Runway Textures
-
Sorry, I’m still not comprehending this.
A DDS is a flat raster file, am I correct?
So, if you design something in vector, save as DDS, altogether it is a raster (pixel) image.
OR, are you saying that DDS can contain actual vector data and this somehow eludes the stretching problem?
And are we talking about 1 flat DDS file here, or layers in BMS 3D world?
-
the result is one flat one layer dds file.
Now if I design the vector in 72 dpi and I create the arc for the taxiway it will be pixelated from the very start and when the dds compression comes in it will get worst. So doing it at 300dpi it is in it’s highest detail when it will be converted to photo with same 300dpi setting… then photoshop comes in and compresses it down to the 72dpi of the dds.
It has to do with the way Corel Draw works. Photoshop and photo prgrms or photoeditors don’t mind of it as they don’t work with vectors but with pixels only.
Another example if I zoom in 4000% in corel draw the arc is not pixelated. If u do this in Photoshop u see only pixels.
-
Right (just FYI I’ve been doing graphic design for 11 years Illustrator/Photoshp, and have printing experience, lol). I get the basics here but maybe not your method. I think this makes a little more sense, now in some way.
-
Why is it so hard to make new airbases from scratch? As I understand they are 3d objects? It must be fairly easy to draw for a 3d guy? Is it the darn AI that causing problems where to go on the base?
/F -
i wish nove would do those airbases of his for korea instead of a bug filled balkans
-
Why is it so hard to make new airbases from scratch? As I understand they are 3d objects? It must be fairly easy to draw for a 3d guy? Is it the darn AI that causing problems where to go on the base?
/Fthat’s the problem, most of you think that modding is easy. It is far from being easy when one had to make sure he doesn’t screw things up another dev will have to fix …
an airbase is not only a 3d model, it entails tile work, elevation work, terrain work, 3d objects, ai taxi path, parking spotrs, spawn points, eyecandy stuff, taxi signs, taxiway lines etc etc
it requires a huge team work effort.
One guy working alone on one aspect only will do nothing but screw things more or will end up with a poor effect (like all those airbases misaligned on non airbase tiles or on Google earth like tiles or stolen FSX scenario) on third party terrainDoing it the right way is difficult and requires time
-
Also another reason why 3ds MAX files are needed.
and here some in game shots:
Edit: lol those cracks will kill the tires…
And dark covers the errors:
-
This post is deleted! -
taxiway looks better than runway IMO.
could the RWY become any sharper?did any coder ever look into this stretching issue???
-
another thought:
don’t Russian airstrips often look like these concrete blocks? I would love some north korea highwaystrips / or even smaller airports like that taxiway.
-
well the stretching has nothing to do with code. its pure 3d gfx texture mapping, the reason 3ds max files should be available.
on the other one some airports are common on both sides so having the runway with blocks on one side doable but hmmm needs work on other areas and it is mp critical. Sure it is the correct way I’ve done it for Aegean for the shelters. -
well for the runway displayed above to have more detail needs higher resolution… even more then 4096x4096…
Here is an example in 4096:
As u see it could be better.
Also the FPS looks ok.lol my testing tiremarks are huge:
-
well the stretching has nothing to do with code. its pure 3d gfx texture mapping, the reason 3ds max files should be available.
on the other one some airports are common on both sides so having the runway with blocks on one side doable but hmmm needs work on other areas and it is mp critical. Sure it is the correct way I’ve done it for Aegean for the shelters.Could you elaborate what do you mean in the 2nd sentence?
And suggesting 4096x4096 size for the runway to see just less distorted surface detail is little not practical. That will not really solve the problem of perpendicular taxiways being not properly coordinated with those runway exits. This is where the main difficulty is and short of creating totally new undistorted textures and new remap all talk is rather empty.
Here we agree that for the above 3D models of airbases are needed. Is there any way to accomplish that? Can Falcon LOD file format be in any way exported to anything else?
-
Many of the airports on the database are common. So the same airport is used for North and South Korea. So u can’t have them with different textures.
U must duplicate the airport (Addcopy) alter it’s textures and declare it to te_new.tac and redo the Campaign files probably just the same way as in the te_new.tac
JanHas released HAS shelters for Greek and Turkey side. So I did the above and now (some) airports are per side different.Example in Korea.
Toskan Panghyon and Seosan are exactly the same
Shenyang Sachon Choongwon Sunch’on are exactly the same.In Aegean the same and for the different side.
In my opinion every Airbase should be different. If not the 3D the Textures at least.
About creating them in 3d and integrating them to Falcon well they are 95 (without carriers) It is way Huge project. Not to mention the 3d objects database file will get enormous.
Yes u can export from LOD to 3DS MAX and use the ruller from LE (never used it, I was told there is one) to make it the same size. But as Red Dog said it’s not just that…
-
Well Nove just makes it look to easy. they guy is dishing out a new airbase for balkans every week.
-
That will not really solve the problem of perpendicular taxiways being not properly coordinated with those runway exits. This is where the main difficulty is and short of creating totally new undistorted textures and new remap all talk is rather empty.
U talk about this:
or this:
don’t mind about the tarmac I’m still experimenting on materials…
Edit: hmmm this looks better:
This can be way easily solved Polak…
I have found some pdf’s about markings but as the default ones are ultra low I can’t really make it which is which…
I tried with GE but still Seosan markings on the spot ain’t clear.
Does anyone have any good reference or some links?I have also two yellow colors.
where is 33655 used and where is 33538?
Also the Red 31136?
Next question where is the Non-Movement Boundary Line used???
-
Here we agree that for the above 3D models of airbases are needed. Is there any way to accomplish that? Can Falcon LOD file format be in any way exported to anything else?
I disagree.
(re-)texmapping can also be done in LE. (see LE readme)
Cheers,
LS -
@Arty
Yellow colors are optional.
Non Movement Boundry line - maybe page 13 http://www.faa.gov/airports/runway_safety/media/ground_vehicle_guide_proof_final.pdf
This is FAA regulations for ground vehicles really, but other sources I found were local regulations and who knows how they are in comparison with RL military.
@LS
LE could be way to go as it is native to Falcon and no additional fuss. Thanks. -
@Phait,
I run comparison of your great 3 picture runway texture compilation with the list provided by MigBuster. I found only few textures of some importance missing from your compilation really. They are 49,192,342, 2328,2329. There are some textures on MB list which are of Carriers and they may be skipped , I think here.
Perhaps you would like to update your document, which can become quite handy for someone diving into this quite complex subject. Thanks for your work. -
About the stretching problem - during the OSAN Mod we encountered the same problem. Only way of fixing is remap the Model. AFAIK it could be done with the LODEditor or tolls like that, but for keeping such a high detail like posted here before, you would need more texture files which had to be added to the database. Different parts of the runway use different mapping sizes. For using the same sized textures for every runway part, you would have to remap the whole thing. Otherwise you are stuck with different sized textures for the runway (like seen before). Squeezing the texture is not an option because you would loose some detail. Not an easy decision where to go from here…