Brandnew models 2014 by TomCatz
-
Great work tom. Thanks very much!
-
Really??? I am a little bit worried. Normally in a software upgrading the developers try to improve the use of resources before to increase the code with other lines. It’s a second time i read this statement whrote from a moderator and i’m curious.
D.
That depends if it is taking a hit in performance because everything is being upgraded to higher res stuff that is understandable. I welcome it. I want this game to try to crush my rig. Right now I am trying to see how far I can push it. I-hawk brings up a great point even with my rig. I haven’t tried DSR on anything yet, so I might give that a go. I am currently limited on space and haven’t yet committed to MFDs so I am not extracting. I can see if you are running a lesser spec’ed computer how it would be hard, but TOM did put these out with templates, so I am under the impression that it was with the intention of the community being able to bring further improvements.
Speaking of Improvements seriously can someone point me to a guide to make a new parent file, because parent 20 belongs to the Sovi, and the FFG-7, as well as several other ships including the Wasp. I would really like make a new parent file so I dont have a Sovi next to a US CVN.
Final though, I really do wish I had the money to challenge no such thing as overkill for falcon. So many high-tech toys and only so much money.
-
@ Danguard :
I’m speaking about real, not fable. Falcon has some rules to respect and many people, like you, they loves to don’t respect these rules and I am confused about this reason but it’s not big deal.
I am curious about the fact these models are new like the title thread says and you do good comments on fps for previous version models. Is this a costructive behave?
Interesting like a theater developer supports these kind of works and sharing politic when he knows perfectly how many fps can drops on the flot, and he should pay attentions on this like first priority.
The most important thing should be to don’t blame falcon then when a server crashes in mp or others stuffs even in sp, after installing similar things.
Another good thing should think a theater dev should be not everybody have his pc. Maybe someone have not enough money to buy “hw” parts like yours.
I think I spoke in a costructive mode, but maybe you don’t understand the falcon world.@ TomCatz : I hope you don’t take my words like offence, I always wrote good comments for your shared stuffs.
The reason why I critic those all great polys is cause me and other guys are in development for a theater with new things and models and I’d like to include your works too. With this “hi poli” work like f15 and carrier it’s impossible for us to fly in mp on a server.
So take my words like a suggest Tom for the future and of course everybody is free to create from scratch a model and then share his work, I just don’t want to pay a high value ‘fps drops’.Happy New Year Tomcatz.
-
Really??? I am a little bit worried. Normally in a software upgrading the developers try to improve the use of resources before to increase the code with other lines. It’s a second time i read this statement whrote from a moderator and i’m curious.
Be worried
Software updates always have led the hardware market. Dev are always trying to improve FPS. Nothing new on that aspect
We’re Lucky the Falcon code is old and cope pretty well with current hardware, still added functionnalities will increase the memory and the hardware load.
But the community work with unfinished stuff, templates, out of specs models will even further increase that load.
It’s a question of having the big picture in mind and having multiple mod sources that don’t have the big picture in mind.
In the end, it’s your install and you do whatever you want with it. But don’t complain because of the increased load, devs are not the only ones responsible of it.
Wild modding is as wellso I am under the impression that it was with the intention of the community being able to bring further improvements.
Let’s look back and list the "finished and up to specs 3D models that the community here provided as improvement sicne the release of BMS4.32.
Let’s discard the ripped models from other sources too
How many do we have left? -
Really??? I am a little bit worried. Normally in a software upgrading the developers try to improve the use of resources before to increase the code with other lines. It’s a second time i read this statement whrote from a moderator and i’m curious.
In which SW upgrade? I work in a huge SW company and I can assure you that not everything is optimized and new things are well being added before stopping everything and trying to optimize what’s already there. That’s the difference I guess between practice and theory, in practice things are on going and you can’t just stop everything and try to optimize only, same in BMS. If we were to take a break to only optimize everything, we could well release the next version in maybe 7-8 years from now…
I think it’s not mandatory for nobody to use Tom’s models but my opinion is he’s making a good work.
