Question about the Graphics of Falcon 4 BMS
-
Newer API only means it opens more options, and usually it’s more efficient than older API.
Thing is that opening more options usually may create more/heavier rendering which may add to the overall load.An example?
HW instancing is for sure more efficient than draw call per object, but it also may give ideas for more features (For example massive city buildings rendering), so you gain performance relative to the old style rendering methods, but you also now give some up (and maybe more than originally) because of new features.I think advancing is good, of course, regardless of performance. HW is moving forward and what was almost impossible 3-4 years ago is now doable and more.
-
Newer API only means it opens more options, and usually it’s more efficient than older API.
Thing is that opening more options usually may create more/heavier rendering which may add to the overall load.An example?
HW instancing is for sure more efficient than draw call per object, but it also may give ideas for more features (For example massive city buildings rendering), so you gain performance relative to the old style rendering methods, but you also now give some up (and maybe more than originally) because of new features.I think advancing is good, of course, regardless of performance. HW is moving forward and what was almost impossible 3-4 years ago is now doable and more.
well a good API gives options - limits… like for the massive city buildings LOD level and maybe distance or their shadows (on-off) (perpixel - pervertex) or and texture set size or Glass transparencies (on off).
-
Nothing is confirmed about 4.34. Between running a DX11 or DX9 game, you should get better performance in DX11. The rendering in BMS currently is not very efficient, upgrading it would improve FPS, not decrease it.
I was using Dee-Jay’s statement.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?23833-ff-you-could-have-one-thing-in-the-next-update-it-would-be&p=476542#post476542I confirm no DX11 on 4.34
-
I stand corrected!
In any event, the confirmation is that there is no DX11 which was the working assumption for everyone, based off I-Hawks commentary lately. Good to see a comment confirming that, I guess.
-
True that, BluWolf.
But the same, for BMS’s longing sake, let me hope in some relevant change in the next future, just as DX11 is a standard nowadays, as since almost three years (I guess).
Oh, and thanks a lot to you, I-Hawk and Arty for your interesting and mind-opening points of view, BTW.
With best regards.
-
Not sure what you refer to exactly. I don’t know DX9 really well, but vertex info could be customized on DX9 as well.
Actually if you compare between DX9 and DX11, the main advantages of DX11 for a flight sim are:1. Tessellation - Naturally, LODing on the GPU is very much needed for when you need LODing badly.
2. HW instancing - Draw same geometry many times with single draw call and possibly different parameters (Position, colors, textures etc).
Of course there are many more options, but this is the ones that may be game changers in comparison.
I was thinking more of lighting and textures, pbr etc.
-
PBR isn’t real time AFAIK. And even if it is, maybe for some very specific and dedicated rendering samples, but not ready for a implementation into a game engine.
Regardless of that, there are many lighting techniques that are missing in BMS which can be used, hopefully sometime in the future.
-
PBR no?
Ohhhhh come on.
PBR is wow for metal and not only.
The whole process is way easier for 3d modelers.
PBR can be used in 3dsmax also.
Normals AO and metal might be more than enough.
And get rid of the pain of ptypes like luminance transparency reflection and keep just switches for the models.BUT
All 3d models and textures must be redone.
Overkill.
Anyway those gfx changes will need some love for 3ds max exporter to support maybe newer version of 3ds max?
On the other hand u can use PBR app like substance painter and have the outcome with no 3d details (shine height etc) but better looking by exporting the texture to a flat texture.
With PBR u can rotate light environment and quickly view the model lighted from all aspects.
Also if the falcon shader could be exported as compatible to PBR app you can see the model exactly as it would look in falcon 3d environment like in real time. Maybe that is what the previous poster wanted to say.
Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
Pbr wasnt the focus of my post, just lighting in general, there are many techniques. Point is we can do more lighting calcs and perhaps ‘embed’ more data into the geometry for said calcs. A little lighting work would transform the visuals i think.
-
PBR isn’t real time AFAIK. And even if it is, maybe for some very specific and dedicated rendering samples, but not ready for a implementation into a game engine.
Sorry, but it is. PBR is becoming the standard in real-time game engines. It can be done in DX9 also, as DX9 supports HLSL. Pretty much all the big game-engines support PBR nowadays.
-
Well pbr uses the shaders. In that context is real time.
Besides the shaders what can be done in pbr can be done with 3ds and photoshop, just harder.
The shader if the same in engine and pbr applications helps the modeler to create more realistic effects and surfaces.
It actually is shine dont shine or how much shine and where. This adds breathtaking details to the models and makes it look way realistic.
Like the F18 on DCS on which they over done it and looks ugly and unrealistic very close but superb when viewed from a distance.
Shaders exist in falcon just surfaces reflection is not controlled by modeler.Oh and this is used to eliminate higher detail models like less tris as the shader and texture values do this. I dont know which is more expensive, but its the trend now.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
Seems to me like PBR is a different lighting equation applied in the shaders instead of the usual/old/default one. Question is what will be the cost of replacing lighting for all rendering techniques of the engine, and what will be the gain?
I’m sure that more sophisticated lighting will look good, it’s true anyways, question is where you consider it is needed and when you stop saying it’s “good enough”By mentioning real time I meant that full physical lighting equations are running in scenes for movies for example, but with a cost that a frame can take 1-2 days to process. So of course things can run at real time, question is what you give up, what you add and what you gain out of it and if it’ll worth the performance hit.
For sure this is worth looking at, but one step at a time I guess, there is more basic stuff to do first
-
Well there will be cost.
