Wiggum Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Hi, maybe you know the problem with disappearing trees/road details at large maps. I came across this problem playing the "Road to Dinas" mission 3. I looks awful with such a short draw distance of trees... I have not a High-End PC but a good one and can play even big scenarios with max setting and AA+AF. And i think iam not the only one with such a powerfull PC. Battlefront should give players like me a option to get a bigger draw distance for trees ect. That would be a BIG improvement i think ! Here is my old thread, maybe no one looks in the tech forum. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90147 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I read your other thread. Maybe you should try putting all you setting to minimum instead of maximum to free up computing power so you can draw more trees. I too wish for a longer tree draw distance and will try that when I get a working computer again. Good luck! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 No way i will put my settings lower then Best/Best... Iam 100% sure that i have enough power to run large CMSF maps with max. settings and bigger draw distance. And im sure many more have PC's that can do the same. It seams like this is a old relict in the engine to cut of draw distance on large maps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Known case, for me at least Im quite sure I have tried lower settings. It shouldn't be necessary given my machine. There is at least 1gb ddr5 vram that CMSF should use (out of 2 available) and I don't think that is currently used. Anyway lower settings are really an option for me either. Hope CMN will bring some improvements in this? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 There is some problem with the code with processing power shared between AI calculations and visuals. At least that's what early versions of the game indicated, with trees disappearing when intense firefights were taking place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I posted in your original thread and I too am playing the Road to Dinas on mission 3. It's really apparent on this map, hell I didn't even know there was a forest on the right side until I scrolled up to it. Performance seems very good, butter smooth, but no way to make any adjustments to the game. Seems or feels too restricting considering I got a solid CPU and graphics card horsepower. CPU: Quadcore Q9550 2.83 GHz Memory: 4G Card: GeForce 9800GTX+ 512MB CMSF only uses one CPU, so duo or quad core users get zero benefits. I know this has been discussed before, they said it's simply not worth the time and effort to code for multi-core CPUs. Certainly coding for full quad-core support is a bit overboard. But at least addressing this for duo-cores would be great. This is at the top of the list IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gen. J-sun Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I actually like that 'feature'; it adds to the fog of war. When it happens I usually consult the map. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I actually like that 'feature'; it adds to the fog of war. When it happens I usually consult the map. However, sometimes i'm struck by forests appearing out of nowhere after I just scrolled the camera a tiny bit. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Rendering the whole map's worth of forest would be rather bad for the frame-rate given how it can struggle a bit as it is. There needs to be more LODs for the trees so they keep getting less detailed down to the point that they're simple sprites as you zoom out. At the moment the only option is to always have a different coloured terrain under forests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted December 23, 2009 Author Share Posted December 23, 2009 I actually like that 'feature'; it adds to the fog of war. When it happens I usually consult the map. But we talking about trees (woods) in a distance of 500m - 1km. If i look out of my window i can see woods ~5km away... I would say that a option to enable a bigger draw distance would be great, so everyone can do what he want or what his PC allow. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 +1 to allowing the player's computer to determine maximum draw distance for ALL terrain types. Woods and trees are only one facet of this issue. Roads are another. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I'll +1 to that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoex Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Trenches. Don't forget the trenches. I f***in HATE invisible trenches! +1 from me 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdogg Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Seems or feels too restricting considering I got a solid CPU and graphics card horsepower. CPU: Quadcore Q9550 2.83 GHz Memory: 4G Card: GeForce 9800GTX+ 512MB CMSF only uses one CPU, so duo or quad core users get zero benefits. I know this has been discussed before, they said it's simply not worth the time and effort to code for multi-core CPUs. Certainly coding for full quad-core support is a bit overboard. But at least addressing this for duo-cores would be great. This is at the top of the list IMO. NO support for multi core in CMSF ? That sucks, I love BF but sometimes decisions like this just seems GHETTO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 The reason that there will be no coding for multi-core CPUs in the near future is that it is VERY time consuming. It would probably take 6 months alone to get this to work as expected and then it makes future coding/debugging a bit more laborious. It is NOT a simple feature to add and sometimes the payoff isn't as great as hoped. It may get tacked sometime in the future, but I don't know when. I wouldn't expect it for at least the next two or three main CM titles. There's only one programmer for the CM series and a project like this would stall a lot of other development. Other companies who have multi-core enabled engines have a half-dozen or more developers working on those engines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdogg Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 Thats the point of my statement, I think its time for BF to expand and hire more coders. If one has accomplished all this, just think what can be accomplished with 3 to 5. Has BF thought about out sourcing to eastern europe, theres a cheap coder workforce over there. Just look at all the games coming out of eastern europe right now. There's so many things that need to be improved that BF "doesn't have time" for . It seems that the great product they are producing has a demand greater than the means. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 There's probably more "feature demand" than there is 'product demand' and that's a crucial difference. I don't have access to the sales numbers of the CM line, but the sales margins may not be all that huge to afford to bring on one or more coders. While CM is a fairly popular series, the market is MUCH smaller for games of this genre than for many other games on the market. Not surprisingly many game development houses are starting to concentrate on the console market because the "numbers are better there". Bringing on more coders is also time consuming since they need to become familiarized with the code. Perhaps in the future something like this may be considered, but it would be a huge change from the way development is done now and I don't quite foresee this happening at this point. There will always be significant demand for features, but there isn't always the financial resources to meet that sort of demand. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdogg Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 That makes sense...on a side note a new feature I would love to see developed would be the campaign system into a more dynamic environment. Something similar to Falcon 4.0 (I know its a sim) where the war is going on around you and you could jump into a tactical battle from the stategic layer. I BF could pull this of it would be the game of the decade, but its a huge undertaking for a small company like BF. To me this is where the CM series should go, I feel like the upcoming games are just cookie cutters from the same engine with no real development of new game play. If I wanted to just have a tactical demonstration I would play steel beasts, a dynamic campaign environment is where the CM series could really change wargaming as we know it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted December 27, 2009 Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 Now, is there something like a final statement to the problem with the low draw distance on large maps ? I would love to see a option to incrase the draw distance in the NATO Module for CMSF and the Normandy game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 I don't think there's a final statement to be made yet on this feature/limitation. It will require making some changes to the engine that may be more complex than I'm aware of. I don't know if it will be considered for CMSF or if it is something that will have to wait for the CM Normandy title or one of its patches. That is assuming that it is easy to do, going from a hard-coded memory management setting to a user controllable one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted December 28, 2009 Author Share Posted December 28, 2009 I don't think there's a final statement to be made yet on this feature/limitation. It will require making some changes to the engine that may be more complex than I'm aware of. I don't know if it will be considered for CMSF or if it is something that will have to wait for the CM Normandy title or one of its patches. That is assuming that it is easy to do, going from a hard-coded memory management setting to a user controllable one. Thanks for the quick answer. But i would like to hear Steve's opinion to that...maybe he could say more on that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 30, 2009 Share Posted December 30, 2009 CM determines draw distance based on the player's settings, modified as necessary when things go wonky. We're pretty sure that giving players micro-management control over what stuff is drawn when won't yield the sort of improvements many of you think you'll see. However, we do understand that people would rather have more control than less. The issue for us is coding for this. As with so many things, allowing players to inject their own parameters (especially if it's to be done on the fly vs. prior to the game start) is not a straight forward, simple thing to do. Which is why it's not a top priority all things considered, though in theory we don't have a problem with it. So hopefully at some point we'll offer more options. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted December 30, 2009 Author Share Posted December 30, 2009 Thanks for the answer Steve ! CMSF has a .ini to set the resolution, maybe it is possible to have a .ini to control the draw distance of objects (trees, trenches ect.) because i think the game engine dosent use and take benefit from the power of modern gaming PC's. Im sure that even with a much stronger PC as my current one, the draw distance would stay the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 What is the maximum draw distance? My system should be able to draw more then it does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 As with so many things, allowing players to inject their own parameters (especially if it's to be done on the fly vs. prior to the game start) is not a straight forward, simple thing to do. Steve, You expect people to set their hotkeys in a text file. How much more difficult is it to read graphical preference values from an equivalent text file?!???! Best regards, Thomm 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.