Please explain how exactly? IIRC you are into modeling art no? what is so good about half-baked models? no lower LODs, some models with no animation, and TBH some of the models look “weird”, I’m not even sure if they are up to the RL measurements and shapes (e.g the F-16 in his shots looks damn weird…)
But that’s not the point here, Tom is showing bad practice to the community by picking the easy path to do things (unfinished work or half finished is what it is), this is exactly opposite to what we do in BMS, and so it’s naturally against the spirit that we try to guide the community by. If we were acting a bit more like a commercial company, we would have probably lock the hell out of the DB and making all such efforts mute, allowing only authorized stuff to get into the installer, but we aren’t going to do that because this isn’t the BMS spirit and not the Falcon one.
But well, WTH, I sound like a broken record because I still thought there is hope in that path, but was proven wrong again
Happy new year to you too.
-
and… last but not least, this sim is for everyone, and while I agree that people should get a “gaming” rig in order to run BMS, still not everyone can afford having the latest and best all the time.
AMEN :headb:
discussion is repeated from time to time.What moments will be the person with a big p…c, which wants to prove to everyone that has a great hardware with 200 fps+ on bms.Who do not understand how it works bms engine.Boring.
-
…(unfinished work or half finished is what it is)…
Unfortunalty we have seen this too many times (and still do) in the history of falcon.
With no offense intented at all to the EMF team (cuz you guys did a good job at large), but one such example for me was: After waiting for EMF for years, i finally had a change to install it - just to see, that the PAK map under Priorities still shows Korea. Seriously? C´mon guys, there are even threads on this forum how to fix that. Passion to detail and completion is not easy and i fully understand that too being myself in that tedious “black hole” of theater-creation, but it is important. Ok ok… i am from germany, maybe that´s why so picky in quality :). That there are no ground-units and no ground-war going on and only SAMs for such a nice endeavor, is another riddle to me. Please don´t take this as bad critics EMF. I truly hope you guys proceed in finishing everything and that it becomes a great theater, because the community needs variety conerning this matter.It’s a question of having the big picture in mind and having multiple mod sources that don’t have the big picture in mind.
I have been singing this song for quiete a while now (and got myself into arguments aswell because of it). The bigger picture in respect to BMS standards is key, because otherwise we might end up in a big uncompatible and corrupted mess. The Fank Sinatra “and i do it myyy way” mentality doesn´t really work on a community driven basis
-
Without offense for nobody i think if something works is good and if something doesn’t works it’s not good it’s a very simple statement but it’s true. If something doesn’t work natuarally it deads, because nobody’ll use it, no other discussion. And from my direct experience , facts and not theory,and from what i’m reading on this forum, i see a lot of compliments for Tom’s work from a lot of users of his models. Another really important concept is indivual freedom. What’s the problem? The price for a good hardware? Very simple if i have the cash i can buy a NVIDIA Quadro, 2 NVIDIA Quadro, 3 NVIDIA Quadro… no problem i can run an installation with 10T polygons without problems. If i dont’ have cash for a new hardware i can simply play only with standard models, since in bms there is not an option for a scalable level of graphic detail. Obiouvsly this is an hyperbole and Tom’s models aren’t so heavy and i repeat, for direct experience, his models work perfectly in SP or MP without issues. Another really important concept guys, and i tell to you with all my respect for your work and without flame, i think you are moderators for rules (good behaviors, copyright infringment etc.) and not for ideas. Tom wasted and wasting his time without interest for money or other stuff, for the community, he created a personal website with a donate button but it’s not mandatory. He shared his work in any case.
Peace for allRegards
D. -
leave the moderation to Forum moderator Danguard.
-
@Tom:
? Really ?
I construct, build, make templates , share it ALL to the community (including 3ds datas!) - That is my Spirit of Falcon! Dont like it? Not my problem- sorry sir!
Cheers
TomWhat I-Hawk mean IMO is:
What would be the community’s disappointment, if we (BMS team) would release BMS only for the richest ppl who can afford an extreme high-end configuration because of a voluntary lack of optimization?
I think it is how you should understand it. (hehe, some ppl here might be sad not to be able to enjoy some of your models because of it )
But one thing is sure, next version will be much more “performance demanding” … much less margin for “unoptimized” stuff especially in campaign as usual.
But as you say … “not like it, don’t use it” … you are right, and if you do not want to do lower LODs … it is your call. (We are just still trying to convince you )EDIT: I have forgotten to add … just also understand that it is on our prerogatives (and duties) to explain to ppl what is good and what is less good process. Imagine some newcomer 3rd party other dev investing time wishing to do the things the right way, they must know what is to be avoided. No lower LODs is a deliberate choice for you, other ppl must know that it is not how Falcon4 is optimized.