Shaders and lighting are costly.with pbr instead of having a 300000 tris model u have a way lowered one like 90 30?
u use the high detailed model for a detailed set of normals AO and curvature (let’s call it basetex) among others but those I believe are the basic.then from those u work and u actually use the low tris model and you apply those basetex params and get a super detailed model.
u can have the curvature joins even if they are not actually there in the 3d model. like the metal panels on an airplane or a scratch on a surface, now all we can see is a drawn shadow or gray line that mimics a scratch, with pbr it’s like the scratch is actually there.
Another example wearing and paint in areas that the paint is gone or there is rust, u can actually see 3d difference between the metal base the paint and the rust.All those use shaders calculations and in real 3d rendering the cost will be high.
So as in Falcon we use the low tris models already but without all those eyecandy well the cost will be there specially if all models make use of it. Imagine all those and Helloooooo Particle system kicks in above all those and altering them at the same time with the mess of lighting from explosions… welcome to 1fps party land… :lol:
-
Honestly I’m not sure what is worse, more tris or more textures. It’s not easy to answer and may depend on specific application/technique.
I have an application which digest 2-3M tris NP, but may have harder time to run a lot of texture sampling and complicated pixel shader requirements.But eventually if all game engines are starting to use PBR, I assume the cost isn’t that heavy.
Regarding performance, specific to this but also in general, don’t forget that 300K tris model will be much lighter at 1NM away and so you will mainly need such advanced light rendering for close objects, so a simple test on the view distance in shader can decide to use default lighting code and save the PBR performance penalty.
But as I said, it’s way early to even talk about such stuff.
Cheers!
-
I-Hawk, the benefit to PBR is that you get good looking lighting without having to do as much planning on how the surface should look. The key point is that it uses some key assumptions which older lighting designs do not use - but which actual physics does. This is why you can get weird lighting effects in games which do not reflect reality. PBR lets you define surfaces more simply and get more accurate results.
-
I-Hawk, the benefit to PBR is that you get good looking lighting without having to do as much planning on how the surface should look. The key point is that it uses some key assumptions which older lighting designs do not use - but which actual physics does. This is why you can get weird lighting effects in games which do not reflect reality. PBR lets you define surfaces more simply and get more accurate results.
I don’t know what that means exactly in the technical code/shader world
As far as I have seen, there are more options to use more properties of a surface by having more data (For example a Roughness map…) and then applying more sophisticated lighting code.
But a map is a texture, so while it’s like the lighting becomes “smarter”, it also makes the rendering heavier because not only the equations are heavier (Let’s assume modern GPU will hardly notice that), but also you need more texture sampling and texture sampling is (still) the slowest operation a GPU performs.I guess to some extent I even already used PBR without really knowing it, as I have some code that is using the physical property of a surface in order to change lighting for some pixels/directions.
-
Well ihawk it goes the other way around. U have the lighting u dont alter it so roughness to look good. U will affect other things also.
U apply roughness and with current lighting environment u make it look ok in pbr.As u say it if i believe roughness should be at 8 (just for the talk) then for another modeler that thinks same roughness should be at 2 then one model will look ike crap.
So the environment light must be a constant to the equation.In pbr modeling u apply roughness and you turn the sun 360 to see the roughness if it looks ok with just a mouse swing.
So the modeler decides the roughness he wants. He applies the engine shader in pbr app like UE or i dont recall the other and he sees it exactly as it will be in game gfx engine.
Hope it makes sense… im on the third tsikoudia and it was hard even to type in… [emoji38]
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
There was a good video Laminar Research describing what is PBR and how it works in there X-Plane 11 but I can’t find it now.
The important point of PBR is…- Everything is reflective
Not only like a mirror or metal, but any kinds of material in the world reflects the light, and that reflected ray brightens another nearby object form-shadow. - Energy Conservation
The material should not reflect more light energy than the incident ray has.
PBR brings natural looking reflected light with a natural looking tone and color.
Like in X-PLANE11 and DCS you can see form-shadow of the airplane has a bit brighter part than its core-shadow, and it is also slightly colored by terrain, water or sky.This video describes how reflected light brightens form-shadow of objects.
If the paper in the video was red, the egg shadow should have colored red slightly.
I recently started learning dessin and this reflected light is one of the important points to make your art look like real.
Anyway, I don’t expect PBR to come to BMS that early.
Before PBR we even don’t have occlusion shadow. - Everything is reflective
-
https://academy.allegorithmic.com/courses/the-pbr-guide-part-1
And part 2
https://academy.allegorithmic.com/courses/the-pbr-guide-part-2https://cdn.allegorithmic.com/images/academy/b6230f29-aeb3-4a65-873e-59dce6b20d5e
Look at figure 48 on part 2. All those details are on pbr not on the actual 3d model polygon.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
Hi guys.
(I’m working as 3D modeller since 10+ years, on game models and other 3D visualization, mostly with Max, ZBrush and Substance Painter, hope I can add couple of thought to this discussion).The PBR really the next gen graphics engine, I love to work with it, the metal parts looks much better, because the HDRI and realtime lights. Reflections and freshnel effects works realtime too, without any problem. But…
The biggest problem with PBR is the texture sizes, and UV mapping. This is more performance demanding than oldscool textures, it require newer videocards (VRam above all), and last gen DX (because of speed, and bandwith). PBR will increase massively(!) the texture folder size. Especially when the 3D Artists find out the benefits of 4K texturesThe normal maps isn’t require PBR standard, normal maps is older than Falcon. Falcon don’t use them, but that is not connected to PBR. Same with specular map, glossiness map, fresnel reflections, realtime shadows and lights. Not the PBR invented these, just the last gen game engines use them perfectly (and call them differently).