Trees are never destroyed?

[Blutaar]

I would prefer more viewrange and more drawing distances, 10km is not much for a sim and with bad viewranges it just feels like a fogbubble where you only see stuff at 10km and landtextures a bit further.

 

How long is the viewrange, does anyone know, i mean to the point of whiteness not to the point of low quality blurrie mess, i mean it sure is more then 10k but how much exactly?

[Finkeren]

I would prefer more viewrange and more drawing distances, 10km is not much for a sim and with bad viewranges it just feels like a fogbubble where you only see stuff at 10km and landtextures a bit further.

 

How long is the viewrange, does anyone know, i mean to the point of whiteness not to the point of low quality blurrie mess, i mean it sure is more then 10k but how much exactly?

I think the maximum is 50km in clear weather, but I might be wrong.

[Blutaar]

Thanks, i wish we could double it, i really like the viewdistance of DCS World, i dont know how far it is but on extreme it looks really nice.

[Scojo]

Thanks, i wish we could double it, i really like the viewdistance of DCS World, i dont know how far it is but on extreme it looks really nice.

I would at least like longer distances on buildings. I hate the popping in when doing bomb runs at high altitude

[LukeFF]

 

 

@LukeFF - Requesting one dead horse, please.

 

 

 

[Blutaar]

I would at least like longer distances on buildings. I hate the popping in when doing bomb runs at high altitude

Best would be double both, so maybe 100k viewdistance and 20k render distance, dont know how the performance hit would be but i would like to have the option.

[Ribbon]

uh it would be hit on performance implementing damage model to the trees.

i'm fine with eternal trees, i would rather they stop spining following my movement.

[=VARP=Cygann]

One middle solution could be that if there is a bomb that hits in a wood (or just a tree or close to it), fire and smoke remain for a duration or singleplayer mission.

That way you don't see the trees from persistent smoke similar to those of town destruction only not as big, and we get some feeling we actually destroyed (set on fire) few trees. Smoke would also hide lack of object destruction and missing craters and would also provide extra navigation marks.

 

In multiplayer this effect could have some reasonable duration of lets say 15 min, then the fire goes out and maps looks like nothing happened on that spot, because persisting smoke indefinite on long lasting MP maps would not be wise for many reasons.

[Blutaar]

I would love persistent damage and fire/smoke effects on landscape.

 

The idea to bomb some woods or other landmarks for navigation purpusses could add a nice gameplay element on full real servers.

 

But sadly there are so many other more important things to do in my opinion like the viewdistance and AI and of course many other things.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

OK, but what do burning trees or tree with a DM add to the overall value of gameplay?

 

There is a lot of "Well, it could be done this way or that way." but no convincing explanation of what it adds to a Combat Flight Simulator.

[Blutaar]

I would say immersion and visual appeal.

 

But how i said, for me its not important enough because i think there are many more things to do first.

[Scojo]

Better clouds would add WAY more "immersion" value to the sim than better trees. Why is no one pushing for that? Planes LITERALLY fly in the clouds. You're not supposed to be interacting with trees that much. Also Clouds can greatly affect how combat plays out. A complex tree model doesn't

 

It's funny you mention fire though because Ghost gave a good little comedy skit as to why stuff like that can turn into feature creep.

[Blutaar]

Yeah, better clouds before better trees of course and many more stuff before both.

 

I fully agree that there are far more stuff that would bring more to the game then DM trees or other minor things.