Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Morpheus on April 27, 2005, 06:56:06 AM
-
Title pretty much says it all.
I think they look ok. But.
There's too many of them. Really all you see is a lot of rolling hills with a forest and in there somewhere a patch or two of green grass but even then you'll find a single tree here and there in the clearnings.
I think things would look alot better if the trees were slimmed down just a tad. Had some larger fields added, anything to break it up a bit. Im not asking to have em taken out. But just take some of them out.
-
not only that, the rendering isn't totally smooth.
trees are overdone. it's like ah2 maps are covered with primival forrest.
there needs to be some other type of forrest for areas that gv's will never see...
-
Depends on map.
Have you ever seen the nature here in northen europe?
Sweden and finland is nothing but forrest. If anything the balitc map should have MORE trees.
But for non "real" maps, yeah sure lower number of trees I dont mind.
Tex
-
Ive said it and I'll say it again regarding the trees.. They are literally 200 feet tall.. Unless the entire arena is set at Sequoia National park, I think they should be made smaller.. Most full grown trees seem to be anywhere from 30-60ft tall, but apparently its quite the opposite in AH.. An extra 100 feet along the ground would be very helpful when manuvering
-
Have you ever seen the nature here in northen europe?
Who said thats' where we are playing?
If realism were the objective, we wouldn't have three sides, maps with bases and VH's and ports within 15 miles of one another.
Point being, we are not playing over northern europe.
What should justify how the terrain looks?
Well for one, IMO playability. For one my PC that is anything but old is getting 20frps in some spots. Now I dont know if this is from the trees or not. And I don't have my detail settings set even close to mid way. Before the patch I NEVER saw anything lower than 60's with the same detail settings. Is it still playable? Yeah but just barely... For me anyways.
Secondly the terrain just needs to be broken up. I understand tiles for terrain and the complexity involved in creating a terrain. But the tiles just have way too many trees on them.
You mean to tell me you have no fields in Norther Europe?
It just doesnt look right. I mean no disrespect to anyone who has made these terrains or tiles ect ect.... All I'm saying is we need to cut out some of these trees. There are too many.
-
Here is an idea, lose them. You cant see them when you fly at 2K and all they do is reach up and grab you after they kill your FPS when you fly below 2K. I can only play the game over water now. 40fps over water, 10 or less over trees. But hey, they are new. Lets get some more.
-
I agree...can the trees. I know they are a benefit to GVs, but sheesh they are too much. At least give the option to tottaly turn them off. Should just call them FPS Giant Sequoias because they are ridiculously oversizes and give the added benefit of castrating you video card performance.
-
Originally posted by Blammo
Should just call them FPS Giant Sequoias because they are ridiculously oversized
Finally, someone who agrees with me
-
I like the trees, but I'm with morph and shane here when they say there are too many of them. Almost every fight ends up on the deck, and seems like I'm consistently dodging trees on these new terrains.
-
I say put trees where they can be of use, like places where Gvs can use them to hide. But we have WAY too many of them in places they don't need to be. They just kill framerates for people who don't have top o' the line machines.
Let's be judicious in our use of foliage.
-
Down with the Trees, bring back the sheep
baaaaaa
-
it's kinda fun watching fully loaded bombers dodge the trees right at the end of runways - too bad nobody cut them down :) !
-
I know alot of people constantly update their video card driver, but how many ever update the driver for their monitor?
case in point, using the best selected monitor driver Win XP suggested verses the most up to date driver Panasonic suggested drops my FPS by 15 to 20, when use the Panasonic driver for my monitor my FPS goes up 15 to 20 and even gives me more ranges of refresh rate to choose from
just a thought..........
Microsoft doesn't always knows what is best!
-
The only thing that really bothers me about the trees is their proximity to runways. Some approaches are completely blocked by trees that are towering over the thresholds.
MiG
-
Originally posted by CMC Airboss
The only thing that really bothers me about the trees is their proximity to runways. Some approaches are completely blocked by trees that are towering over the thresholds.
MiG
As I posted in the Bugs forum, I've had many many tree encounters 1/4 mile out from the runway....that just suddenly spawn. Not always directly ahead, some off-center. Annoying!
I have no issues dodging what's known to be there...but now its here, now it isnt? Arrgh!
-
Originally posted by Nuke33
Ive said it and I'll say it again regarding the trees.. They are literally 200 feet tall.. Unless the entire arena is set at Sequoia National park, I think they should be made smaller
:lol
I actually think they are taller than 200ft, it used to be I needed flaps to launch heavy off carrier, now I need to do it to clear the trees at the end of runway.
-
...trees in front of runway?..
what kind of glide path are u gusy on?..seems a bit lo ; )
but..I want a desert map..F the trees.
-
Too many, too big, they are like skycrapers all around the runaways. They are so big the speed feeling at low level is totally gone.
-
Reminds me of a scene from...
Jurassic Park.
-
I've never seen trees that looked 100 feet tall in the game let alone 200.
From a reality perspective most look to be no more then 40-50 feet, tops. If that.
Which is a nice sized tree but I wouldnt call it huge.
I dont think many people realise just how high 40 feet really is or how low 100 feet really is
I've seen many trees near 100 feet tall. They arent all that uncommon. Sugar maples in southern new england for example frequently reach 100 feet and more.
Other species regularly grow well over 120-150 feet in forest conditions.
I have seen trees on hills just off airfeilds making them look higher/taller then they really are. And I've yet to see a tree here taller then I've climbed when I was doing Steeplejack work (when I as younger and thought I was immortal)
If anything, the Trees perhaps need to be moved back and away from the airfeilds a tad.
but I think their scale is pretty accurate and in many cases shorter then they could be.
-
I would like to see the trees moved from the field as well. It just doesnt make sense to have trees right in the direct way of the flight paths. Seems to me any civil engineer who designed airports would have them cut away for saftey reasons. Granted this is a game but I dont see why some real life concepts wouldnt be applicable.
-
This is just an example (closest tree to my spawn point), not sure whether there are taller trees or not in the game.
(http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/trees.gif)
117 feet wide x 157 feet tall, near 50m tall trees.
-
I stand corrected
Must be a New England Sugar maple :)
In any event its not an unusual sized tree.
The Giant Redwood grow upwards of 300+ feet.
-
Be nice if our GVs could clear cut some of those muthers down!
Burn, baby, burn!
-
I notice when im going past the trees really fast like 400+mph. It shutters.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
IIn any event its not an unusual sized tree.
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Perk the Trees:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MANDO
This is just an example (closest tree to my spawn point), not sure whether there are taller trees or not in the game.
(http://www.terra.es/personal2/matias.s/trees.gif)
117 feet wide x 157 feet tall, near 50m tall trees.
That is insane and needs to be fixed. Lol looks so funny, that little gv suronded by 200+ feet trees.
-
Don't forget the grass capable of hiding entire battalions behind.
Wonder if we'll get a perked lawnmower :)
-
Originally posted by MANDO
:rofl :rofl :rofl
"
White Pine: In pre-colonial times White pines in the over 150 ft class were probably not that uncommon in the river valleys of New England. Tall pines were recorded in New York, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and parts of the central and southern Appalachians. On occasion White pines grew much taller. There is no question that the species exceeded 230 feet in a few cases, with pines reported at 230, 247, 262, and 264 feet. Considering what we see today, these numbers seem impossible. Today there is only a handful of places where the combination of growing conditions and tree age favor pines that can get into the 150 foot and above class. Most places are in the southern Appalachians where we have measured White pines to 207 feet. The Cathedral Pines of Cornwall, CT were the flagship stand of New England. .The CathedralPines had quite a few trees in the 150 foot class and one was measured to 172 feet "
"Sugar Maple: The potential status of this species is probably earned and actually may be understated..In-forest Sugar maples in southern New England can easily reach 100 feet, but trees above 115 are rare. Those above 120 are very rare. This tree benefits from water, rich soil, protection, etc. The tree grows on the east side of Todd Mountain which is part of the Todd-Clark ridge complex"
"Eastern Hemlock: I have measured this species over most of New England, elsewhere in the Northeast, and in the central and southern Appalachians. .Hemlocks in southern New England can easily surpass 100 feet. Above 115, they quickly sort themselves out. Even on the most favorable sites, they seem to hit a wall at 120 to 125 feet. The Ice Glen tree is an exception. It is ideally located. In parts of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, on occasion the Hemlock can surpass 140 feet in height. In a few spots in the southern Appalachians, the species can surpass 160. Northward into Vermont and New Hampshire the species tops out at 95 to about 105 feet. Rarely a little taller"
"American Sycamore: In our region, this species can easily reach 90 to 110 feet, but I just don't find them above that . Big sycamores in other parts of the central and northeastern U.S. seem to top out at 90 to 110 feet. In the South and in the Mid-west, the American sycamore can easily surpass 120 feet. There are reports of much taller trees, but the reports usually are based on wholly inadequate measurements. I measured a sycamore in the Beall Woods of Illinois to almost 120 feet. Will Blozan has measured them to 152 feet in the Smokies"
I can go on.
You really need to get out of the city more
-
you know you're just bolstering the argument. you're pointing to a stand or a tree here and there (or the primeval forrest that existed before the settlers started clearing stuff.)
-
Originally posted by Shane
you know you're just bolstering the argument. you're pointing to a stand or a tree here and there (or the primeval forrest that existed before the settlers started clearing stuff.)
No, Im pointing to examples. You might want to notice I only highlighted the parts where it said the species "Can easily reach or surpass" and
Southern New England and "in the south and midwest" I'd say covers quite an extencive area
-
Originally posted by Shane
not only that, the rendering isn't totally smooth.
trees are overdone. it's like ah2 maps are covered with primival forrest.
there needs to be some other type of forrest for areas that gv's will never see...
EXACTLY. I've posted it in several threads.
1. at LEAST thin out the trees.
2. possibly only have the current trees in 'GV ZONES' or something.
3. or even use two diff types of trees. use the current trees near where gv's have access, and the other "turn off able" trees like in AH1 in all other areas.
-
How about we stop having 200 ft tall trees right off the end of runways at large and medium airfields? OK, I can see maybe having them near GV bases and possible even small airfields (although, they are paved and improved airfields so you think the little virtual engineers would have cleared the trees), but large and medium airfields should definitely be cleared for at least a thousand feet or so. Probably would be better to have them at least a thousand yards or better.
There are way to many of these titatium reinforced, kevla -lined, frame-rate killing, über trees. I love the look of them, but I don't love them enough to see a gazillion of them within a mile of the airfield I am operating out of.
PS: Please reduce the height of the grass to under 8 feet tall.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
No, Im pointing to examples. You might want to notice I only highlighted the parts where it said the species "Can easily reach or surpass" and
Southern New England and "in the south and midwest" I'd say covers quite an extencive area
and all of your examples point to remote/rural (semi)mountainous areas. and even then it's a a scattering of trees amongst the ofrrest, not an etire forrest of behemoths.
as for the sycamore tree, which you inferred being over a large area of midwest/south... perhaps, but.... "It is found as scattered individuals rather than in pure natural stands. "
while being a country boy is a good thing, even country boys need to hit the books now and then. :D
-
Originally posted by Shane
and all of your examples point to remote/rural (semi)mountainous areas. and even then it's a a scattering of trees amongst the ofrrest, not an etire forrest of behemoths.
as for the sycamore tree, which you inferred being over a large area of midwest/south... perhaps, but.... "It is found as scattered individuals rather than in pure natural stands. "
while being a country boy is a good thing, even country boys need to hit the books now and then. :D
LOL your missing my point entirely.
I was simply using those as examples. If a species of tree can "Easily reach" a given height then its not all that unusual or uncommon for that type of tree to reach that height.
My point is that 100 foot trees are not all that rare.
Im not a country boy (though I am one at heart) but I do like to spend time in the country. I see 100 foot trees all the time. I can leave my house and find a 100 foot tree in less then 5 min. and I dont even live in the country:)
Plus people dont realise just how short a distance 100 feet really is.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I see 100 foot trees all the time. I can leave my house and find a 100 foot tree in less then 5 min. and I dont even live in the country:)
the point really is, you don't see forest upon forest of them. Trees are like any other species, a few dominant surrounded by smaller brethen. trees compete for resources, ya know. and in the picture above, the closest brach to the bottom is a good 30+ feet high... c'mon, and 8ft grass...
scaling is off... as is density.
hopefully they'll eventually be tweaked somewhat.
-
Originally posted by Shane
scaling is off... as is density.
I agree that the trees are too tall. 100+ foot trees are common in my area to, but we are talking about AH here. The tree at 157' shown in the screen shot is not a rare tree, I think most AH trees are the same size, so 157' is too tall for sure. My opinion, trees should be in the 80' to 100' range. The tall grass, no more than 5' but I think 3-4' would be best.
As far as thinning the trees out, I couldn't disagree more. Trees in forest areas grow close together. We still have plenty of open areas in AH that can be used for landing. We do however need to have the trees removed from the ends of runways.
-
I like the trees but also think that they need to be thined out some and the same for the underbrush, underbrush mite be more of a problem to fs then the trees.
-
The real problem with some of the trees is the ones planted at the end of the runways. They are too close for comfort on some fields. I also think the new trees are killing frame rates for some folks, especially when flying low. I'm not sure if it's the coding or if it's just the overly large numbers. And lets not forget the ones you don't see until you are only a few feet away from them, a sure way to auger without intention..
Wsky
-
Here's another funny observation:
Every notice how far the jungles are away from the towns at an airfield, yet you have 200 foot tall trees right off the end of the runways? How bout we transplant all those end-of-the-runway trees and put them right against the town? Just a thought. Sure doesn't make a lot of sense to have tries ringing the airstrip, yet a hald a mile aware from the town.
-
Originally posted by Blammo
Just a thought. Sure doesn't make a lot of sense to have tries ringing the airstrip, yet a hald a mile aware from the town.
what he said...
but in english.
:aok
-
Remember, guys, that's a T-34, not a car. Imagine a car in that image, and the tree looks even bigger.
-
I used to like trees in the arenas...until they farked up my damn frame rates. :rolleyes:
-
Yep, need to do something about the trees.
Chasing a Spit across an airfield. Had him in site all the way, both on the deck. Never lost sight of him but somehow hit a tree while he was at the same alt right in front of me.
Tree was all of a sudden just there. Rather frustrating to say the least.
Dan/CorkyJr