EXPANSION OF DEVELOPMENT BASE PERSONNEL THROUGH EDUCATION
-
I am not sure what you mean by modelling trick. I am referring to the canopy and that it should be able to be presented both closed on the 3D model, as also open, whether it slides open, or rotates up, forward or to the side on hinges.
Someone inexperienced might create the canopy in the closed position and never model its visible mechanisms when in the open position. The intention of this list is to serve as a checklist to the 3D artist that is not as “airplane savvy” as others.
The same goes for the retractable ladder of an F-18. Its there for climbing into the cockpit mainly when used in a maritime role on an aircraft carrier, but sometimes also on land. If the final 3D model is made properly, then Falcon CAN include e.g. a “walk up to the aicraft” sequence if it so desires, or a splash screen of your loaded aircraft waiting for you with its canopy open and all the aerodynamic surfaces in the downward position.
I hope you are not misunderstanding me now.
BTW Where did I mention DOF (Degrees Of Freedom)?
When you look at the cockpit arch of e.g. the Mirage 2000 from a position that is behind it, you will see both the mirrors I am talking about as also the reflection of the sky if you are standing lower than the cockpit while outside of it.
You mentioned the canopy movement, yes? That is a DOF. Similarly, the chocks are a switch.
There is no DOF or switch in the code for the ladder. Any models that have a ladder are cheating, likely by animating both the canopy and the ladder together and putting it on the same DOF as the canopy.
The Hornet in the RW does have rear view mirrors. I was under the impression that BMS does not support mirror views, however.
Id suggest that it would be worth paying close attention to anything PumpyHead says regarding modelling and BMS, though. IIRC, it is his sticky that details the requirements for third party modellers to submit their models for inclusion with BMS?
-
IIRC, it is his sticky that details the requirements for third party modellers to submit their models for inclusion with BMS?
Agree with you about listening to PumpyHead and even Jan Has.
But that would be Wavey Dave’s sticky and listen to him too!
C9
-
The development team should take the time to make educational videos that teach users how to create and submit for example, terrain models, tiles, textures, 3D objects (trees, buildings, bridges etc) for incorporation into a new terrain model.
A list of required software tools to do the job.
How to name files.
A checklist of things to do per task.
A quality control self-check before submitting something towards BMS.
Thanks for taking the time to read and hopefully contribute.Why should the Dev Team do this. How many Theater builders do we have out there that have produced some great theaters, and aircraft etc…
They aren’t busy improving BMS why can’t they put out a tutorial…this is how you do this step 1 2 3 4.
And don’t say you don’t have time because if you dont’ have time, how are the Dev’s supposed to have time.
We have so much knowledge out there, no one is spreading it around.
JM2C
-
Take a look at the hotlist. There is a whole section with development info videos tutorials and tips and tricks.
Not having guides and tutorials is not accurate.
There is an issue; yes, but it’s not like nothing is there.
Devs team is to develop.
There is no tutorials or guides creation tool.
The Dev team comes from us, the community.
The community doesn’t help that much, though I must admit that lately contribution by community members is raised.
Devs don’t even ask for help. It’s obvious and our obligation to help them, they are one of us. Don’t wait for Mana to fall from the sky, go and cultivate it, learn, produce, provide.
I among many here would love to have guides or info on many things but… Life is Life.
We all use our free time, from wives, children etc…
So what do you do about it?
What do you need?Στάλθηκε από το MI 5 μου χρησιμοποιώντας Tapatalk
-
QUESTIONS INTENDED TOWARDS THE DEV TEAM (…or anyone that knows Falcon well enough).
A few questions towards anyone knowledgeable enough to provide me with answers:
CONCERNING TERRAIN TILES EXCLUSIVELY:
1. How does Falcon, define each tile? Elevation of 4 corners…? Elevation of one corner and two perpendicular sloping angles…? Other…?
2. Are sea tiles different in any way than land tiles other than having a horizontal layout?
3. How is the altitude (vertical distance between aircraft and tile) change, get re-calculated and subsequently reported in the aircraft instrumentation (radar based altitude I guess…?) while flying over each tile? NOTE: Think “just grass”… no buildings or trees.
4. How is a collision with the tile detected (again, think “just grass”… no buildings or trees)
CONCERNING MAN-MADE OBJECTS (buildings, factories, bridges, etc)
5. How is a collision detected with such an object?
6. If the object is of significant size, does the vertical distance between aircraft and object, change, get re-calculated and subsequently reported in the aircraft instrumentation (radar based altitude I guess…?)?
CONCERNING TILES AND MAN-MADE OBJECTS:
7. What dependencies exist, between whatever functional portion of the simulation and the elevation of a tile, its slope or angle in either two directions and the height of a man-made object?
8. Can the reported (“radar based elevation I guess…”) vertical distance between the aircraft and terrain tiles or man made objects be cheated, re-calculated, or straightforwardly and dishonestly “affected” by the programmer?
9. Is there a limit or proportion of “world” tiles that can be generated, in any direction, within the simulation?
CLARIFYING INTENT:
a) I am asking these questions because I have no knowledge of how the simulator functions internally. I don’t need a visio generated flowchart of information (although it would be nice to have), just an accurate no-nonsense description of how these things work. Essentially, my questions probe the following:
WHAT LIMITATIONS AND DEPENDENCIES EXIST WITH THE CURRENT TILE SYSTEM CONCERNING THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE SIMULATOR?
Which is a mere starting point to eventually address the question of “how can the current terrain tile system be improved with the minimum of fuss and hassle”?
I will be checking in on this, but at the same time, I need to stress that RL is present too.
b) Those of you that intend to say “…he wants everything spoon-fed…” you are entitled to your opinion, but I am neither a programmer and don’t have access to the source code anyway. At the same time, I am only trying to improve the simulator … NOT trying to become a member of anything (especially the dev. team, based on previous posts in this thread) or take over your world. You can play with your ball, keep it, or even go home with it.
c) Not asking for the time, effort or knowledge of anyone specifically.
d) Those who read these lines, I thank for taking the time to do so. Those that reply to it, I hope I will be able to return the favor eventually.
Last but not least,… I have no idea if I will be able to contribute in any way. But the only way to find out is to try first. So hold on to your socks (hopes and expectations too) and be patient… or at the very least neutral towards my effort.
-
CONCERNING MAN-MADE OBJECTS (buildings, factories, bridges, etc)
5. How is a collision detected with such an object?
has to do with the 3d model parent attributes.
Hitbox Dimensions
1. Radius
sphere surrounding object which ignites the code to start the collision check.
2. XYZ max min values.
box dimensions that surround the object. If those collide then u collide with the object and caboom.In latest release (4.34) the box must have changed… having more? I don’t know.
-
A few questions towards anyone knowledgeable enough to provide me with answers:
CONCERNING MAN-MADE OBJECTS (buildings, factories, bridges, etc)
5. How is a collision detected with such an object?
Collisions are governed by a “hitbox” and “radius” that are defined in the Parent file of the object. (e.g. Dimensions = 45.5 -21.0 18.0 -3.6 3.6 -3.5 3.0 - This line defines the radius XMin XMax YMin YMax ZMin ZMax)
-
Can someone kindly remind me why Terraforming [*1] (not my term) was not an option in improving the fidelity of the rather crude 1000m edges of the terrain model?
[*1] Instead of making smaller than 1km tiles, superposition “objects” (hills, mountains, valleys) of a smaller resolution (e.g. 100m) on top of those 1km tiles. While heightmap isn’t improved, the eye of the user is deceived in that it is flying over 100x100m “objects” that make up the terrain.
Thank you Pumpyhead and Arty for replying!
-
spitballing here… this is the approach DCS uses, is it not? BMS does not require 44 GB of RAM to function.
-
Collisions are governed by a “hitbox” and “radius” that are defined in the Parent file of the object. (e.g. Dimensions = 45.5 -21.0 18.0 -3.6 3.6 -3.5 3.0 - This line defines the radius XMin XMax YMin YMax ZMin ZMax)
Correct me if I am wrong Pumpy, but collision is only governed by the hitbox, radius is only for display.
-
Hopefully the code-savvy will know…
Would it be possible to TEMPORARILY increase the geometric fidelity of the tiles in an area underneath and immediately around the aircraft?
