Project Reality Forums

have had a look but found nothing in the forums


im not shore if its even possible with the BF2 engine but with the draw distance on "concealment cover" eg long grass trees etr being shorter then engagement range, hiding in grass disadvantages the hider rather then giving him concealment, so i suggest a "grass concealment feature" as shown

here dslyecxi.com - enjoy your stay

"Know how the grass concealment feature works, and take advantage of it. Grass concealment is a method by which areas that are outside of the "grass clutter" range are made to offer visual concealment to simulate the presence of grass. This is accomplished with a semi-porous grass-textured layer that is raised about six to twelve inches off the ground. This layer obscures most everything that is beneath it. It is highly effective at concealing mines and satchel charges and contributes a great deal towards making them difficult to detect.

great idea!

Hah! What makes you think this shitty engine could support such AWESOME?

because its not a shitty engine, its just getting dated now, its got to be about 6 years old, BF2 is 3 and it would of taken dev time


also if trees etr draw differently at distance y cant grass

Undergrowth in Bf2 is already like 10 polygons per tuft of grass, making it a box for "concealment" instead wouldn't help performance any.

does the grass have lod ?? if so, can the lower lod be a simple plane(2 polys) and be placed a litle above the actual tuft of grass , so they act like the thing described here ?

I would rather keep my destructible buildings, than gain the grass.

Dont get me wrong....It would be nice though.

It also has been suggested before....waiting for the "lock-ness" monster to lock thread.

well i couldnt see it in the suggested thread and did a search and couldn't find anything.

if it has been suggested before im sorry for posting, however as the Devs become more experienced somethings that were dismissed before because of technical reasons may now be able to be looked at again

That may well be, willie. Rhino should pitch in here, as he has more experience with undergrowth than me.

I think something should be done, like he said the grass only obstructs your view in long range engagement. Maybe remove grass?

[R-DEV]Katarn wrote:That may well be, willie. Rhino should pitch in here, as he has more experience with undergrowth than me.

i sware to god man i cant read any of these guys righting when im trying to read it im always looking at your avator any ways

From what I under stand about under growth is it should only be uses as visual eye candy. The only other way to make it work is make it like over growth (trees) But this would lag so much that the game would be unplayable.

So unless there is another idea, under growth wont work.


Yeah Katarn image, I getting quite sick of seeing it......LOL yeah right.

they used this in Delta Force 2 if anyone's played that, it would vary between sand, snow and grass, all textures were pretty much the same except desert was sandy and grass was green and a bit spikier. You had the floor and then you had chunks of textures raised up in certain places so it was like snow/sand of varying depths and grass of various thickness, works real good. Perfect for PR if the BF2 engine could implement it

Indeed, was a good way to do it.

RCMoonPie wrote:I would rather keep my destructible buildings, than gain the grass.

Dont get me wrong....It would be nice though.

It also has been suggested before....waiting for the "lock-ness" monster to lock thread.

I'd gladly give them up for this, actually even if we don't get better grass I still want the destructible buildings gone, all they do is promote unrealistic actions and they are pretty unrealistic themselves anyways.

SleepyHe4d wrote:I'd gladly give them up for this, actually even if we don't get better grass I still want the destructible buildings gone, all they do is promote unrealistic actions and they are pretty unrealistic themselves anyways.

I dont want to go too off topic but I am very curious as to how destructible buildings promote "unrealistic" game-play?
I think the addition of more grass cover would just promote more competition over getting the sniper kits and marksman kits because more folks would want to just "snoop and poop" in the grass.

Sadist_Cain wrote:they used this in Delta Force 2 if anyone's played that, it would vary between sand, snow and grass, all textures were pretty much the same except desert was sandy and grass was green and a bit spikier. You had the floor and then you had chunks of textures raised up in certain places so it was like snow/sand of varying depths and grass of various thickness, works real good. Perfect for PR if the BF2 engine could implement it

Yes....the DF series was onto something until they made the 90 degree turn with the LandWarrior Game.

The grass worked very well in this game and the ghillie suits were made of the same rendered material.......and worked amazing well for a FPS of its time.

RCMoonPie wrote: I think the addition of more grass cover would just promote more competition over getting the sniper kits and marksman kits because more folks would want to just "snoop and poop" in the grass.

if done properly it wouldn't mean that the grass is removed from around you, so as a sniper you would still need to crouch to see over the grass, what it would do is at long ranges give the person in the grass cover like it should against being spotted

even if there is more comp the kits are still limited so it wouldn't effect gameplay anymore then if a newbie gets hold of a sniper now

Kits being limited is a given.....but it doesnt stop people from spending unnecessary amounts of time waiting and waiting at a base bunker or firebase for those kits.

People will wait it out spamming the "T" rose until they get those kits no matter how limited.

Wouldn't this allow all infantry to hide though? Not just a sniper but anyone laying down?