Tomcatz ShipYard
-
I’ve make some test with my Q9550 and got little FPS more, very few, when CPU was used as for 1.
But still using XP.
G -
@Joe:
Do not lose hope.
Yes Detail level is superb… loose the hope…
I don’t believe it will be ever implemented again.
Let’s face it jents… we are here for the Graphics or the Simulation?
Yes we want both. But we try to simulate - build - contribute to the impossible…War machine or Campaign Engine is a don’t touch for us… So that doesn’t leave us (them - the dev’s) with many options.
One of the reasons why instead of one by one building as real in FBB we go for something in the middle.
-
-
Adding a new LOD to a parent is a very basic task in LE.
As Buzzz said.
In LE:
- ACTION:APPEND MODEL
- Select your LOD4.lod.
- Make note of the new LOD number that LE assigns.
- Repeat that action for any other LODs you may need making note of the new numbers.
- Then under the parent of Carrier, place the new appended models into their slots.
- Hit update and you should be good to go.
-
Adding a new LOD to a parent is a very basic task in LE.
Roger.
But I have almos 0 LE skill, my suggestion was only an “emergency” scenario.
-
GJ!
I love the Deck operations~
-
Hi there
@Joe:
But just in finding that balance, perhaps, might be sought an alternative to L2, but without using L0.
For example, using L1 to topographic resolution, could be sufficient to improve quality and maintain that balance.
A example L2 vs L0…
Are there tests done about it? Do you really not possible?
What is the real decrease in frames per second of throughput measured in percent, in current computers?Do not lose hope.
Well… believe me we know EXACTLY what is the price we pay in terrain details for using L2 instead of something with higher resolution… if you remember the BazT and SRTM days then you probably remember who is the guy behind them, well that is the same guy behind the BMS GFX engine
I asked about it once and the answer was that FPS will take a steep dive, so bummer but that’s the best we can have with current engine and without changing terrain LODs. I’m sure you remember the days when Falcon used terrain LODs, and I’m sure you know that BMS doesn’t do those transitions, so the price is that we use L2 all the time.
What Falcon really need is a new terrain engine, I believe everyone agree about that
-
What Falcon really need is a new terrain engine, I believe everyone agree about that
And what exactly is your projected date to have this finished. :lol:
RAM22
-
Hm… Ships?
I start to upload the files now- Just some minutes…
EDIT: Here it is:
http://rapidshare.com/files/1441872534/Tomcatz-Ships.zipClick to “Datei downloaden” , please (Datei is the German word for file)
-
@Tom:
Hm… Ships?
Eh’ Tom, … no dancing tonight?
Cheers,
LS -
:drink:Will start making party at 10o`clock pm - Ihaaa:headb:
-
Roger.
But I have almos 0 LE skill, my suggestion was only an “emergency” scenario.
Then you’re forgiven
-
@Tom:
Hm… Ships?
I start to upload the files now- Just some minutes…
EDIT: Here it is:
http://rapidshare.com/files/1441872534/Tomcatz-Ships.zipClick to “Datei downloaden” , please (Datei is the German word for file)
That looks really great. If you make the effort to follow the modeling rules as you have done with the carrier lower LODs, all these could be included in the official build.
Wouldn’t that be great to have these beauties without making a voodoo dance? -
Tom,
I just wanted to say thank you for actually doing the lower LOD versions and whatnot for your models. We’d all love to see them in the default BMS installation for everyone, and making these extra LODs is one of the things the devs need to do so!
THANK YOU!!
-Wizard
-
Tom, thank you for everything you done!!! This is great stuff!!!
-
This post is deleted! -
I think, in the end, if the BMS boy’z were to convert to DXM, then these issue’s would be moot.
LaDeeDa….LaDeeDa…!!!
Run’s and hide’s :mrgreen:
tired demer
(BTW your resistance to move a year ago was understood pending the release. I think you should have Carte Blanche now??)
-
This post is deleted! -
About having many LOD’s may I ask and comment here…
Browsing at the database I see many many LOD’s in distances where u can’t see nothing. So why have them there?
Also according to the above let’s say a Carrier is seen how far? 10 km’s or 20 with good clear weather conditions? I will go 15Km as an average that’s 9.3 miles and 49212ft. In the database in many cases u see LOD2 kicking in at 50000 or more often 100000 and above… u can’t see shit from this distance… not a vehicle or a building.
50000ft=15km or 9NM
100000ft=30km or 18-19NM
So having such values I believe it makes it heavier for the engine cause it tries to render something that will be like a needle’s nose. Needless to say it’s pointless.What is not there is when the model stops being viewable. Where we can define this?
Also why not have a LOD1 and maybe a second one LOD2 and then nothing else… cause the model is out of view.Also has anyone measured the impact of loading those differences? like the textures?
Dev’s say the textures must remain the same for every LOD level cause loading different has impact on the FPS. Why reloading and redrawing the 3D object ain’t also changing the 3D model doesn’t reload the textures? even if they are the same?About the models and LOD’s
First establish a rule based on what…Size and viewability. This rule doesn’t exist so every one does whatever likes thus LOD’s with above 100000ft for a bucket.
Then there can be a rule for the LOD’s.
Again this could be a 2 way rule.
Size and complexity.
Size is easy to understand and create a scale.
Complexity like polygon’s and how many shadows it creates.
Ok polygon’s are easy to count… Shadows??? are u crazy?
Yes I am.
I believe if u put a model that creates lot’s of shadows… like a tree (not as in falcon trees but complex real model with branches and leaves) only one tree can kill the FPS… why except the poly’s, the engine has to draw the shadows too so double work… obvious you’d say…
How did I came to the conclusion? putting on the scene a building with more poly’s than a tree model had normal FPS putting a single tree with less poly’s then the building killed the FPS down to a single number.
The same applies to all our models. So a carrier that has lot’s of stuff hanging out of the main body of the model sure makes lot’s of shadows…I also believe that cutting the bottom of the models has the same effect… why? cutting the bottom tells the engine to draw a shadow inside the model base. If not then the shadow is only on the outside??? Not very sure on this, but I see the shadow inside the building on the ground.
Also strange: the shadow doesn’t end on the terrain. If u have elevated terrain and go under it the shadow of the model - object is shown under the terrain also. I don’t know if this is a bug and the shadow is calculated two times… thus eats more FPS.
So my conclusion is that only the poly’s rule and a simple not defined rule for LOD’s isn’t enough for the job.
Now the BMS team is responsible to establish those rules I believe and we have to follow them and respect them. -
Can someone briefly explain how to install? I guess the .dds go in textures folder, but what about the lod files?