Above: Google Earth map that I used for the colormaps
It's 16 square kilometres.
view distance: 1000 (will be lowered)
undergrowth view distance: 500
overgrowth view distance: 500
fogging: 500 (will be lowered)
Hi there's been plenty pf controversy over the use of heavy undergrowth drawn at long distances on my map. You can see the debate on the following pages. I've got a nice laptop, so I couldn't say for sure how well it would work on other peoples computers. However I've done an experiment to show how a current Project Reality map: Fools Road compares to mine.
My laptop has three settings: Speed, Normal and Silent mode. Silent mode reduces the performance while turning the speed of the cooling fans down, where as Speed mode raises the performance to that of a £500 desktop computer. On speed mode I tested both Fools Road and Colesberg at a high graphics setting, and I used the sniper rifle to zoom right in on a couple of places on each. On Silent mode I did the same test but with a medium graphics setting (this is because I discovered after doing the high settings tests that maps crash on silent mode on any map if the settings are this high)
The frame rate (in red) doesn't come out best for me in all the tests, but bear in mind there's still lots of tweaking I can do and I guess using a combination of overgrowth grass on flat areas and high view distance undergrowth on rougher areas could work, but what I'm demonstrating here is that having a view distance of 500 for the undergrowth is possible and won't slow everyone's computers down, so long as I make enough fog to be able to lower the overgrowth value without it looking weird. The benefit of using undergrowth of course is that it's just more flexible and from what I've seen so far... just looks better. However maybe that's all going to change, anyway here are the results:
Accidently posted one of the images twice by mistake just then
[/URL]
