Future of Falcon BMS
-
THe grafix in FBMS are good, not sure why some folks continue to say they are not. FSuX grafics are better but FPS are much worse. At least FBMS is coded to properly leverage the GPU, which FSuX is not.
-
THe grafix in FBMS are good, not sure why some folks continue to say they are not. FSuX grafics are better but FPS are much worse. At least FBMS is coded to properly leverage the GPU, which FSuX is not.
I agree. The graphics it self are great, I only wish for low poly models to become high poly in the future. One can dream
-
I agree. The graphics it self are great, I only wish for low poly models to become high poly in the future. One can dream
F-16s are getting overhauled, as well as many other models in 4.33 !
-
High poly is just no no for BMS.
Better (refined) models … but not High Poly which is FPS killer for nothing.
-
High poly is just no no for BMS.
Better (refined) models … but not High Poly which is FPS killer for nothing.
I think what he said was all relative compared to some 4.32 models (the current An-26 per example)
But high poly is not necessary for sure… what’s the poly limit for a combat aircraft in BMS btw ? -
I think what he said was all relative compared to some 4.32 models (the current An-26 per example)
But high poly is not necessary for sure… what’s the poly limit for a combat aircraft in BMS btw ?Quote from modeling organization topic.
Poly Count
Aircraft
For front line aircraft the upper limit is 30,000 triangles. Also note that the vertex count should be kept reasonable and where possible weld vertices and avoid breaking texture and smoothing groups.VehicleA limit of 4000 triangles is placed on ground vehicles. Exceptions may be made were a good case can be made for extra detail provided efficient use is made of LODs. Reduce the LOD progressively to a point where the 4th LOD is a very basic untextured simple representation of the overall shape.
Feature
Features should aim for fewer than 2000 triangles. Where this number isn’t needed don’t add unnecessary details, this isn’t a FPS.Weapons
Weapons should aim for 2K triangles. -
thanks!
-
THe grafix in FBMS are good, not sure why some folks continue to say they are not. FSuX grafics are better but FPS are much worse. At least FBMS is coded to properly leverage the GPU, which FSuX is not.
Mower - if you don’t mind my asking - do you use the stock Korea terrain, or any modified tiles? Just curious…
-
F-16s are getting overhauled, as well as many other models in 4.33 !
Now you got me really excited :woohoo:
-
THe grafix in FBMS are good, not sure why some folks continue to say they are not. FSuX grafics are better but FPS are much worse. At least FBMS is coded to properly leverage the GPU, which FSuX is not.
I can make FSX look like almost like a photograph with add ons and settings maxxed out, even over NYC in FSX. However it runs like a dog and I get OOM errors even with 3gb video and 32 gb system memory (my rig is no slouch). Imagine running a dynamic campaign like BMS on top of that. IMO stock FSX looks worse than BMS and you have to turn settings down to run most scenery add ons without errors (scenery manuals even tell you turn stuff down).
-
I can make FSX look like almost like a photograph with add ons and settings maxxed out, even over NYC in FSX. However it runs like a dog and I get OOM errors even with 3gb video and 32 gb system memory (my rig is no slouch). Imagine running a dynamic campaign like BMS on top of that. IMO stock FSX looks worse than BMS and you have to turn settings down to run most scenery add ons without errors (scenery manuals even tell you turn stuff down).
http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd84/icarus123456789/2014-7-3_9-57-27-948_zps8eb7d401.png
Wow. Your right Icarus.
Looks very photo realistic. But, this kind of gfx is unrealistic for FBMS. Maybe some day (40 years from now), but for now, we have a pretty good gfx staple for fbms. IMO, can we approach to a more photo realistic gfx in fbms now, yes but not to this level. Will the next update have improved gfx? Possibly. But you hit the nail on the head. With everything else running in bms, you have to consider the overhead room for such improvements. Your rig is certainly higher end. My rig is also higher end. But even higher end rigs would struggle down to a crawl with this kind of gfx in fbms.
-
IMO, can we approach to a more photo realistic gfx in fbms now, yes but not to this level.
well we actually can.
Maybe not detailed to death… meaning 100% representation but we can, and some compromises, but it will be great.
Example the FBB tests I did, but those where tests and looked crap cause my lack of knowledge on 3ds, more convincing is Nove’s work which has progressed much and showed such wonderful examples, and of course Kimpo surrounding area.The thing is lack of experience on the subject - process, time and human resources.
After I’m done with the texturing of runways - taxiways (RT) I will focus and speed up on the FBB (Falcon Buildings Blocks) project and hopefully will have good results. Almost makes me regret making this RT project… but a promise is a promise… and FBB still is over my head on some aspects.
To give u an example… The cockpit is like a small city. So it’s like having x cockpits lying on the ground. Cockpits are more demanding as they have more curves and etc like DOF’s and TGP and gismos that animate that buildings don’t.
If we had a more user friendly tool to work with it would be better but still with what we have it’s doable. Just needs more time and effort.
In the meantime I may have found a good way for the 3d buildings and elevation so that large building blocks will not have to be flat but follow the actual Falcon elevations. I have to test it. But as I read and looked at the tutorials the way is ok, and the solution is the L2 raw picture file. Where if I got it right every pixel is one tile thus 1km. Remains to be tested.
So full speed to finish the RT project.
-
Mower - if you don’t mind my asking - do you use the stock Korea terrain, or any modified tiles? Just curious…
Tom’s excellent hitiles mod.
-
Wow. Your right Icarus.
Looks very photo realistic. But, this kind of gfx is unrealistic for FBMS. Maybe some day (40 years from now), but for now, we have a pretty good gfx staple for fbms. IMO, can we approach to a more photo realistic gfx in fbms now, yes but not to this level. Will the next update have improved gfx? Possibly. But you hit the nail on the head. With everything else running in bms, you have to consider the overhead room for such improvements. Your rig is certainly higher end. My rig is also higher end. But even higher end rigs would struggle down to a crawl with this kind of gfx in fbms.
That kind of graphics is unrealiustic for FSX too, your rig will struggle with just flying around if you do as in the pic. I agree, BMS looks pretty good now and could get some better, but I do not want the graphics if the FSX problems come with it. Not worth it.
-
That kind of graphics is unrealiustic for FSX too, your rig will struggle with just flying around if you do as in the pic. I agree, BMS looks pretty good now and could get some better, but I do not want the graphics if the FSX problems come with it. Not worth it.
This is it: I fly the VRS Rhino out of Fallon NAS and the terrain is amazing but the FPS are poor andso the flying is not as smooth as desired. Disbelief is not suspended.
-
well we actually can.
Maybe not detailed to death… meaning 100% representation but we can, and some compromises, but it will be great.
Example the FBB tests I did, but those where tests and looked crap cause my lack of knowledge on 3ds, more convincing is Nove’s work which has progressed much and showed such wonderful examples, and of course Kimpo surrounding area.The thing is lack of experience on the subject - process, time and human resources.
After I’m done with the texturing of runways - taxiways (RT) I will focus and speed up on the FBB (Falcon Buildings Blocks) project and hopefully will have good results. Almost makes me regret making this RT project… but a promise is a promise… and FBB still is over my head on some aspects.
To give u an example… The cockpit is like a small city. So it’s like having x cockpits lying on the ground. Cockpits are more demanding as they have more curves and etc like DOF’s and TGP and gismos that animate that buildings don’t.
If we had a more user friendly tool to work with it would be better but still with what we have it’s doable. Just needs more time and effort.
In the meantime I may have found a good way for the 3d buildings and elevation so that large building blocks will not have to be flat but follow the actual Falcon elevations. I have to test it. But as I read and looked at the tutorials the way is ok, and the solution is the L2 raw picture file. Where if I got it right every pixel is one tile thus 1km. Remains to be tested.
So full speed to finish the RT project.
Thanks Arty! Quick question, "is the RT project being included into bms, or is this for theaters? Since I know there are some gfx improvements on the way, maybe a snipit of what this L2 raw picture file will look like. And, what tools would help to improve the process? If you are talking about 1k resolutions, then this would be a huge leap forward with respect to gfx and bms.
GO ARTY!
-
Maybe some day (40 years from now),
This anwsers the title about future of FBMS! :woohoo:
GO ARTY +1
-
Well future will tell…
What does snipit means?
well those raw files are a picture in grayscale of the elevation of the theater.
Those can be used by ARCGIS programs and “others” hehehe also 3ds MAX and u can build on those.
Actually u r calibrating the actual Falcon elevations with the 3ds MAX and thus u can build in large areas and u can have different elevations.Now with this if one pixel is one tile of the Falcon Terrain (remains to test and resolve) then I have a flat 1km area to build on. that way the buildings blocks will follow the elevation and I will not have to do this by hand neither flat out the area so that buildings will not look strange.
Another (maybe) usage or help could be on the subject Demmer is bragging about having different elevations on a runway. With this u can build runways where one end is at 250ft and the other on 270ft kinda. Well on the runways maybe the angle is needed also (in case the elevation change is on the middle of a runway and is like a V or reverse) but I believe Monster the creator of Terrain Editor can help on this as he knows and masters those Math so we could have those details and build 3d objects that will be perfectly aligned with the terrain.
He did something like that on the 3d representation in Terrain editor.Also BMS dev’s could help on this if we had the exact mess available to import it somewhere else or how to accurately calculate those angles.
Oh jhook u probably missed the FBB thread: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?12073-3D-Cities-for-Falcon&p=178214&viewfull=1#post178214
-
This is it: I fly the VRS Rhino out of Fallon NAS and the terrain is amazing but the FPS are poor andso the flying is not as smooth as desired. Disbelief is not suspended.
I wonder how Prepare3d compares with the same terrain addon?
-
In my experience P3D is similar. There are also some stability issues with P3D.