Tomcatz ShipYard
-
Why not erase the old lods - textures? and use only new - current?
Because you still NEED them?? looking at the carrier from 5K feet shouldn’t be a 52K poly model but more like 5K…
-
Hi,
the look is very nice, the frames are stabil and good and dthe overall look is much better if you want to land on the carrier.
Polycount is not important- The workload for the grafic card is much more important.
I use a 2048x2048 texture for the hole carrier. After a long time I was able to manage the export problems with textures which uses alpha sources. Some day I realized that I still have to use only one texture but I could use these texture with different materials and material settings. So I have one texture but a lot of effects. And now I have reelings, antennas, cables and big painted areas…
Cheers,
Tom -
Hi Tom,
@Tom:
Hi,
the look is very nice, the frames are stabil and good and dthe overall look is much better if you want to land on the carrier.
maybe this is true for you, but our goal is to get the sim running smooth for people with some older HW also…
So you’re building nice models, but unfortunately no way for them (with such high poly count) to go into BMS db.Cheers
Biker -
Polycount is not important- The workload for the grafic card is much more important.
You say this. I tried your SAM stuff and FPS was halved on my rig. So as long as possible pls. spare with polys and create lower LODs or your work is pointless. Most of useres never will enjoy your HQ models because cannot be integrated… Or even anyone try to put into 3rd party DB many players HW are not able deal with too many polys.
-
Hi JP,
Mmhhhh i Would prefer from LOD as ramp is not
Linear .Any idea ?
in RV I did hijack the slot data (they have x, y, z coordinates) to generate deag positions on carriers.
Maybe we can use a similar approach (new type) then also we can get rid of bounding box usage.Cheers
Biker -
Hi JP,
in RV I did hijack the slot data (they have x, y, z coordinates) to generate deag positions on carriers.
Maybe we can use a similar approach (new type) then also we can get rid of bounding box usage.Cheers
BikerI hacked data as well for catapult and arrester positions. However I need real z posit on the LOD because ramp is not linear at all
-
@Tom:
Polycount is not important- The workload for the grafic card is much more important.
The work load comes form many things, poly count and also the vertex count. There are many things which cause the graphics card to have more work e.g. shading breaks, DOF, switches etc.
One the to also remember is that if we let everyone make models like this then it will start to be a problem. Try not to be greedy with your poly counts as there are many other that want to use or create high poly models. Think about the user that has installed all of these new high poly unoptimised models.
Regards
Dave -
…
…
…
… I … dont know what kind of problem there is. Better models (more accurate models) needs more polygones. If you wont accept that fact I should stop my efforts now and you can still land on that painted box what is called "Carrier. I really do not understand it- I wont!
Cheers -
You simply do not want to accpect the requirements of a game. Not BMS Team, nobody will accept a stuff which have only most detailed LOD. Only supercomputers will accept this polycount. So as long as your aspect won’t change your work should be treated as an art, but not pratical application. I have seen people who made 2M poly models just for fun as an art, they never wished to intagrate any game. But if you wish…
In short +1000 thanks from users for a big nothing and some nice screenshot. Sad.
-
Better models need more polygons but it doesn’t mean they have to have EXPLODING poly count! Look at Hayeb models… 4K tris (not polys!) for great quality ground units or 15-20K tris for a nice AC model. Look at the AN-24, how nice it is with sane tris count, lower LODs, matching textures etc, so it can be standard in BMS DB and stay there forever for EVERYONE to use without the need to manually install models/textures, worry about unoptimized models and lower LODs etc…
You have decided to work that way and I respect your choice but I don’t see the logic in it. I guess you do like the sim and you do care about people using your models so think this way:
1. You make models like now - Your models stay always some 3rd party work, after long time (when maybe you will not be around anymore or stop making models, or stop caring, it does happen…) your 3rd party work stays hovering around forever, like tons of old times models and skins that no one ever use anymore because its forgotten, disappeared with the years and mostly the DB changes that people have to do manually… its forgotten.
2. You make correct models with sane tris count, lower LODs etc and your models go into BMS DB and they sale with the DB forever… for years, not one will forget them because they will always be in there, for all theaters, all DB changes etc… and even if in the future the GFX engine will change to allow more poly count to be rendered easily, they will be replaced only when better models are introduced. You can always send your high poly work for BMS to keep for maybe someday when GFX engine and HW will be good enough to handle it in Falcon.
I know its sounds dramatic but this is reality of what happen through the years… your choice.
Cheers!
-
Give up guys and let Tom build the models he wants… Tom do not want to (or can’t ?) understand “why” all those recommendations from Dev team. Let him do his HP models and let the people enjoy the time they can … finally, let models be unusable in one years or more. (:()
Tom is building beautiful hight ploy models, but that is not the most difficult… I do prefer focus on what can brings us a durable evolution… Hayab’s models.
-
I dont know why I have to run against walls here.
I thought I can do something for the BMS community but I wont discuss the same points ever and ever again. I
ll stop my efforts and molnibalage can be happy. Some people are very fast to criticize other peoples work while doing simply nothing for the community. I
m so bored about these poeple. However: I have position and I wont go in any direction - So this is what Iam.
So thanks for the support- be happy- and out -
I dont know why I have to run against walls here.
