WIP JTD Fire And Smoke

[dmarkwick 261]

Perhaps it has been asked and i just didnt read it. But will the fire spread will be influenced by the weather (wind speed/direction and rain)?

Yes, the wind and rain influence the propagation.

---------- Post added at 10:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:17 PM ----------

Just wondering, it looks like it is worth a small hit, but it it would say take anything above 15% and other mods also taking its toll....well, you get picture. I can only state that it is really impressive work sofar, and adds to the immersion factor :icon_eek:

Oh, BTW, there is also a config to tune the smoke lifetime & duration (how long it burns and how long each particle lasts) so you can tweak it to taste :)

[Rg 0]

Awesome fire spreading effect. I had no idea this was possible.

Very nice job.

Oh, BTW, there is also a config to tune the smoke lifetime & duration (how long it burns and how long each particle lasts) so you can tweak it to taste :)

On the issue of performance...

Rather then having people reducing the lifetime & duration (which kind of goes against what your mod is about), is it possible to use a large percentage less of particles, but countering that by decreasing the transparency on many?

I haven't looked into the particle system in arma and haven't dissected any other effects mods for a1, but it looks like the system uses layer after layer of textures with high transparency.

What I am wondering is if it is possible to use much less transparency on a large number textures so that you have very thick smoke with much better performance. Of course it may not look as pretty as what it looks like with tons of very transparent layers, but it shouldn't look "bad" and it should serve its purpose (maybe even more so with extra thick smoke) while increasing performance.

-------

P.S. I play very few games, but I do remember playing the COD2 demo around '05 and was very impressed by the smoke thickness. Best I've seen, but that's not saying much coming from me. :p

Examples...

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/620769/call-of-duty-2/images/call-of-duty-2-20050926050817730.html?page=mediaFull

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/620769/call-of-duty-2/images/call-of-duty-2-20050930092815877.html?page=mediaFull

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/620769/call-of-duty-2/images/call-of-duty-2-20050708043615845.html?page=mediaFull

http://pc.ign.com/dor/objects/620769/call-of-duty-2/images/call-of-duty-2-screens-20050916085729971.html?page=mediaFull

http://www.fpsteam.it/img2006/call_of_duty_2/call_of_duty_2_04.jpg

From the looks of it, it's almost like they are using high and low transparency on each texture (a lot of white and black on the alpha layer). Like the top arc of the smoke cloud has almost no transparency, but the middle and bottom arc (or just the bottom half) is very transparent (maybe using a vertical gradient pattern from top to bottom on the alpha layer?). This makes everything blend together nicely, but making the smoke extra thick. I hope this makes sense :/

[dmarkwick 261]

On the issue of performance...

Rather then having people reducing the lifetime & duration (which kind of goes against what your mod is about), is it possible to use a large percentage less of particles, but countering that by decreasing the transparency on many?

I haven't looked into the particle system in arma and haven't dissected any other effects mods for a1, but it looks like the system uses layer after layer of textures with high transparency.

What I am wondering is if it is possible to use much less transparency on a large number textures so that you have very thick smoke with much better performance. Of course it may not look as pretty as what it looks like with tons of very transparent layers, but it shouldn't look "bad" and it should serve its purpose (maybe even more so with extra thick smoke) while increasing performance.

Thanks for the interest :)

I've tried all kinds of combinations of density & transparency, and really, the effect is quite poor with very low transparency. I think it's the illusion of non-repeating complexity that makes it work so well, and that relies on high transparency and several shapes layered as you rightly said.

The main purpose of the addon is eye candy. As such, I think it's my main focus to provide that. The viewblock was only ever an extra demanded by the feedback in ArmA, and in ArmA2 it seems that particles block the AI view automatically, so that saves me (and you) lots of performance right there. As the server is the one that does most of the work (deciding what and where each effect happens, as well as managing the viewblock) there's more performance savings, unless you are hosting or playing single player that is :D

You might be pleasantly surprised by the increase in visual quality vs the FPS drop, I think it will be less than you fear. I'm constantly surprised how mush I can chuck up in the air and still get reasonable framerates, and my rig is hardly cutting edge. Really, the only limiting factor I'm encountering is the particle scaling bug that ArmA2 has, which means I need to use more, smaller particles rather than fewer, larger particles.

[Fortran 1]

Wow...just wow, no other words, it looks fantastic! Very realistic looking indeed! Great job.

[nubbin77 0]

Holy smokes!

