Is it just me?

S

Siggi

Guest
1) The trees seem to be massively over-sized. Looking down from 6000 feet I noticed it. Then down close they dwarf the houses. I reckon they could be reduced in size by two thirds?

2) Speed. Going along over the ground at around 90mph, it seems more like 30 or 40mph? I've owned a lot of motorbikes, so I know what 90mph looks like with my hair in the wind, so to speak.

Just wondering. Is it something relatively easy to adjust, or maybe there's a coding reason for it?
 
Siggi, i don't think logging was in such demand back then as it is today, hence we have smaller trees now than they did back in the day...lol.

Seriously though, i hadn't paid that much attention to the tree sizes. I'll have to look closer next time i hit one.
 
Had also wondered about the tree size, especially those 300ft ones around the airfields!! :faint:

Q
 
Siggi,

Can't say I've ever noticed the trees, must have a look next flight....as for the speed, this was something that was discussed at great length in the transition from P1 to P2, unfortunately due to the Great Forum Crash of '08 the archive is now kaput so you won't be able to find the threads on it.
Many people felt the same (most of them bike riders too) but it was something that Winder and the team put a lot of thought and effort into....getting people to test, post thoughts and ideas etc. They even ran time trials between known set points on the map to look at this percieved speed issue.

Unfortunately the old grey matter aint what it used to be so I can't recall the exact upshot, but i *think* it turned out that they would have to increase the baseline speed that the aircraft flies at so that the perception at low level was more realistic...this of course would then pork the FM when not looking out the side (does that make sense?)

anyway I think that was the upshot back then, but I'm sure I'll be corrected if not.

Cheers
 
Gandi said:
Siggi,

Can't say I've ever noticed the trees, must have a look next flight....as for the speed, this was something that was discussed at great length in the transition from P1 to P2, unfortunately due to the Great Forum Crash of '08 the archive is now kaput so you won't be able to find the threads on it.
Many people felt the same (most of them bike riders too) but it was something that Winder and the team put a lot of thought and effort into....getting people to test, post thoughts and ideas etc. They even ran time trials between known set points on the map to look at this percieved speed issue.

Unfortunately the old grey matter aint what it used to be so I can't recall the exact upshot, but i *think* it turned out that they would have to increase the baseline speed that the aircraft flies at so that the perception at low level was more realistic...this of course would then pork the FM when not looking out the side (does that make sense?)
Click to expand...

Kind of. Something like FoV in FP shooters (things look further away than they actually are).

It was particularly bad in CFS1 (the "Hang Glider Sim" I used to call it). At least these are WW1 crates, so it's not really a major issue. One expects them to chug around a bit and it could be a head-wind making them go slow with a ton on the clock.

The trees though, they're just plain wrong. I'm thinking it's possibly down to less big trees vs more little trees = hit on FPS? But then each tree has a file size, so wouldn't it balance out? Eg, small tree is 5kb, big tree is 15kb?

I'm wondering if it's something a user could do himself. Take each tree image (I'm assuming they're bitmaps and not actual 3D models) and reduce their physical size in Photoshop.
 
The trees seem pretty normal to me, about right.

Regarding speed: It has been proven, I believe, that the plane speeds in OFF are a bit slow compared to what the indicated speed is, but was not significant enough of an issue to get fixed so far. Other things are more important.

When this last came up, several actual pilots stated that as you fly higher up, the sensation of speed lessens, so seems an accurate experience to have in the game.

I could wish perhaps for some more wind noises in OFF to add to the sense of speed. If the motor dies it REALLY seems like you are going slow because of the near dead silence.
 
yeah a bit like that....perhaps a better way of describing it would be that to improve the visual perception of speed they'd have to make the plane go faster (duh!) but they'd report a lower speed on the guages all looks fine and dandy but 90mph on the guage would actually be 120 mph and hence the fm would be out of kilter in some aspects.

As for the trees.....still gotta take a flight and look but I have to say it's not something I'd ever noticed before.....tracer smacking into my wing yes, trees no :)

BTW hope the snow didn't get you too bad over the last couple of days, it was a bugger here in sunny West Sussex!! ;)
 
Gandi said:
yeah a bit like that....perhaps a better way of describing it would be that to improve the visual perception of speed they'd have to make the plane go faster (duh!) but they'd report a lower speed on the guages all looks fine and dandy but 90mph on the guage would actually be 120 mph and hence the fm would be out of kilter in some aspects.

As for the trees.....still gotta take a flight and look but I have to say it's not something I'd ever noticed before.....tracer smacking into my wing yes, trees no :)

BTW hope the snow didn't get you too bad over the last couple of days, it was a bugger here in sunny West Sussex!! ;)
Click to expand...

