Forward facing trees

[James Collins]

Does OpenRails plan on having this as it would cut down on polys?

[lindsayts]

I am sure I recall in the early satges of OR they stated trees were drawn always facing the camera, Its possibly it refers to distant trees only as the foreground trees are not drawn that way.
The first version of Kuju's rail simulator certainly did the small vegitation this way and I found it most effective.

[James Collins]

I am sure I recall in the early satges of OR they stated trees were drawn always facing the camera...

As I see it, trees dont point in the direction of the player at all times thats why we create those criss-crossing planes that work well enough, but if the tree is made to always face the camera, you only need one plane.Someone PM'd me saying theres no need for forward facing trees because OR can handle 3D trees just fine. I disagree. 3D trees would crash the Pocahontas for example and are not needed. One plane being enough. Below is my version of the Pocahontas district.



Frame rates drop dramatically and in part would have to be draw calls and polys? For routes with a large amount of trees being able to use forward facing trees could cut those draw calls and polys in half. This works well in RW. Below is The same route in RW and with many, many trees the frame hit is minimal and probably in part due to there being only one plane?



If I understand there is something else they did to be able to use multiple trees and some how fool the graphics card to thinking its one tree and using one texture.

For the record I do know of the many methods to achieve large amount of trees, or scenes that use trickory to achieve the look of trees, but I think its possible to actually display trees without trickory, RW being my case.

I know as well forward facing trees wouldnt help much now until OR creates its own editors that would allow users to place multiples of trees easier and without fear of the editor crashing, but its still something that can be implemented and used on a smaller scale for now.

[eric]

In ORTS, forest objects already do this -- the fixed cruciforms from MSTS are gone, and a single plane always faces the camera. Looks odd with a high-altitude camera, but saves on polys and keeps the forests looking full at a distance.

[James Collins]

In ORTS, forest objects already do this..

I understand forest objects do this, but to clarify, I meant outside of an forest object could this be done. Forest objects do me no good because at this point they arent thick enough and Im not interested in trickory to achieve the desired results. I do however create my own forest clumps and wish they could be single plane and rotate as well, without the designation of a forest object.

Ill probably have to wait until the editors when hopefully thicker forests can be created using forest regions.

[eric]

What you're asking for would require a new object type, and that breaks the continuity with MSTS.

The lack of density is one reason I stopped using forests up until ORTS came out. Those lower density limits are imposed by the RE, but you can easily modify the .W files directly to get a higher density.

Its been a while since I'd tested at 50,000 trees per KM, which is probably thicker than anything you'd want to have, but it is certainly attainable to have thicker forests with ORTS than it is with MSTS.

[James Collins]

The lack of density is one reason I stopped using forests up until ORTS came out. Those lower density limits are imposed by the RE, but you can easily modify the .W files directly to get a higher density.

Great stuff! Thanks.

[scottb613]

Hi Folks,

While I like the idea of the ability to have shapes - face the user - as we have in FS9 which I also develop for - the best use of dense forests that I've come across in MSTS/OR was achieved by Rick on his epic Monon... If you haven't - take the time to download his route and maybe do a little reverse engineering... He has some pretty dense looking forests that seem to go on forever..