Devs real question
-
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
-
The DCS VR has exactly the same issues as its a hardware limitation, not a software one. The F-16 on the other hand has quite a bit more emphasis on its displays than does the Huey.
Given that you are shooting down b.s. for suggesting a new sim made from scratch open source, its pretty hard to say that making a new sim would kill Falcon 4.
I would say that’s somewhat true regarding being more dependent on gauges. I don’t have the Huey but I do have the L39 which has and uses many gauges and hard to see radio dials and it works fine. In fact I had a harder time seeing everything with TIR than I do with the Rift. What’s made me hopeful are the videos I’ve seen and discussions on Reddit where guys like us are trying different things and getting pretty damn good results without rewriting code and instead using available programs and probably some hacks. In the videos I’ve seen, the inside of the pit looked fine for the most part. It was getting it to sync with the outside aircraft textures they had issues with and many others I’m sure.
For me, I don’t need a whole new sim. Falcon is more complete now than I ever thought it would be when I started and for that I’m grateful. In fact I really don’t see anything else that needs to be added to it other than making the few remaining systems not enabled in the jet function and adding VR support. Once done it will be a perfect F-16 with dynamic campaign simulation. It was never an F/A18, F15 or any other jet sim. To those of you that say the graphics in VR are bad, how long have you flown Falcon? It’s still on the ass end of visual quality compared to other sims apart from the pit so who cares? The immersion makes up for shitty resolutions. Besides, how many people flying BMS have a system that allows them to crank all settings and get even 60FPS? So it’s not like anyone is getting visual ecstasy as it stands now. Lastly, the code in DCS is still not optimized completely for VR. Put on an HMD and fly the new IL2 Sturmovik and then get back to me on VR graphics hardware limitations. -
You can try and revive Open Falcon…that should get you where you want to go…yeah…
That’s what happened last time there were a couple different teams working on Falcon…
-
To those of you that say the graphics in VR are bad, how long have you flown Falcon? It’s still on the ass end of visual quality compared to other sims apart from the pit so who cares? The immersion makes up for shitty resolutions.
when your resolution gives you a quarter mile tally range, you have to start recognising that the resolution is too low.
-
I have a number of commercially produced flight sims on my shelf that are no longer supported and I can’t run on my current system. BMS still runs, gets better all the time, and has not cost me a cent. I kind of like the way things are.
-
when your resolution gives you a quarter mile tally range, you have to start recognising that the resolution is too low.
Ok, ok, fair enough lol.
-
when your resolution gives you a quarter mile tally range, you have to start recognising that the resolution is too low.
I used to play AF @ 1280x1024 and don’t remember having problems with tally. In DCS, I can actually spot things easier in VR (although still abysmal) than on a 32" 1080p, and I can spot things way easier in BMS @ 1080p than I can in DCS @ 4k. I think the game engine has more to do with tally than does res. Besides, they already have higher res versions coming out.
-
I used to play AF @ 1280x1024 and don’t remember having problems with tally. In DCS, I can actually spot things easier in VR (although still abysmal) than on a 32" 1080p, and I can spot things way easier in BMS @ 1080p than I can in DCS @ 4k. I think the game engine has more to do with tally than does res. Besides, they already have higher res versions coming out.
Well, thats should be because of SmartScaling factor if you enable it.
and this is why it is needs to be there.
This isDCS draws 1 dot point when the drawing size of the airframe becomes 1 pixel or less. this will work when only planes are 10nm or more away, but will not work in WVR range as plane will be larger than a dot there.
2-3px planes are almost as unvisible as 1 dot plane. BMS draws same plane in 6 or 7 pixels(if enabled SS) But be careful SS is not mainly for tally but for orientation detection.
Why you tally easily in VR is because of RL FOV and In-Game FOV matches in VR. So you will see things in 1:1 angular size. Far distant black “dot” also becomes larger as screen becomes lower less.
-
I used to play AF @ 1280x1024 and don’t remember having problems with tally. In DCS, I can actually spot things easier in VR (although still abysmal) than on a 32" 1080p, and I can spot things way easier in BMS @ 1080p than I can in DCS @ 4k. I think the game engine has more to do with tally than does res. Besides, they already have higher res versions coming out.
I should use more precise terminology. Im talking angular resolution here.
VR with a 210 degree FOV would need over 4k resolution before it even approximates the current angular resolution offered by a 1080p monitor at 80 degree FOV.
scaling effects in the game engine are attempts to get around these hardware limitations, yes.
-
Well 8K is on the way along with 20K so those things in 10-20 years for flight Sims might totally replace monitors as trackir did for the POV button on sticks.
Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk