Damaged runways
-
Using TGP u should see it clearlly from distance, no ?
normally yes, but this part is hardcoded so only the code and the dev’s know about it.
-
I try to minimize the use of intel info, i even don’t show’s up enemy battallions (all types) on the map before the mission, so when i arrive the target area i have to scan and write down the surrounding threats and act accordianlly.
I like the element of surprise, it add to the experiance of the mission.But to see damaged runways from logic distance should be implemented.
Maybe play with the LOD’s can take care of this thing, but i don’t know how to do this.white fang did test the lods and had the same result as he said so some kind of verification that is hardcoded.
But to see damaged runways from logic distance should be implemented.
Define logic distance…
for those things the logic derives from many factors…
in this case there is only one lod so the 600000ft = 98,75nm is more than a good value i believe. means like infinite.
the 60000ft = 9,8nm is realistic.
if the model had more LOD’s there could be the escalation i mentioned earlier according to distance and the last lod could be a 3 triangle model with a texture at 100000000ft.Bud some of us cough cough must do such work and provide it freely to the BMS team and then enjoy high detail craters from upclose and see low detail from faaaaaaaaaaaaar away.
hmmm Arty is triggered to deviate from his 3d modeling route… :lol:
-
white fang did test the lods and had the same result as he said so some kind of verification that is hardcoded.
Yep, its look like it. I hope maybe in the next BMS updates it will be take cared (I can wait the 3-4 week, i have patience)
-
if the model had more LOD’s there could be the escalation i mentioned earlier according to distance and the last lod could be a 3 triangle model with a texture at 100000000ft.
FYI, the first 200-500 polys in a batch are basically free in rendering cost. A batch is a group of primitives which can be rendered in a single draw call, means same ptype, nodes type and texture. So there is no point in doing disant lods below that.
-
The bubble comment got me thinking maybe adjust the deagg distance on the airport and see if that makes a difference. If you can pin down the exact distance it starts to render you should be able to determine exactly if it is being controlled by something which is exposed through the db or the LODs by comparing all the numbers. There are always more factors in play than just the obvious, especially with LODs. Each Objective (such as an airport), feature (such as a runway) and LOD (the models which make up the runaways and craters) all have distance values of some sort associated with them. So it is likely not as simple as just adjusting the view distance on the LOD (as has been proven by the initial testing and modifying of these numbers).
That being said, I have been in and out of Falcon code over and over again, and granted it is old code that I have to look at, but there are relatively few places where things like this get hard coded. Distances and render variables are easy targets for developers to use as performance adjustments. And we know for a fact that there are provisions for things like this to be adjusted outside the code, or the word LOD would have no context here and we would just have a Model that got scaled. I’d say keep looking and there’s a pretty good chance you’ll find the culprit outside the code.
For instance, objectives and features both have a detection range stat associated with them (Check the editor). What is the detection range (Air Low Alt/High Alt) of the objects in question? Is it different for the runway than it is for the crater? I should hope so, as you should be able to see a runway long before you see a crater. But you have to remember with the TGP–the GAME still sees the TGP as far away distance-wise, even when you zoom in. I don’t believe the position element gets changed, only the camera characteristics. So zooming in with the TGP only makes the image zoom, it doesn’t actually effect viewing distance as far as the game is concerned. Which is why it still doesn’t render when you zoom in… but that’s a an educated guess not a researched fact.
-
Well the tgp actually creates a new bubble that deagregates the objective so to show it and display the features according to their configuration in the database and the 3d model as set in LE.
The crater feature although exists in the features list in LE it’s not used as it has no texture. The mentioned 127 128 129 are used by the code and they have only one lod. I don’t know if the code would use other LOD’s if they existed and kick then in as per distance.
It would be nice to know.
We must look in to it. A quick test would be to change the lod 1 distance to 100ft and add as lod 2 a tank for example at a distance of 600000ft and see what happens.Could one perform such test and report back? Or a Dev that knows that part of the code answer our question.
Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
A quick test would be to change the lod 1 distance to 100ft and add as lod 2 a tank for example at a distance of 600000ft and see what happens.
Could one perform such test and report back? Or a Dev that knows that part of the code answer our question.
That wouldn’t change anything.
-
Forgot to ask. Mortesil u mentioned draw calls. Is there a generic rule out a tool to calculate them? Or u gonna implement it in your new tool?
It could be a great asset for 3d modelers.
Could we consider what you wrote as the rule?Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Well the tgp actually creates a new bubble that deagregates the objective so to show it and display the features according to their configuration in the database and the 3d model as set in LE.
The crater feature although exists in the features list in LE it’s not used as it has no texture. The mentioned 127 128 129 are used by the code and they have only one lod. I don’t know if the code would use other LOD’s if they existed and kick then in as per distance.
