View Full Version : Please enhance the drawing distance of the smoke effect before moving to BoB..

02-10-2005, 09:28 PM
THREAD HERE (http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=127;t=000977)

EXAMPLE PIC (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v36/aussiejim/FB%20AEP/stalingrad4.jpg)

I love the effects, but it allmost seems cruel in a way....they are only really effective for screenshot use.

With a simpler far distance effect performance should not be an issue..with my 1.7amd machine i can run detailed clouds in perfect mode comfortably and they would have to be a bigger hit than a more simple smoke effect rendered at distance.

Is there a way with a much simpler effect from the close in 2 k effect out to say at least 10 or 15 k's that could simply be implemented.

This is something nearly every mission or campaign could use and be enhanced with by up to at least 50% for the immersion/sterile factor.Stalingrad /Berlin/Rostov/Kursk..and no smoke plumes?? Imagine how much better it could be http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


02-10-2005, 09:46 PM
Wellcome simhq~ers to Forgotten Board

We too, would like to talk about smoke. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Please re~size the image or make the image a click link.


02-10-2005, 09:52 PM

02-10-2005, 10:40 PM
lets talk smoke http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif

We need to be able to navigate by tall black smoke towers if we need to. Smoke should be drawn to 20 kilometer distance and not less than 20km. The horizon in FB and PF is 20km (30km in Perfect Mode).

Smoke grafix. Make it more simple but *much* larger. Maximum altitude of 2km at least. We all can find internet pics of WW2 smoke clouds climbing up to 5km or more altitude. Keep the smoke grafix simple, and notice that large smoke clouds seen from far away don't have any motion in them. Make the smoke static if needed, but very large.

Now, same with fires. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

We must be able to navigate at night using very large fires on the horizon. Worse, as pointed out at simhq, the 2km draw distance means you can't see fires (or smoke) directly below if you fly at even 3km altitude. Fires must also be drawn to 20km distance. But, make them static if they need to be to save performance.

02-10-2005, 10:55 PM
Great ideas guys http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But take it a step further, remember how water splashes looked when we first got PF? And now we have great animated water plumes.

Why can't they take the large and low pixel count smoke you guys mention and just add an extra smooth animation or two like they did with the water splashes?

Over time, the smoke could slowly climb, and then sort of spread out at a certain altitude and then finally thin out over time. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Would be very nice to have this effect add to the immersion. I can imagine a strike on an island base which has multiple burning gun emplacements, ships burning in harbor, etc with that kind of effect. It sounds like a really cool idea and very satisfying when you complete a mission. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

02-11-2005, 02:54 AM


Even the low lying battlesmoke needs to be represented .Not seeing this type of effect from 3ks is pretty weak for such an excellent sim.

The fact that mass moving coloumns of smoke/clouds etc definitely affect frame rates a lot is obviously the reason adopted for the close in range of the effect..but 2ks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Even 5 with the current graphic would be acceptable for frames surely...then the 2nd stage graphic cuts in ..still moving but at half the amount of actual smoke needed.Then at 10-12 it can change to the furthest distance model with can be static but still represent the shape all the way to 20-30ks.

Basically what you two just said http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Its user made so it will not affect the standard side of the game for those with low end machines.Not all missions made by mission makers are going to have such large coloumns of smoke or fire zones but the low lying battlefield type smoke will also define front lines and areas of activity so another plus for the immersion factor.

Its all pluses .


02-11-2005, 03:30 AM
Aye, much, much, much and I say again, much more smoke. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Did you sent an email to Oleg about this? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Btw, its probably a cool way to lose FPS though. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

02-11-2005, 08:37 AM
lol Arnie, we know about the loss of FPS if this was implemented, but there's tricks that can be used to reduce that.

For instance, at 20km or more, the smoke could be represented as a simple 2D graphic, much like the long smoke trail graphic you see comming from burning planes. Closer in you could still use a lower count polygon smoke before you got close enough to have it become 3D http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'm starting to wonder about a "rose petal" effect after looking at the water spashes again...

