Ramon Airbase
-
@AsafBoy:
Looking amazing :bdance:
Keep the Hard work!In short:
agreeded, +100! It looks nice since the first glance.With best wishes and regards.
-
In an attempt to make the airbase model as realistic as I can,
I decided to model what i believe to be the closest we’ll get to an Israeli aircraft bunker.This is aimed to increase the sense of realism while flying in and out of the airbase
Cheers,
Spearhead
-
looks great… the ITO guys must have wet their pants… :lol:
-
Be careful with poly-count! … Think about doing lower LODs to be able to make a rapid transition to lower poly-count.
Other advice, to not make “a big global object” but rather smaller part (in order to be able to have consistent damage model).
Even better, if your building are symmetrical, consider doing only one “part” as single Feature (like a single Hangar) , then on Objectives, copy/past the Feature … much simpler, and consisted damage model.Other advantage of this, LODs will be more efficient since you will have multiple objects, rather than a single block more difficult to manage in term of LODs.
Ruel of thumb, avoid as much as possible large blocks … prefer several parts (with proper LODs and damaged LODs). -
Of course. i’ll be using different LODs and the models are seperated to account for in-game use with as low of a polycount as I could manage.
the higher poly detail will only be shown when you are in the direct area around the model. -
:thumb:
-
prefer several parts (with proper LODs and damaged LODs).
I don’t think the specific “parts” will be ever damaged, or something getting close enough to produce damage! lol
@Spearhead very very nice! Will you also implement the height elevation difference in the tarmac area models as per real? (assuming it is possible to handle)
-
I don’t think the specific “parts” will be ever damaged, or something getting close enough to produce damage! lol
I don’t understand sorry.
-
I mean nobody can threaten Israel and no weapon system will ever be able to target and hit (any) targets there…;
-
Overall- looks SUPERB! +1 to the "the ITO guys must have wet their pants… " comment
-
I mean nobody can threaten Israel and no weapon system will ever be able to target and hit (any) targets there…;
Ah ok. … but its a game. Everything is possible.
-
@Spearhead very very nice! Will you also implement the height elevation difference in the tarmac area models as per real? (assuming it is possible to handle)
I wish! The only way to do that would be to raise the whole airfield and make a model for the ground around the runways. Even then I don’t know if the collision model will work correctly for taxiing up and down things.
The objects will just be above ground somewhat like the shelters in DCS with the ground texture on top
Sent from my IN2013 using Tapatalk
-
This does look great indeed! Keep it up!
-
In an attempt to make the airbase model as realistic as I can,
I decided to model what i believe to be the closest we’ll get to an Israeli aircraft bunker.This is aimed to increase the sense of realism while flying in and out of the airbase
https://i.imgur.com/ckoYuoy.png
https://i.imgur.com/Nt5tP8k.png
Cheers,
Spearhead
I wonder if we have a push back function in BMS…
At least I never heard about it.
Could be great to get your aircraft inside with a nice GSE pushing your F16 like IRL.
Cheers,
Radium
-
Many issues here …
Indeed, no pushback.
Other problem is that, you can limit the access to those shelter to a/c with a wing span equal or less than an F-16, but if you (or any theatre builder) add some other a/c type on the airbase (i.e. F-15, F-14, Su-33 …) much larger than F-16, if we set the PkPoint inside the shelter you will have to choose:- Accept graphical issue of wing conflicting with walls.
- Accept to restrict those shelter to F-16 (and less) only but in that case, you have to have a lot of other place where wider a/c can spawn. If you don’t have those places, ATC will be messed up by a/c spawning in the wild.
… This is why on most airbases, when I do not have a lot of possible spawn-points that match with any kind of big fighters, I do not pout the PtPoint into shelters.
-
Many issues here …
Indeed, no pushback.
Other problem is that, you can limit the access to those shelter to a/c with a wing span equal or less than an F-16, but if you (or any theatre builder) add some other a/c type on the airbase (i.e. F-15, F-14, Su-33 …) much larger than F-16, if we set the PkPoint inside the shelter you will have to choose:- Accept graphical issue of wing conflicting with walls.
- Accept to restrict those shelter to F-16 (and less) only but in that case, you have to have a lot of other place where wider a/c can spawn. If you don’t have those places, ATC will be messed up by a/c spawning in the wild.
… This is why on most airbases, when I do not have a lot of possible spawn-points that match with any kind of big fighters, I do not pout the PtPoint into shelters.
But why would someone want to put SU-33’s and F-14’s on an Israeli F-16 airbase ? At some point if people decide to do fantastic stuff it is up to them to live with the limitations.
-
But why would someone want to put SU-33’s and F-14’s on an Israeli F-16 airbase ? At some point if people decide to do fantastic stuff it is up to them to live with the limitations.
That is not a point (I would say).
We must be able to anticipate as much possibilities as possible. It force some compromises.
Replace Su-33 by F-111 or F-22 … or anything you like in a fictitious scenario. Otherwise we can disregard and not solve many issue considering that it is not “normal” use. -
I respectfully disagree - but that’s my own opinion, feel free to disagree
Here we criticise the work of one guy because of the possible consequences some other guys could do with once that Shelter becomes available.
IMHO we miss the essential, which should be to support these initiatives rather than destroying it for hypothetical issues further donw the line.The push back is a non issue - all shelters have it
The spawn point is a non issue, all shelters, blastwall and any parking points have it
Campaign is one thing, but TE is a valid BMS feature as well. What may not be optimal in one may be perfect in the other, the coding and the data should NOT concentrate on one side of it only, they should Indeed support both.
The user can do whatever he pleases, it is not the dev who should ensure that his work remain correct in all situation, whatever the dev tries, ppl will always find a way to screw it up one way or another.
By trying to prevent that the dev actually lowers the enjoyment of the majority of regular users who do things correctly.It’s like any anti cheat system. regular non cheaters are impacted because of a minority of cheaters.
Thinking like this not only demotivates ppl, it will slowly frustrate ppl more and more because of the limitation imposed on the data and code side of things
IMHO, it’s the wrong way to think -
So Spearhead, Don’t be put off by all the negativity in here.
Your work looks great, keep it up and all the Falcon dev has ALWAYS been about doing nice things and finding solution to issues further down the line. So keep it up, you’re on the right track -
@Red:
Don’t be put off by all the negativity in here.
?!
If giving advices based on experience is negativity (?), then it is la very last time I am trying to share something (it was already rare …).
3rd party dev will simply do as we did: Learning by experience and errors. They will build their own conclusions about the best way to proceed and what are the limitations/compromises to accept.
@Spearhead
Good work!
Good luck.