Wastemoreland wrote (View Post): |
Think I´ll hold on to my money a little longer. |
Hoogley wrote (View Post): |
I'm still not sure that going backwards with the trees is preferable. The change of philosophy - tree foliage would mostly be above eye-level, and therefore not block LOS - makes a lot of sense to me. It took me by surprise at first, I'll admit, but I've now switched to always having the trees turned off, and I've quickly grown to like the new system. Maybe there could be a compromise where the element beneath trees - "undergrowth", or "leaf litter", or something like that - could hamper LOS slightly... ?
|
squadleader_id wrote (View Post): |
The tree thing needs more tweaking.
"old way" - tree leaves blocked LOS...but this was a compromise because they represent the tree leaves "crown" that block LOS to higher elevation or from higher elevation (especially buildings). Engine limitation means that the leaves crown extend down the whole tree trunk (which doesn't suit all tree types obviously). "new way" - leaves are now set at ground level height (representing heaps of fallen leaves?)...so trees are now just tall trunks without crowns or branches with minimal LOS blocks at higher elevations. |
Pak40 wrote (View Post): |
I was always under the assumption that "tree" coded values had undergrowth that would hinder LOS a lot but if you wanted no under growth then you could code them as "Orchard". |
squadleader_id wrote (View Post): |
The "old way" of leaves elements coding that represented leaves covering all tree trunks could actually represent the tree crown and undergrowth under/around the tree. |
Reichwald forest.JPG | ||
Description: |
|
|
Filesize: | 203.26 KB | |
Viewed: | 11725 Time(s) | |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT