Quote:
Originally Posted by gap
So you are saying that except for particles not following wind direction and splash FX spawn points being not close enough to each other, the rest is good?  |
In a very long winded way, yes that's what I am saying.
It is good and getting better.
Not sure about the double vision problem reported in my last post, though
Quote:
Originally Posted by gap
To the best of my understanding, an heading of 0 corresponds to a South to North direction, and a 180 heading to a N to S direction. That's true in common navigation terminology and in game, as far as units are concerned. Maybe devs got wind hedings wrong? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by gap
I don't see anything related with rain drop direction in scene.dat's rain properties, maybe rain following the wind direction is an hardcoded feature. Anyway in the Env.sim controller I see some Start/End WindHeading parameters which might apply to the issue of wind directions as perceived in game (from rain and waves) being inverted releative to wind headings set in mission editor |
IMO they used the word heading instead of direction. If the wind direction is from the North it is blowing N to S. If it is from the South then it is blowing south to north. The wind is always stated in the direction it is blowing from - a South Westerly wind is a wind blowing from the SW
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_direction
Not sure what convention (if any) was followed by the devs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gap
IIRC, TheDarkWraith managed getting smoke to follow the wind direction in SH5. Let me check the settings he used for achieving that  |
Hopefully you'll find something that has gone un-noticed before (re my thread and sub threads on Funnel smoke)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gap
The particle generators would be closer together, thus creating a better effect, especially if seen from above. 
I don't think increasing the number of particle generators placed around the lighthouse would have a big impact on game fluidity, as the generators we have set are not so particle-intensive. Nonetheless, should we notice any performance hit, we can always reduce the number of particles per generator. If we decide to increase the number of PG placement nodes from 8 to 12, A reduction to about 2/3 of the original particles should be okay |
Quote:
Originally Posted by gap
No problem: if we can improve the splash FX with no side effects, why not to do it? If on the other hand we will notice any adverse factor, well, we will refrain our virtual pilots from taking aerial pictures of our lighthouses |
Regards,
MLF