Project Reality Forums

Yeah I can imagine how long a serious and non-boring map would take to create.If someone ever will create such a map he got my respect for the rest of my life
but interesting that its technically possible

gwa1hir wrote:Yeah I can imagine how long a serious and non-boring map would take to create.If someone ever will create such a map he got my respect for the rest of my life
but interesting that its technically possible

It all depends on the LoD and optimization of the assets, pluss how big viewdistance and some other factors

Imo best way to do it on this engine would be custom statics but rather than single buildings but a half block or block group. You could optimize the hell out of it and decrease drawculls however lightmaps would be less than great on them.

Rabbit wrote:Imo best way to do it on this engine would be custom statics but rather than single buildings but a half block or block group. You could optimize the hell out of it and decrease drawculls however lightmaps would be less than great on them.

If they where low poly buildings all grouped up it would increase performance for large VD maps BUT it would mean you couldn't have any significant detail on the actual buildings itself otherwise you would be drawing a building in highest detail, with all its light fittings etc when your 500m away or so from it, close to another one. This is one of the main reasons why things like the carrier are split up into septate static segments so that when your on one end of the carrier, your not rendering the other end in all its detail but in a much lower LOD.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:t would mean you couldn't have any significant detail on the actual buildings itself otherwise you would be drawing a building in highest detail, with all its light fittings etc when your 500m away or so from it

Uh, lods do exist.

[R-DEV]Outlawz7 wrote:Uh, lods do exist.

What Rhino is saying is that if your static is say 500m long, say, then while you're at one end of it (close enough for the LOD not to kick in), then the entire static, even 500m away will be rendering in full detail, putting a strain on performance as it's obviously drawing more polys at one time for that object than it would be if it was broken up, like say the carrier.

I think 2km is a good size for a decent city map

[R-DEV]Outlawz7 wrote:Uh, lods do exist.

Pretty much what Ranky said but here is a little pic to explain it better:



If all those grey boxes are buildings of the same single static in the black box, and the player is the little red dot in the bottom left, he is close enough to all those buildings, being a single static, to render them all in lod0, and even thou he is really far away from a lot of those buildings, not even being able to see most of them, he is still having to render them all in lod0 because he still needs to render the one he's closest to in lod0.

[R-DEV]Rhino wrote:If they where low poly buildings all grouped up it would increase performance for large VD maps BUT it would mean you couldn't have any significant detail on the actual buildings itself otherwise you would be drawing a building in highest detail, with all its light fittings etc when your 500m away or so from it, close to another one. This is one of the main reasons why things like the carrier are split up into septate static segments so that when your on one end of the carrier, your not rendering the other end in all its detail but in a much lower LOD.

Yeah, but that is what I wanted to do way back when.

'[R-DEV wrote:Rhino;2098055']Pretty much what Ranky said but here is a little pic to explain it better:



If all those grey boxes are buildings of the same single static in the black box, and the player is the little red dot in the bottom left, he is close enough to all those buildings, being a single static, to render them all in lod0, and even thou he is really far away from a lot of those buildings, not even being able to see most of them, he is still having to render them all in lod0 because he still needs to render the one he's closest to in lod0.

Oh, right. I didn't think the idea was to make a 500m long city block, I thought in terms of having a few buildings as one, like row houses.

Didn't someone somewhere post about occlusion drawcalls or something like that? Where if you LOS was blocked by a static then it wouldn't render stuff behind it.


Could be taking complete bullcrap but I swear it was mentioned. When I have time I'll see if I can dig up the post.

We already have occlusion meshes for many of our larger statics. But doesn't seem to do any wonders.

Ye, most of the statics in PR have them now but hasn't done that much for performance and it wouldn't work for culling the bits of a single static you can't see, can only cull entire statics when they are fully out of view which is another reason why not to have big blocks of buildings.

AnimalMother. wrote:Didn't someone somewhere post about occlusion drawcalls or something like that? Where if you LOS was blocked by a static then it wouldn't render stuff behind it.


Could be taking complete bullcrap but I swear it was mentioned. When I have time I'll see if I can dig up the post.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f189-m ... tatic.html

Personally, I kinda dislike them, mainly because of stuff like this:

https://youtu.be/QY8pAuE9Sqg?t=6m46s

[R-DEV]Mineral wrote:We already have occlusion meshes for many of our larger statics. But doesn't seem to do any wonders.

Well that I did not know!

AnimalMother. wrote:Didn't someone somewhere post about occlusion drawcalls or something like that? Where if you LOS was blocked by a static then it wouldn't render stuff behind it.


Could be taking complete bullcrap but I swear it was mentioned. When I have time I'll see if I can dig up the post.

IIRC pyrus said they are actually a negative on urban maps.

Two questions about inf movement:

1. Is it possible to simulate acceleration so that it would take 1-2 seconds to get up to full sprint?
2. Is it possible to simulate momentum somehow so that you would be able to turn left or right only a little at a time when sprinting?

I'm curious about this because I think one of the gamey aspects of infantry combat is the movement, which lets you sprint instantly and turn while sprinting without losing any speed. So in CQB people often just run around like crazy to avoid getting shot or do those crazy zig-zags when getting shot at from a distance. I know this is kind of a suggestion but AfterDune said I can post it here as a question

fatalsushi83 wrote:
So in CQB people often just run around like crazy to avoid getting shot or do those crazy zig-zags when getting shot at from a distance.

Don't tell me you've never heard of serpentines? That's a completely legit and realistic evasion tactic!

Strategos wrote:Don't tell me you've never heard of serpentines? That's a completely legit and realistic evasion tactic!

By the way, what kind of scope is the officer using in Generation Kill?

@Strategos

I don't have a problem with the tactic itself. The problem is that you can serpentine without any loss of speed, which is completely unrealistic. You can also do a sudden 180 degree turn while sprinting without any loss of speed. If you think about it, it's very gamey.