Redflag RP5 V5.0 Preview
-
First Molni from 1000 to 100 will be 10 times better not 100 times.
Ok, it is not 100 times better but also not only 10 times… Surafce is a 3D object which defined by mesh. The 1000 m base terrain is defined by 4 points. How many nodes we have with same size of terrain with 100 m node distances? Not only 10 times more…
I never asked bigger bubble size.
-
It will load 10x4=400 times more tiles (or 10x3 in some cases), and the problem ain’t on the GPU’s yeap GPU’s can cope (maybe?)
Hehe… NO
If one keeps the L2 textures (1000m x 1000m) and only changes the elevation to 10m resolution (instead of 1000m) … you ARE NOT LOADING MORE TEXTURES OR TILES into the memory.
That is the whole trick
Instead of looking like this (examples):
it will look more like this:
WITH THE SAME 1000m x 1000m tiles (textures) over it. And we still don´t use fartiles (no need) to safe FPS.
We still keep same tiles (and numbers and size of them) and only change the “fabric” under them.
And as result we can built stuff like this:
with the SAME 1000m x 1000m photorealistic tiles from goolge-map ie. We already use partially photorealistic tiles in some theaters (its just a picture).
Increasing the mesh resolution will definitly not have much of an impact on FPS. But if one would use ONE tile for EACH NEW elevation area…than yes…it would kill FPS, but that is not the idea.
I hope its understandable what solution i am talking about. -
Ok now it’s better to understand it… hmm looks like a nice idea… Don’t know if those two are connected in some way mesh detail and tiles number per area.
Still the CPU-GPU load will increase 10 times… and u save from the whole process the loading of the tiles… the 3d calculations will increase but as u say today vga’s I’m sure will be ok with it. -
I always wondered what prevents rewrite the code of terrain.
mmm… how about the most expensive resource?
-
today vga’s I’m sure will be ok with it.
EASILY. Just fly Warthunder or try FSX with tileproxy and check your FPS. No problem at all.
-
This remenber me to Joint Strike Fighter 3D terrain mesh.
-
mmm… how about the most expensive resource?
Manpower on dev side or CPU? Too many people simply reject the Falcon because mostly of very outdated terrain. As I see the first line 3D models are acceptable even “eye candy guys” the terrain is simply too low detailed comparing to today’s usual level.
We still keep same tiles (and numbers and size of them) and only change the “fabric” under them.
Yes, I think about the same. I do not know what perevents applying this method.
-
Manpower on dev side or CPU?
Actually I meant time, but yes you can translate it to manpower.
Too many people simply reject the Falcon because mostly of very outdated terrain. As I see the first line 3D models are acceptable even “eye candy guys” the terrain is simply too low detailed comparing to today’s usual level.
Agree, but creating a terrain engine for a computer game isn’t the same as creating a 3D model or coding most other stuff. That’s why its called engine, because it’s not only a small feature, it’s something that has effect on the entire sim.
I wish there was someone with time and ability to do it, but until that happen, we will keep using what we have now.
-
it’s like the polys in a 3d model… more or less…
-
I wish there was someone with time and ability to do it, but until that happen, we will keep using what we have now.
Community is big with alot of talents… just keep a door open…and you never know you might come in
-
@A.S:
Community is big with alot of talents… just keep a door open…and you never know you might come in
Our door is open. And don’t think we are not getting joining requests from people, but it’s not enough to know c++ or having some ideas. If someone wants to join and can contribute really, the RV abandoned code is still floating somewhere… and in many many areas it’s same or similar to what’s in BMS…
-
This post is deleted! -
If I may add something to this discussion, I think, we have not yet entirely explored all there is to full visual potential of existing Falcon tiled terrain engine. What I mean here is to move more aggressively towards trying to populate terrain with 3D elements using existing and available tools and methods like Terrain Editor and BMS Editor, etc.
I admit, this also requires quite extensive manpower, but this could be perhaps accomplished (or at least better explored), by encouraging other members of this community to dive into using these tools for their own fun. Having said this, I realize that introduction of new 3D elements requires rather complex and tedious edits to DB, which is tricky and needs to be carefully coordinated. There is issue of leveled positioning of the objects related to L2 height model (discussed in depth above), and last but not the least, we still are limited to 4096 tiles.
Those are unfortunately impediments, but venturing into unexplored waters of the “new terrain engine” could be also pretty risky time and resource investment.
As an example of unfortunate failure of new terrain engine to make significant progress or change, I would point to Strike Fighters Project 1/2 and then SFP2 North Atlantic by Third Wire. The first was “traditional” tiled engine on height mesh, but with pretty robust and intuitive tools to add 3D elements. The second entirely new concept of 3dsMax sculpted terrain with various texturing and 3D elements that could be added on top of that. From whatever reason that 1st method produced rather significant number of various successful and pretty looking terrain mods, in the the 2nd the opposite was rather the truth.
I do not know all the details and neither I am aware of true current status of it, but i was active member of terrain modding community for SFP1, where I knew and truly enjoyed the process and tools Then I left elsewhere, but often just read the opinions and comments about new engine by people I knew on their forum. It was my understanding, that 2nd version of terrain just did not excited grass roots of community and eventually Third Wire has been moving from PC to tablets, or even the consoles virtually shutting the lights off on the Project.
So it is also my opinion to be rather conservative and just try to improve and explore further, what is already available and working. My 2c.
