Tomcatz SAM factory
-
@RAM22:
Yes, there are lots of other things that effect the FPS. So although I’m intrigued by your calculations, in campaign they wouldn’t bear out. This is not a criticism to you or your numbers, due to the fact that you’re looking and calculating on a certain situation/scenario and I think that is good.;) It shows how some individuals really do study what they are doing dev wise and have the intelligence and capacity to measure results that are important. RAM22
Well the pit was always the FPS killer. As much as superb it is right now still is the main FPS killer (logical it’s our office). Maybe a version with less pollys not much but some optimisation I believe is needed. Maybe even better 3 versions of it and option in f4patch like (high detail / medium detail / low detail) that way guys with 2+ monitors will be more than happy. Maybe when JanHas will finish his F-16 model we will have and a new F-16 cockpit?
-
Maybe is sightly OT but, humvee NEAR soldiers with an ak that is a mix from the abakan and the 74? (I play too much fps games i know)
Anyway this models looks really good, fantastic work keep it up!!! :woohoo: -
@RAM22:
Yes, there are lots of other things that effect the FPS. So although I’m intrigued by your calculations, in campaign they wouldn’t bear out.
This is not a criticism to you or your numbers, due to the fact that you’re looking and calculating on a certain situation/scenario and I think that is good.;)
It shows how some individuals really do study what they are doing dev wise and have the intelligence and capacity to measure results that are important.
RAM22
Very well stated……
demer
-
Edited…go to page 17 please
-
I cannot download, the process always ends after the first second.
Before the download is started the borwser shows 0 byte long file. Can you upload again? I recommend mediafire. -
I cannot download, the process always ends after the first second.
Before the download is started the borwser shows 0 byte long file. Can you upload again? I recommend mediafire.me too
-
I tested the 1st relese in my campaign. With out the new models FPS was 24 near the corwded area of FLOT. With 1st pack of release the FPS was below 10 even only just a fraction of models were changed and used in campaign.
-
I tested the 1st relese in my campaign. With out the new models FPS was 24 near the corwded area of FLOT. With 1st pack of release the FPS was below 10 even only just a fraction of models were changed and used in campaign.
I’m still trying to download so haven’t been able to test. Do you mean Release 2 has worse FPS? What are the poly counts and lod distances ie. for the Patriot?
There is a heavy FPS hit when switching to a textured (skinned) model and a cost in switching LOD models.
As demer explains so well
For Tom……Try and follow Mystic’s advise…He and I (and other’s) spent many an hour going over this for both Redflag and BFS.
You have a Polycount “BUDGET” in Falcon…don’t “Spend” it all at once, for a model that may only deagg in your bubble,WVR, a couple of time’s in game\campain’…Wasted effort IMHO.
Egos aside,I really appreciate your effort’s to Scale the model’s to Falcon ;).there is “budget” (beyond which game performance suffers to much) and absolute poly counts matter. If we switch from an L1/L2 (3600/1200 poly) we save 2400 poly per model. More important are the L2/L3 (1200/600 poly) and L3/L4 (600/50) changes as they are the models we usually see. The textured/untextured model switch is usually noticable at close range so is done at L3/L4 or later but it gives a big boost. L4/L5 (50/10 ploy) changes seem less important - prehaps because we are only saveing 40 poly per model and the cost in switching models.
These are mostly my “gut feelings” and I’m sure others (demer928, Mystic, WaveyDave, etc) understand the .exe far better. WaveyDave’s Recomendations also include poly counts and are likely to reflect the Dev’s own findings.
I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to include battling carrier groups that consist of 30k poly ships in online MP server battles but in testing TomCatz 30k poly models we’ve gained an idea of the issues and FPS if we ever did and it is only 18 months since some of us knew falcon and dx9 was “impossible” so you just never know for sure :).
-
I’m still trying to download so haven’t been able to test. Do you mean Release 2 has worse FPS? What are the poly counts and lod distances ie. for the Patriot?
I was not able to DL from the latest link, my commend concerned on the 1st release. (~682 MB LOD file size)
-
I’m still trying to download so haven’t been able to test. Do you mean Release 2 has worse FPS? What are the poly counts and lod distances ie. for the Patriot?
There is a heavy FPS hit when switching to a textured (skinned) model and a cost in switching LOD models.