What I am asking essentially, is if areas of interest for the developer (for the sake of a simple example lets imagine a 3x3 square of 9 tiles total) could be enhanced visually… enough so to allow for higher fidelity than a 1000x1000m single slab of geometry which does little to fool the eye.
Also… Would it be possible to create “building blocks” of tile geometry that can be used to substitute a single 1000x1000m single slab? In this case, I am suggesting a variety of “building blocks” categorized by edge slope, which could be brought together to function seamlessly when brought together.
This “bubble approach” would allow for higher geometry resolution, while keeping far tiles crude and near tiles refined. It would certainly overcome memory considerations that were pointed out earlier in the conversation.
Just throwing ideas on the table, so don’t shoot me if its all been proposed before.
Thanks for reading.
-
spitballing here… this is the approach DCS uses, is it not? BMS does not require 44 GB of RAM to function.
If you are talking to me blu3wolf the answer is “I would never know”.
I am just wondering if JUST ONE (or, eventually 9) tiles can be enhanced to an improvement of order of magnitude (geometry resolution of 100x100m). That would be a huge improvement over the existing situation.
-
Well an open beta for one year and a half i believe its their due time.
In the meantime how many products where released only for the open beta?
10+? Terrain campaigns aircraft…Obvious that the focus is lost… one more year for beta… then what? Beta for how long?
Since they add new things they must patch the core.
This is an endless loop.
Don’t forget they announced amd the f-16… amd new map and some vr addition. Lol i forgot dc which is the mother of all.So for the next 2 3 years still with open beta and the excuse… hey don’t complain it’s an open beta.
Open beta has become their mainstream and its returning hard on them like a boomerang.
They compromise stability seriously even though they try the exact opposite at the dames time.
Remarks and reports state that there is no consistency on the product and they disrupt it by them self.Just facts.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
Here is another idea, I would like the dev. team to consider:
How about “terraforming” just 9, 16, 25 tiles around the aircraft?
The 100 “wedges” of each tile would be loaded as “Terrain objects” and would each have its own collision box to work with. Over the 1000m of edge of the original tile, variation could be added, hiding completely even the edges of the original tile. Radius might need to be pushed out because of zoom, or other reasons.
WE are talking about:
1 tiles… 100 wedges
4 tiles… 400 wedges
9 tiles… 900 wedges
16 tiles… 1600 wedges
25 tiles… 2500 wedgesEach one of the wedges would carry its own texture, but to offset some of the workload, the original tile wouldn’t need to be textures AND these being added objects, it would probably work with the already implemented bubble routine.
Just food for thought.
-
Well an open beta for one year and a half i believe its their due time.
In the meantime how many products where released only for the open beta?
10+? Terrain campaigns aircraft…Obvious that the focus is lost… one more year for beta… then what? Beta for how long?
Since they add new things they must patch the core.
This is an endless loop.
Don’t forget they announced amd the f-16… amd new map and some vr addition. Lol i forgot dc which is the mother of all.So for the next 2 3 years still with open beta and the excuse… hey don’t complain it’s an open beta.
Open beta has become their mainstream and its returning hard on them like a boomerang.
They compromise stability seriously even though they try the exact opposite at the dames time.
Remarks and reports state that there is no consistency on the product and they disrupt it by them self.Just facts.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
Just a question…
Do you think that the project would be better off if they focused on maintaining pipelines?
Its obvious that the tip of the spear [so to speak] needs to be those that are able to code. They would need to lay down the “infrastructure” of what each version of a pipeline would be capable of doing. And since they would be the people providing the rest of us [which would only have an auxiliary role] with said infrastructure, their design goals and vision would permeate through to each level of input where they left off.
Message to the dev. team:
Is it possible to introduce a “middle-man” portion of software, between the current planes/cars/trucks/tanks/boats and a possible future terrain?
Just thoughts… neither demands, nor criticism.
-
I don’t understand the question. They are focused on the pipelines, the product to money pipelines.
Coders code but company management must maintain a profit or survival of the company. On that cause everything is sacrificed. Simple as that. Coders and users never know that as long as the establishment is there.Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk