Tomcatz ShipYard
-
…
…
…
… 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.
-
I tracking your work from the beginning.Is amazing, But I support all voices that this is art for art.I and most do not need another dcs With SHITTY :eek: engine, where each patch DRAMATICALLY increases the requirements.I prefer to play on an older computer, with worse graphics.BMS enigne is amazing, and has low system requirements.Glory for the developers for this amazing engine.
-
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:
Well … I know … but what can we do against that!?..
-
@Tom:
I`m on the point that BMS should go into the future.
… yes … but your way is not the right one. Believe it. BMS team is working since years and I think we can say that they are quite specialists of the question.
Having better model with higher poly, yes! Of course, but balance with other future on going project. Not only future higher poly models will request more resources!.. and lover about LODs vo course they are still needed, even in the future, and even more than before because is is quite stupid to wast resources for an object that you even can’t see at far distance. Those wasted resources could be used for something else (buildings & city, terrain model, air traffic and ATC, comms, FGX, AI, dynamic campaign etc …)
Think about that… The quality of a sim (or any game) is not just quality (number of poly) of their 3d models. ENVERYTHING is a question of balance and compromises. The best will be the one who will find the best balance and compromises.
-
Your models are pretty amazing Tom - so many thanks for going to the effort.
@Tom:
With the new engine, the shaders the particle systems- How old is the hardware a normally BMS user still use nowadays?!
Would be valid if Intel et al kept increasing the single core CPU speeds and we were now using 16Ghz CPUs for example.
But to use multicore CPUs properly and optimize the FPS for modern systems I suspect there needs a few codes changes here and there.
-
Tom,
Your models are fantastic, but I think you totally miss the meaning of the word “LOD”.
LOD is Level Of Detail.
In Falcon, you need different LODs for each model. That’s it.PS : Even LockOn uses LODs
-
Hmmm old saying…
When Mohammed doesn’t go to the mountain the mountain goes to the Mohammed…
Also jumping on it…
Carriers are far away from the FLOT most of the times… Kimpo could someone tell us how many poly count’s does it have??? Compared this to this SUPERB Carrier Model than Tom Catz Model is just a play…
So no need to go ballistic on Naval units poly count… 50k I believe are fine… unless u put this master piece parked at Kimpo…
If u could Tom Catz and can spare the time please Park it on Kimpo as a vehicle or as a building (easier) and fire up a Campaign and see how it goes FPS wise… and then tell them the results… tststs
-
Tom,
Your models are fantastic, but I think you totally miss the meaning of the word “LOD”.
LOD is Level Of Detail.
In Falcon, you need different LODs for each model. That’s it.PS : Even LockOn uses LODs
Good point Buzzz! I didn’t thought about the fact that Tom could not be aware about different LODs sequencing…!