Quote:
Originally Posted by III/JG53_Don
Did I miss something regarding the tree collision? Because B6 answered to my statement on page 4 (that we now need tree collision for sure) the following:
From my understanding this means, that they are far from releasing a patch with tree collision at least in nearest future.
|
You are absolutely correct. Some people either misunderstood the original comment (which is fine), or they are trying to sneak in some irony about often-repeated subjects that will end up derailing the thread (which is not fine at all and i'm onto it, just in case)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sutts
Wouldn't a solution to this problem be tree settings as a server parameter? Different servers would support different tree densities and everyone would be on a level playing field then?
|
Also correct. Something similar happened ages ago with the detailed clouds back in the original IL2: people with higher detail clouds lost sight of contacts in them much easier than people with low detail clouds.
The solution was even simpler, the server admin would just post a message on the forums and a similar one in-game at regular intervals: "please use low detail clouds to ensure you are not at a disadvantage". Of course everyone used low detail clouds. When everyone's hardware caught up, the issue disappeared.
In our case, we can simply do with a minimum enforced level of detail: the server should force low forest density as a minimum (eg, users can still set forest to medium or high if they want a prettier picture, but not turn it off completely and sidestep the common boundary of the playing field in terms of collisions and visibility), just to have some trees around, while the players can be informed via on-screen messages that they should use the server setting and not higher if they want to remain competitive.
Find me one person in this forum who, given a choice, will fly with forest on high if it gives the other guy an edge
In other words, problem is pretty much solved on the player level anyway thanks to competition, and the more people try to paint this as a problem, the more i'll just have to keep reminding them of how such "problems" can be solved with the flick of a switch and have been repeatedly solved in the past, as long as someone is not hung up on making things harder than they really are
If the new graphics engine also manages to ensure that a minimum spec system is able to run with forest set to low, there won't even be a case of "sorry, can't join server XYZ". Server admins want to populate their servers, otherwise they are a waste of rented bandwidth. You think they will run forests on highest detail until the majority of their potential players have the hardware to keep up with it? I'm not so sure.
In fact, history has again shown that server admins do the exact opposite, they cater to their players: back when i used to occasionally fly IL2:1946 on Spits vs 109s there was a guy who had connection problems. The server admins would relax the ping restriction just so that one guy could fly (and good on them for being good sports and doing so), because empty servers are useless servers.
Now, in terms of the recently emerging back and forth...please cut it out both sides and try to control yourselves a bit. I don't want to have to delete 10 pages of off-topic posts again, so do me a favor and stick to discussing the update and not your opinions about other members
