EXPANSION OF DEVELOPMENT BASE PERSONNEL THROUGH EDUCATION
-
Before this turns into a flame war
That’s not my intentions Atreides. I’m simply responded to an accusation that is totally false.
At any rate. I’ll spend some time and respond to your questions later, as right now I’m a tad busy.
C9
-
You anytimes can find more and better data about any aircraft in DB. The only good point of Tactref to check 3D model integration. If you scrweded strongly someting you get CTD in tacref without loading a mission.
Well sure Molni, you can find the info on the INET, but that’s not the point, it’s not like you want to be sitting in Falcon and alt tab out to check Wiki all the time.
TACREF is a Legacy and nostalgic part of Falcon which should be updated and preserved IMO.
And what do you mean by “scrweded strongly”?? Doesn’t make sense, please have Google translate it…LOL
C9
-
@Cloud:
Well sure Molni, you can find the info on the INET, but that’s not the point, it’s not like you want to be sitting in Falcon and alt tab out to check Wiki all the time.
TACREF is a Legacy and nostalgic part of Falcon which should be updated and preserved IMO.
Correct.
Not asking ppl with specific knowledges to start that task, but anybody else with an Internet access, time, and wish to do something for the community … Listen … why not Atreides who seems to be in the desire to start something ?
More usefull than new tiles at this time, TacRef needs updates and will help ppl who are newbies in TE creation.
TacRef Editor is easy to understand … and if some explanations are needed, I can provide it.Lot of blah blah in this thread … no much moves …
I invite all the ppl reading this thread to join this one : https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12201-COMMUNITY-PROJECT-LETS-UPDATE-TACTICAL-REFERENCE&highlight=Tacref
-
@Cloud:
This has got to be the most laughable sentence in this entire thread. Not only is is total rubbish, it proves my point about my statements.
I NEVER suffered by teaching myself, seeking the information needed by studying it years after years, learning a lot of it on my own. There have been a few others that helped me in the beginning but that was pretty short lived. I take pride in my accomplishments(you refer to that as ego…smh) as to what I’ve done on my own. I’ve never denied helping anyone, ever. And there are many members here who can verify that, but NO, I’m not going to sit here and give them everything they want time after time after time, when it’s readily available if they seek it. But then again, they would have to suffer to do that…LOL
Have you never heard the saying “God helps those that help themselves”. It doesn’t seem to exist any longer. The one’s that complain and whine, and you, think they are suffering if they have to learn or do anything on their own!! This is the phenomenon called “Entitlement” and its the age that most 25yr olds and under(and some older) seem to live in. Everything revolves around them.
“Mommy, they want me to do it by myself, they won’t do it for me, can you get my cell phone that you gave me when I was 3yrs old so I can call them and tell them that’s just not right. Oh, darn, it’s not charged. I could use one of the 2 other phones in the house, but one is a touch tone and that hurts my tender fingers and the other is a rotary phone and I’m scared to stick my fingers in them little holes for fear it will rip my finger off, plus I don’t even know how to dial that thing!!! Mommy, can you call them and tell them to tell me their secrets and if they don’t you’ll go over there and beat them up for me.”
With that said, there are some fine young people here that have the desire, drive and commitment to learn a lot of stuff by themselves, but they are few and far between compared to the “entitlement” crowd. And looking at your post, you seem to lean that way.
I could write a book about not only How much I’ve helped individuals and taught people and how many hours, days, months and years I’ve learned by myself, and how many times I’ve seen people whining about how no one will help them, or how THEY can’t find the information because it’s here, there, and everywhere, it’s not in a central depository, indexed and filed appropriately for them and that’s just to much pain and suffering for them to endure, this part would take more than half the book!!
Here’s my tip of the day. If you aren’t or you can’t be willing to have the ambition to learn on your own because that causes you to much pain and suffering, then, well, don’t Mod/Dev on Falcon. Get out of the “Afterburner” Period.
But of course, due to my “EGO”, oh and my “Poor form”, according to you, I’m a mean person and know the secrets and won’t give them out……LOL
It’s no wonder BMS and some other Dev teams have/run a tight closed shop. And I don’t blame them one bit for that, I actually applaud it.
Cheers,
C9
I was going to sit this thread out, but what the heck, I haven’t gotten in trouble for awhile…I frankly find the attitude portrayed in this post troubling, not to mention insulting. Yes, there are people who demand “entitlement”. And yes, there are also those who" want everything done for them". What I find troubling, though, is how how much area you_seem_ to want to cover with that “blanket”. Atreides doesn’t sound like an “entitlement-seeker”, and I know I and a LOT of us here aren’t, either.
