Well...we said it would be a problem..

[Strike]

I believe it was said that each tree would need a "collision box" that would need to be constantly updated relative to all planes in the map and would eventually require so much resources it would bring the sim to a halt.

Rise of flight has collision trees, but look at how many houses we have in CloD compared to ROF, and all of CloDs buildings have collision boxes. So if the same performance rules applies to ROF, they can have collision boxes for their trees because the total number of collision boxes are the same as CloD with ONLY collision boxes for the buildings.

Solution!?

Dunno, but I'm sure that if they find a way to implement it without killing our performance it will be done I'm just happy we lost the "invisible trees" from IL-2 1946. God I hate those.

[onchas]

Originally Posted by Strike

I believe it was said that each tree would need a "collision box" that would need to be constantly updated relative to all planes in the map and would eventually require so much resources it would bring the sim to a halt.

Why's that? Why couldn't they designate any forest large enough to hide a plane that flies through it as a single box and designate it create a damage type that would bend the airframe and cause the plane to spin and crash?

Similarly, they could use a single large collision box for a large forest and give it a (extremely high) statistical chance of causing certain kinds of catastrophic failure. So skimming into it quickly might act like touching the tops of the trees (minimal damage) being remaining in there for a second or more would result in catastrophic failure.

Trees or stands not large enough to be relevant for flying through them could be ignored.

I've never seen the quote saying each tree would require its own collision box, but it doesn't seem to pass the sniff test.


EDIT: that's what I get for only reading the first page. Klemm's link above goes to a post he made making basically the same suggestion I just made.

[kendo65]

There are A LOT of individual trees on the COD map.

That is one of the features that people have said is wrong or overdone, so just arranging collision detection for areas of forest will leave a phenomenal amount of trees still with a problem and won't be very realistic.

[onchas]

Originally Posted by kendo65

There are A LOT of individual trees on the COD map.

That is one of the features that people have said is wrong or overdone, so just arranging collision detection for areas of forest will leave a phenomenal amount of trees still with a problem and won't be very realistic.

As I understand the issue the OP was raising wasn't primarily one of realism but the functional problem of multiplayer PvP with some players diving to the deck and skirting through forests to be invisible as a way of disengaging.

The fact that the phenomenon you're talking about and the phenomenon the OP is talking about both involves trees doesn't mean they're the same issue. I'm not trying to discredit your concern completely, but I do think it's less significant in a PvP server when there seems to be a problem with hiding in forests to avoid losing fights.

It may rankle your aesthetic preferences, but non-collisions with lone trees is not exactly going to break the multiplayer PvP experience.

[kendo65]

Yes - I was talking pretty much from my own perspective as a predominantly offline player with a focus on realism where possible.

No offence intended.