Extended Render Range (ERR) and missing Level of Detail (LOD)

[\m/]

Special note: Dont get me wrong - i respect the work of the Devs and really liked to see the new ERR!

I cant understand why they extend the Render Range to 320m while the Level of Detail is still the same (or near the same) as with 220m.
The missing LOD (mostly of the trees and bushes) was in the last years the biggest minus of the graphics for me. Below 50m distance everthing was ok, but above 50m distance you often saw immersion destroying trees which looked like some lego-constructions with really bad/low & blocky Level of Detail. Often the LOD changes drastic while moving and the trees pop up with the changed LOD. You should know what i mean - sry for english skills ..im german.
My first thoughts while reading about the new ERR was "Nice, ERR must come with a increased LOD, it would be purposeless without a higher LOD". I had no big expectations that it would be a huge increasement of the LOD, but still enough to get a graphic&immersion boost.

After the update i tested the new ERR (with maxed out graphic settings in the launcher) in Hirsch near my waterfowl-setup, cuz there are normally rly ugly trees with low LOD in around 60-80m range. What a disappointment - looks exact like before the update. The next testing round was on SC, animals are visible up to the new max range,great! But still the same with the LOD - no changes. Sometimes uglier than before the new ERR? I mean even with binos massive lego-constructions at 220m ( https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ ... EF8B43A5F/ ) - cant remember that i had this in the past.

320m Render Range of animals and stands/towers etc is fine and was overdue, but complete useless for me if the LOD of landscape/scenery (mostly trees) at ranges above 50m+ is still often very humble looking.
With a higher LOD of the scenery the new ERR would make much more sense in my eyes.
If EW need to spare hunters with old toasters as pcs, they could make a new scene complexity tier and call it "ultra" with a real higher scenery-LOD and the same 320m ERR. That would be outstanding for the immersion and the future of the game.

[RickC]

I agree. Some time back when they "improved lighting and shadows" the game took a big graphics hit in my opinion. Most noticeable in some older reserves. In Hirsh in the hay fields where the terrain beyond 50 meters looked like my settings were on the lowest settings. I was very unhappy when they did this.

[gas56]

Rendering 1st 3d models & dynamic models at longer distances would hamper real processing capabilities and even top notch computers would have a problem,
that's why maps aren't made to have better LOD at long range because they use the 3rd models which are usually 2D models. Imagine every model to be seen from the area you are looking at to the end of a now longer render distance for animals? This game isn't optimized to produce graphics in such great detail and have performance while doing it.
Multiplying retciles Zoom for seeing targets on top of further LOD distances isn't going to happen no time soon,.. or it hasn't yet until those models can be calculated while
zoomed into in area around them to render 1st model appearances.
Have you ever looked at the beaches from a distance and do not see any vegetation models and when you look through the same area with a reticle the bull rushes appear?
those are the dynamic models that appear at whatever their set distances are, and when you look past them further down the beach they are not present, just an empty beach.
Now imagine if you were to see all the original dynamic models and original 3d tree, rocks, bushes, limbs, stones, fences, stumps, etc...models to produce being able to view them in detail at further distance rendering how much work your computer would have to do? I'm not saying it's impossible to make maps that could work out to further rendering distances, but it would be too much for most gaming computers out there to handle it. Maybe one day in the near future will capabilities of producing full lush vegetation will be discovered on computer scenery rendering for as far as the map view can be rendered, but it isn't going to happen no time soon.

[RickC]

Have you ever looked at the beaches from a distance and do not see any vegetation models and when you look through the same area with a reticle the bull rushes appear?
those are the dynamic models that appear at whatever their set distances are, and when you look past them further down the beach they are not present, just an empty beach.

Since you know more about this than I do, could you explain why vegetation draws in like you describe when looking through an optics, yet at Hirsh vegetation disappears when doing the same?

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/ ... 1393705047
https://steamuserimages-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 808D73C60/
Let me know please if those links do not work.

[gas56]

I don't actually see no difference in the 2 pictures you posted but that one is zoomed in and the dynamic grass is seen in both.
I thought you said when you viewed without an optic you could see it and when you looked through an optic it would disappear. Maybe you could put 2 photos in those views that you have observed.

I've never noticed dynamic object vegetation doing that, as it is set to appear at its set distance whatever their correct numbers are. my guess is start distance is around 5-10 meters out to around
max distance of 65- 90 meters. If it disappears while looking through an optic than there is a wrong calculation set for it, but I've never observed this there.

