not realistic graphics

[elegance]

Other days its all looked to hazy and out of focus to me. The cursor controls respond much slower as well

Turn off post render filter. Does wonders for the visual quality. The second thing is on purpose.

[GOPHUR]

No time to read all 3 pages today lads. Is there a bug here I'm looking for? Can I get the short version?

[jaeger]

No time to read all 3 pages today lads. Is there a bug here I'm looking for? Can I get the short version?

They are saying that the trees look more realistic in 1.30 and cost less performance.

[elegance]

Have a look at this (related) thread.

Basically why are we still having problems with zoomed up trees. (the link leads to my theory). And if the crappy looking trees we have now are really necessary.

Edited June 1, 2010 by elegance

[matt6767]

No time to read all 3 pages today lads. Is there a bug here I'm looking for? Can I get the short version?

Its not a bug, some of are wondering if we can get better detailed trees or an optional choice of having better detailed trees than the current version we see in beta.

Edited June 1, 2010 by Matt6767

[munchkin]

The trees HAVE better detail. The trees in themselves look more realistic if you walk up close to them. Then there's MORE leaves, which makes them blend together from a distance, just like they do in the real world. The old trees had fewer leaves and hence was in a way more visible... but there were less detail than the new trees.

Only advantage with the old trees were the sway, but I'd rather have these very nice looking trees than the old ones that looked like plastic flowers.

[valis]

Not realistic? The new flora is beyond better than previous versions. I just think they need to come down a little on the detail. The trees I haven't noticed any problems with... it's more so the very large hedges/bushes.

[Hinfoos]

The trees HAVE better detail. The trees in themselves look more realistic if you walk up close to them. Then there's MORE leaves.

so units further away got a bigger advantage?

[gtanner]

They are saying that the trees look more realistic in 1.30 and cost less performance.

some pages this and some pages seeing if it would be possible to reverse the LODs as they were in the initial stages of beta testing, they turn to paper to quickly and the textures are not as sharp as they were.

[GOPHUR]

.18 beta, same location

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

You noticed the 40% improvement in fps then?

[GOPHUR]

Beta:

1.30:

This comparison is all that is relevant. You decide which one looks better for the same performance.

[Jizzyjaz]

This comparison is all that is relevant. You decide which one looks better for the same performance.

I think the consensus in the thread was that the new speedtrees would be fine if they looked better. The problem is you guys have the high detail set so close that 80% of the time we see the low LOD model. What i purposed is adding back in the slider, with the current settings you have, as the lowest setting.

[elegance]

The tree types in the top picture drawn like the bottom picture.

If the engine wasnt drawing high lod trees even when they are not visible (in zoomed view) we could have high quality trees with high fps.

Edited June 2, 2010 by elegance

[matt6767]

I think the consensus in the thread was that the new speedtrees would be fine if they looked better. The problem is you guys have the high detail set so close that 80% of the time we see the low LOD model. What i purposed is adding back in the slider' date=' with the current settings you have, as the lowest setting.[/quote']

This

[GOPHUR]

I think the consensus in the thread was that the new speedtrees would be fine if they looked better. The problem is you guys have the high detail set so close that 80% of the time we see the low LOD model. What i purposed is adding back in the slider' date=' with the current settings you have, as the lowest setting.[/quote']

And performance would suffer, and everyone would complain about fps tanking whenever they look at trees.

We reduced the texture size on these for a reason and until we switch ST versions again it probably isn't going to change. I too like the higher textures but nothing I can do atm.

Once we get a few more fps out of the high vis limit scenes we'll revisit this.

[frantish]

My bigger issue the LOD is *reduced foliage/coverage* provided by the trees. In 1.30 you could hide a Beddy in the tree line at one or two places, in 1.31 it may be much harder to find hiding spots for MSP's.

The new trees LOOK REAL compared to 1.30, is good step forward. No doubt great progress in the terrain. GL!

Edited June 2, 2010 by frantish

[dvc]

In 1.30 you could hide a Beddy in the tree line

thats why beddy is green in 1.31

[valis]

This comparison is all that is relevant. You decide which one looks better for the same performance.

the pines, yes a bit unrealistic in 1.31... natural pines have limbs, sometimes to the base of the tree, also dead pines in the mix.

[GOPHUR]

LIES!

BGE is not listed!

http://www.speedtree.com/gallery/

Seriously though, get Rafter to earn his pay and have him bite the ars at ST department to list this game!

Kinda crappy of them given we were one of the first AND we ported it to the Mac for free.

[hchris]

Kinda crappy of them given we were one of the first AND we ported it to the Mac for free.

This is really total garbage of the Speedtree guys...maybe we can get MOTOR on it?

[DOC]

basturds

[hotjoe]

basturds

I always seem to catch those on the hook instead of bass.....