Lead Pursuit
-
You need to use the image tags:
And here it is full size, this is simply this link:
https://i.imgur.com/pskoxr8.jpgInto image tags as shown above:
-
You need to use the image tags:
<your <strong=“”>direct link to the image goes here></your>And here it is full size, this is simply this link:
https://i.imgur.com/pskoxr8.jpgInto image tags as shown above:
https://i.imgur.com/pskoxr8.jpgIs this just texture? Or very high alt? Because I cannot see any tree.
-
Is this just texture? Or very high alt? Because I cannot see any tree.
Not not just texture, the camera angle is on purpose aimed that way, but even that ground isn’t purely flat, just hard to tell… and I don’t remember exact altitude but I’d estimate very low, maybe 150-200 feet AGL.
-
Not not just texture, the camera angle is on purpose aimed that way, but even that ground isn’t purely flat, just hard to tell… and I don’t remember exact altitude but I’d estimate very low, maybe 150-200 feet AGL.
Yep, no one see’s it but I do. If you are flying through this at low altitude and going fairly fast, your sense of speed has increased 10 fold! Nice undulation Hawk! I see it! Our chat a while ago must have given you some good ideas!
As I-Hawk stated, the ground is not flat anymore! :bdance:
-
Not not just texture, the camera angle is on purpose aimed that way, but even that ground isn’t purely flat, just hard to tell… and I don’t remember exact altitude but I’d estimate very low, maybe 150-200 feet AGL.
Holy Jesus. This means very high tex. resolution.
-
I think not, from few hints I think final ground textures might be generated on the fly with desired level of details. This way you can have terrain that looks good all the way from high alt down to the weeds.
-
I think not, from few hints I think final ground textures might be generated on the fly with desired level of details. This way you can have terrain that looks good all the way from high alt down to the weeds.
Yes, I wished to say that.
-
it seems that the texture has bump mapping, is that right?
-
Holy Jesus. This means very high tex. resolution.
The details yes, but of course the details textures aren’t unique, they just blended and tiled with a high factor, and of course some different type of them show there.
it seems that the texture has bump mapping, is that right?
Some normal mapping, sure.
-
The details yes, but of course the details textures aren’t unique, they just blended and tiled with a high factor, and of course some different type of them show there.
Some normal mapping, sure.
Aaaah, normal maps! I think your cooking up some great stuff here!
-
I love reading posts about the possibility of what I call “high-resolution terrain”. And I’ve certainly written many posts describing my dreams of flying a BMS F-16 through some fairly realistic-looking terrain. Here’s another…
I don’t know what might eventually become possible, in terms of the terrain itself and the colors / textures / images that could be applied to that terrain. We’ll find out, and I’m happy to wait and give people like I-Hawk time to learn and to implement whatever turns out to be doable in BMS.
One of the things I often think about is the idea of having real-world aerial imagery draped onto a fairly high-resolution terrain model. Kind of like flying around in Google Earth. I think it was Stevie who once described a dream of having BMS for everything inside the canopy, and Google Earth for everything outside the canopy. (Although I guess the exterior of the plane, plus other aircraft, plus ground units, plus vapes on the wings, etc…, would be BMS too.) I realize, of course, that this particular dream probably can’t happen.
However, if it became possible to drape some high-res imagery onto some a high-res digital elevation model (or a triangulated network based on a high-res DEM), that might look really nice.
Here’s an example of the kind of imagery I’m thinking of. I’ll use an example from here in the USA. I don’t know what would be available for theaters of operation like KTO, Balkans, ITO, etc…, but if someone wanted to create a nice terrain to fly around in, in the southwestern USA, there are some nice data available. I don’t know why the U.S. Department of Agriculture has airplanes fly over the driest parts of the greater Death Valley region, taking aerial photographs where there is no agriculture, but they do. And they distribute the imagery through the U.S. Geological Survey. I think they call this the National Aerial Imagery Program (NAIP), and one of the data products available through the USGS are “Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles” (DOQs).