As demer explains so well
there is “budget” (beyond which game performance suffers to much) and absolute poly counts matter. If we switch from an L1/L2 (3600/1200 poly) we save 2400 poly per model. More important are the L2/L3 (1200/600 poly) and L3/L4 (600/50) changes as they are the models we usually see. The textured/untextured model switch is usually noticable at close range so is done at L3/L4 or later but it gives a big boost. L4/L5 (50/10 ploy) changes seem less important - prehaps because we are only saveing 40 poly per model and the cost in switching models.
These are mostly my “gut feelings” and I’m sure others (demer928, Mystic, WaveyDave, etc) understand the .exe far better. WaveyDave’s Recomendations also include poly counts and are likely to reflect the Dev’s own findings.
I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to include battling carrier groups that consist of 30k poly ships in online MP server battles but in testing TomCatz 30k poly models we’ve gained an idea of the issues and FPS if we ever did and it is only 18 months since some of us knew falcon and dx9 was “impossible” so you just never know for sure :).
Why you guys sound like we never can put detailed models in Falcon world? Why we always have to think network players are treated as single player who never care about MP fps? Why we have to stuck with MP ftp rate for virtual squadrons?
Why powerful computer owners have to give up BMS futures or gorgeous battle field because of old computer owners?
Why BMS doesn’t treat the people as other PC games do with various graphics levels?Why not put on option for network player to use the small old models in our battle field? You could put an option for hig detailed models on setup or Configuration or where ever it’s possible. And let single player to enjoy hig detailed models in their battle field? I think that idea can make various people happy who are in different situation with BMS. It will take long to load detailed models in thier battle field. That’s their problem. and time will solve it.
We will have more people who have more powerful computers in the near future.They would want to get rid of old models and hit becautiful models made by those talented 3d modelers.
What I mean you could change your thinking about fps matter and you could make a room for people who want to enjoy the teeth you haven’t revealed yet.
You could show us the BMS teeth earlier than you planed. That’s my two cents. -
Why you guys sound like we never can put detailed objects in Falcon world? Why we have to think network players are treated as single player who never care about network play fps? Why not put on option for network player to use small number of poly objects in their battle field? You could put in setup or f4patch file or where it’s possible. And let single player to enjoy hig
poly objects in their battle field? That’s my two centsBecause even if you are a only sp guy, still your machine must be very powerful, that means lot of $$$$ to spend on your machine hardware and even if that is so powerful the code won’t support what you are asking, is well written in demer and ramsay posts
…
-
Why you guys sound like we never can put detailed models in Falcon world?
Because average player does not have supercomputer. BTW, except for video maker it is pointless. You never fly so close to a ground vehicle to require 10k polys.
-
Because even if you are a only sp guy, still your machine must be very powerful, that means lot of $$$$ to spend on your machine hardware and even if that is so powerful the code won’t support what you are asking, is well written in demer and ramsay posts
…
I know what they mean. I just want BMS dev team to think different.
-
I know what they mean. I just want BMS dev team to think different.
hmmm …you mean like they should get out of the box a version that isn’t even capable to run acceptably on the beast machines, but is looking supercool and with superdetailed models, just for the fun of it? I don’t think that is a good way of developement, as almost noone would be able to run it or get the fun that everybody is getting here in mp and sp with old textures/models/terrain ecc. Acients said “Veritas in medietas” that is translated “the truth stand in the middle” ;), sure they are looking here and there as there are lot of guys trying to help on what they can do, but they can’t just include everything in the .exe if is not stable, realistic, enjoyable ecc as they stated when bms came out. They will maybe include this if it can get a well overall performance and not just an eyecandy, maybe won’t be update4 but time is a non relevant costant 3-4weeks :mrgreen:
If I’m wrong I’d love to bashed :dhorse: -
Hi,
that Link should be working. Please scroll down, wait 15 seconds and them the “download-Button” will pop up…
About the FPS: The second version should work better and its very helpfull to disengage the partikel effects- Its not needed.
Best regards,
Tom -
Size is 0 byte…
-
Yes, it’s no good, no archive present.
RAM22
-
…. I never saw Problems like that…
-
@RAM22:
Yes, it’s no good, no archive present.
RAM22
+1
-
@RAM22:
Yes, it’s no good, no archive present.
RAM22
Same here.