Someone wrote here about a sense of community. It is true here, whether the Devs want it or not. There are those of us who strongly want to “give back”. We just don’t know how. It takes a certain knowledge “how to find out how”. You have to have a certain knowledge base to even be able to ask how to help. I don’t have that base, but I know the Devs do, and if I’m reading Atreides right, that’s all he’s asking for.
May I suggest you start a new Forum thread where you post areas we could help with . A simple “Mission Statement”. -
Correct.
Not asking ppl with specific knowledges to start that task, but anybody else with an Internet access, time, and wish to do something for the community … Listen … why not Atreides who seems to be in the desire to start something ?
More usefull than new tiles at this time, TacRef needs updates and will help ppl who are newbies in TE creation.
TacRef Editor is easy to understand … and if some explanations are needed, I can provide it.Lot of blah blah in this thread … no much moves …
I invite all the ppl reading this thread to join this one : https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12201-COMMUNITY-PROJECT-LETS-UPDATE-TACTICAL-REFERENCE&highlight=Tacref
Thanks for the endorsement Dee-Jay, but I am not code / network savvy enough to undertake what you are suggesting. 3D and 2D graphics is closer to home for me. Plus…
The simulation and visuals amount for the largest part of the user experience. I think that in terms of simulation Falcon is very much mature - I am not saying its finished… Just that its mature.
However, once you look outside your cockpit or switch to an external view, with the exception of airplane models, (some at least), bodies of water and the sky/weather in most cases (not all), the environment is characterized by me as a terrain that is both repetitive in its tiling and in some cases lacks variation and more man-made objects. The skyline is also too “edgy” for my taste, characterized by straight lines of the large tiles that fail to give the impression of a simulated world.
The above said, I do recognize that more than just one person has sweated over all the terrain I am complaining about and have invested countless hours refining it, trying to give me today something better than what was available to me yesterday… for free. I do appreciate the work of the people who designed the terrain, when I compare it to previous versions of Falcon. My problem exists solely with what we could be doing with today’s hardware if some fore-thought, organization and volunteering was possible.
I suspect that the dev team - or at least part of it - are busy modeling block 60 and 70 for the next version of Falcon. I don’t know what they think of my ideas/suggestions anyway. If hits could be indicative of something, it would mean that its not just me that either likes the idea of pipelines or is interested/intrigued by them.
Thanks for making the suggestion though… and Nice Try! …You sly Dee-Jay You!
-
Atreides doesn’t sound like an “entitlement-seeker”.
If you would have read the previous posts you will see I said to Atreides that I was NOT talking to or about him and apologized if he had thought that.
I also stated there are some talented and driven individuals that aren’t what I was describing if you hadn’t noticed that in my post.
Thank You,
C9
-
@Cloud:
If you would have read the previous posts you will see I said to Atreides that I was NOT talking to or about him and apologized if he had thought that.
I also stated there are some talented and driven individuals that aren’t what I was describing if you hadn’t noticed that in my post.
Thank You,
C9
I have not forgotten that you said you would share your thoughts on limitations, goals and methods. The key elements that are beyond the average Joe’s capabilities. :drink:
-
@Cloud:
Well sure Molni, you can find the info on the INET, but that’s not the point, it’s not like you want to be sitting in Falcon and alt tab out to check Wiki all the time.
TACREF is a Legacy and nostalgic part of Falcon which should be updated and preserved IMO.
And what do you mean by “scrweded strongly”?? Doesn’t make sense, please have Google translate it…LOL
C9
Tacref surface is simply outdated to give detailed and useful information. Oh, and BTW you cannot acces during flight. If anyting what you wish to put into Tacref can be puf in a pdf which anytime can be see in printed form or even using alt+tab.
-
Tacref surface is simply outdated to give detailed and useful information. Oh, and BTW you cannot acces during flight. If anyting what you wish to put into Tacref can be puf in a pdf which anytime can be see in printed form or even using alt+tab.
But you’re missing the point Molni!!!
C9
-
Tacref surface is simply outdated to give detailed and useful information. Oh, and BTW you cannot acces during flight. If anyting what you wish to put into Tacref can be puf in a pdf which anytime can be see in printed form or even using alt+tab.
So you suggest to supress the TarRef entirely (?) no point to keep it alive if unused and out to date.
Thanks for the endorsement Dee-Jay, but I am not code / network savvy enough to undertake what you are suggesting.
Thanks for making the suggestion though… and Nice Try! …You sly Dee-Jay You!
It is not about code … It is just text. Nothing is easier. But it takes time.
About 3d … C-17 and UH-1 needs love. If you are 3D artist, ask Waveydave, Radium, Eghi, Hayab or Pumpyhead for requirements.
I suspect that the dev team - or at least part of it - are busy modeling block 60 and 70 for the next version of Falcon.
… And you might be disappointed. Blk60 is out of BMS scope for the moment unless you can provide valuable (unclassified) documentations.
About tiles … etc … I suggest to wait a bit more. If/when needed, some ppl like Lazystonei or I-Hawk will maybe contact you.
-
This post is deleted! -
So you suggest to supress the TarRef entirely (?) no point to keep it alive if unused and out to date.
Im not sure how useful a tool it is. Certainly in its current state. I look at it and often wonder how accurate it is to BMS.
“oh hey, says the range for this weapon is XXX”
sees the range marker for PPTs is waaaaay larger
“hmmmm……”
If it was modified to have accurate, interesting and useful information, would it become a useful tool? I would think its best purpose would be to codify the ‘falcon reality’, to explain how things work in the sim (as there is always a difference).
Of course, it would still be more useful in PDF form. Printable and searchable. TacRef is neither of those at the moment. Perhaps code changes would improve it, but might those changes also make any current planned TacRef changes invalid? It would suck if a small scale version of what happened to EMF be repeated.
-
I think the TACRef would be better as a .pdf document, personally. Particularly if it would save overhead in the sim.
-
- Thank you Atreides for the link to a really great song!
I think your ideas are spot on and it’s abit painful to read thrue this thread.
I also think the Tacref could use some attention but then with info and performance from/referencing the sim itself.
I started a project of learning how to model in 3dsmax from zero and built an AJS 35F. Obviously I don’t have the skill to be making aircrafts, but with some coordination and structure I would have produced a lot of forgotten/neglected 3d’s and done them a lot better then what is now in the DB.
Scale, units, linking, ptypes, lights, lodeditor, smoothing etc. is all there probably but so scattered and uncertain that it just halts any effort.
I agree with some of the sayings about spoonfeeding and enjoy the mystery that makes out devFalcon, but if result is on the agenda coordination and structure cant be counterproductive.
Falcon Love!
Cheers!
/Jaws
-
Everyone hooked up to their caffeine IV drips?… Excellent!
It is not about code … It is just text. Nothing is easier. But it takes time. About 3d … C-17 and UH-1 needs love. If you are 3D artist, ask Waveydave, Radium, Eghi, Hayab or Pumpyhead for requirements.About tiles … etc … I suggest to wait a bit more. If/when needed, some ppl like Lazystonei or I-Hawk will maybe contact you.
Dee-Jay you really don’t “get” me. I am suggesting massive contribution on all fronts. Including the text descriptions of the Tac-Ref (until now I thought you meant some code part of the Tac-Ref). If pipelines were established, EVERYONE AND THEIR MOTHER concerning people attending this forum is qualified to do TYPING of all things.
The only reason I am focusing on tiles / 3D environment objects etc is because - WHILE FLYING - its the portion of the simulation that has been left behind the most in comparison to other features (e.g. cockpit / airframe fidelity). Plus, there is one more reason to deal with Tac-Ref, but only after other things have taken place 1st:
Tac-Ref is supposed to provide descriptions, specs, capabilities, doctrine of application etc concerning assets you encounter WHILE FLYING! I would much rather have a high fidelity SA-6 model shooting at me with as accurate a trajectory as possible, and a shitty description [pardon my French… still working on that language] rather than a perfect description with a blockish SA-6 firing at me with no or completely inaccurate trajectory.
- Thank you Atreides for the link to a really great song! I think your ideas are spot on and it’s abit painful to read thrue this thread. I also think the Tacref could use some attention but then with info and performance from/referencing the sim itself. I started a project of learning how to model in 3dsmax from zero and built an AJS 35F. Obviously I don’t have the skill to be making aircrafts, but with some coordination and structure I would have produced a lot of forgotten/neglected 3d’s and done them a lot better then what is now in the DB. Scale, units, linking, ptypes, lights, lodeditor, smoothing etc. is all there probably but so scattered and uncertain that it just halts any effort. I agree with some of the sayings about spoonfeeding and enjoy the mystery that makes out devFalcon, but if result is on the agenda coordination and structure cant be counterproductive.
Falcon Love!
Cheers!
/Jaws
You are welcome and I am glad we enjoy the same or similar music!
Here is another one to help kick-off the day…
3D models and 3D modelling is the visual experience. Whether we like it or not, that includes the tiles. I suppose that segmented approaches could be used, e.g. a slightlly more purpose specific pipeline for aircrafts that includes scouting/research to the parent companies (most of them are still going strong despite having their rights and patents acquired by larger companies or even been merged / acquired) to find the schematics of the complete aircraft per version to make the aircraft accurate to the last freakin bolt. Now, while 3D model fidelity is important, so is the simulation experience. It doesn’t serve me personally in any way, if as a user I am forced to buy quad SLI just to be able to load it up. It has to be playable so obviously a balance between 3D model fidelity and interactivity needs to be achieved.
So maybe the 1st thing we need to do is figure out whats the oldest hardware among us and see what that is capable of. Based on that, you establish a polygon count that hardware can handle comfortably.
Its a far easier approach to say “****-em [its French… ] …just send everyone out to buy a 2000 dollar video card and do what you enjoy”.
You can do this by following the 90/10 (or your own 85/15 or 80/20) rule, where you make sure that the next iteration of Falcon is playable on 90% of the hardware available, forcing only the 10% of the users to upgrade. But that is a planned and well-thought out process. All the core dev team needs to do at this point is buy an old PC labeled “Falcon ****box” (50 dollars?… the pieces are already laying around?) which would provide real world experience to the specifications they choose to serve and use it for testing interactivity.
At the same time it doesn’t make sense to do the same job twice. So here is my aopproach:
1. Find accurate model data for EVERYTHING! This includes airplanes, cars, trucks, buildings, lamp-posts, power towers, etc
2. Make accurate 3D models AS IF YOU WERE ON AN UNLIMITED POLYGON BUDGET. This is the “do it right the 1st time” approach and “no more re-inventing the wheel for me thank you”.
3. “Dumb down” the models through simplification algorithms. There are many 3D programs that do this. You can load up a 10.000.000 polygon 3D model, and export it in a 1000, 10.000, 100.000 etc polygon version for use in subsequent iterations of the flight sim.Obviously with this approach you can be picky and keep a higher fidelity on aircraft and a lower on lamp-posts - which makes sense. All you need to do per version of Falcon is to decide “how many polygons do I want to allocate to my environment and how many to the opposing forces”?
After say, one or two years, you take another poll and see if the majority of people have upgraded. If they have, then you can introduce a high polygon count model from your repository for certain objects. Other objects you were already using at a high fidelity level remain the same and eventually you get a very easy and convenient way to improve the visual accuracy of your simulator.
If they haven’t upgraded you can introduce a high polygon count model from your repository for certain objects to force them to upgrade. Sorry, but if we want a better sim, some of us - me included - might have to buy a used video card of greater capabilities.
There is an alternative approach to this:
You export version based on polygon count. So someone who has access to a renderfarm can download the ALL OUT HD version.
Those that use quad SLI for gaming can download the slightly less refined VANILLA HD version.
…and so-on and so-forth…There is also the prioritization of resources. If there are, say, 100 3D artists contributing on this effort, it makes sense to have 70 of them working on AAA, aircrafts, missile launchers etc, and 30 of them working on lamp-posts or tiles. However, my gut feeling on this is that in this specific case, the environment needs a major kick in the butt before anything / everything else.
For digitizing large objects, this comes in to be very handy! I am thinking that a trip to hangar or a 1000 would be great! Especially if they are full of delicious aircraft! Isn’t there a museum with most of them?
But that is just what goes on in my mind. Perhaps someone else out there has a better approach.
-
The only reason I am focusing on tiles / 3D environment objects etc is because - WHILE FLYING - its the portion of the simulation that has been left behind the most in comparison to other features (e.g. cockpit / airframe fidelity). Plus, there is one more reason to deal with Tac-Ref, but only after other things have taken place 1st:
So you do not trust the BMS team. Each group its own priority then … and as I see, it can’t be a efficient community work.
I let this thread dying by its own. From my POV, most peoples here do not want to work (at least yet) the way BMS does. Sorry.I see mainly a lot of “creative juice ”.
If you want some info about tiling, may I suggest you to contact TomCatz, Joe Labrada or Earlybite:
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12247-Tom-s-texture-pack
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12247-Tom-s-texture-pack
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?22449-An-improvement-for-stock-korea-city-tilesDee-Jay out.