I do some “recreational research” (geology) in my spare time, on public lands in the R-2508 complex. (Star Wars Canyon is in R-2508, along with Death Valley Nat’l Park, etc, just to name some of the public-land areas in R-2508.) Here’s a quick screenshot of a canyon in a desert mountain range, to the SSE of Star Wars Canyon. This is from a DOQ, and the image is about 2km wide. Notice the little cabins near the center of the image. This is part of a popular 4WD route.
If you zoom in on that DOQ any more than what is shown above, the pixels start to show up. So, if I you or I were rippin’ through that canyon in a BMS Viper, over those cabins, our close-up views of the canyon walls would look somewhat blurry and pixelated. Of course, the apparent angular rate at which the terrain was going by would make that somewhat moot, even with a powerful computer that had good framerates. When you or I pulled our Viper up out of the canyon and looked down on the terrain from a little higher, I think it would look really sharp and realistic. Of course, we’d have to set the time of day to match the time and date the imagery was acquired, so that the shadows matched, but I’d be okay with that.
I am absolutely the farthest thing from a GIS (Geographic Information System) expert, I only use a few very restricted functions of the ArcGIS package in my “recreational research”. But if I-Hawk or someone like that wanted me to try and do something or another with some digital topography and some aerial imagery in ArcGIS, I’d be willing to try and figure it out. I can’t promise success or speed, lol, but I could give it a go.
Although the NAIP DOQs are freely available from the USGS, I find it hard enough to select and download them that I just buy them from a site called charttiff.com. I find it’s worth the money, to get the data sets I need.
This whole idea of flying through high-res terrain, with real imagery draped on it, might not be practical in BMS. Maybe it’s not the feasible way for the sim to handle terrain. But if anyone ever wants to try this type of approach, there is some nice imagery and terrain out there, at least in the USA. Maybe other theaters too, but I’m not sure. I don’t know if the Department of Agriculture flies these aerial surveys over the NTTR, for example. But the public-land parts of R-2508 seem to have nice high-res imagery.
-
using the ortho x Xplane, the Korean theater me about 40gb using the zoom at 17
-
@Mylonite470 Thanx for your interest, post and suggestions
One of the things I often think about is the idea of having real-world aerial imagery draped onto a fairly high-resolution terrain model.
Yes this is (or, was) EXACTLY my intention/idea/dream when I started this whole quest
The tricky part regarding aerial imagery comes with the balance that is needed between having high resolution imagery and the ability/amount of data per a Falcon theater. Without saying too much I can tell you that eventually there are 3 main concerns:
1. HD space - As we don’t have the ability to do heavyweight streaming of data as maybe the big companies intend to rely on (M$ FS2020?), everything must be present locally.
2. High res imagery apparently isn’t free, I’m no expert as I’m not deeply involved with fetching data etc, but AFAIK there is a price above some resolutions/ZL.
3. Engine design and capabilities - Above some resolution, some heavier work will be necessary. Not saying impossible, never, but the options will not be “infinite”.Anyway, I hope the results will be liked when this thing will be ready (Don’t expect it too soon however, there is time).
Regarding resolution/mesh, no need to worry, I posted in the past some examples of that.
https://i.imgur.com/6yAPf8x.png
https://i.imgur.com/Bi4lbc5.png -
using the ortho x Xplane, the Korean theater me about 40gb using the zoom at 17
16 you mean
17 should be 4 times greater. Also this is assuming DXT1 which has its shortcomings compared to more modern formats like BC7, but WRT size, DXT1 is best balance still.
-
For any more resources, including how to obtain real-world data, the Arma3 community is not the worst place to look. These guys churn out a lot of high quality terrains with a good amount of detail, since it is an infantry game. The workload should have some overlap to Falcon when it comes to real-world data. The forum sticky posts here hold a lot of good, up-to-date information:
https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/forum/164-arma-3-terrain-builder/
Cheering I-Hawk on from CPH :clap2:
-
I’m not sure, but making ground AI interact realistically with hi-res terrain might be a nightmare too.