-
So it is also my opinion to be rather conservative and just try to improve and explore further, what is already available and working. My 2c.
Agree!
I have looked into this matter also deeper back in days. By doing so i have experimented with tools like:
- Wold Machine Professional
- Ultimate Map Downlaoder
- Tiled
- Terragen 2/3
- SBuilder
- Map Tiler Google
- Gobal Mapper
- FSEarth Tiles
- FeatureMaker (Cate add-on)
- AVISMap
- QGIS
- ArcGIS
and came to the conclusion, that the creation of new individual terrain (even with tools allowing efficient working) is the wrong path. Why? Because every data required such as textures or elevations are already realistically stored by someone and available on the net one or the other way.
Tileproxy (used in FSX) is an excellent EXAMPLE how easily* and quickly that data can be implemented into a sim. All what Tileproxy does is connecting to a defined satelite-service and downlaods and implements the REAL TEXTURES AND REAL ELEVATION ON THE FLY into your sim (good i-net required). It can cut the tiles on its own in the right sizes, cache and load them. Same with elevation data or the “fabrik”, and the results are amazing. Gentlemen, i repeat…it does it in REALTIME and FPS is not “dead” at all. In BMS we can even expect better FPS results, because BMS only needs L2 textures…whereas FSX goes from L0 to L20 (i think) … similar to what fartiles does. But fartiles (as we found out) we don´t need anyways.
I ask myself, if a simple tool can produce such results in real-time or on the fly, why should it not be possible to store that data (as tileproxy caches only - unless hacked) and create a theater from it? Till here everything is possible … THE PROBLEM is the implementation in the right format into BMS. The limitations of Only 1000m mesh & Only 4096 Tiles… is what “kills” any approach in that direction. Simple as that. Thats it.
We dont need a new gfx engine, all we need is a tweak in the current one, so we can use 10m mesh and more unique tiles. ONLY that tweak alone (if doable…and i believe it should be) is all we need to produce REAL OMG FTW TERRAIN.
Once that acheived, even REAL objectives and ROADS and RIVERS can be implemented/imported with other available tools or sources (like ArcGis). We would probably have to look for (or create) correct format-conversions or -tools, but thats a minor obstacle.
What we need is someone able to open the code… look at the structure and see if tweaks can be made in that direction without corrupting the functionality of the campaign-engine or ground- or air-tasking-manager …etc …so the units understand the new environment properly.
That is really all we would require. I hope this post is inspirational for any BMS Dev out there …who is able to “read” that part of the code.
If words can´t inspire…maybe pictures can … (what we are looking at in the video is a tool, downlaoding elevations from google-maps (or other source) … and getting the textures from the same source while “plastering” those of the produced elevation grid - in real time)
Note: satelite-service textures are often copyright protected, but one can also purchase for specific areas. This is why Tileproxy only caches and doesn´t store the textures on the harddrive (well unless hacked of course).
-
I have to say I can live with upgraded terrain even it takes 2-3 years while none of other code related parts does not get major improvmentes. A better terrain whould have very strong impact on tactical environment either if the shape of terrain well model the radar LOS.
-
I have to say I can live with upgraded terrain even it takes 2-3 years while none of other code related parts does not get major improvmentes. A better terrain whould have very strong impact on tactical environment either if the shape of terrain well model the radar LOS.
It´s frustrating to fly the “best” jet combat simulator out there …and to see other arcadian products having superior terrains. If there is any sim deserving (literally) what we see in that video above …its BMS.
-
@A.S:
It´s frustrating to fly the “best” jet combat simulator out there …and to see other arcadian products having superior terrains. If there is any sim deserving (literally) what we see in that video above …its BMS.
I think 100% the same.
-
A.S, FYI Blueprint which is BMS GFX engine dev, decided to limit the mesh to 1000m limit because the 250m (which is available with L0) is too much of a killer with current terrain engine and current GFX code. So I believe 10m is literally impossible
-
It´s frustrating to fly the “best” jet combat simulator out there …and to see other arcadian products having superior terrains. If there is any sim deserving (literally) what we see in that video above …its BMS.
Denpends on personal POV.
For me, it is frustrating to fly the “best” jet combat simulator out there, and not being able to hear the Com1 and the Com2 radio traffic at the same time.
… Can have thousands of differente versions …
-
@A.S:
Once that acheived, even REAL objectives and ROADS and RIVERS can be implemented/imported with other available tools or sources (like ArcGis). We would probably have to look for (or create) correct format-conversions or -tools, but thats a minor obstacle.
Well this u could it and now… u just don’t have the tool… we use the old tool. If there was a new tool u could. There is no need for Falcon code for this.
About downloading online the terrain well not the way to go… having it on the disc is the way… else MP will be a Pita.
In general since the ppl in BMS team are limited and they r focused mainly on the developing of the sim code only this is a draw back for the rest of community development regardless of the more detailed terrain mesh implementation or the 4096 tiles limitation.
There should be a team of coders to create new tools for theater development. One good example is Falcon Editor but doesn’t cover the whole subject.
So making new adjustments on the structure should go along with new tools to use those adjustments more efficiently and quickly.
Sure if no such tools are provided and we have new features we will use the current tools like we do now.
But as a “joke” also BMS team has new tools to develop (newer versions of programming language… libraries, frameworks etc…) we (moders - theater developers) r stack on the old tools… We want candy too… :lol: