New river system anomaly

[Easyscor]

In the New road and rail system question discussion, , one item hasn't been addressed.
This screenshot shows a visual anomaly in long river paths. Please note the way the river climbs above the trees in the distance.

[Easyscor]

With the railroads, the anomaly isn't as pronounced, as shown in this screenshot.
These paths were both less then 7 miles.

Perhaps shortening the LOD when close to the ground might remove it?
Something like:
If in a vehicle path max LOD = 3 miles.
or
If altitude above ground < 40, path LOD = 3 miles.

[bustr]

Do you mean this 50ft side wall effect from a mile away?

[Easyscor]

No. I mean exactly what I posted.

The problem that you display is different, and new compared to an early version of the rivers, as far as I can tell, but maybe I have missed it. Easily done if I didn't try widening the river.

I believe if you compare the river vs rail parameters in the .tra file, something jumps out as noticeable.
Notice that the Alt is used for widening the river while the 4th parameter is not used.

River x,alt,z,?
-82813.976387,102.000000,-11777.063994,00000000
-82813.976387,102.000000,20884.440780,00000000

Rail x,alt,z,?
-87050.418977,0.000000,-11721.271337,00000000
-87050.418977,0.000000,21847.870428,00000000

I've experimented with lowering roads and tracks to -0.5 because I don't like the way they stick up, but it's a lot more work in checking each track.

[715]

I believe they "stick up" to counter Z-fighting and I think this is dynamically rendered with the amount they stick up being increased for further view differences (because the the mathematics of the Z-buffer requires a larger separation between river and land surfaces at longer view distances).

[hitech]

No. I mean exactly what I posted.

The problem that you display is different, and new compared to an early version of the rivers, as far as I can tell, but maybe I have missed it. Easily done if I didn't try widening the river.

I believe if you compare the river vs rail parameters in the .tra file, something jumps out as noticeable.
Notice that the Alt is used for widening the river while the 4th parameter is not used.

River x,alt,z,?
-82813.976387,102.000000,-11777.063994,00000000
-82813.976387,102.000000,20884.440780,00000000

Rail x,alt,z,?
-87050.418977,0.000000,-11721.271337,00000000
-87050.418977,0.000000,21847.870428,00000000

I've experimented with lowering roads and tracks to -0.5 because I don't like the way they stick up, but it's a lot more work in checking each track.

Lowering them is a very very bad idea. Then when I change the slope in the shader for the z buffer fight, it will not work.

HiTech

[Easyscor]

Lowering them is a very very bad idea. Then when I change the slope in the shader for the z buffer fight, it will not work.

HiTech

Got it, thanks!

[bustr]

The 50ft side wall effect has been there since I tested my first river when the path tool was released and is what you are describing just seen from the side in my screen shot. At about 1 mile you are seeing the 50ft wall effect while looking out along the river object. At a distance the river looks like it's running in the air. I have 28 of these things I'm putting in my project and look at it all day long. It's kind of obvious that as long as the river object has to be elevated to stop z-fighting, this visual effect is the trade off to have rivers. You should see it driving to the bridges from the spawns. I'm using green as the river bottom land and it's a big green wall until you get about 100yds away or so. Then it's a green curb running through the trees. I set all the land for my rivers at 1ft raising up to 20ft so M8, jeeps, and M3 cannot hide behind the curb and run away down the river from tanks sitting higher up. Though with the 50ft wall effect, some may get a klingon river wall cloaking effect.....

If that does happen, the whine fest in here will be legion. I probably should set some range markers and test at what distance the wall goes away and you see the low curb called the river bank.

[bustr]

Just tested this for GV combat. First screen shot is at 1000yds and you can see the 50ft tall green wall and not the three tanks I set just at the far shore edge. The second is at 500yds and still you cannot see the three tanks sitting just at the far shore. At 350yds you can start seeing the tops of the tanks. At 100yds you can see the tanks and the target at 500yds in the hill wall. Pretty tall river. And the last screen shot is your river rising up to meet the sky or the 50ft tall wall.

I'm glad I tested this, GVers will not accept this as is. Just getting the 5ft tall river bank to stay 5ft tall at all distances will work for GV combat.

[715]

Bustr that's a really good point that I hadn't thought of.  Those tanks beyond the river, but close to it, will see a short river bank and if they park properly could easily see targets far beyond the river, while those targets will just see shells coming at them from through the tall (to them) river bank.  I agree, that's a showstopper.

[hitech]

I think the solution will be to adjust the height based on view angle. When looking from a low perspective z fighting isn't an issue like when look at it from alt.

HiTech

[bustr]

Thank you Hitech, I'm 16 rivers in with bridges. I would hate to have to pull out the path rivers and create 0 elevation rivers by hand now. But, I'll do it if the current river object is not ready for prime time.