Afaik, right now vehicles can drive evrywhere. Even on mountains that are completely inaccessible to vehicles irl.
If only the terrain gets changed and not the way ground troops interact with it, there would be tanks driving up a near vertical mountain face. This is obviously undesirable.
Or am I asking too much and vehicles on inaccessible mountains would be acceptable?
-
For any more resources, including how to obtain real-world data, the Arma3 community is not the worst place to look. These guys churn out a lot of high quality terrains with a good amount of detail, since it is an infantry game. The workload should have some overlap to Falcon when it comes to real-world data. The forum sticky posts here hold a lot of good, up-to-date information:
https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/forum/164-arma-3-terrain-builder/
Cheering I-Hawk on from CPH :clap2:
Thanx
There are AFAIK many different sources from other games/sims that can be used for data organizing (XP, some MS/P3D and I bet there are more).
The main challenge for me currently is to know what I need exactly from what and eventually arrange the stuff as I want it to be. Of course there are other different challenges, but this is a basic oneI’m not sure, but making ground AI interact realistically with hi-res terrain might be a nightmare too.
Afaik, right now vehicles can drive evrywhere. Even on mountains that are completely inaccessible to vehicles irl.
If only the terrain gets changed and not the way ground troops interact with it, there would be tanks driving up a near vertical mountain face. This is obviously undesirable.
Or am I asking too much and vehicles on inaccessible mountains would be acceptable?
I’m no expert to ground troops movement but AFAIK they do have some defined areas/paths where they can drive, it’s not a simple “go wherever you want” kind of thing.
-
step by step and will be great as always
-
@Mylonite470 Thanx for your interest, post and suggestions
Yes this is (or, was) EXACTLY my intention/idea/dream when I started this whole quest
The tricky part regarding aerial imagery comes with the balance that is needed between having high resolution imagery and the ability/amount of data per a Falcon theater. Without saying too much I can tell you that eventually there are 3 main concerns:
1. HD space - As we don’t have the ability to do heavyweight streaming of data as maybe the big companies intend to relay on (M$ FS2020?), everything must be present locally.
2. High res imagery apparently isn’t free, I’m no expert as I’m not deeply involved with fetching data etc, but AFAIK there is a price above some resolutions/ZL.
3. Engine design and capabilities - Above some resolution, some heavier work will be necessary. Not saying impossible, never, but the options will not be “infinite”.Anyway, I hope the results will be liked when this thing will be ready (Don’t expect it too soon however, there is time).
Regarding resolution/mesh, no need to worry, I posted in the past some examples of that.
https://i.imgur.com/6yAPf8x.png
https://i.imgur.com/Bi4lbc5.pngcan these meshpoints are matched for a SRTM 30m height map data? It would be nice. And maybe an easier way for the terrain makers.
-
Thanx
There are AFAIK many different sources from other games/sims that can be used for data organizing (XP, some MS/P3D and I bet there are more).
The main challenge for me currently is to know what I need exactly from what and eventually arrange the stuff as I want it to be. Of course there are other different challenges, but this is a basic oneI’m no expert to ground troops movement but AFAIK they do have some defined areas/paths where they can drive, it’s not a simple “go wherever you want” kind of thing.
The next logical step (IMO) would be the elevations. Since Falcon uses LOD’s (or at least did so from the past) bump maps with extended LOD’s for increased resolution and detail will allow for the finer extent of things like grass to trees. Buildings/structures would be next but would need to have there own data base to draw from. It does depend on the DX version here. If, say DX 11, then a tile built for that area/location would have the better impact on processing (but a lesser detail overall). If DX 12 (Ultimate) is used, then a pre/post process would do much better (as most new GFX cards can use these instructions) as it would open up CPU core processing.
All of this is just at the very early stages everyone. And all of this is just my 2 cents, but the future of BMS will be beautiful and as stunning as any other flight sim out there.