Normal Maps
-
Hi, I’ve been trying to append normals (bump mapping) textures to the viper textures, is it possible?
I believe it can be possible since the game is dx9.
Any help about this??-Ry.
-
Bump mapping is not supported.
-
what about water?, It has moving waves.
-
Yes bump mapping is used on the water only.
It’s not supported on 3D models (or anything else IIRC). -
Such a shame, because I think the only missing graphics feature in this simulator is such mapping techniques.
Enabling normal and specular maps on 3D models could be huge stopgap for modern graphics engine. -
Such a shame, because I think the only missing graphics feature in this simulator is such mapping techniques.
I STRONGLY disagree it’s the ONLY thing missing
Enabling normal and specular maps on 3D models could be huge stopgap for modern graphics engine.
Agree. However, you need also to remember that even if the GFX part was to be upgraded, the engine drawing the models is still the same old engine that was used since very long time. If we would just add on top of that more options, it will be nicer indeed no doubt, but it will also be heavier. Additional normal map per model parts means an additional set of textures that need to be attached into a model.
Currently:
More textures –> More draw calls
More draw calls --> less performanceSo, before we add more options, this equation above must be changed or at least improved.
Cheers!
-
I STRONGLY disagree it’s the ONLY thing missing
1[Agree. However, you need also to remember that even if the GFX part was to be upgraded, the engine drawing the models is still the same old engine that was used since very long time. If we would just add on top of that more options, it will be nicer indeed no doubt, but it will also be heavier.
2[Additional normal map per model parts means an additional set of textures that need to be attached into a model.]
Currently:
3[More textures –> More draw calls
3[More draw calls --> less performanceSo, before we add more options, this equation above must be changed or at least improved.
Cheers!
1:Indeed but it should be 3 Options for it:
(1)Range of mapping:useful if you wanna set the range to your like (or to your pc performance)
(2)Can be disable, The textures will still be added in the model, But they are not rendered thus more performance if needed.
(3)Quality and Advanced:Set the things you want the mapping to appear (buildings,aircraft,sams,etc), Quality (minimal,reduced,normal,high,ultra,ultra high,Out of this world,etc.)
2:that’s not necessary, things like SAMS and building could have low quality mapping or none at all
3:Not at all, That’s why mip mapping is for. -
Don’t get me wrong, we sure know that Falcon should use Bump mapping for models and possibly other options, the problem is that it’s not that simple, or more accurate to say, not that smart to upgrade only this aspect or that. Everything is part of a system, part of an engine and if you take care only of 1 or 2 things but everything else you leave as-is, it won’t be wise because the engine is already limited, and adding more on top of that isn’t the right thing to do.
Regarding different textures, don’t mistake with mipmaps, I was talking about draw calls. Draw calls is when the engine (Call it system, CPU-side, or whatever you like) issue a draw command to the GPU to render. And currently, the engine is issuing a draw command for every texture switch, and this is an example of 1 single limitation of the engine, it requires a draw call for each texture, while modern engines and techniques can use 1000s of textures by a single draw call (I’m exaggerating on purpose, but it’s not a lie)
Mip-mapping has nothing to do with draw calls as mipmapping will only cause the GPU in the pixels shader stage (Usually, but depends on the API, not only) to sample a lower resolution slice of a given texture because it knows the pixel position that the texture is going to cover and hence it can determine the correct mipmap level, but still once the texture is loaded for a 3D model, then it’ll require a draw call, even if the slice is the smallest 1x1 slice of the texture.
In other words:
Draw call –> CPU tell GPU to render something (Say F-16 model with 8 textures)
Each texture of those 8 will require a separate draw call (In BMS, that’s not have to be the case with other engines), at least, there are other reasons for a separate draw call.
Mipmapping --> Once inside the last stage of drawing geometry, the GPU in pixel shader determines the mipmap to be used on each pixel. That can’t be related to the fact that using the texture required a draw call. -
Yes, this is the one which I thought sometimes that should implement in the BMS. because this is drastically improve the detail of model without more additional polygon.At least aircraft, weapons, aprones, taxi ways
And I believed that it will be part of next major upgrade.
Because BMS developers had an experience to rewrite the engine from dx6 to dx9 then they know the engine to can put this feature or extendet the limitations.
to update for the new hardware specification, reorganise the CPU and GPU tasks.
Or they bed the new base to future easier improvements,VR support, multicore CPU,new api . -
In no coder so dunno how hard to do but love Falcon and it would be awesome to improve the grafix to once again suspend my disbelief.
-
GFX improvements are planned indeed, but really no way to tell exactly when.
-
@repvez and all… lets say you get normal maps, or bump, or whatever… for +90% you wouldn’t see any difference at all.
To create such maps you need the actual 3d model source (3ds max) create those and then re import in the database.
For most of the 3d objects the 3d models do not exist, so this would apply only to new models or models to come.
Let’s say a coder and beta testers go all the trouble, to test what? Few models.
Even if you had the 3d models it would take years to produce such maps and on top some extra months to import them in the database.
Then we would all whine why the download is so big… [emoji38] and we need more hdd space, and ,my fps dropped from 90 to 60 making bms unplayable :rofl:
Sure it should be started from something or somewhere, but if the result will be just for few maybe its better to use all that time for something in a more efficient way.
Four instance, there are things that can be done by the community regarding gfx and models, participation is all it needs and not code, and our SIM would be even more eye poping.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
@repvez and all… lets say you get normal maps, or bump, or whatever… for +90% you wouldn’t see any difference at all.
To create such maps you need the actual 3d model source (3ds max) create those and then re import in the database.
For most of the 3d objects the 3d models do not exist, so this would apply only to new models or models to come.
Let’s say a coder and beta testers go all the trouble, to test what? Few models.
Even if you had the 3d models it would take years to produce such maps and on top some extra months to import them in the database.
Then we would all whine why the download is so big… [emoji38] and we need more hdd space, and ,my fps dropped from 90 to 60 making bms unplayable :rofl:
Sure it should be started from something or somewhere, but if the result will be just for few maybe its better to use all that time for something in a more efficient way.
Four instance, there are things that can be done by the community regarding gfx and models, participation is all it needs and not code, and our SIM would be even more eye poping.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
Of course you are right regarding generic 3D models (e.g ACs), but actually I think bump mapping will be mostly noticeable and appealing on large and flat surfaces like Runways, taxiways etc. And mapping those should probably be easier than dedicated maps according to complicated 3D models.
-
Of course you are right regarding generic 3D models (e.g ACs), but actually I think bump mapping will be mostly noticeable and appealing on large and flat surfaces like Runways, taxiways etc. And mapping those should probably be easier than dedicated maps according to complicated 3D models.
Sure but also for the opposite… meaning for the aircraft and vehicles and ships will be superb and great.
So I’ll disagree with u on this I-Hawk.And on the third side of the coin… a killer for 3dmodelers but not necessary that much for the gfx engine.
And let me explain.
The 3d modeler will have to create the model in full detail.
Like all panels on the surface and rivets or bolts on the external surface.
Also have another 3d model with all those details missing or just keeping some basic ones and not all of them.
Now from my experience in Substance painter…
You work for the texture on the low poly model which can be within BMS limitations as for poly or tris.
In SP when you create the project by importing the low poly you declare the high poly model to create (bake the textures of) the basic maps, Like Normal ID AO Curvature Position Thickness etc…Then with the use of basic smart materials you can create magic…
A very small and quick example to get the idea for those not understanding:
A flat plane that ends up 3d just from textures.
Now this will actually have an impact on drawcalls as it needs 3-4 textures per texture. like normals and AO and the base color->current dds we use. Also will impact and vga memory and bw between subsystems. So if you are on the edge now your fps will drop with such implementation and activation of normals and maybe AO.
NOW this could be maybe limited to use such details only when up close and personal and when you look at it like 1.000ft away, and further (LOD2-LOD3) to use current way? so in LE (Wrong LE can’t do such so it must be on Mortesil’s new tool) declare on which LODS to use the Normals or AO? just saying… thinking out loud here…
I mean you can’t understand the curvature of a panel on an airplane from 1.000 ft away so why bother the gfx engine?
Also at 1.000 ft not many objects will be there to draw such details so the load will be minimum.On the other hand we only see our pit and wingman that close… is it worth the pain???
-
Yes Arty I understand what you mean, sure bump maps (and AO) can do wonders on any mesh, but I still think that it’s much more noticed and makes a larger difference gameplay wise on relatively large surfaces. The most obvious example we can have is the water surface in BMS, without bump mapping you would see the sunlight reflection on the water surface as a 100% smooth circle or eliptic shape, but with bumps you get the 3Dness feeling of it (Until you get down low and see it’s a totally flat surface :p).
