View Full Version : Tree-pack for missionbuilder?

04-27-2006, 06:07 AM
Is there any news about a tree-pack for missionbuilder yet?

As it is now it is very hard to build missions since the landscape is so sterile.
The buildings and objects becomes placed like on a flat board.

I fly with perfect settings offline so as an ok fix one can place buildings and objects close to the good auto-generated trees and bushes and get 'some' satisfaction of atleast 'some' realism.

As a bad fix on other places I try to place objects like tanks and such close to the houses and hide some of the bad trees close to the walls of buildings to make the surroundings look less sterile.

But it's hard to build anything wich look close to reality this way.

After all these patches and add-ons with many new objects, not a single new tree have emerged although their obvious importance to make the ground look realistic.
Can't understand it.

Perhaps dev-team doesn't read what are sent to them? or maybe they don't have time because of too limited time?
Or perhaps trees and foliage are so much harder to do than tanks, planes and other objects? I think not.

Why are not the good autogenerated trees released for missionbuilder?
Huge potential of making close- to-ground-combat look good is wasted.

Again why?
I'd like to know because I have waited for years, aswell as sent and posted material explaining the realism-effects of trees
and other foliage in the lanscape.

regards ob

04-27-2006, 07:43 AM
There are trees in the Objects list Ob. Take a look at 164 through 175.

04-27-2006, 08:02 AM
Thanks Razor, but I have known the object list inside out for many years now.

Those trees have been debated in earlier posts long ago, and explained dysfunctional with some exeptions because of their textures and non varied forms doesn't work so well in the landscape.
Palm-trees are great but many more height variations needed.
Fixes have been presented to solve the issues, but have not yet been attended.


04-27-2006, 08:07 AM
I completely agree Ob, but it seems not many players care about how realistic the landscape is. I started some time ago a similar"tree" thread, and by the few posts there I draw the above conclusion. After 5 years of playing this game it's rather a joykill to fly over 3 types of european trees (form which one looks anyway like a kids drawing, another one is seen only from close). I'm really curious how long would it take to create a new tree? Anyway, I lost hope...

04-27-2006, 08:21 AM
Yeah, we would be well served even with the addition of the largest auto-generated tree since it is the only tree that is anywhere near the height of the large, "stacked polygon" forests (and would be useful for demarking the edge).

It'd also be nice to be given the BRIDGE objects as well. We're not talking about NEW objects, but objects already made, but only available to mapmakers not mission builders for some obscure reason.


04-27-2006, 08:46 AM
Most of the players are not mission builders. They would fly on this or that dogfight map, or play this or that campaign, and sometimes they will be quite pleased by the scenery the mission builder has provided. They have no idea how tedious is to build credible ("realistic") scenery with the objects we have. And how much time and imagination it takes to make an airfield for example look alive. So if they don't know all this, it's quite easy to explain that when a mission builder asks for something which he KNOWS would greatly improve the scenery posibilities,hence the immersion, he has little support from the players community.

04-27-2006, 09:21 AM
Hiya ,

Not sure if you have already tried this..

open the config file and look for (Forest)
it should be down the bottom of the list,

Change it to Forest=3

then (in perfect mode) you should see lots
more trees on landscape...makes the rooms look
far better http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


04-27-2006, 09:47 AM
This is an old sim but the potential to make it up to date are there, and fairly easy I think.
And even if old none compare with it.

Ofcourse not many are missionbuilders, but that has nothing to do with wanting realistic landscapes.

LowFighter wrote:
"but it seems not many players care about how realistic the landscape is"

I strongly disagree with this statement.
Most playing this advanced sim are keenly interested in flight and many have flown or are pilots. Evidence of this interest is the great deal of knowledge needed to learn to play this sim wich is quite time consuming. Someone un-interested would give up soon.
To claim that these people aren't interested in realistic landscapes I don't buy.
I belive most want it as realistic as possible.
And it is infact possible to do it quite better.

Regarding the landscape I have, as an art-teacher, taught people how to make landscapes more realistic through trees-foliage and and other 3-d features in the landscape. Of great importance for the landscape is the clouds and the air-perspective-haze and very much the lighting of the scenery.

In the sim we have fantastic lighting potential for clouds and landscape, but with a tiny bit darkening on the existent cloud-shadow the clouds would be more 3-d instead of washed out or over-exposed with perfect settings in some situations.
So a very powerful lighting system exists but not optimised so to speak.

I have argued for the release of the fantastic 3-d trees wich are autogenerated with the maps with perfect settings, or an improvement and variation of height and widht of the existing ones.
Although my efforts I have no Idea if the dev-team are familiar with my and others posts or have discussed the matter, or even see the potential of posssible development further.

I'm not a modeler or game developer so I am unaware of the problems of further development or if there is a will to do so.
However the plentyful patches tells me that there is an interest of development.
I know that there is fenomenally great knowledge in modelling and Flight-modelling and coding and all related gamebuilding-stuff, but also maybe not so great understanding of composing landscapes or understanding the above described fundamental elements of landscape creation.

I tell u that if it is not so difficult to release the good autogenerated trees, or making a few variants of a little better trees (with height and width variation)
, do so and the sim will have new life only by this action.


Any input from the dev-team on this matter would be apreciated so I know if it is any use to continue to try to inspire further.

To date I have studied air-to-ground photographs for close 15 years and I am on the right track with my statements concerning the Trees, clouds and light in the landscape. I'm very interested in this matter.