When there's a water splash, it's made up of a multitude of 2D animated graphics rolled into a cone with multiple layers, with another graphic at the top of the plume that makes it look very 3D. Correct me if I'm wrong on this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I think the same could be done for the smoke, make it in multiple animated 2d layers like the water splashes and perhaps it could be just as impressive, without such a hit on frames as full volumetric smoke.

I'm just kicking around ideas, hope the development team can understand what I'm trying to say here. Perhaps a solution could be found that would work well. I heard awile back that Oleg and team found some way to portray clouds more realisticly at a distance without a hit in frames, hope it can be put into Pacific Fighters. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

02-12-2005, 09:57 PM
Interesting that AAA tracer and even torpedo wakes are visible over long distances. I guess this shows that it is technically possible to do this with smoke and flame.

Heres hoping.

02-13-2005, 01:19 AM
FB contrails vanish beyond 8km or so and they should be visible to 100km on a clear day. 20km Contrail draw distance would be a good compromise.

32 QMB planes pulling contrails have little effect on my ATI~9200, never mind new video cards.

02-13-2005, 03:16 AM

02-14-2005, 05:43 AM
This will be a double-post....sorry..but this is what I said on extreme one's thread:


Sorry this may seem anecdotal but I just remebered something that I think is quite useful for this thread.

I remember the guys working on the Disney movie Dinosaur having a problem with making grass look 'right'. They tried many ways, but still couldn't get the feel of it. One of them came up with a solution that worked fantastically though. Instead of trying to make grass flow in the wind, they used the fur off the creatures that had created, used it on the ground instead, changed the colour and the results were as you may have seen in the film. Tall grass (fur) blowing dynamically in the breeze........and so to my point.

WUAF_Black-Rose has posted a picture showing a bombed area with smoke moving across it, which realistically could be low-level clouds. Seeing that the clouds make hardly any hit on the performance of the game, wouldn't it be possible to make the smoke from clouds? Change a few variables so that the colour is dark grey or black (or varies during generation) add a different effect to make it drift along low-level and if possible why not have the clouds ascend vertically using the same dark/black cloud structure?

It's just a thought, but we fly through clouds easily enough.....why not make them vertical or low-level and dark grey/ black or even opaque? "

I live in hope!

02-14-2005, 10:38 AM

02-15-2005, 03:05 AM
Might get them both to the top http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

03-07-2005, 04:40 PM
One last futile bump http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

03-07-2005, 05:11 PM
Mystic:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Seeing that the clouds make hardly any hit on the performance of the game, wouldn't it be possible to make the smoke from clouds? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Great observation. FB clouds are far below the power of today's grafix cards. Even my ATI~9200 shows no performance hit from Detailed Clouds ~~> never mind newer grafix cards. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

If we could get FMB placeable static smoke, both black and white, that extends from ground to several kilometers altitude we can place our own clouds using the white smoke (smoke can be raised into the air above the ground).

03-07-2005, 05:46 PM
LEXX is blowing smoke again I see....clouding the issue with some contrail about old graphics cards....on the other hand - the water looks great now.

this was only a bump....

03-07-2005, 07:57 PM
Well, towering cumulus cloud grafix may bring towering oil refinery fires to flight simming.

03-10-2005, 12:11 AM
"thats hot" - Paris Hilton

03-10-2005, 03:58 PM
The problem with clouds is that to some extent (although it's improved greatly recently) when you fly into them you completely lose visibility. If you're trying to shoot a tank, it's hard to do that IFR!

03-10-2005, 10:10 PM
smoke from target maybe very dense tho...
and toxic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

03-12-2005, 07:05 AM
I'm all for greater smoke - it gives the definitely immersion of a battlefield.

(I'd also really like to see the smoke trails of some aircraft, like the 109 when they are in full power)

03-13-2005, 07:04 PM
Wouldn't that be realistic?

03-15-2005, 10:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MaxBruder:
Wouldn't that be realistic? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep...I've read some accounts on how pilots knew that 109s and other aircraft were on MW50 boost because of a thin white streak of smoke coming from the exhaust.

03-15-2005, 12:22 PM
alot of prop aircraft leave a very slight brown trail, spits ive seen on footage airshows, but maybe they run the engine with extra rich fuel and oil?