-
(Until you get down low and see it’s a totally flat surface :p).
LOL, why do you say that? I already hear all the vipers splashing.:rofl:
Cheers, :yo:
LS -
@repvez and all… lets say you get normal maps, or bump, or whatever… for +90% you wouldn’t see any difference at all.
To create such maps you need the actual 3d model source (3ds max) create those and then re import in the database.
For most of the 3d objects the 3d models do not exist, so this would apply only to new models or models to come.
Let’s say a coder and beta testers go all the trouble, to test what? Few models.
Even if you had the 3d models it would take years to produce such maps and on top some extra months to import them in the database.
Then we would all whine why the download is so big… [emoji38] and we need more hdd space, and ,my fps dropped from 90 to 60 making bms unplayable :rofl:
Sure it should be started from something or somewhere, but if the result will be just for few maybe its better to use all that time for something in a more efficient way.
Four instance, there are things that can be done by the community regarding gfx and models, participation is all it needs and not code, and our SIM would be even more eye poping.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
Yes, you are right one side, but if the code would be extended that we can make higher detailed poly models or just better plug-ins, to implement into the game I think it would be go faster than now. And we should’t do to make fake bump effect for it. Because Radium and others make some very good 3d model, but they have to reduce some detaile due to the engine. I guess If there would be a detailed tutorial how can we put into the game in new or refurbised model, more ppl can constribute this process to renew the whole 3d arsenal.
Because Make a 3dmodel not so hard to learn how to make it, but comprehensive tutorial about the implementation processing to BMS is very few.It shouldn’t couse the problem to run faster on current PC, and the code more than 10 years old that the whole game is not so big in the HDD too like the other modern game, so who want to play this game they have such a PC to it shouldn’t couse trouble . But need to reorganise the game engine to use more effective the current PC parts.
8gb GPU’s ,8 core CPU and 16GB RAM should be more than enough to load the whole game if the code is used effective in this case.
I can’t see under the hood , what was changed past years, but the GFX is not changed big enough to be such as high as the usage of the computer than the 1 year old games. -
Wow hold your horses m8.
Making the 3d model as described and for use of normal maps it’s twice the work for the modeler.
Implementing the model to the Sim is the easy part. Creating the model according to falcon prerequisites and details (switches dofs lods etc) ain’t easy. And there is no actual manual on those and the info passes from one to another.
Don’t judge by Radium’s speed. He is like a 3d modeler Superman. One could easily say he has made them already and just posts pics of his progress while he was doing them.
Check other 3d modelers speed.
Not me, I’m the slowest. [emoji38]
Most new modelers suffer to get through the very basics on 3d creation apps, for implementation on falcon there are many guides, and many videos out there.
The models in the database are some thousands, re making them needs years… If not decades.
Sure good think to start at some point and leave the past behind.Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Yes hold your horses is the correct term here I think
Guys you need to understand that the BMS development agenda is less like:
“Oh that is ugly, so let’s just patch it, wrap and release it fast”
Instead, we try to do things correctly, use less patching and more complete features and rewrites.I do know that people want to see things moving, but it’s not that easy or fast.
Good things are planned and being worked on. -
Regarding different textures, don’t mistake with mipmaps, I was talking about draw calls. Draw calls is when the engine (Call it system, CPU-side, or whatever you like) issue a draw command to the GPU to render. And currently, the engine is issuing a draw command for every texture switch, and this is an example of 1 single limitation of the engine, it requires a draw call for each texture, while modern engines and techniques can use 1000s of textures by a single draw call (I’m exaggerating on purpose, but it’s not a lie)
Mip-mapping has nothing to do with draw calls as mipmapping will only cause the GPU in the pixels shader stage (Usually, but depends on the API, not only) to sample a lower resolution slice of a given texture because it knows the pixel position that the texture is going to cover and hence it can determine the correct mipmap level, but still once the texture is loaded for a 3D model, then it’ll require a draw call, even if the slice is the smallest 1x1 slice of the texture.
In other words:
Draw call –> CPU tell GPU to render something (Say F-16 model with 8 textures)
Each texture of those 8 will require a separate draw call (In BMS, that’s not have to be the case with other engines), at least, there are other reasons for a separate draw call.
Mipmapping --> Once inside the last stage of drawing geometry, the GPU in pixel shader determines the mipmap to be used on each pixel. That can’t be related to the fact that using the texture required a draw call.Oh, My bad then!