Any artist that have painted landscapes should be able to confirm their importance for the life and realism.

All my other posts of development in other realism matters are for the sims benefit and only because i have enjoyed it so.
I have not dreamt up anything over night but studied all matters in detail, in some cases for years.
Not because I must, but because I want to, and am able.

So as always, my criticism is constructive and based on strong fundaments, and only to inspire to further development in the most important visual areas.
So I very much hope that you see it through this perspective.


04-27-2006, 09:55 AM
Thanks Monty...I knew that aswell....but yes for us with powerfull machines it gives more of the good trees.

And this is why the trees should be released for missionbuilder, so the ones with less powerfull machines can place the good looking trees on the important spots and enjoy it, instead of having thousands of random trees making gameplay impossible.

A great miss for them. I was in that low-performance-computer category a year ago. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


04-27-2006, 10:12 AM
Many times i have made missions and dogfight rooms
and wished there were more types ,
and BIG trees for us to use,
Maybe a small forest as a set block, it would
reduce the placement time..we could place small forests on top of each other and rotate them and offset them for more variation,
maybe in updates oneday.


04-27-2006, 12:17 PM
well there was a thread/poll about what people thing is important to develop more in the future, flight model or the so called "eye candy". Guess what most voted for. So I draw the conclusion that for many the scenery of harbours/towns/airfields etc we have now is OK, and more is needed in the flight model department. I don't find the scenery at all satisfying, I know the graphical engine is the same as 5 years before, so the only way to improve the scenery is to provide some objects which have the potential of improving it. And if there is an object which would really help on whatever map, it is the TREE.
Well, forgive my bitterness and good luck!

04-27-2006, 01:20 PM
The italy map we have seen showed olive trees. FWIW.


04-27-2006, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Tater-SW-:
The italy map we have seen showed olive trees. FWIW.


WHAAAT? A link???

04-27-2006, 02:03 PM
I hear you lowfighter, although I'm not pessimistic at all. Admittedly I regret that not a single new tree have surfaced when so much other more advanced objects have.
A tank for example has very limited use compared to the universal use of trees and other foliage wich can be placed anywhere.

Although an old game-engine I think that still many things can be done within the engine to enhance the sim considerably concerning visual realism.

Regarding the flightmodel I think I'm fair if I say it takes around hundreds of hours to become an expert online. Flying many different types it takes longer.
Flying is one thing but then comes tactics, and training deflectionshooting on all ranges up to 5-600m and to that achieving a good situational awareness that also includes ability and experience to correctly evaluate the opponent.

B.o.B. will have a more advanced FM but there will also be different simpler arcade settings since it otherwise will be hard to sell to the broad public...(I'm guessing a bit here).

What I ask regarding objects like trees and other plants like bushes, hedges and so on
is, as like I earlier stated, not difficult to do.
There are a fantastic number of variations possible with only 5 tree types (as I taught to my students)
Note that with a single bush one can make hedges, and a bush combined with a tree gives a taller bush-like tree.
For example a little village can have a very realistic setup with five tree types wich covers many trees in europe.
If then same trees are made in different heights down to bush size we then have plenty of foliage to cover a large setup of gardens and hedgetype clusters commonly seen on the cultivated countryside in europe ranging from Norway, Germany, France and England.

Unfortunately I'm in medically bad shape and can't work anymore.
If I could I would have already sketched and painted examples on how to variate landscapes, villages and how to place and group clusters of trees together with buildings, roads, bridges and so on with many more variations.
Even in the open landscape trees can be aranged in effective ways.

In the sim there has been goodnatured attempts in placing and grouping trees, espcially on the Normadie map where the places around Caen (example) all the way to the beach have trees placed with more purpose than before. Infact with a few more types and sizes of trees and bushes the landscape could be very good indeed.

I don't know how many of you have really looked around for air-to-ground photograps, but I tell u that in certain lights(time of day)watching down on the landscape of Normandy Looks quite realistic.
It would be a shame not to continue to build on, what I think is a masterpiece.
Note that in the sim the bad trees during low landscapesettings get replaced with good trees with perfect settings on the Normandy map.

Personally I see many possibilities to improve.
Unfortunately this doesn't seem at all that obvious to all, or they can't see what I see.
LowFighter wrote:
"well there was a thread/poll about what people thing is important to develop more in the future, flight model or the so called "eye candy". Guess what most voted for."

Flying with superb FM in a poor world seems like a very bad trade-off to me.
I very much doubt that a tree pack containg a few different size trees will kill the FM or disturb it in any way.

As always it is 'how many objects' our individual computers can handle. Belive me when I say that most will crank up the eyecandy as much as their machines can handle.

So the matter really isn't about 'quality' at all but 'quantity'.
My guess is that most would prefer a hundred fantastic trees and other foliage concentrated on the important areas than thousands scatered poor qulity trees and a poor landscape as result. On the contrary One quickly get tired of flying with nothing to look at.

Also , as I see it, there is nothing that hinders to have the bad trees as an option alongside the good ones.
Options and variation.

My little explanation here infact solves any philosophical dilemma the dev-team might have regarding this matter.
To make people choose either eyecandy or FM seems strange indeed.
I wonder if people have not missunderstood the message in this poll (no critisism intended).

04-27-2006, 02:16 PM
Cheers Ob, we love the same things!

04-29-2006, 05:49 AM
Any comment or thought from the Dev-Team?

04-30-2006, 03:47 AM