You don’t have to Tom … Do what you want… or what make youn happy!
It is YOUR work, YOUR time, YOUR choice.
Nobody is judging you. They are just sad to see all this work wasted in a long term.
-
Tom,
I don’t work on BMS. I’m not a dev, modeler, or anything related to BMS other than a pilot.
What they are saying, is that they WANT to use your work. They WANT to have it be something that can go into the default BMS installation for EVERYONE to use.
However, you insist on only creating max LOD versions. They absolutely WILL NOT put that into BMS, because they also want the sim to still WORK for people who have lower-end hardware.
Thus, your work will be forgotten and ignored, because the only way to get your models into the game without it being included in the BMS install files, is to manually edit LODs and whatnot.
Prime example: I refuse to do LOD editing of my database. Thus, despite the fact I want to use your models, I refuse to do so. I’ve seen the performance impact they have, and I refuse to go through the effort involved to install them after each and every BMS patch. Therefore, your work is completely wasted on people like me. I assure you that I’m not alone in this.
So you can do what they’ve asked, and make lower-LOD versions as well, and your work can be an integrated part of future BMS releases for EVERYONE to enjoy, or you can continue to do things as you have been, and virtually nobody will care because only 2% of the flying BMS pilots will bother to go through the hassle of installing them.
Thanks for the screenshots of what BMS could look like.
No thanks for refusing to actually do what’s necessary for this to be integrated into BMS for everyone.
-
You don’t have to Tom … Do what you want… or what make youn happy!
It is YOUR work, YOUR time, YOUR choice.
Nobody is judging you. They are just sad to see all this work wasted in a long term.
No its not only that… the models are spreaded around, folks are using them, then people are reporting low FPS or worse, bugs or CTDs, who knows… it takes a LOT of time for DB guys to adjust the DB, the LODs transitions, for balanced performance, but it takes just a few “bad” model with only single LOD (and some not really accurate per RL shape BTW…), no animations etc to ruin that balance… and break many things in bad case or just cause VERY low FPS in the better one…
Speak about talking to walls :mrgreen:
-
However, you insist on only creating max LOD versions. They absolutely WILL NOT put that into BMS, because they also want the sim to still WORK for people who have lower-end hardware.
No… The problem isn’t only lower-end systems, its about breaking the balance… careful balance that we try to save in order to keep this sim with sane performance even though there is an entire war running around you… this isn’t like other games/sims with scripted missions which everything is predictable but with Dynamic campaign the balance is very important or your FPS might be gone down the drain, even with high-end system!
Why we keep using only L2 terrain resolution and not L0?? why some PS effects are pretty “light” yet compared to RL? why good modelers are giving up many polys in order to keep sane count? of course I would like a 200K poly for all models but then we will have a slideshow…
-
Yes- That should be all the truth but I
m on the point that BMS should go into the future. The carriers and ships are absolutly useable. I
m curious how people can talk about frame rates while the only person who still use the model is myself. However -With the new engine, the shaders the particle systems- How old is the hardware a normally BMS user still use nowadays?!
And when this is “balance keeping” you did something wrong the last 10 years!
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
-
I did not ask to stop you. I ask just made the final step to make them usable…
-
And when this is “balance keeping” you did something wrong the last 10 years!
You simply do not understand Falcon. You even do not understand why is looking the CV on your sceernshot as doing. What you showed is about a 10 year old model. This is not the capability of engine, simply in the last 10+ year nobody made and integrated a new ship into DB.
Do you want an good example….? Just check how looked the F-16C 3D model and the pit 10+ years ago. Are you done? Ok. Now check BMS4 3D model, skin and 3D pit. Now, have you got it? Do you undersant now what means balance keeping…? You just simply do not recognize the limits of engine and the limits of resources to update all 3D models…
Your most detailed LOD is good. But we need other, less detailed LOD to keep functionality of the sim. So hard to understand? Balace keeping means that you have to scale everything not just dumping stuff into DB. This is what LOMAC/DCS did, just check the result…
You likely know, that I also can list issues which I don’t like or accept from dev team around modeling, but I tried to adapt, this is why I started the “suggestion thread”.
-
@Tom:
Yes- That should be all the truth but I
m on the point that BMS should go into the future. The carriers and ships are absolutly useable. I
m curious how people can talk about frame rates while the only person who still use the model is myself. However -With the new engine, the shaders the particle systems- How old is the hardware a normally BMS user still use nowadays?!
And when this is “balance keeping” you did something wrong the last 10 years!
With all the respect buddy… you maybe want to push BMS into the future… but you make models, you aren’t a GFX expert so you don’t have that authority… and you are making fast conclusions on how models affects game play… and I say again, this isn’t about low-end systems! I have a pretty strong one but yet I can cripple it in 5 seconds by creating one PS effect that is overloading… if the people who wrote and manage this GFX engine tell you what is too high, then I would assume they WELL know what they are talking about…
Models MUST and will upgrade, but it must be done in the right way… why you choose to go that path escapes my understanding but maybe its because your models were made for other sim/game and you just borrow it to Falcon without the will to invest the time and work that is necessary to bring a model up to standards. I would appreciate if you would have kept the models and suggested them as development work for some others to bring to standards if they like, but releasing them unfinished like this, like the ORPHANS they are, this is simply not right.