3d trees
-
molnibalage,
Sorry I meant regarding implementing not re-implementing.
I don’t currently understand the mechanics/architecture of BMS so I don’t know how easy it would be to add models to relevant parts of the map/textures, but I would be up for giving it a go.When you say future release……how far in the future do you mean??
Thanks
I had such a forrests in F4 AF (~the same engine according objects etc.)
but some trees use opacity maps (FPS -)…these are default F4AF models, they are not very expensive, but opacity maps are not FPS wise in huge numbers thoI prepare something for BMS now, but without opacity maps:
u can make such a model even inside LOD Editor (without payware soft and exporter) and directly put into BMS database.
There is also falcon editor shipped with BMS - use it for tree placement….noone of these is complex, but u are touching different parts of Falcon:
- model creation (2-3 triangles + texture)
- objective managment - u must choose obj. for modification, or create new one, place your new tree (feature) into it
- theater creation, modification - u must place/scatter your new objective over the landscape
-
Lazystone, 3-4 week smiley like it nice!!
u can make such a model even inside LOD Editor (without payware soft and exporter) and directly put into BMS database.
There is also falcon editor shipped with BMS - use it for tree placement….noone of these is complex, but u are touching different parts of Falcon:
- model creation (2-3 triangles + texture)
- objective managment - u must choose obj. for modification, or create new one, place your new tree (feature) into it
- theater creation, modification - u must place/scatter your new objective over the landscape
Lukas, thanks for your post, much help, much appreciated.
I prepare something for BMS now, but without opacity maps
If you could do something similar to what you had in AF that would be awesome!
I don’t think opacity maps are needed, but would depend on FPS hit.
Thanks
-
I miss the F4AF´s trees!!! I was triying to made a new one (tree), pine style but I have problems with the ptype material.
-
JanHas’ trees look pine stylish to me.
Also a fan of trees, single ones and forest. Maybe the IL-2 method is not so bad after all, you have-aside object trees, two sorts of trees:
The random trees, which can be manually put on maps as well, and, maybe interisting here, the forest, which basicall consists of 5 layer cake sheme mesh to tga objects.The model there is very basic (and not too beautiful), but it sure saves FPS and gives a nice forest immersion.
For the DCS one I used to think “nice but not thick enough”.Anyway, dunno the 1st thing about forest in BMS.
-
I still like my FINS concept, which I think you could just “paint” onto terrain if the code was brought into place. Here was the concept:
It would also be possible to deviate from that formula a little, and vary the height of the fin clusters above the ground surface, randomly, by just a bit. With tessellation-by-range, you can actually have LODs for a fins forest via code, not by artistic labor. You’d thus have to use tiling for textures, which are used for a lot of terrain in the sim anyway. I think with this approach, you could get the same effect Il-2 gets, with even more realistic looks. You’d avoid the problem of invisible trees at low level, because you’d never be able to see into the side of the forest. By painting big triangulated polygons onto the ground, you could have random clearings in the forests and break up the terrain that way. Then, just as in Il-2, you could put sparse forest/ individual trees at forest edges to give a natural look. It’s just a question of the artists and programmers working together to achieve a realistic result with minimum system impact.
-
More trees on the ground will add a lot to the sim. I mean, seeing 3d forests and more populated villages and towns will make thise low level flights a lot more challenging and interesting. Looking forward to see what you can do Lukas.
-
Also a fan of trees, single ones and forest. Maybe the IL-2 method is not so bad after all, you have-aside object trees, two sorts of trees:
The random trees, which can be manually put on maps as well, and, maybe interisting here, the forest, which basicall consists of 5 layer cake sheme mesh to tga objects.Forrests are cool, but u mentioned aproach with opacity textures……
I just found these old screenshots on my HDD. Since that time I moved this topic a bit already, but it shows the basic of my “forrest” aproach.
I was thinking about polygonal forests - irregular pentagrams and even some more irregular additional shapes - but always with roughly “boxed” envelope- because of collision box, my intention was to add few individual trees as well…for better appearance and to fill collision box envelope too
I wanted to have
Lod 1 - deformed irregular surface
Lod 2 - flat surface, no subtessalation
Lod 3 - flat surface, a bit transparent (but not on texture level, but object level!)
Lod 4 - object off, but u can see mapped texture with similar shape and colourI did also variant for less and more aggresive slope…to be able to place over various hills
BTW I also want some alley features (single object), to save procesing and placement time (but these are only for more flatt terrains, or for placing around contour lines)
This can be aplied also for naturalistic texture variants… -
well this looks ugly. maybe if u put just the top of the trees on top of the flat areas it would look better.
I’m sure it will look lovely when u r at the same level as the trees like taxiing or takeoff but when above… hmmm it will look bad. -
well this looks ugly. maybe if u put just the top of the trees on top of the flat areas it would look better.
I’m sure it will look lovely when u r at the same level as the trees like taxiing or takeoff but when above… hmmm it will look bad.it depends on many factors, patch shape is better tuned now, smoothing is bad on sample image, colours are perhaps too bright compared to individual trees ( i am even thinking of dafragmentating texture)…posted sample model makes self shadow-casting …I doubt other models than player F-16 does that in simulation…?
U should imagine it rather with similar textures:
from above u would see the same or similar color as underlayered forrest texture, from 20k these objects will be off…
On the other hand, irregular pentagone(not pentagram as i wrote) model can be substituted with tree-cluster if desired…
-
Actually I like the idea, will be cool to see how it look in game.
-
I personally like the Lod 1. Looks really nice and it would be a pleasure to have this implemented in the BMS. Thanks for all your work!
-
I personally like the Lod 1. Looks really nice and it would be a pleasure to have this implemented in the BMS. Thanks for all your work!
In core DB? I rather not to see. It makes impossible to turn the focus shadows even I use LOD1 as LOD0.
-
-
?
A single tree group consists almost as many polygon as an AC. The impact pf FPS is way too high with JanHas trees.
-
I thaught, he was talking about L1 “pentagone” model (deformed one).These are just few polygons and no opacity maps.
Opacity maps are main FPS killer (if reasonable polycount) - when I fly through explosion during dogfight, my FPS drops from 80+ to single digit…. -
I thaught, he was talking about L1 “pentagone” model (deformed one).These are just few polygons and no opacity maps.
Opacity maps are main FPS killer (if reasonable polycount) - when I fly through explosion during dogfight, my FPS drops from 80+ to single digit….Yes, particle effects at close are totally FPS killers even if you use the lowres option in CE.
-
“I thaught, he was talking about L1 “pentagone” model (deformed one).These are just few polygons and no opacity maps.”
Correct. I was referring to your proposals of forest shapes. From non-technical knowledge and perspective I think that the Lod 1 (Lod 1 - deformed irregular surface) looks the best and most realistic. Obviously I have no idea on the FPS impact as well as what are minimum requirements.
IMHO, 3D forests would make a lot of missions quite interesting (where it would be harder for a visual identification).
-
Trees,trees,threes……;)
Here are some things to consider:Looking at Jans fine work for GUAM, do I really want “Joe User” to “spend” that much CPU to draw the trees??? Pretty as they are….NO!
So I degress to something easier for the hardware to digest:Not a lot of difference to the “Eye”, but way better for the hardware
In game we get better FPS:
Remember we render Triangles not Polygons in BMS……demer
Note: this approach should become obsolete in 3-4 Falcon weeks…:mrgreen: -
fantastic!!
-
Any update on this? The game wll benefit a lot from trees on the ground.