[\m/]

Hello

I have no idea what your talking about gas, cuz im only a gamer.

It could be that the word "LOD" is wrong (remember im german - we are used to do something wrong sometimes). What i mean is simple higher details at ranges 50m+ ..but not up to max render range. At the moment below 50m is all fine, above 50m most trees are not that beautiful. If this 50m-barrier would be increased to lets say 100m, this would be a real big graphic and immersion-boost cuz you rarely will see detailless (half 3d-rendered?) trees around you while f.e. crossing a meadow.
While normal hunting ingame you often cross roads, meadows, fields or rivers where you have trees around you in ranges from 5-100m. Very often some trees at the range above 50m are detailless, blocky, ghosttrees whatever ..this is massive destroying the immersion if i see those what i call lego-constructions. Mostly happens in reserves with more vegetation like WHI, SC, RFF, TGT ..on reserves with less vegetation/trees like WRR or BRR its not important.

There must be a way to increase the details or to set the range where the trees are rendered correct, cuz they have decreased the details in the past. First days after BRR was released the details of the trees where nearly the same in 100-150m range like now at 50m ..it was changed with an update for fixing fps-problems for toasters. I had in these first days of BRR zero ghosttrees (have them now even on top of the red-brown hills) and saw rly rarely detailless trees while normal hunting. I dont know what was changed exactly, but this is a sign for me that it must be changeable or? If its changeable, pack it into Scene Complexity "Ultra" and boom, welcome to a new game

[Zycho]

The question is: Why is my PC louder than in other games when I play THC (even before the update)? The graphics are much worse than new games (which run way more silent) and still my PC is "fighting" so hard everytime i play THC ... how can that be? Incidentally, I noticed that the graphics on WRR are worse than before ... LEGO-effect is a good comparison.

[Tanngnjostr]

The question is: Why is my PC louder than in other games when I play THC (even before the update)? The graphics are much worse than new games (which run way more silent) and still my PC is "fighting" so hard everytime i play THC ...

As far as I know it's because the engine is old and not very well optimized. I notice the same as you: I have a mediocre PC, but there are games with obviously more sophisticated graphics details than th:C that still run smoother and strain my resources less. I don't think this will ever change on this engine and I guess this was the reason why the render range was kept on 220 meters for so long. Nowadays, with more people having modern PCs, it made sense for the devs to finally extend the render range, but that doesn't make the engine more optimized.

The only thing that could ever change this would probably be a port to a new engine, but I'm not sure if this makes sense business wise. It'd be a huge investment for the company without any guaranty that it would ever pay back.

[Zycho]

The question is: Why is my PC louder than in other games when I play THC (even before the update)? The graphics are much worse than new games (which run way more silent) and still my PC is "fighting" so hard everytime i play THC ...

As far as I know it's because the engine is old and not very well optimized. I notice the same as you: I have a mediocre PC, but there are games with obviously more sophisticated graphics details than th:C that still run smoother and strain my resources less. I don't think this will ever change on this engine and I guess this was the reason why the render range was kept on 220 meters for so long. Nowadays, with more people having modern PCs, it made sense for the devs to finally extend the render range, but that doesn't make the engine more optimized.

The only thing that could ever change this would probably be a port to a new engine, but I'm not sure if this makes sense business wise. It'd be a huge investment for the company without any guaranty that it would ever pay back.

Many thanks for your response! Nice to hear that I'm not the only one. But would not it be more negligent to continue relying on the old engine and jeopardize the gain of new players (especially young players), so that eventually the entire payment concept will no longer be healthy (because of the little amount of players in the future)?
I have friends who are generally interested in hunting games, but they say a) TH:C is too expensive and b) too little in return (big changes, graphics etc... for 35€ per year + the payed items) and I think that there are many such potential players who think so.

[Tanngnjostr]

But would not it be more negligent to continue relying on the old engine and jeopardize the gain of new players (especially young players), so that eventually the entire payment concept will no longer be healthy (because of the little amount of players in the future)?

I agree with you. In the end it'll be a business decision for EW. They might take the risk and transfer the game to a new engine, but they might as well decide it's too risky or doesn't offer enough potential for revenue and stop development of the game and running the servers altogether. I think we both would love to see the former...