Fallon-Nevada Theater discussion
-
The point is, that if you keep it 64km x 64km, then you litterally can use original 1kmx1km real photorealistic textures and cover the map 1:1 as in real life.
64x64 = 4096 and that is exactly how much unique tiles (or texture) one can use in BMS without ANY repetition.What about mountains or any, for that matter, elevation change? 4096 height points with nice straight ridges? Or totally flat Nevada?
EDIT: Even with 16 SEG theater too often it looks like this
and post # 143 and earlier……
-
^ this.
I’m not opposed to the idea of photoreal tiling the main battleground area if that’s what you’re talking about. But you can’t make a terrain that is ONLY 64km because you’ll be looking right off the end of the world as soon as you climb to altitude (if not sooner).
I don’t know that there is a “lead” for this project. It seems there are groups already working on Nevada that may or may not want/need any creative direction at this point. I’m happy to “lead” this project if we need/want somebody to manage and direct the various groups that are working on parts of this theater. There might be value in passing that job to the group that has this 75% done already, though.
What I would recommend…my strong opinion…is that we keep a tight focus. Making a 64 segment theater is probably a good idea because it provides room to grow. But for campaign and TE planning, I would recommend that we do simple basic tiling for the majority of the map and consider importing photoreal for the critical areas. Let’s say photoreal for the training range(s) and maybe Las Vegas/Nellis since we already have that.
There is value in listening to DJ on the DB thing. He has better insight into the BMS development than we do. If he says sticking with stock DB is going to save us headaches downrange (ie. 4.33+) then that is probably a good idea. There is nothing to prevent multiple iterations of the theater with differing databases…similar to how stock Korea can coexist with Molni’s 80s theater in my BMS installation.
I think there is enough interest to warrant getting a serious group together.
-
This is pretty much what I have in mind (Ted’s (Polak’s) screenshot). You can pretty clearly see where the photoreal ends and basic tiling begins. Can we alter those generic sand tiles into something that doesn’t show the repeating nature of the tile? Just a plain brown might be the way to go.
You lose some immersion when you go out of the photoreal areas, but then when you get to where it counts and, hopefully, your head is out of the cockpit more, you’re in the most immersive terrain we can provide given the limitations of the Falcon code.
-
My two cents:
I don’t know that there is a “lead” for this project.
A project’s leader is mandatory guys. Try to find one … but, obviously you will have to accept compromises. Otherwise, you will never see the end of the project.
It is the same everywhere. Someone’s role is to take decision:
-
You can pretty clearly see where the photoreal ends and basic tiling begins. Can we alter those generic sand tiles into something that doesn’t show the repeating nature of the tile? Just a plain brown might be the way to go.
Please note that tiling on this shot was early WIP and was generic (1 type of desert tile) only for the purpose of starting process what we call now “supersomething”.
Substitutions and repetition breakers, were ready even then, but process of theater building stopped at that moment. I really was hoping that since we would make some advances in terrain editing (better road and river system, maybe more tile sets, some type of drag and fill tool in the editor). But alas… we are here and we should be grateful for what we have.
Yet, honestly, there was something I did never like in the way that theater was construed and that was the main reason I moved to Korea, which in my opinion was/is the best terrain editing work in Falcon ever.
PS. Please realize that tiles alone would not make the theater looking good. There is 50% of goodness in how the theater is build and edited before the tiles are in. Unless that 100% photoreal, which is as we know difficult to accomplished and controversial.
-
Understand all, Ted. I spoke with Dave on the phone this morning and I think we’re on the same page. We’re focusing a lot on appearance right now, but I think we all agree that the fundamental gameplay is the most important thing. The gameplay aspect is what drove me to the 16-32 segment theater discussion in the first place (which looks terrible but is good for gameplay).
We’re actually pretty close with this theater if we can get everyone together. Several folks have been working on this independently. The key is to get everyone together so we can consolidate our individual efforts into a cohesive single product. Let’s see what happens next.
-
Hey guys, any update? I’ve just gone through this thread and been seeing some really good stuff! :headb: I know your 3-4 weeks estimate might have been optimistic but I’m interested to see what’s happened!
-
3 to 4 weeks
-
Hello everybody
Any news about Nevada? -
like, this way…?? PLEASE…… :bowd:
-
in the meantime ….:D
-
Every frame of that video is desktop wallpaper material. Amazing, Toro!
-
Hello everybody
Any news about Nevada?Yes.
It’s still being worked on. Good news…We have custom hangers for Nellis…and…and Nellis will look like well…Nellis! No Pics yet.
-
I can not wait to see the result:uham:
-
This theater is making my mouth water. Especially since I live in Nevada.:D8):bdance:
-
Need help testing?
-
Im not a modder. Btw, is this theater still going?
-
I’d be most happy to play-test this theater, if ever the need arises…
-
+1 and gladly.
-
DCS Nevada is in pre-purchase stage and what about Nevada BMS?