EXPANSION OF DEVELOPMENT BASE PERSONNEL THROUGH EDUCATION
-
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.
-
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.? "
You’re starting to lose me bro, but the more you talk about it, the more I don’t think this is a good idea at all. Especially with this post, you are getting into telling them what to do, which is a far cry from how you started, as such time to unsub it was fun while it lasted. Let me preface that while I thought you had a great idea or one that was well presented, when you start telling the dev team they’re doing it backwards, when the fact is this sim is about as close as anyone can get to doing it for real, that’s when I can’t follow this anymore. They definitely aren’t doing it backwards, this is just absurd, if not insulting and you have assured yourself to never be able to work with them in the future, imho.
Secondly you need to contact those other people that were suggested, because they are the brightest in this community at what they do. All those folks that Dee-Jay referred you to are the top of class in this community and some of the most talented modders in the world. See many of the things you’ve brought up have been picked to death over the years by the community and there are ways of doing things to get what you’re looking for in the sim. The reason Dee-Jay is asking you to reach out to them is so that you can possibly learn from them how exactly BMS works and all the other pieces that go into it, such as textures, tiles, models, and more, which would make you more valuable overall (potentially more qualified?!), as it’s obvious you do have knowledge on software development standards and protocols, however it has now been overshadowed by rudeness.
I’m going to bow out of this, I suggest you do the same, I really don’t see where you can go from here.
-
You’re starting to lose me bro, but the more you talk about it, the more I don’t think this is a good idea at all. Especially with this post, you are getting into telling them what to do, which is a far cry from how you started, as such time to unsub it was fun while it lasted. Let me preface that while I thought you had a great idea or one that was well presented, when you start telling the dev team they’re doing it backwards, when the fact is this sim is about as close as anyone can get to doing it for real, that’s when I can’t follow this anymore. They definitely aren’t doing it backwards, this is just absurd, if not insulting and you have assured yourself to never be able to work with them in the future, imho.
Secondly you need to contact those other people that were suggested, because they are the brightest in this community at what they do. All those folks that Dee-Jay referred you to are the top of class in this community and some of the most talented modders in the world. See many of the things you’ve brought up have been picked to death over the years by the community and there are ways of doing things to get what you’re looking for in the sim. The reason Dee-Jay is asking you to reach out to them is so that you can possibly learn from them how exactly BMS works and all the other pieces that go into it, such as textures, tiles, models, and more, which would make you more valuable overall (potentially more qualified?!), as it’s obvious you do have knowledge on software development standards and protocols, however it has now been overshadowed by rudeness.
I’m going to bow out of this, I suggest you do the same, I really don’t see where you can go from here.
Did I mention that I don’t know the BMS team? I didn’t even know that Dee-Jay is a part of it. As I said, I am not telling anyone to do anything. It appeared to me as a backwards approach to focus on execution without any planning. I am still waiting on what Cloud 9 has to say. As for contacting the people suggested by Dee-Jay, I will send an invitation to them to join the thread. I think that more than just me need to know what limitations are imposed on us along with everything else that has already been mentioned. I really think you - and others - are misunderstanding me. The initial scope of this thread stands. I don’t need to lead, manage or be in any team dev of otherwise. I will contibute my spare time in a certain direction as long as I am sure that this effort is not going to be a re-invention of the wheel as you stated quite well. But for that to happen, someone has to have scope. Someone that knows the limitations etc.
REQUEST: Can members of the dev. team identify themselves as such so I know who I am talking with? You obviously deserve credit for what you have already done, and I dont intend on insulting anyones work. So kindly say if you are a member of the dev team when we talk.
-
Sounds Tagman (?)
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.
Take your time to write down things in a manner that I will understand Dee-Jay. I don’t even know you to be hostile or offensive towards you. As I mentioned on earlier posts, the BMS team - and since you are on it you are included in this - deserve credit for everything that you have done for us… and that we enjoy for free.
How am I supposed to know who is on the Dev. team is my question, but anyway.
Lets focus on the Tac-Ref since its a fairly easy thing to improve.
Here are my ideas on it:
Someone earlier suggested a pdf version. Not entirely a bad idea, but I prefer it to be an integral part of the game for the following reasons:
1. The tac-ref 3D models will be used in the game regardless.
2. Its more convenient to have a “one-stop-shopping experience” than opening a separate PDF file as you would with the manual.You mentioned that the data is outdated.
Perhaps some weapon systems have received upgrades since their introduction - as they usually do - so the information per version(s) participating in the game needs to be researched and collected. That is one thing.
The other thing is what kind of information will you make available to the end user? Technical specifications, capabilities, limits etc is the one side of weapon systems. The other is doctrine. How is it used? Tactics? Interoperability with other assets. Do you have any ideas on where to source that data? If its on-line then all that we need is either consent to copy-paste it or in a worst case scenario, we need to re-write everything. In the later case, the question is “what do you focus on, what do you keep and what do you leave out”?
Another approach is asking an active duty pilot what information they are presented with concerning other weapon systems. That would allow a realistic focus of the Tac-ref in the direction of the actual simulation, unless its useful for one reason or another to include information outside that field.
I hope I have set you up well enough to continue your thoughts on this.
QUESTION: Is there a member list somewhere on the forum for looking them up?
QUESTION 2: Is it Tomcatz1988? -
Atreides I didn’t say u wanted to lead somewhere. I just stated that with lack of basic knowledge you can’t lead or manager the effort. And now that I think of it you can’t even have a holistic view to propose something.
U must have deep knowledge.
Sure your general idea is very correct regardless what BMS developers say.
You (all not just Atreides) got in details of the leaf of a three and you don’t see the forest.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
Atreides I didn’t say u wanted to lead somewhere. I just stated that with lack of basic knowledge you can’t lead or manager the effort. And now that I think of it you can’t even have a holistic view to propose something.
U must have deep knowledge.
Sure your general idea is very correct regardless what BMS developers say.
You (all not just Atreides) got in details of the leaf of a three and you don’t see the forest.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
And that is why I believe that the core dev team needs to initiate this thing. I agree about not knowing the limitations imposed as also the capabilities of the software. But to be quite honest - like many others in here from what I can tell already - if the core dev. team doesn’t want to contribute I will try to OPENLY try to find out what those limitations are. If we don’t take that into account we might as well do nothing since there is no guarantee that the end goals will be met.
e.g.
Will it be expandable?
Would it be possible to connect adjacent maps into a larger one?
In what way(s) would future improvement take place? etcAll these questions adhere to scope. Without it, I / You / We would be flying blind. Its the very same reason why I said that at least ONE person needs to be told what needs to be done from beginning to end. After that, there can be contribution. But not without a plan that includes growth, expansion, scope, improvement.
P.S. The invitations have been sent out (Today, 12:47) to Joe Labrada, Earlybite and Tomcatz to voice their opinions in this thread.
-
In another thread there was a nice expression said by a member. Development debt.
This is also a nice example of this debt… Actually it is the most important from the community devs side.
BMS devs straggle to reduce the core debt… So no time or resources for the community devs.
From time to time the spaghetti is passing to the community.
Bits of info scattered all over.
Sure if devs started a wiki and instead of answering here answer to the wiki and link as an answer some pieces of the puzzle would be already there.
But someone must create and maintain this platform we can’t ask from the devs to do that too.sent from my mi5 using Tapatalk
-
Hi Atreides,
I didn’t read all what you posted in this thread because it’s honestly too much and I don’t have the time, but hopefully I’m getting what you are trying to say.
OTOH, I’ll try to tell you how things are working in Falcon land, since ever. Falcon world is globally divided to 2 main parts:
1. Code –> Everything that is part of the EXE, and since we also have shaders for GFX for sometime now, that also includes shaders. In other words anything that you can’t really “crack” or “Reverse Engineer”.
2. Data --> Everything elseI think that’s a place to start for you, so you can understand what’s going on (I’m assuming, mainly from your post-count, but not only, that you are new here…)
Now, think this way:
BMS team holds the source code and keeps developing it to all kind of directions and areas. There are many areas in the sim, and if we look at it, I can put a short list of headlines - GFX, Avionics, Sounds, Physics, Network UI etc etc. Going into a more detailed list I can write - 3D models, Special effects, Avionics, Multiplayer and 2D/3D worlds, Terrain, Weather, Comms etc etc…What’s my point? That no matter how you turn it around, it all eventually sums up to code & data. I like to think that 90% of the serious guys that hanging around here for a couple of years now, will have the ability to tell you what you can do alone and what you can’t do because you need code support for.
So, Now my turn to ask:
What kind of process you try to search here that isn’t already known or been discussed to death during the years?Because… Dude, Falcon is OLD, older than most of us here, Hell when I found there is a Falcon forum it was at 2003, and the sim was already ~5 years old! People already were messing with it back then and some of them knew on some areas more than we know even today. So sorry to disappoint you but there is no “new process to start” here, because almost everything is known already.
But, at the same time I can say that there is an infinite work to do, so if someone is REALLY looking to help, then you can start right away. I’ll start from the most needed stuff:
- We have at any given moment 100s of 3D models that needs updating.
- We probably have many textures in the DB that could use some love.
- As it was mentioned already, Tacref requires some work.
And I’m sure there are many many more. So, if someone wants to really help? You can start picking anything and start work. There are guides to do almost everything and I’m sure we have experts that can help with anything. I never remember even once that someone was screaming about some area and we didn’t checked it (Yes there is stuff which takes us time to check, and also there is stuff which cannot be changed/fixed although people may think it’s all easy…)
So, the path is right there, one just need to choose what he wants to do and start chasing that.
Cheers!
-
Hi Atreides,
I didn’t read all what you posted in this thread because it’s honestly too much and I don’t have the time, but hopefully I’m getting what you are trying to say.
OTOH, I’ll try to tell you how things are working in Falcon land, since ever. Falcon world is globally divided to 2 main parts:
1. Code –> Everything that is part of the EXE, and since we also have shaders for GFX for sometime now, that also includes shaders. In other words anything that you can’t really “crack” or “Reverse Engineer”.
2. Data --> Everything elseI think that’s a place to start for you, so you can understand what’s going on (I’m assuming, mainly from your post-count, but not only, that you are new here…)
Now, think this way:
BMS team holds the source code and keeps developing it to all kind of directions and areas. There are many areas in the sim, and if we look at it, I can put a short list of headlines - GFX, Avionics, Sounds, Physics, Network UI etc etc. Going into a more detailed list I can write - 3D models, Special effects, Avionics, Multiplayer and 2D/3D worlds, Terrain, Weather, Comms etc etc…What’s my point? That no matter how you turn it around, it all eventually sums up to code & data. I like to think that 90% of the serious guys that hanging around here for a couple of years now, will have the ability to tell you what you can do alone and what you can’t do because you need code support for.
So, Now my turn to ask:
What kind of process you try to search here that isn’t already known or been discussed to death during the years?Because… Dude, Falcon is OLD, older than most of us here, Hell when I found there is a Falcon forum it was at 2003, and the sim was already ~5 years old! People already were messing with it back then and some of them knew on some areas more than we know even today. So sorry to disappoint you but there is no “new process to start” here, because almost everything is known already.
But, at the same time I can say that there is an infinite work to do, so if someone is REALLY looking to help, then you can start right away. I’ll start from the most needed stuff:
- We have at any given moment 100s of 3D models that needs updating.
- We probably have many textures in the DB that could use some love.
- As it was mentioned already, Tacref requires some work.
And I’m sure there are many many more. So, if someone wants to really help? You can start picking anything and start work. There are guides to do almost everything and I’m sure we have experts that can help with anything. I never remember even once that someone was screaming about some area and we didn’t checked it (Yes there is stuff which takes us time to check, and also there is stuff which cannot be changed/fixed although people may think it’s all easy…)
So, the path is right there, one just need to choose what he wants to do and start chasing that.
Cheers!
Thanks for taking the time to reply and clarify certain issues.
Let me simplify things for you so we can focus on what I am presenting:
For me - my initial goal at least - is “how do we get a better, more detailed terrain that looks less blockish”.
Realizing that it requires alot of work to be done… much more than a single person would be able to handle - this turned into PIPELINES: If pipelines were created that allowed the community to contribute productively (not in a disorganized and overlapping manner) then at least that portion of the problem is resolved.
The problem with setting up the pipelines is that the non programming savvy that have no idea concerning the limitations and capabilities of the engine, can’t say what can be done to go after it. This includes me.
That is why I have insisted that the initiative of setting up such a pipeline in which the average Joe is given a way to contribute, either falls on the shoulders of the current core dev. team, or someone else that will try to get all that information into one place, figure out “the how” along with the goals, verify everything before doing it himself once while creating educational resources (video? pdf?) to train other members, and then set the whole thing in motion.
