Tomcatz ShipYard
-
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…!
-
50k I believe are fine… unless u put this master piece parked at Kimpo…
50k of his carrier model only is not the question nor the real “problem”…. I’m quite sure that if Tom would create different LODs for the same carrier, we could certainly include it.
But not 50k for carrier + 50k * 2 for escorting cruiser, + 50k * 2 for following tankers + 50k * 4 for aircraft on carrier’s deck … etc… whatever the distance is…
-
50k of his carrier model only is not the question nor the real “problem”…. I’m quite sure that if Tom would create different LODs for the same carrier, we could certainly include it.
But not 50k for carrier + 50k * 2 for escorting cruiser, + 50k * 2 for following tankers + 50k * 4 for aircraft on carrier’s deck … etc… whatever the distance is…
Still Kimpo (with 5 flights on the ground and others around) which is near the FLOT is heavier… and I’m sure except the Carrier the others all together are just another 50k
Also what has heavier impact? polys or bubble deaggregate values and hit boxes? (all together yes I know… but which is causing the peak???)
-
Kimpo = MANY objects (Kunsan is 1200 objects) … The terminal is 30k poly in LOD 0, … BUT … Kimpo (and Kunsan) does include 4 distance LODs for EACH objects. Furthermore … most of objects has its own damaged model and each damaged model has 4 distance LODs.
So … please, do not compare Tom’s Carrier (on it current status) and Kimpo.
-
-
Also what has heavier impact? polys or bubble deaggregate values and hit boxes? (all together yes I know… but which is causing the peak???)
Sure deaggregation values decide if an object become alive so of course its related to poly count and LOD levels, think this carrier deaggregation distance is say 70NM (I don’t know real value but I bet its at least that), then this 50K model is kicking when you are 70NM from the carrier! now I ask what is the problem to make say 4 lower LODs with say 8/4/2K polys with last one as just a square? so this way you have 8K poly model for while in the distance and full nice carrier when close enough to it… is it so hard to invest that little time to create lower LODs?? I mean compared to the time it takes to make the high LOD model itself?
From my experience, many objects in bubble, especially living objects like ACs (most demanding, well makes sense) and GUs cause the most serious FPS drop in the sim, and that’s because the code is loading much more than just a simple 2D object… for example at deagg moment every 4-ship become from single 2D brain to 4 3D sim aware brains with all processing done in RT, many of those every frame (think FMs, avionics modes - even for AI, SMS code, FCC code, weapons, trails and heat effects, GFX model + textures etc etc…)
-
Just few poly values about Kimpo building…
For the Principal Domestic Terminal. (Normal model)
LOD0 = 4400
LOD1 = 3900
LOD2 = 2100
LOD3 = 1300For the Secondary Domestic Terminal. (Normal model)
LOD0 = 780
LOD1 = 600
LOD2 = 243
LOD3 = no LOD3For the Secondary Domestic Terminal. (Damaged model)
LOD0 = 780
LOD1 = 600
LOD2 = 243
LOD3 = no LOD3For the Secondary Domestic Terminal. (Destroyed model)
LOD0 = 1800
LOD1 = 1200
LOD2 = 560
LOD3 = no LOD3…
Tis is the right way top work … This is of course much more difficult and demanding than doing a single high ploy model.
-
Hi Tom,
@Tom:
Yes- That should be all the truth but I`m on the point that BMS should go into the future.
first point, don’t take all the posts as criticisms only!
Why so many BMS guys writing here is because (at least for me) you have some beautiful models which could fit in BMS nicely if they just can come close to the specs given.ATM we’re not at a state where we can include 50k poly models for every vehicle, ship, AC, etc.
Maybe in future this will be different, just ATM if you want to have your stuff included in BMS you have to go lower poly models.Again, so many posts here because we’re concerned and want to help you build models for the given specs!!!
Cheers
Biker -