 19.GIAP//curiousGamblerr

[SJ_Butcher]

with havok is possible to load that kind of physics in a separate core, the devs could simplify some things and still have the same performance as we have today

 

Edited February 9, 2017 by SJ_Butcher

[Scojo]

That would be a lot more difficult to implement. Road damage means changes to AI to avoid bomb craters.

They already avoid destroyed vehicles on a road.

 

AI pathing is already there, there just hast be an object associated with the bomb crater and they will go around it.

 

The difficulty would come with lots of craters and determining how fast they should despawn to keep from overloading both the server and client. Also, when talking about planes, you'd have to actually shape the object to mimic the shape of a crater so that it would affect their takeoff appropriately which would require more work than the crater just being an object to obscure AI pathing.

 

If it is put in you'd also need to determine how quickly an airfield ground crew could fill in the crater or if they would just prepare a makeshift runway to the side while repairs are done.

 

Then servers would have a hard time with this feature. Was it common for bombers to intentionally bomb airfield paths IRL? Also the server has to take into account the fact that people can attack what they want and also technically have unlimited bombs, meaning they can bomb airfields all they want. This is very different from a real war where command would regulate where and how bombs are used because there's not an unlimited supply.

 

I'd personally think that any MP servers that allowed it would find the games will just become all about which side can bomb the other sides usable airfield ground area first and it shouldn't be used. If it is used, there would need to be some changes to most servers, such as adding more airfields, moving airfields further from the lines, or allowing airfields the ability to relocate based on some action.

 

It would be right at home in SP though

 

[coconut]

 

 

They already avoid destroyed vehicles on a road.

 

Only if they are in the same column. And even then, not always successfully.

[=EXPEND=CG_Justin]

-snip-

 

The difficulty would come with lots of craters and determining how fast they should despawn to keep from overloading both the server and client.

 

-snip-

THIS^^^  While all the things I mentioned before seem cool, the reality is the graphics being rendered were par with the day, and even sub par in the end. Any time you make persistent changes for any length of time, it must be rendered by someone. Rendering 50 craters with 20 players circling around these craters will have a downside in performance. It did back in the day when I was running an Nvidia 7500 card. But alas...the more performance we get, the more we think we need. Its been going on "ad infinitum" since I started simming in 1999. We simmers are a greedy lot by nature. It's always "what else can we get!?"

Edited February 9, 2017 by CG_Justin