So what with DX11 support?
-
Not sure what you mean… many sims have VR, APIs exist for VR implementation. Anything DCS can do, we can do… it just take us more time because it’s not our day job and we have many less working hands.
Good news then it is possible! i can’t wait to see bms in 3d with vr.
@jhook:Now, half dome projection is something entirely different. Doable with current technology. Expensive (5 projectors @ 4K). Far more realistic IMO. Once the assets are created and implemented, this option would create the most realistic pit build. VR and pit builds would not be a great (realistic) option IMO.
Do you think it is possible to build a small full dome? I’ve always imagined a small and narrow dome that doesn’t take up much space and even goes a little under the cockpit. Except that to make it like this maybe it doesn’t have to be completely spherical, I don’t know if it’s possible. The only flaw is that so there is no 3d effect, also the cockpit is not (maybe i’m not sure) as illuminated as inside the sim. Then the performance, we are sure that they would not be the same if not worse than the vr? having to render a scene with a half sphere fov does not seem like a small thing to me.
-
Good news then it is possible! i can’t wait to see bms in 3d with vr.
Do you think it is possible to build a small full dome? I’ve always imagined a small and narrow dome that doesn’t take up much space and even goes a little under the cockpit. Except that to make it like this maybe it doesn’t have to be completely spherical, I don’t know if it’s possible. The only flaw is that so there is no 3d effect, also the cockpit is not (maybe i’m not sure) as illuminated as inside the sim. Then the performance, we are sure that they would not be the same if not worse than the vr? having to render a scene with a half sphere fov does not seem like a small thing to me.
Hey Falcon,
Very sorry for the late reply to this post (new rig build, testing, work, ect.). Yep, a small half dome would be great for pit builders. I think that you would get some (a little) 3D effect from screen curvature. But this route is expensive. Some great pit frames coming out now a days. Great platforms to build on. Seems the flight sim community is catching fire! I think FS2020 as a lot to do with that.
-
I for one hope that having DX11 support leads to much better visuals. But I know that is a HUGE task for the team. Incredible project in its current state, but with modern graphics? Yes, please!
-
devs you can actually update us from time to time
-
I think VR support would be nice for….VR users. A large portion of us currently flying with TrackIR or other head tracking solutions will most likely keep flying the way we always have. With DX11 support I am more excited about the prospects (I am hoping) of having physical based rendering (PBR). It will require an updated renderer, but PBR together with a better lighting system will do a lot to breathe new life into Falcon.
But there is still a lot to do - I browsed through the tactical reference section again tonight and there are a lot of 3D models in need of a refresh. It would be great if members of the community could assist with modding and creating new 3D models. I know it is possible, but without an SDK or published guides it is hard to say what exactly is possible. -
It already is the case. Kaos (luke777), Radium, and many more I can’t think of right now.
-
@vfp:
devs you can actually update us from time to time
Well, as usual I can’t say much, but things are progressing nicely, on all fronts of the BMS development, things are advancing at good pace at this stage. But there is still time. Don’t expect any huge GFX improvements too soon.
-
I think VR support would be nice for….VR users. A large portion of us currently flying with TrackIR or other head tracking solutions will most likely keep flying the way we always have. With DX11 support I am more excited about the prospects (I am hoping) of having physical based rendering (PBR). It will require an updated renderer, but PBR together with a better lighting system will do a lot to breathe new life into Falcon.
But there is still a lot to do - I browsed through the tactical reference section again tonight and there are a lot of 3D models in need of a refresh. It would be great if members of the community could assist with modding and creating new 3D models. I know it is possible, but without an SDK or published guides it is hard to say what exactly is possible.Maybe take a peek at what is going on at the BMS Fighters Mafia Discord channel…
-
Maybe take a peek at what is going on at the BMS Fighters Mafia Discord channel…
Thx, Icer, and visitors are always welcome. Yes, Brother Kaos is doing great work in the 3D area.
-
I know it is possible, but without an SDK or published guides it is hard to say what exactly is possible.
You dont need an SDK to make 3D models, and there are published guides on this very forum!
Or, well. There were. I guess Im not sure if they survived the great Purge.
-
You dont need an SDK to make 3D models, and there are published guides on this very forum!
Or, well. There were. I guess Im not sure if they survived the great Purge.
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?6009-3DS-Max-Exporters-for-BMS
https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?7712-PinkyandBrains-Beginners-guide
They are still there
-
Thanks for those links. Sadly it looks like there are exporters for 3DS Max only. I am proficient in Blender and I haven’t touched Max; partly because Blender satisfies all my production needs and secondly because Max costs a fortune to license (putting it out of reach for the average hobbyist). I will dig around and read up more; haven’t really looked into BMS development that hard to be honest.
-
IIRC there were some hints for blender users, maybe it’s worth looking in Community Mods and Tools/ 3D Models forum for more info. I’m sure someone was asking similar question
-
Thanks for those links. Sadly it looks like there are exporters for 3DS Max only. I am proficient in Blender and I haven’t touched Max; partly because Blender satisfies all my production needs and secondly because Max costs a fortune to license (putting it out of reach for the average hobbyist). I will dig around and read up more; haven’t really looked into BMS development that hard to be honest.