-
So you do not trust the BMS team. Each group its own priority then … and as I see, it can’t be a efficient community work.
I let this thread dying by its own. From my POV, most peoples here do not want to work (at least yet) the way BMS does. Sorry.I see mainly a lot of “creative juice ”.
If you want some info about tiling, may I suggest you to contact TomCatz, Joe Labrada or Earlybite:
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12247-Tom-s-texture-pack
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12247-Tom-s-texture-pack
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?22449-An-improvement-for-stock-korea-city-tilesDee-Jay out.
I don’t even KNOW the BMS team to trust them. How about defining the BMS team and after talking with them for some time MAYBE I will have an idea concerning where I place my trust.
I don’t know how you live your life, but trust specifically is earned. Perhaps you are looking for a different word and not trust.
Also, I don’t mind working one bit. But there is a difference in blindly slaving on something that eventually I will be forced to do again… and again… and again… and taking your time to think 5 minutes ahead of yourself and start an effort that has continuity. In my experience it pays to do the thinking BEFORE the working. Don’t let me stop you from approaching this backwards though. Be my guest.
Why do I need to contact other people? To request their permission to think? What are we? 5y.o.? “May I have permission to improve the environment of Falcon”?
If something needs to be said, that is limitations that adhere to Falcon in terms of software and the other 2-3 points I am waiting for Cloud 9 to elaborate on (scope, goals, how-to, methods to get what we want etc). And if this is going to be a community effort, these things need to be discussed here. In this thread. Or not at all if that’s the way the core dev. team feels about it. I am only making suggestions and thinking out loud. I am not ramming my ideas down yours or anyone’s throat. You have a brain and opinion all of your own. I am sure you will arrive to conclusions sooner or later all by yourself.
And about that point concerning “working the way BMS works”, how exactly does BMS work? Lets state that and then lets compare methods. I don’t recognize anyone as “the only” or “the best” or “the smartest”. I do my own thinking and I invite everyone else to do their own too. Eventually, someone will have better ideas than someone else. Thats fine for me. Its kinda catastrophic for the egomaniac that thinks he has it all figured out or that he is unique in some way. To people with those kind of convictions I have only one thing to say:
“after we die - me included - the planet earth won’t slow down one bit”
We are just as special as the person next to ourselves.
Cheers.
-
Atreides making 3d models more detailed will not improve their trajectory.
You can have instead of an aim 120 3d model the 3d model of the empire State building and it will get to you as the 120 would.
So you lack basic knowledge of the falcon engine to start something like you suggest, at least not as managing or leading the effort.About the rest well still the answers or excuses I read doesn’t answer or reduce the enormous loss of time off the wheel reinvention.
sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
Atreides making 3d models more detailed will not improve their trajectory.
You can have instead of an aim 120 3d model the 3d model of the empire State building and it will get to you as the 120 would.
So you lack basic knowledge of the falcon engine to start something like you suggest, at least not as managing or leading the effort.About the rest well still the answers or excuses I read doesn’t answer or reduce the enormous loss of time off the wheel reinvention.
sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
Arty, you just broke my heart by misunderstanding or misinterpreting what I said about prefering to have “a high fidelity SA-6 model [3D model] shooting at me with as accurate a trajectory [simulation aspect] as possible”. Good 3D models and simulation instead of a detailed Tac-Ref. How will I ever recover from this?… My heart weeps.
And WHERE IN THIS THREAD OR ELSEWHERE did I say that I want to manage or lead something??? Kindly find it and paste it so we can all read it Arty. Its not my fault people are insecure and think I will take away their toys or steal their position in the spotlight. ******! Get over yourselves.
The rest of your comment [about answers or excuses] I really don’t understand, so I hope you can rephrase later on.
-
Sounds Tagman (?)
Why do I need to contact other people? To request their permission to think? What are we? 5y.o.? “May I have permission to improve the environment of Falcon”?
…
And about that point concerning “working the way BMS works”, how exactly does BMS work? Lets state that and then lets compare methods. I don’t recognize anyone as “the only” or “the best” or “the smartest”. I do my own thinking and I invite everyone else to do their own too. Eventually, someone will have better ideas than someone else. Thats fine for me. Its kinda catastrophic for the egomaniac that thinks he has it all figured out or that he is unique in some way. To people with those kind of convictions I have only one thing to say:Atreides, you do not understand what I mean. Could also be my bad english, I failed to make you understand my point. Whatever.
Feel free to try to improve everything you want … no prob with this. Wish you all the best and good luck as everyone will enjoy it at the end.
Cheers.