[New] F16I Skin Project
-
This post is deleted! -
so if the guys in falcon want us to share our tests - and results… I do it already by talkin and explaining here…
Yes, we need a lot of help from you, as you can see. We are so poor
-
This post is deleted! -
The guys from your ‘source code’ can make it as ground… but that needs to be done first… and then make the object functions as ground just like Aircraft Carriers act like a solid ground and not a ghost object…
If F18 can stand on an object like the carrier… helicopters can land on roofs of buildings… terrorists can fire missiles from roofs, and you can land on a mountain or a hill…
You met in your “terrain” test what is HitBox?
-
That looks like the Dark side of the moon (no offense) …
Yes and that F-16 is actually a cover for a X-Wing…
-
This post is deleted! -
You want a screenshots contest?
All you can show is shots from high altitude, because that’s all what you got… We all know that 4m satellite photo will look impressive from 25K+ feet, that’s not a big deal.
You need to understand (again), that the first problem about terrain is mesh, not the damn textures LOL. Sure texture are also important, but mesh is the real problem, and the first one that must be solved. Your terrain is like your “Python 5 360 mod” It’s a damn hack…
-
I do not understand what you wanted to show on these screenshots?
The first one shows your fake terrain, the second shows the real ITO mountains and some flat object. -
This post is deleted! -
Guys - don’t bite…! Deprive a child of the attention it craves, eventually it’ll give up squealing.
-
Where is the facepalm imoji when you need one…
Go home buddy, you are drunk!
I’ll start from the END because you don’t really read. unless you actually have any working knowledge THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO SHARE(!!!). I don’t want to hear anymore on you “terrain” BS.Now for the real explanation you will most definitely not gonna read…
the “real world” distances mean nothing if you don’t get a reliable way go from Real world data to falcon coordinates. You can’t do that from GE directly because the data you get out is 3857. However, when you measure distance, GE will use spherical earth math to calculate everything behind the scenes. you can actually see in over long distances because the line curves.
so your raw output will be accurate distance wise when you go directly north/south. however, on every latitude, distance per pixel changes it’s smaller as you go north. which is why they are doing distance measurements in WGS84. This is all based on the fact that you can go back and forth between those two projections.
So unless you know how to do it in Falcon, all your hard work is BS…
However, if you do know how to do that, that will make you the only person that can in the current falcon terrain engine.This is also the ONLY reason I’m still here, feeding your unlimited trollish appetite is on the long shot that this is the ONLY known occasion, in the almost 12 years I’ve been interacting online that you are not full of shit and actually know something useful. This knowledge will definitely be put to good use.
and to further refine Arty’s math.
if you go with 16px/m you can cover entire falcon theater (1024*1024 km) with 256 tiles each is 4096^. which will be ~2.8GB in DDS form. (in TIFF it’s slightly more then 30GB)
every-time you double the res, you quadruple the space needed (there is some optimization to be done in water only tiles).
so going to 8m/px you’ll need 1024 tiles (4096^ each) taking about 11GB.
4m/px is 4096 tiles taking 44GB.
2m/px will be 16384 which is 177GB
and so on.raw data for 4m/px BTH is about 700GB.
-
Eghi i understood already… thank you.
Wolfox what u try to accomplish and kinda proof to the devs they can already.
Falcon has 4 elevation layers, and terrain tiles number can go from a few to millions.
That way you could have 30m res on heightmap iirc and even 50px per m.Those where restricted cause of performance issues.
So the devs know already, and they have it.
I don’t think there is much difference between your approach and what the falcon terrain engine can already do.
So to overcome those performance issues needs structural changes to the terrain and gfx engine nor to mention whole environment.
Devs know that for years (decades) community also triggered alerts on new findings amd new engines that popped up from time to time, but falcon is unique. Devs know the restrictions and limitations and workload on this and they act accordingly.
We just play around… wasting time some times.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
This post is deleted! -
We have capabilities that no one else has.
That statement alone, in and of itself, PROVES you are full of SHEET!!!
C9
-
This post is deleted! -
True that, Wolfox.
But - assumed you are always in good faith in all your speech - even I can clearly see that you’re ignoring here all the advises given to you by several members, well known as true experts by the proof of time spent, and real results and improvements given to all this Community members, most of all.
Worse, you didn’t either get that we all are here positively NOT TO COMPETE with any other simulation or person, in this Community or elsewhere.
We don’t care it at all, indeed.
We are here instead just because we are all friends loving simulated military flying. And we chose Falcon BMS to do that. Dot.So, what about less chatting and more acting? If you really can show it, of course.
You seemed to be good at doing when you released that AIM-9 skin, mod or whatever it is.
Keep on going that way, then, or please leave us alone.
There are already too many polemists around, we certainly don’t feel the need to get more. -
This post is deleted! -
.
-
So I stay with the original subject of the thread… Janha’s F-16I model Skin - For Falcon 4 BMS …
https://i.ibb.co/mDv9mB2/2019-08-03-132016.jpgYou daft twit.
I wish I had permissions to kick your ass out… -
You daft twit.
I wish I had permissions to kick your ass out…Just ignore his thread, it is healthier.