Auto-gen question
-
To the BMS Devs:
In principle, could the same method used to auto-generate trees be used (as a separate process, of course) to auto-generate buildings?
-
First, I have not created Tree Autogen in BMS 4.33, but only contributed to its graphics and placement.
To answer your question would be to point out that buildings have more complex models than trees. First there is position like for tree, but then there is an orientation of the footprint in some accordance and harmony with street layouts, then there is the footprint size itself. And finally the might be the issue of number of floors in the model and configuration of the roof.
Tree autogen deals with just position and frequency of the model per area. This is not to say that buildings are too complex. They require more consideration and work during placement. And then there is this issue of damage/destruction model and collision, which require more data. Hope this gives some perspective where all this is coming from.
-
There is a main difference. You can fly through the shader trees, they are not real 3D object with hiboxes while building should be.
-
There is a main difference. You can fly through the shader trees, they are not real 3D object with hiboxes while building should be.
Not necessarily… IMHO auto gen stuff can stay immune if it’s not a “war” related object… There is a cost to just rendering stuff or having that stuff with data as a feature in the DB.
But anyway… there is probably time until we will come into that problem
-
Not necessarily… IMHO auto gen stuff can stay immune if it’s not a “war” related object… There is a cost to just rendering stuff or having that stuff with data as a feature in the DB.
But anyway… there is probably time until we will come into that problem
This is also an approach but in certain cases have impact on tactical modeling. For ex. it would not block and LOS / AGM weapon flight path, etc. If we are looking only for eye candy of course this would mean a compromise.
-
This is also an approach but in certain cases have impact on tactical modeling. For ex. it would not block and LOS / AGM weapon flight path, etc. If we are looking only for eye candy of course this would mean a compromise.
The autogen trees are also having the same “issue” of not blocking LOS and not being collidable.
I think the trees add great immersion, sense of speed, and so would the autopen buildings. The compromise is totally worth it IMO. -
The autogen trees are also having the same “issue” of not blocking LOS and not being collidable.
I think the trees add great immersion, sense of speed, and so would the autopen buildings. The compromise is totally worth it IMO.For trees, my opinion is 100% same, it is worth. For buildings. I’m not so sure. It may worth to try but without knowing and seeing the scale of these autogen shader based cities.
-
I appreciate the feedback. I can see how specific positioning is more critical with buildings than with trees. Good point.
Regarding LOS / AGM flight path issues / collision detection, perhaps these issues could be minimized by keeping the auto-generated buildings to only one or maybe two stories in height.
I only ask because the addition of auto-gen trees in 4.33, in my opinion, has added HUGELY to the sense of interaction with the ground during flight, and moderate clusters of small buildings in urban areas might do the same. Thanks for everyone’s input.
-
Something I debated years ago on the FF forums (R.I.P.), was to group buildings together in “blocks” or clusters with a single hit box. This would probably work best and also make some sense with small houses and buildings. Think about it, if you hit a house in a high density neighborhood, several other buildings would be hit as well, of course this wouldn’t be 100% realistic etc. but could be a very good compromise.
Unfortunately I have no computing skills, so I’m just talking from a theoretical / wishlist point of view, hopefully one day we’ll have populated cities in BMS…