Even so you could model with Blender and export obj to MAX you won’t come around MAX 2010-14 it the only tool a exporter/importer is existing unless someone sits down writing a generic one or a plugin for other 3d modelling software
Gesendet von meinem SM-G930F mit Tapatalk
-
Even so you could model with Blender and export obj to MAX you won’t come around MAX 2010-14 it the only tool a exporter/importer is existing unless someone sits down writing a generic one or a plugin for other 3d modelling software
When only developing a mesh that approach used to work quite well, but from what I understand it may not be as straightforward to convert animations from one package to another. It is certainly a potential workflow to consider and explore, thanks. I have a well established workflow between Blender, Substance Painter and Photoshop, and it would be really disappointing if I had to bring Max into the equation.
-
When only developing a mesh that approach used to work quite well, but from what I understand it may not be as straightforward to convert animations from one package to another. It is certainly a potential workflow to consider and explore, thanks. I have a well established workflow between Blender, Substance Painter and Photoshop, and it would be really disappointing if I had to bring Max into the equation.
3dsMax is essentially to create animations and export the 3D model for use in BMS.
Cheers, :yo:
LS -
I think VR support would be nice for….VR users. A large portion of us currently flying with TrackIR or other head tracking solutions will most likely keep flying the way we always have. With DX11 support I am more excited about the prospects (I am hoping) of having physical based rendering (PBR). It will require an updated renderer, but PBR together with a better lighting system will do a lot to breathe new life into Falcon.
But there is still a lot to do - I browsed through the tactical reference section again tonight and there are a lot of 3D models in need of a refresh. It would be great if members of the community could assist with modding and creating new 3D models. I know it is possible, but without an SDK or published guides it is hard to say what exactly is possible.PBR looks good but how exactly does it work? specifically how would it impact fps in bms?
-
3dsMax is essentially to create animations and export the 3D model for use in BMS.
If that is the case then it precludes a lot of people from ever contributing content to BMS which is unfortunate. I have searched but I can’t find anything about exporting directly from Blender so that does not exist. I can’t afford 3DS Max so I won’t be able to develop a Blender -> 3DS Max workflow even if I wanted to.
-
PBR looks good but how exactly does it work? specifically how would it impact fps in bms?
The performance overhead is typically not that high, but there is an increased requirement for video RAM to store the additional textures to be loaded, depending on the PBR implementation. Engines such as Unity and Unreal Engine support various metallic/roughness formats where you would typically have your diffuse/albedo textures, your normal map textures and then separate texture sets for metallic and roughness. All these textures need to be loaded into video memory and take up storage space, so some simulation developers try to embed as much information into the smallest file spaces to try and save on those. X-Plane for instance embeds the PBR texture info into the alpha channel of the normal maps. It is a crude solution but it works to some degree but it does not provide a 1:1 representation between the development software and the sim. Each texture set has two textures for X-Plane, and a third if you have an emissive set.
DCS embeds metallic/roughness data into a single texture but within the individual RGB channels to separate the info. DCS thus uses three texture files for each texture set.
The VRAM requirement depends not only on the number of additional files but also the resolution of the files. A high definition aircraft could have multiple 4K texture sets to allow a uniform texel density over the entire object - and that is only referring to external. Internally you may need the same of even more depending on the level of detail you are going for.
If I had to guess, adding PBR could add an additional 30% - 50% VRAM requirement over a standard albedo/diffuse & normal map texture set. This is a very rough guestimate that will depend entirely on the PBR implementation. On a simulation that is mainly CPU dependent the performance impact could be negligible. If you are running an old video card that is already struggling from low video memory then the impact could be noticeable, but I have no idea what the current BMS underlying system looks like so I can’t really comment on that. -
The performance overhead is typically not that high, but there is an increased requirement for video RAM to store the additional textures to be loaded, depending on the PBR implementation. Engines such as Unity and Unreal Engine support various metallic/roughness formats where you would typically have your diffuse/albedo textures, your normal map textures and then separate texture sets for metallic and roughness. All these textures need to be loaded into video memory and take up storage space, so some simulation developers try to embed as much information into the smallest file spaces to try and save on those. X-Plane for instance embeds the PBR texture info into the alpha channel of the normal maps. It is a crude solution but it works to some degree but it does not provide a 1:1 representation between the development software and the sim. Each texture set has two textures for X-Plane, and a third if you have an emissive set.
DCS embeds metallic/roughness data into a single texture but within the individual RGB channels to separate the info. DCS thus uses three texture files for each texture set.
The VRAM requirement depends not only on the number of additional files but also the resolution of the files. A high definition aircraft could have multiple 4K texture sets to allow a uniform texel density over the entire object - and that is only referring to external. Internally you may need the same of even more depending on the level of detail you are going for.
If I had to guess, adding PBR could add an additional 30% - 50% VRAM requirement over a standard albedo/diffuse & normal map texture set. This is a very rough guestimate that will depend entirely on the PBR implementation. On a simulation that is mainly CPU dependent the performance impact could be negligible. If you are running an old video card that is already struggling from low video memory then the impact could be noticeable, but I have no idea what the current BMS underlying system looks like so I can’t really comment on that.Do you think bms developers are able to implement PBR completely? it is not possible to recreate bms into Unity and Unreal graphics engine?