Snow was pretty good here too, the kids got a reasonably sized snowman out of it at least. :icon_lol:
 
Couple of pics to compare, one from a glider at 6000ft and one from in the game:

Newbury.jpg


terrain6000ft.jpg
 
Siggi,

just ran a flight to 6000ft to have a look. Bearing in mind I run on a laptop with much lower settings than you, you can still see the trees though and I'm with 77Scout....they don't look too bad. I think the main thing is that they all seem to be mature, full height trees, with little vertical variation.

Just a thought though, what zoom setting are you on? ( the [ and ] change this) perhaps zooming back might improve things?
 
oh just thought to say....no I don't fly like that normally, this was just to take a clear image but with guages to show the altitude :faint: normally it's TIR and virtual cockpit, but that's a fag to set up just to take a piccy lol!
 
Gandi;103446}Just a thought though said:
change this) perhaps zooming back might improve things?
Click to expand...

Yes, zoom settings will make a huge difference to how each of us percieves the trees. Smart thinking Gandi. I fly fully zoomed out as i have a big monitor and can do so.. If I zoom in everything sure looks much closer and bigger, so we all may not be seeing the same thing.
 
Gandi said:
Siggi,

just ran a flight to 6000ft to have a look. Bearing in mind I run on a laptop with much lower settings than you, you can still see the trees though and I'm with 77Scout....they don't look too bad. I think the main thing is that they all seem to be mature, full height trees, with little vertical variation.

Just a thought though, what zoom setting are you on? ( the [ and ] change this) perhaps zooming back might improve things?
Click to expand...

I didn't know how to change the zoom, I've left it on what it defaulted at because it looks about right realism-wise.

The smaller trees look like the right scale to the houses, it's the big ones that look odd. I know there are trees that really are that big, but they're very much the exception in europe.

I'll have a look and see if the tree images can be got at and modified. If not I'll just pretend my altimeter is busted along with my speedo. :icon_lol:
 
Siggi said:
The smaller trees look like the right scale to the houses, it's the big ones that look odd.
Click to expand...

I dunno about you Sigg, but I'm usually just far too damned busy scanning for EA to worry too much about tree dimensions. Not that the BFAH scenery isn't something to behold in general, but if I wanna' go sightseeing, I'll fire up FSX and a GA aircraft.


I'll have a look and see if the tree images can be got at and modified. If not I'll just pretend my altimeter is busted along with my speedo. :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

You keep fixating on foliage, tree dimensions and how many seconds elapse between landmarks for too long, and some eager young pilot is liable to bust those instruments for you....from above and behind you....;)


Oops......siren just went off.....SCRAMBLE!!!!!


Cheers,


Parky
 
You'll just have to wait for the release of Microsoft Tree Simulator!

Dudley
 
Yeah, I have to agree.. this subject is one of those 'rivet counting' subjects.

It's a sim.... please keep that in mind. It's not real.

OvS
 
Parky said:
I dunno about you Sigg, but I'm usually just far too damned busy scanning for EA to worry too much about tree dimensions. Not that the BFAH scenery isn't something to behold in general, but if I wanna' go sightseeing, I'll fire up FSX and a GA aircraft.




You keep fixating on foliage, tree dimensions and how many seconds elapse between landmarks for too long, and some eager young pilot is liable to bust those instruments for you....from above and behind you....;)


Oops......siren just went off.....SCRAMBLE!!!!!


Cheers,


Parky
Click to expand...

It's because I fly in real time. There's not much else to do on those long dreary flights than gaze at the scenery and think about stuff one sees. Praying for the hun to show up...

Long hours of boredom interspersed by short moments of terror I believe somebody of the era said.

I still can't get over how beautiful it all looks. Quite breath-taking in all honesty. The sterility of IL2, replaced by the grandeuer of OFF.
 
Siggi said:
I still can't get over how beautiful it all looks. Quite breath-taking in all honesty. The sterility of IL2, replaced by the grandeuer of OFF.
Click to expand...

Well said.

I must admit, I also refuse to use "warp" or time acceleration. Kills the immersion factor for me personally. I'll also admit to just gazing at the scenery from time to time. Stunning to say the least. Usually I'll only allow myself that luxury WELL this side of enemy lines. Been bounced once too often to get careless about it too frequently. I've been trying since phase 1 to last 17 hours and haven't managed it yet. Last thing I need with 11 hours or so under my belt is to get my arse shot off whilst admiring a Mulberry bush...lol.


Cheers,

Parky
 
Siggi: Looks like your screen shots were taken with the Full CP view (F3 toggle virtual and full views). In that full view, if you hit F6 you will toggle through three views, one of which is zoomed in. The zoomed in one is the iron site in the virtual CP view and would make the landscape look closer down below when in the full view mode.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top