Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- arma2:terrain [2022/06/25 16:48] – added link. snakeman
+++ arma2:terrain [2024/08/02 10:13] (current) – links added. snakeman
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== ArmA 2 Terrain ======
-This is ArmA 2 Terrain Editing Tutorials.
+[[https://www.pmctactical.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=50|ArmA 2 Forum]], [[:arma2|ArmA 2 Home]], [[arma2:config|ArmA 2 Config]], [[arma2:file_formats|ArmA 2 File Formats]], [[arma2:missions|ArmA 2 Missions]], [[arma2:modeling|ArmA 2 3D Modeling]], [[arma2:scripting|ArmA 2 Scripting]], [[arma2:terrain|ArmA 2 Terrain]], [[arma2:texturing|ArmA 2 Texturing]], [[arma2:tools|ArmA 2 Tools]]
-You can still use the 1 texture [[ofp:tools:wrptool|WrpTool]] method familiar from [[arma:terrain|ArmA terrain]]. More up to date details from [[http://www.pmctactical.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=21962|PMC Tactical forums ArmA 2 WRP editing]] topic.
+**ArmA 2 Terrain Editing Tutorials**
+You can still use the 1 texture [[ofp:tools:wrptool|WrpTool]] method familiar from [[arma:terrain|ArmA terrain]]. More up to date details from [[https://www.pmctactical.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=53&t=21962|PMC Tactical forums ArmA 2 WRP editing]] topic.
@@ Line 210: / Line 212: @@
 depends on the number of cells as well. I did a few wee 5x5km terrains - 1024x1024 - 5m FPS was consistently good with them... but I did a 2048x2048 x 4m one as a test recently and it was a real fps hog - even empty 2048x2048x5m wasn't significantly better either - so it wasn't the drop from 5 to 4m cell.... four times as many of em was the problem though I did notice that if I dropped the viewdistance down from 8km to about 3.5km it improved significantly lots of small cells all visible at once  = maybe not a good idea