21.10.2008, 14:29
:!:
With regard to 2D/3D buildings, I've noticed that destroyed buildings have no actual physical presence (you can fly through them - try it), and that (possibly related) they have a much lesser effect on reducing frame rates (again try flying over a completely destroyed city).
So what I was wondering was - what if it was possible to create a building where the destroyed version had exactly the same skin (i.e. looked undestroyed). If the map maker populated their map with these buildings, and then "destroyed" them (leaving them appearing exactly the same) would we be able to get larger, more densely-packed cities without reducing frame-rates?
There would be some disadvantages - i.e. you could fly through the buildings, and they wouldn't be able to be destroyed any further, but it may be an alternative to completely flat 2D cities.
Just a thought........
With regard to 2D/3D buildings, I've noticed that destroyed buildings have no actual physical presence (you can fly through them - try it), and that (possibly related) they have a much lesser effect on reducing frame rates (again try flying over a completely destroyed city).
So what I was wondering was - what if it was possible to create a building where the destroyed version had exactly the same skin (i.e. looked undestroyed). If the map maker populated their map with these buildings, and then "destroyed" them (leaving them appearing exactly the same) would we be able to get larger, more densely-packed cities without reducing frame-rates?
There would be some disadvantages - i.e. you could fly through the buildings, and they wouldn't be able to be destroyed any further, but it may be an alternative to completely flat 2D cities.
Just a thought........