Cheers Tom!
-
You can create 3d models and stuffs with an ‘old’ pc, but you can’t fly with that pc, is this what I am reading? really? I don’t think it’s a good compromise. I hope someone understood my words in previous posts also.
Life is a choice -
well there could be a rich version a med version and a low version… not as for the pocket actually but for model details and the ability of hardware to run them mostly cause u might have rich ppl with poor hw and viceversa…
the problem is human resources mostly to accomplish something like that. -
I believe due to a demonstrated case by FighterOps in the past, that one can achieve great looking and well detailed 3D models of planes even not using overly exaggerated and unnecessary high polygon counts.
There was a demonstration on their forums, comparing a DCS Su-25T ie. with i think 25-30k plygons in comparision (no cockpits included) to their own technique, which used way less polygons for planes, but yet looked phantastically detailed and no less visually appealing than the Su-25T by FlamingCliffs. Performance efficiency was a big topic and i do remember it was elaborated to some extend (the how), but i can unfortunatly not remember exactly what kind of methods (or simplifications) were used.Furthermore, i think - my own conclusion - after following all those poly-count debates and after digging into the matter myself, that 8k polygons for LOD 0 is more than enough for external BMS 3D models of planes … and any other lower LOD instance using less consequently.
One has to ask, how much “detail” is really required where planes are only seen close-up on taxi and in formations or in external views for movies? …and what the sacrifice will be between extreme visual based depiction and FPS and truly tactically!!! required details?Intonation on TACTICALLY REQUIRED DETAILS and not visual hollywood movie rendering standards. Smart balance and trade-off ??!??! or as RedDog used the term “the bigger picture”.
-
well AS, Im sure some of us would like to have tactically required details like features being visible at correct ranges, as well as hollywood movie rendering standards as well, no?
Im not unconvinced that we cannot have both with enough LODs.
-
A.S.
that’s the famous ’ light years ’ distance to “how think” between a pilot who fly with a simulator like falcon and a dev is creating and it tests his creation. If you are both you can understand the compromise.
Regards
-
well AS, Im sure some of us would like to have tactically required details like features being visible at correct ranges, as well as hollywood movie rendering standards as well, no?
Im not unconvinced that we cannot have both with enough LODs.
Hehe. You know what? EVERY sim i every played had this messed up to some degree - the FPS and/or the visibility of shapes and details at various distances.
Believe it or not, but BMS is one of the (if not the) best sim, where visibility of planes and ground-units is made really well from close to far. No LOD swappings, no blurings of shapes, no disapear and pop-up LODs and objects with changing distances etc. etc. It is not perfect, but much better than most sims regards, but i also do know, where and how this can be further improved - something i partially did in RF, but not for all vehicles, just for the ones used in the theater (for example compare the visibility of the wing-tip lights at night in KTO and RF to your wingmen at various distance, or the spot-ranges on a bright day of an F-16, frontal and side aspect, no objectives or buildings poping-up … just to name a few of many fixes the normal user doesn´t really see at first ).Sometimes one just can´t have both (or everything) and smart compromises are to be made for different reasons.
As being a realistic simulation (or trying to be) tactical recognition (visibilities and distances, SPOT- and ID-abilities of shape at various ranges by eyes or pods, background-clutter, environmental effects on the perception, etc. etc.) come for me way before the “hollywood HD brilliances” or the totally “pimped” details and effects so often misleadingly used in the gaming industry to pitch a product.
-
If you are both you can understand the compromise.
Correct. Can´t improve one does not use. Can´t fix one does not understand. Or - for better understanding - hard to improve a car if one can´t drive.
-
well in those FO tests there was terrain and 3d models… was there anything else? like AI war and campaign war taking place? I don’t think so… so this test was just like testing a 3d app only… not our case.
to optimize such war simulators demands lot’s and LOTS and WAY LOTS of resources (human / time / coding / testing / report back / loop the previous) and come down to conclusions and find the mean values for optimal performance.
-
Great work Tom.
Thanks very much! -
Beautyfull models
any others with this problem?