We are not against fog for a question of principle. Let\'s try to clarify a bit this question:
1) you can get an increase in framerate by rendering less objects on screen.
2) you can have less objects to render on screen by applying a far clipping plane = past a certain distance from you the objects are simply not drawn.
3) when objects beyond the clipping plane (=not visible) travel through it because you are getting closer to them, there is a visible popping effect = those objects appear suddenly out of thin air, with an effect that is not nice to see.
4) to hide the popping around the clipping plane, usually a fog layer is applied: it conceals the point where the objects appear, but the objects are still being drawn, even if covered by the fog.
This said, why don\'t we have fog in MB?
a) because the clipping plane was not working or implemented or efficient when we released it, so we did not have to hide points where objects were appearing.
b) (very important) because fog had to be drawn in a second pass over the already rendered houses, thus contributing in reducing even more the framerate.
Of course there are plans to solve these questions, and the CS team is steadily progressing in order to have a viable solution. But what I\'d want to make clear is that adding fog is not the magical solution to the fps problem, and that we\'ve been considering its implementation (with all the correlated features) in MB: if it\'s not there it\'s not because we simply ignored the existence of it, but because of precise technical reasons.