It would be nice to know.
We must look in to it. A quick test would be to change the lod 1 distance to 100ft and add as lod 2 a tank for example at a distance of 600000ft and see what happens.Could one perform such test and report back? Or a Dev that knows that part of the code answer our question.
Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
But I believe the Bubble is associated with the SPI, not the TGP position. So it deags the objects in the sense that they are all present in the render queue, but that may not make a difference for the distance culling. I can’t see anything to do with the SPI changes that were implemented, so I can’t answer this one.
As for the distance render calls, I don’t believe there is anything out there to calculate them. Most of them fall on the generic boundaries and haven’t been modified. You (I) could develop a tool to modify the distances based on size of object, but it would be a subjective evaluation. Unless someone else has the time to really research the data metrics about visual acuity and discerning objects at a distance. My code does provide the option to change the value, but no plans currently to write a function that would automatically generate the values.
-
The bubble comment got me thinking…
But what bout runway … it doesn’t change a bit on tgp …(at least haven’t noticed) … just craters ‘appear’ when in said range…and disappear when out … guess is that runway(s?) also use single lod. no? So what’s wrong with those pesky craters then…
Will dig bout said runway in lodedit features and/or craters some more … there must be some logic between. heh… -
But what bout runway … it doesn’t change a bit on tgp …(at least haven’t noticed) … just craters ‘appear’ when in said range…and disappear when out … guess is that runway(s?) also use single lod. no? So what’s wrong with those pesky craters then…
Will dig bout said runway in lodedit features and/or craters some more … there must be some logic between. heh…This is what I meant when I said it is probably not the LOD causing the issue. I think it has to do with the values in the Feature list for the Objective. I can’t open up F4Editor at the moment to see if the values differ, but I would start there instead of LE. As Arty pointed out, Craters are Features attached to the Objective. So is the Runway. The TGP is a sensor object, from the game’s perspective it is similar to a RADAR, it just displays the information differently. So if the TGP can’t “detect” the object in question because it is too far away, it will get culled from the display. Hence why the bubble argument makes a difference if it is based on the SPI and not the actual TGP location. If the TGP “location” is updated during zoom operations to match the camera object in DX terms, then this wouldn’t make a difference. But I don’t think it is. That’s my present theory anyway, mostly because it explains the observed behavior.
-
Nope … runways , that one in test session has 4-5 lods… (CT1412) so , I reckon its not that.
… don’t know is it still in use but ‘deagg’ (not bubble) on runway is 20 (nm/km?) , but on crater CT1067 is ‘0’ , and can’t change it via lodedit… will see in db-editor.
p.s.
realized … looking wrong at stuff, runway is objective/feature , but crater is sfx , so different class… and also different behavior (pears and apples)so if deagg for runway is 20 units , for sfx it is probably hardcoded, don’t (KNOW?!) think we can do something about it
-
Sfx?
You mean particle system?Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Nope, class data of the ct record.
-
could it be made to where tower or awacs, depending on whats available at that moment, as a menu option to state condition or status of home plate? not sure of the details that would be involved but would it be possible…maybe future update. till then though i just do overhead to visually check runway for damage before landing.
-
Actually, something like that exists in Falcon , you should hear AWACS? radio call if your base is under attack and/or destroyed/unavailable, and the call says something ‘re-route to alternate field’.
And also I’m positive, just don’t quite remember which previous Falcon version that was, probably Allied Force (BUT! IMHO that should work in BMS too) , once I called in my primary airbase, returning from mission, and asked for landing, tower replied that base was damaged and to go for alternate.
So that whole complex! warning system exists, ingenious in what detail, just is not so common.Eg, as a member of opposing team, sometimes when on 2D map playing with ground war, and my base is often under attack by Nato , I get audio played for the air-raid with siren and explosions, then follows that audio - airbase under attack, reroute to alternate field.
-
never heard awacs give that call
-
No call. When you request a landing clearance, the tower just answers with your callsign. That’s a bad sign usually.
-
Another related problem, after i attacked an airbase (ITO Campaign) i looked at the satelite picture of the base in the UI and there is no visible damage to the runwayes (part of it destroyed according to the target’s list). The sattelite image do give the correct damage to hangar and other assets on the base that were also attacked.
-
Oh they are there , but as we concluded, something is messy with 'em., not quite right, they are invisible from longer distances, aggregated?, or even ‘under’ the runway. You can’t see them and sure you cant drive over them, will break your gear and destroy your plane. Sometimes you can sneak peek craters when rotating the view of runways , they don’t appear in all angles. Yep, messy. Well, it’ll be repaired sometime. Anyway.