[Maddmatt 1]

No special setup for these particles? OK I'll assume that all particles are viewblock objects :)

Do you know if spaceobject particles are also viewblock?

I would hope so, but I haven't tested them. AFAIK in vanilla A2 they are only used for small things like glass shards, stones, and wood chips.

Particles should also block missiles from getting a lock. Flying above the clouds with the weather module should give some AA protection, for example. Although I haven't tried.

[dmarkwick 261]

I can confirm that particles (billboard) block AI view. So the addon will viewblock by default, and far better than I could have engineered :)

[kklownboy 43]

looking forward to your imminent release:D.

And the new build/beta 1.03 has the smoke back to full effect, and it seems like its even better/last longer and thicker.

[Speeeedy.com 10]

Looking forward to this, Two small questions :) will "heat" be also part of the propagation, so for instants a new fire starts at the other side of a road because of the heat and wind.

Will it cause damage to certain vehicles and buildings?

Edited August 23, 2009 by Speeeedy.com

[dmarkwick 261]

Looking forward to this, Two small questions :) will "heat" be also part of the propagation, so for instants a new fire starts at the other side of a road because of the heat and wind.

Will it cause damage to certain vehicles and buildings?

Thanks for your interest :)

The fire propagation is dependant on proximity, wind, and rain. So if it's very windy, but mot rainy, it's possible for fire to "jump" a road. I'm conscious of a couple of things: the need for great fire propagation and NOT overwhelming gameplay. So forest fires can sometimes get out of control and huge, but more often they burn for a few hundred yards then encounter natural breaks. That's how I reckon it should play out, I'd like for Chernarus to experience fires but I don't want to burn the entire place down :)

And the fire will cause damage to any vehicle that finds itself inside it. Nice for abandoned vehicles, they get torched (although there is a small chance of not destroying). And buildings will be treated like the trees, i.e. they will catch and propagate fire.

[andersson 285]

How does it look after the fire? The trees should be burned, I guess thats difficult to achieve?

[dmarkwick 261]

After the fire, the terrain is exactly the same but the trees are down. The smoke continues for a while after the fire.

[gunterlund21 10]

Brilliant Stuff D. Cant wait to see what it does to a city.

[dmarkwick 261]

By way of a small update, I can confirm that the addon also works in CAA1 ArmA1 maps:

Will be doing a couple of online tests soon, just to make sure the effects are being broadcast properly, and also adding in a few things like scaled propagation & effects for vehicle & building size, and possibly a nice little surprise feature too ;)

[kremator 1064]

Looking very good there. Oooooh surprises! We like surprises!

[Speeeedy.com 10]

Next stop the fire truck addons and choppers ;)

[Dwarden 1124]

maybe option for propagated low altitude smoke to cause people choke :)

like dust from copters ;)

and also heat from fire may cause various fire whirls and air fluxes dangerous to low alt copters ;)

but i'm sure You have lot of more interesting ideas :)

[dmarkwick 261]

Just to keep interest on the boil ;) .....

Images taken during an actual single player Warfare game.

Edited September 4, 2009 by DMarkwick

[dmarkwick 261]

[paragraphic l 2]

That last shot looks AMAZING!

wow what an apocalyps!

Now if only smoke would cast shadow.... without killing our FPS

You would be walking in the dark over there.

[Tankbuster 1733]

Should we start a poll as to whether people think that's real in-game footage, or whether D used his 1337 CGI skeellz to put real fire footage into ArmA terrain? :D

Great work. :)

I promise you, that's real in-game footage. ;)

[r3volution 0]

I think my video card just suffered a coronary in anticipation of the stress. ;)

That looks freaking sweet though. This is one release that I am seriously itching for... I loved the JTD mod & its predecessors in Arma, and its just what Arma2 is missing!

[gunterlund21 10]

Has to be one of the most anticipated addons yet. All I can say is WOW!!

[TRexian 0]

hehe

Without spoiling the surprise too much, the FPS hit is minimal (which is, of course relative). I have what amounts to a lower-end system (almost exactly what the "recommended" specs are for ArmA2), and there is a few FPS "lost" to this. But, the gain in fun-ness is worth it for me.

I think there are some valid reasons why people may not want it, but I think it will meet or exceed most people's expectations. :D

[Tankbuster 1733]

hehe

Without spoiling the surprise too much, the FPS hit is minimal (which is, of course relative).

Yep. We tested it with one player client running a 2 year old E6600 at stock in XP32. FPS drop was much less than anticipated.