That is what I think. Perhaps you have a different opinion. Or perhaps you feel that the terrain is just fine (while clearly I feel its the portion that needs the most attention… certainly not the tac-ref which is not even directly involved while flying the sim).
I pretty much figured out by myself that “code” imposes the inherent limitations to what can be done concerning the environment. So - if you share the same or similar views with me - I invite you to educate me concerning those limitations. What can be done. What is Falcon capable in terms of terrain? What do you think should be done to improve on its current blockiness? What do you think about ground obejcts needing improvement? Can we think freely and unconstrained about these things and try to set up what I am reffering to as pipelines or are there other things I need to be aware of? Perhaps you have a better way to do this?
I am looking forward to read your thoughts on all this.
Enjoy!
One more thing… I am not suggesting specifically modding the existing terrain. I am looking forward - hopefully - to come up with a terrain that has many more smaller tiles to start with, more detailed elevation data and then apply - if possible - photorealistic textures from sat. imagery. That I think would be a vast improvement. But again, we need to know what are the limitations.
If the current terrain comprises of 100x100 tiles, things would look MUCH better if it comprised of 10.000x10.000 for the exact same area, if more detailed elevation was generated not via linear interpolation though, as that would give us the same blockiness we already have.
And if anyone feels I should be apologizing to anyone, just speak up. I have no ego concerning recognizing mistakes and apologizing.
Thanks all.P.S. I will be looking into what data is freely available for use (e.g. NASA Worldwind). I will be aiming for a 1m resolution with its elavation data. That is 1mx1m tiles with - if I remember correctly - 4 elevation values per tile (one for each corner). If alternatives exist, I kindly request anyone interested to do research into this area so we can see what we can work with. NASA Worldwind is a global project. There might be other projects out there that offer their DTM (Digital Terrain Model) data openly. Good luck data hunting!
P.S.2 I will also be contacting FlightGear with questions in the same direction. Just letting everyone know so our efforts don’t overlap.
-
I think it’s fair to say that everyone who is passionate about BMS has the best interests of the future of Falcon at heart, even if they don’t always agree on the best way to get there. Please also understand that English is not everyone’s first language, so if meaning is unsure please refer to the sentence above and give people the benefit of the doubt.
Bear (not Bare unless their mind is empty) in mind that Benchmark Sims is a group of volunteers who give up their free time for something that they believe in too. As such the group does not function like a business, nor are the members interested in self-aggrandisement. The fact that the group is the only one, to my knowledge, that continues to function and develop Falcon 4 would seem to indicate that they must be doing something right.
Also consider that coders code because that’s what they know and do and enjoy. Data guys & gals, graphic artists, etc are the same. If you only have limited time for your hobby you’re going to do what you want and know best. Whilst we do try to document what we know don’t forget there are many extremely talented and knowledgeable individuals outside the dev group who give up their free time too and might be able to answer your questions in a more timely fashion.
-
Questions for anyone that is code savvy enough to be able to answer. Take your time with these.
1. Are tiles the only method used by Falcon to create terrain?
2. For a given area of 1sqkm lets assume that currently 100 tiles are used (10x10 layout). Can falcon scale upwards concerning the number of tiles for the same given area e.g. to a 1sqkm with 10.000 tiles (100x100 layout) or even better 1.000.000 tiles (1000x1000 layout)? What would be the expected performance penalty for that?
3. What dependencies arise from a change of tile count for a given area as also from a higher detail elevation map to go along with that?
4. How does Falcon provide elevation for each tile? Or does it use combinations of elevation and tilt per direction?
5. Is there a limit to area of terrain or to number of tiles or number of elevation values that Falcon can handle?
6. Can “maps” be adjoined? In other words for two adjacent maps, is it possible for the user to fly from the one into the other?
7. How is a single tile labeled in Falcon? The proper nomenclature and formatting is important to have, so that work can be segmented.
8. Are tiles “grouped” or does the developer need to assign a tile for every tile position? For instance, I provide a list of all the tiles that form a road which has a given color (e.g. asphalt), will Falcon assign the same tile to all of those tiles or do I need to provide one tile per tile position? In other words, is the terrain “smart” or “dumb”?
-
@Cloud:
But you’re missing the point Molni!!!
C9
I cannot see the point.