Georgie Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 In a large or huge battle you can wind up with ten or so burning AFVs on each side. This, it seems to me, eats up a lot of processing and graphics power. How about letting an AFV burn for say five turns and then stop burning? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Steppenwulf Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I thought about this before now also. However I suppose since black smoke actually fades rather than just stops, this might perhaps explain the reason. Providing a more realistic look requires an amended animation sequence to the current loop. I expect it will get addressed soon enough but it may also form part of the broader area of damage modelling such as burned out hulls, broken tracks, displaced side skirts etc...All part of the same box of tricks so my guess is they will all get worked on together at some point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Would this be the place to ask BF for more 3D "map clutter" - burned out hulks of tanks, armoured cars, cars, trucks etc. War detritus as it were. It would be up to the map makers to place it, but it would add immersion and if our graphics cards can render smoke, I can't see a couple of extra objects killing one's system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Problem with the idea of stopping the graphic depiction of a burning AFV after 5 minutes is that IRL AFVs will burn for much longer than this, and the burn has an actual tactical effect -- the smoke column blocks LOS. Since the the performance hit from rendering the smoke columns will become less and less of an issue as computers and especially graphics cards get faster, it's a good guess that BFC will just leave this as is and the issue will eventually become less and less important for most players. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I would hate to lose the smoke. +1 to Baneman's suggestion. More eye candy clutter would be great. Dead cattle, wrecks, crashed aircraft... It would make the wonderful terrain graphics even more interesting as one's forward units round a road bend or walk through woods and come across such things... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Sounds like it's time for Georgie to get a new computer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I think the CM battlefield suffers from too little smoke rather than too much. There is a hotkey toggle -- IIRC it is Alt-K -- that will turn off smoke if you computer is bogging. I have personally never noticed smoke making any difference in performance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted April 9, 2013 Author Share Posted April 9, 2013 Sounds like it's time for Georgie to get a new computer No I'v got a new computer but was wondering if a lot of burning vehicles would add to the OOM problem? And its beginning to look like I should have got a Mac. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davek555 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Never had a problem with burning vehicles slowing down my computer but then I don't play the large scenarios. One thing that concerns me though is when BFC puts fire in game. A large spreading fire could cause quite a lot of smoke. I hope it doesn't affect frame rate too much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I'm willing to bet that however much smoke BFC makes fires generate in-game will be much less than it does in reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Schultz Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 BFC's fire-generated smoke will be less than that in real life, because a designer can just add light fog/fog to the atmospheric settings to give that "forest fire" ambiance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 The fog in CMx2 is very thin, not really comparable to a forest fire. Well, maybe if you're a hundred miles downwind of the fire 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davek555 Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 I don't think the fog setting would do it. Not unless BFC comes up with a thicker fog like was in CM1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Not to mention that there is no way to make the appearance of fog dependent on the presence of fire. If you make your scenario or QB foggy it will be foggy even if there is no fire at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nik mond Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Would this be the place to ask BF for more 3D "map clutter" - burned out hulks of tanks, armoured cars, cars, trucks etc. War detritus as it were. It would be up to the map makers to place it, but it would add immersion and if our graphics cards can render smoke, I can't see a couple of extra objects killing one's system. Scenario designers can pre-position all the burnt out vehicles they wanted, or, still burning, or disabled etc. I see what you are getting at tho, the raw map itself as an object 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 Scenario designers can pre-position all the burnt out vehicles they wanted, or, still burning, or disabled etc. 'Tis true, but they don't look wrecked. They're just the normal model with open hatches, a droopy main gun and smoke and flames "pouring" out. It'd be nice for there to be flavour objects which show rather more catastrophic effects, even if those effects can't be displayed on "live" (or formerly so) wrecks generated during the fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rake Posted April 9, 2013 Share Posted April 9, 2013 The fog in CMx2 is very thin, not really comparable to a forest fire. Well, maybe if you're a hundred miles downwind of the fire Truth! This one ran me out of my home for four days back in '07. As the video shows, there were times when the smoke blacked out the sun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 I don't think the fog setting would do it. Not unless BFC comes up with a thicker fog like was in CM1. In any event, CM probably should have a very thick fog setting available anyway. I recall driving through Topanga Canyon one night and not being able to see farther than the next stripe in the road. I understand that London can have even thicker fogs. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Thankfully London was never invaded in WWII... except by Yanks of course! Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 Thankfully London was never invaded in WWII... except by Yanks of course! And Canadians, Poles, and sundry other friends and acquaintances. I understand that the "girls" of Picadilly Circus did a land rush business in the fog. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted April 10, 2013 Share Posted April 10, 2013 You can of course turn the smoke option off. I would like to see burning buildings as, if I remember correctly you could in the original CM. Regarding mist/fog and for that matter weather in general this is one feature I have never been happy with from a visual perspective. Would like to see this improved but made adjustable to suit the varying quality of graphics cards. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.