Author Topic: Enhancement: Contrails as appropriate (Read 297 times)

AtmkRstr · « **Reply #15 on:** November 14, 2002, 10:25:33 AM »

Contrails looked great in WWIIOL, I bet they would be great here. I'm all for it.

Innominate · « **Reply #16 on:** November 14, 2002, 10:40:27 AM »

Contrails would be great as an option.

MadBirdCZ · « **Reply #17 on:** November 15, 2002, 05:02:58 AM »

Contrails? YES Please...

And dont forget about smoke from Ta-152's engine when on WEP

buzkill · « **Reply #18 on:** November 15, 2002, 06:45:46 AM »

if you got a problem with frame rates, maybe its time for an upgrade:confused:

LePaul · « **Reply #19 on:** November 20, 2002, 10:03:16 AM »

Make it an option, don't let the cool graphical development of the game cease because someone cant afford to upgrade that old Pentium 133

And to their credit, if they know it'll cause a system hit, make it something they can toggle off/on like the ground clutter

This SVGA looking game needs some goodies the graphic cards are capable of generating.

JB73 · « **Reply #20 on:** November 20, 2002, 05:52:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by buzkill
if you got a problem with frame rates, maybe its time for an upgrade:confused:

well i got:
Athlon XP1900
768mb DDRRam
64mb GeForce vid card

and i still get frame rate hits when in heavy smoke at a capped base ....... frame rates around 35-40 where normally 75-95

Chairboy · « **Reply #21 on:** November 20, 2002, 06:27:29 PM »

If these were implemented as particles, sure, there could be a frame rate hit. I imagine that the CPU-frugal coders at HTC would probably look for a way to do this cheaply, as in using simply polygon to show contrails from a distance, and only switching to particles when you're close. Close up, the density of the particles would probably be less then 'airfield-on-fire smoke'.