Guam Beta Release
-
Large problem solved……;)
demer
-
Demer, would you like sum up what you were trying to achieve, to those that halfway forgot (me) ?
I think it was about trying to get rid of the need for airbase textures (runways, taxiways) and have it all take place directly on the terrain textures, yes?
So this would solve the ‘runway tile stretching’ issue which arty is dealing with in the other (WIP - runway) thread in a way?
And also permit all directions for new runways, not being limited to the existing korea runway directions? -
Large problem solved……;)
demer
Is it my idea or that taxiway is way tooo big? and the F-18 looks so tiny? also the yellow taxiline is also tooo thick? what resolution are u working on m8? I would suggest using a vector program to draw the whole airport. underneath put the terrain tiles to mix them as u like and then cut them out to tiles of I would suggest 2048x2048 and they will be super. With a vector program u will be able to have the whole airport and do it in way less time and with few layers.
Layers
1. terrain
2. taxiway (tiled and all will be fine with one apply)
3. runway (tiled and all will be fine with one apply)
4. taxi markings (taxilines border lines)
5. runway markings
6. tiremarks dirt effects etc.all the above in reverse order to display correctly.
If u have some good photos of the airport could be used for reference to make it look the same only way crispier and clear and wow…If its way to big (In corel at least) u can convert it to bitmap (the whole airport) in way ultra extra high resolution and then cut it in half or 4 and then split them to smaller pieces… but how long can it be u will end up to what 6 tiles of 2048x2048?
I believe this would look way nice.
What I see I believe it diminishes your superb work. Your standards are way higher then this.
Well if u do some math even at 2048x2048 the detail can’t be that great… 2 pixels just for 1 meter long… it’s outch… going 4096 might get better but still it would be not that great… In my tests the runway is 10 parts where the total resolution for length is 12288 pixels by 4096 (some areas 2048 ) wide… so u get the picture… in your case those measurements are squared and not for the area of the runway but 1km wide. It might look ok at 10.000+ feet but can’t look ok at 0 feet.
this is a quick 5 minutes done test:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/ohawlwa4l84mc/diafora#2l7jnxoo5a1ub4s
zoom in at 1 taxiway block which is about the size of an F-16 and u will see what I mean… the source resolution was 6000x6000… u could overcome it by not using blocks… sure but look at the taxi line. -
Yes Arty we can……but the cost is higher than the return. Even 12 4096x4096@300ppi tiles\images hits FPS pretty hard in DX\Falcon.
So we compromise on the “eye candy” a bit to get to the REAL concept.
That concept, Livrot has correct.
I’ll give an example:
So we can see that we are able to build custom airbases outside of the Falcon box
As far as ROTA taxiway being too long, remember what I stated. Falcon PHD\PD data allows only one way traffic per PHD. We\AI enter and exit the runway via the take runway points.
On that Point these are the 23 runway headings (shows 46, but we need the opposite as well ) we can have in Falcon:46 Textures 0 723 1 724 2 724 3 724 4 725 5 726 6 727 7 728 8 729 9 730 10 731 11 724 12 724 13 732 14 724 15 724 16 733 17 734 18 724 19 735 20 736 21 735 22 724 23 737 24 738 25 737 26 739 27 740 28 741 29 742 30 743 31 724 32 724 33 744 34 724 35 724 36 745 37 746 38 724 39 724 40 724 41 724 42 724 43 724 44 724 45 724
I could go deeper, but we would just get confused again……sigh
demer
-
wow …still working on this Guam? Nice.
-
The point I believe is to go forward not back… what I see is more back then the stock runway taxiway.
Well taxiways can be bidirectional if u add the points and set them up but this might take bazinca the ATO code…
What does this have to do with your taxiways being thick and not long?
Things are advancing in sw and hw the point is to take advantage of those in the future. For the FPS hit u say, soon on vga the standard will be 2+ GB so your FPS hit will be long gone… latest example the Jan has shelters and F-16 models where u have a mix of high 3d and textures I don’t see ppl saying they r a nogo… with medium hw specs u r ok. Unless we r building for previous generations… then I should ask for a BMS version for my ZX Spectrum + on a 45’ tape. Which tape with resent announcements can store the whole planet in super extra detail… lol
-
I am going to show in these pix that we are NOT going backwards. I have added a stock BMS\Falcon runway feature to Rota for comparison of 2D terrain texture vs. 3D model and texture.
Do we get the Picture now???..…Sigh.
