Devs real question
-
Flight Gear is maybe a nice and happy simulator, but for anyone involved in Falcon more than a few years will know that won’t work…
I guess the structure of Falcon is 100% different and is way more complex because it is a military sim with weapons, etc.
But let’s see what happened since and which of the greatest hits of the community actually playing with Harmony with the BMS vision:
Janhas models –> Janhas maybe makes nice models, but what about SANITY?? poly count and textures size? No one cares, in the name of pure art
I agree. This is why I made optional his trees in my '80s MOD. If you turned on the shadows, FPS dropped dramatically even I did not use LOD0 only the second best LOD. Same case his very nice F-16. If you turn on shadows…
Tomcatz models –> Poly counts, no lower LODs
And with such panel lines which are look totally unreal.
Ostsee theater –> Looks good but broken in dozen ways
It has unplayable FPS even in an empty TE. The loading time from just in a TE or campaign is about 30 seconds on my HW which is not weak.
PHO –> Maybe the most impressive theater ever created for Falcon
Does it have playable and enjoyable campaigns?
Instead of work hard, people are crying for how it’s hard to do this, or manage that, with all the changes coming with every version, so let’s just do whatever we want, zillion objects-count theater, 100K poly models, and models with no lower LODs…
This is why I always asked what about DB? It has not been upgraded almost in any way almost since SP3/SP4 concerning modeling values for seekers, battalion structure, etc. DB is filled with garbage which are unusable for any theaters or camapigns. Harpoints, loadouts, racks were not set even necessary racks for red jets are in the DB for at least 10+ years. Role scores are set in a way which makes the AI dumb, etc.
It could be imporved I tried to explain many times, I even made a doc. for battalions modeling for red side but so far nothing has changed not in FF line not in BMS.
Fingers crossed for 4.34. -
The poly count and texture size of the JANHAS model is not insane to the modern video game. Even for BMS this model is not insane in most cases, it can maintain 60 fps+. The problem occurs in the FPS loss on the ground, which is not a problem inherent in JANHAS but also in the default 3D model. The more poly count there is, the more mysterious FPS loss on the ground is noticeable. That is why JANHAS model is “insane” for BMS under certain conditions.
Thinking about lower spec PC more strict performance policy is understandable. If we could limit the max detail of LOD via UI, (ie: if graphics setting is “LOW”, only LOD 5 to 3 will be on screen) BMS can prepare the default model with higher poly counts.
-
I am sorry that you feel that way I-Hawk. Everytime either a newbie or a troll start a thread like this, there are always a small number of people putting a little oil on the fire. However, this is in my view always a very small part of the community. So, please dev team; don’t translate the voices of a small number of people into an overarching ‘assessment’ of the community at large. There are a great many people that enjoy the awesome work you are doing with BMS.
Thank you. We also know that do not worry.
But I-Hawk is fully right in what he is saying. Just take a look to a member here called Nacy, he is not the only one for sure but you will have the perfect example of what we are talking about. Sometime it cause anxiety to read posts from ppl who trully think they better know than “us” what is good or not to do and are convinced to have a better picture without having any real clues of what lays behind. Some only trust/believes what they see … and simply doesn’t care about what BMS member’s advices.
Afterward, when tired to endlessly repeat the same things … and are declaring this to be pointless or xxxx to be completely broken/useless/not corect … we are treated like the bad elitists guys not sharing informations. But there is also a diference between not have any informations, and ignoring the few informations given here and there.For many ppl, even here, we are the bad guys. Seriously.
-
but you really think we should oncentrate on those instead of keep REALLY moving forward?
I would like to have newer version of BMS rather than Devs stack with painfully hard but might not worth the cost. So No. I just don’t know which is probably doable and which is painfully hard for. Thanks for hearing my wish list and answer for it. If there was something you interested and any newer small setting or a configurator could be implemented to next version, I’d appreciate.
-
This is why I always asked what about DB? It has not been upgraded almost in any way almost since SP3/SP4 concerning modeling values for seekers, battalion structure, etc. DB is filled with garbage which are unusable for any theaters or camapigns. Harpoints, loadouts, racks were not set even necessary racks for red jets are in the DB for at least 10+ years. Role scores are set in a way which makes the AI dumb, etc.
It could be imporved I tried to explain many times, I even made a doc. for battalions modeling for red side but so far nothing has changed not in FF line not in BMS.
Fingers crossed for 4.34.Yes DB will improve. I’m not the guy to give any details because I’m honestly pretty far from DB data development areas, but I know that work has been done to improve.
The poly count and texture size of the JANHAS model is not insane to the modern video game.
How do you conclude that?
Yes, texture sizes these days aren’t such a big deal for a modern gaming Video card, but the NUMBER of different textures may matter. Every sampling operation done by the GPU do cost time, so maybe not that critical for additional 1 or 2, but in a full game once you start to pile up those for many objects, it may get rough.
Did we asked to not use sane-sizes textures? does anyone seriously think that a 4096^2 texture for a F-16 size object isn’t enough? We do allow 1 4096 sheet for AC, we even have a dedicated “Hires” folder for such textures, so the default can stay 2048 which is also enough…
Even for BMS this model is not insane in most cases, it can maintain 60 fps+.
No it’s not, you aren’t familiar with the engine really, so you can’s tell the limitations. BMS engine as it is now CAN’T really handle high poly/multi-textures models efficiently. The number of draw calls is derived from its properties, the more draw calls you add in, the more time GPU will wait for CPU to prepare the stuff for rendering, and even if your GPU is very fast, still your CPU won’t be able to feed it fast enough…
The problem occurs in the FPS loss on the ground, which is not a problem inherent in JANHAS but also in the default 3D model. The more poly count there is, the more mysterious FPS loss on the ground is noticeable. That is why JANHAS model is “insane” for BMS under certain conditions.
On ground there are more objects, more draw calls, and once your 100K poly F-16 adds also to that, what do you expect to happen?
Thinking about lower spec PC more strict performance policy is understandable. If we could limit the max detail of LOD via UI, (ie: if graphics setting is “LOW”, only LOD 5 to 3 will be on screen) BMS can prepare the default model with higher poly counts.
I honestly don’t care much about low-end PCs, people want to enjoy a video game, they should get decent HW to run it, that’s true for any game around these days. But it’s not about Low-end systems, but its about your High-end system not using even half of its strongest resources due to engine limtations and insane poly count models.
Do you think we WANT to limit poly count?? No! I also want to see 500K models in BMS one day, but can we do that RIGHT NOW? No… we will need a better engine, in the meantime we do what we can to improve what there is. If that was the head, things were easier and more efficient and friendly all around the place.
-
I am sorry that you feel that way I-Hawk. Everytime either a newbie or a troll start a thread like this, there are always a small number of people putting a little oil on the fire. However, this is in my view always a very small part of the community. So, please dev team; don’t translate the voices of a small number of people into an overarching ‘assessment’ of the community at large. There are a great many people that enjoy the awesome work you are doing with BMS.
No worries mate, Grown up in this (Great, don’t doubt that!) community I have a thick skin. I’m part of a VFS myself (Although I didn’t really flew in the last year much, for good reasons, I hope :)) and enjoy flying very much. What we do internally, I belive we do for that reason, that we enjoy this smazing sim ourselves
-
Yes DB will improve. I’m not the guy to give any details because I’m honestly pretty far from DB data development areas, but I know that work has been done to improve.
Rgr + thx.
No it’s not, you aren’t familiar with the engine really, so you can’s tell the limitations.
I feel the same.
-
Thanks I-Hawk again for description.
Sorry, I still wonder if FPS hit is really because of the ground has many buildings to draw. Because even 100ft low-pass flying won’t hit FPS but touching the ground hit FPS.
Why I concluded Janhas model not insane is because in my experience it was working flawlessly except touching on the ground. However, what kind of TE/Campaign I flew should be biased toward my preference. From the coding point of view those poly counts and texture size should be insane for current engine considering more wide variety situation BMS have to render. I am not knowing about that I gotta admit.
-
For many ppl, even here, we are the bad guys. Seriously.
I don’t believe that.
The majority thinks otherwise.
Don’t drive conclusions from the few guys posting here, and even few that might thing that you are the “bad guys”.
There are zilion other members that don’t post or don’t express their thoughts on such matters or they don’t have anything to complain about.Some are even driven by jealousy or other factors that are just void causes.
-
Sorry, I still wonder if FPS hit is really because of the ground has many buildings to draw. Because even 100ft low-pass flying won’t hit FPS but touching the ground hit FPS.
OK then this is becoming interesting. Do you have a proof that touching the ground as you say cause a FPS hit? Because I flew Falcon a lot and I do have a feeling for FPS and I never remember seeing such a difference between on ground or slightly above it.
Generally, take into account that at current status of the sim, unless you are in a VERY crowded area in campaign, it will usually be the rendering code that take a lot of time (not necessarily GPU itself, as unfortunately GPU isn’t working too hard with BMS currently). So if you are testing an empty TE, it’ll be mostly the rendering, that’s why I find it hard to believe that there is something else lurking. Also note that for FPS comparisons you should test apples against apples because even slight changes in view angle or position may affect a lot. Due to cullling, many objects may be denied from rendering if you are at that angle or the other, so strict testing must be done in order to conclude anything.
-
I don’t use JanHas models because of the FPS hit triggered by the jet on land. I’m not surprised to hear of it elsewhere.
Lorik, member of the many satisfied ones.
-
I reported this once. I think I also had Janhas wall model and pylons too, so I will start from Clean Install than only install Janhas F-16 to compare to pure stock one later.
“TOPGUN VIEW” setting might also help to fix angle to a specific degree. -
As a (Java) developer I can guarantee you that open source is not the solution … At all
Check the leaked 1.08 source code … Try to understand the architecture of the different layers …
IMO a massive refactoring has been made by BMS before 4.32 and 4.33.
A such task of refactoring is too huge … And IMO impossible in Open Source.
How many of u guys are mastering C++ ?Typical java programmer attitude
-
Hi guys,
I will express my opinion, in this matter so written lately.
We have to have fun with FALCON BMS, be a community, or if you prefer a brotherhood, but always stay active and united, here we have people from the four corners of the world !!!
And leave the decisions, to be taken for those who understand the subject, I am sure that the decisions taken, will be the most successful !!!
And like I said, let’s have fun, that’s the purpose.Best Regards,
malpaso
-
Five corners, don’t forget us down under chaps !
And I think its time for an open source …… :grouphug: and some :kumbaya:
-
I reported this once. I think I also had Janhas wall model and pylons too, so I will start from Clean Install than only install Janhas F-16 to compare to pure stock one later.
“TOPGUN VIEW” setting might also help to fix angle to a specific degree.OK Now I remember this thread of yours. I saw the vid now again and a few observations:
1. The Hit with the Janhas model is MUCH more critical - 60 to 30
2. With default model it feels like there is a very minor hit and actually as you get away from the center of the AB you are getting away from the stack of features and have less objects in view so you gain 6-7 and later 10-11 FPS, that makes sense.
3. I honestly don’t know to explain the hit with Janhas model without doing some dedicated debugging. Maybe he has something crazy in the Gear, but it’s hard to tell without serious profiling for that…
-
I believe the JanHas models use a lot of transparencies. That may be the cause of a lot of draw calls.
-
Because even 100ft low-pass flying won’t hit FPS but touching the ground hit FPS…
I’ve already seen tow other ppl reporting for big FPS drop as soon as they touch the ground but on my side I’ve never had such issue.
They’ve never managed to find why. One of them had the issue vanished after updating to up3 if I remember corectly. The other one solved after full re’install.
http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=281&t=200437&p=1646453&hilit=FPS#p1646453
You are the third person talking about it.
EDITED after check related thread in French forum for correct informations.
-
Wow I seem to have contributed to kicking the hornets nest a little (haha)
For the record, I was in no way suggesting that what BMS is doing is wrong or should be changed.
You guys rock, and I wouldn’t want to try to mess with perfection. Seriously.My suggestions were in no way meant to be applied to any modification of any existing Falcon code (1.08, sp4, whatever).
I was talking blank sheet design. And I think my post was fairly realistic about the downsides involved.Just throwing that out there.
Good fun, everybody :lol:
-
VR…
lol