I have rendered the 2D image in the past to the extreme and the result was it looked great at 13FPS……(then wait 1 second and here’s the next)…LOL!!!
We are at a reasonable compromise ATM I believe.demer
-
looks absolutely cool, not say awesome
Itsnamazing, how many People are integrated to the Heart of BMS, the DEVS and MODDERS! Thank you
-
demer u r comparing 512x512 tile thus 1pixel=2meters to what?
If u want to state that u advance then compare with Kimpo… Those 512 textures must be from SP4 era.
Your Guam tiles have superb detail level… but on this aspect they r not that high as the rest… I tell u again u diminish your work with it.
On the runway tarmac u have an effect (bump ? ) , I don’t know what, that makes it look like the runway is full of blisters. On the resolution I see looks like u don’t have the luxury to use such effects. Maybe if the area was one color with some dots that would represent some noise would be better… the old runway looks better IMO. The lines on your new approach are clearer less pixelazation but still blurred. Sure those r better if this is what u mean, but the taxiway line is thick like the runway border line. and my question is can u make it thinner? if it’s one pixel wide on a 1024x1024 resolution it would be 1 metter wide… if it’s 2048x2048 and it’s 1 pixel wide then it would be half a meter wide which still is too wide… if u r on 4096x4096 then hmmm…About the FPS and your approach well with 8192x8192 textures (Fxxxxxx detail) for the objects u will not have such an impact. So what is better u think? From my perspective with working on the runways those last days (yeap newb here… :lol: ) with 8x more resolution on the runway and 4x on the taxiways the impact is zero on my pc.
With your approach u gain speed and easiness for developing mostly I would say. U just have to work on what? 4 to 8 files max. for the whole airport.
-
Arty,
There are some changes coming in the future based on the original AAFB proof of concept work.
You are correct that this approach gains me developing speed, but that is not the only endpoint for us
I will post a short vid soon of some other things we are now able to do.demer
-
Sigh,again not for the feint hearted:
Not all runways in real life are exactly level, watch in full screen
try that with your runway features and objectives in Falcon……BAWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA…good luck…
Get in, sit down and shut up…LOL!!!
Peace out,
gettn’ tired
demer -
u can demer just ppl are bored and alligning both is hard.
And since u want competition :lol: can u simulate going off the taxiway - runway resulting to damaged- destroyed aircraft? Well u can’t -
Cinched up and ready, you “insane idiot”.
Vags
-
Hehehe, nice Dave.
I actually flew out of Guam a few times and that dip in the runway is something else. If you weren’t paying attention it was easy to really smack it in because you’d think you had more room to flare than you actually did. Not that I ever did that, of course.
-
u can demer just ppl are bored and alligning both is hard.
And since u want competition :lol: can u simulate going off the taxiway - runway resulting to damaged- destroyed aircraft? Well u can’tWell maybe U can’t, but I can:
I as “Joe Pilot” would not try to “Cross the Line” in GUAM Beta……not pretty…LOL!!!
I have explained this B4, but will again…SIGH.
I’ll try pictures this time.We can see in the first pic that I have defined a water area on the tile……in the second pic we can see two things. First the tile is in a Plains Type Set but because of the water area drawn on it we can not cross the line, lest we explode……Second pic we can see that the area we drew is expanded a bit and touches the line. Tool problem. We need to be careful how close we draw the circle…;)
We have used this in the past to deny or slow down GU movement over the tiles. Works the same for AC when they are on the ground.
There’s more to it, but it is beyond the scope of this post.
NO competition ARTY, just hope I can educate you\us so your work is greater.tired demer
P.S. @ Vags…insane in the left brain…LOL!!!
-
yeap demer u r right I forgot the Areas part… :lol:
-
Demer how can we fly this theater???
-
Demer how can we fly this theater???
demer
-
Well maybe U can’t, but I can:
tired demer
Damn, Dave you still use the korean airports names…
Move your a** and use the Hotfix to avoid them as also to can have working NavAids :p.
Nikos. -
Damn, Dave you still use the korean airports names…
Move your a** and use the Hotfix to avoid them as also to can have working NavAids :p.
Nikos.LOL……I’ll get to that in a few weeks!!!
Also you will have to redo them all B4 BETA is released…ROTFLMAO!!!
Sorry M8, lucky there are only 12 Airbases now!!!..…HAHAHAHA!!!
Something is coming from BMS…
We need to wait for it.TIA,
Dave