Redflag RP5 V5.0 Preview
-
Besides (no offense)…
Don’t worry
@A.S:
if crashing into a mountain by not having a MAO map is your concern, you shouldn´t do combat-flying
Well … To plan a low level ingress/strike/egress in bad weather (visibility zero) you need the MAO to plan the “string” profile (considering the possible failure of the TFR) (unfortunately, we do not have a more accurate pilotage TPC chart to plan a more accurate (optimized) string within the “track corridor”) …
And you know, it is my real life job. I’m using the MAO and chart’s terrain (topographic) elevation in real on that purpose since I don’t have TFR in my RL plane.
I know Dee-Jay, if we like we can be very “anal”
… I’m rather calling it “professional” … but I do agree : BMS is a video game.
PS: Much more important than runway altitutes and real MAOs … is having finally working ILS for north korea ruways. I think stuff like that should be addresses first.
According to aero publication, only Pyongyang is ILS equipped IRL. Probably few other airbase are ILS equipped (properly calibrated and in order to work … not sure at all), but unable to have more info on official publication.
-
BTW … I’ve forgotten the most important about MAOs.
If you are “on top” with zero visibility below until ground, and if you have to dive for any reason, you better know what is the MAO below you or in the area…
Not much factor in South Korea (about 5000ft except near Sachon) , much more factor in north east DPRK (about 10.000ft) … I do not talk about countries such as Afghanistan (about 20.000ft!) -
I think you have now mentioned 100xtimes that you fly for real. But don´t think this makes me respect things more, becuase there are many other “real” pilots in this community ,)
I just do what can be done so folks here can enjoy themself better and i don´t get lost too much in the peripherial “nerd-realism corner”.
-
@A.S:
I think you have now mentioned 100xtimes that you fly for real. But don´t think this makes me respect things more,
Fair. As I do not understand why you are having such remarks … I’m wondering if you really know what you are talking about in fact (?) … but my fault. I am forgetting too much often that it is a video game. Sorry about that.
becuase there are many other “real” pilots in this community
Sure … and I’m would be curious if they are thinking the same (?)
No need to “argue” about that, but since you are the most experienced and valuable virtual pilot, I was expecting more exemplariness in mission planning! (no offense … joking for real :D)
Seriously, flight documentation provided by Red Dog is necessary for ppl who wants to fly “for real” (all aspects of the fighter pilot’s job, not only talking about firing missiles) … I was just surprised about what you said concerning charts etc … but I understand your point actually : It is all about the fact that, anyway, it is the document to be adapted to the terrain, not the opposite.
But I am polluting the thread annoying ppl with details … please continue on the topic which is about RedFlag V5.0.
-
@A.S:
30M would be ideal as it is common standard on many GEO services. Higher resolutions are rare (only parts of the globe) or cost money. Korea wasn´t even covered properly
by google-map 2-3 years ago.I always wondered what prevents rewrite the code of terrain.
-
We all try to contribute what we can. That there are sometimes differences in the opinions is normal. I am gald you understand within the broader perspective here.
As i said, IF BMS (technically or code-wise) would allow me (us) to implement real elevations + real texture… we would do it and once this fundament is done correctly, extenstion like RedDogs work would become even more sound and more valueable. Yes, and although this is a game, we also can try to fly it as realistic as possible and with more respect to flying and details (some of us actually do that).
My focus (or character) is not solution A or B, but my philosophy is the project as a whole and how to make things come together and work. That there are compromises to be made sometimes (as it is a “game”) is natural.
Its like the “start building the house from the bottom and not from the roof” mentality leading my ideas. Remember, i also have “made in germany” roots aswell…maybe that´s why …dunno.PS: I made such a remark because you are hanging it out just too often. You dont have to as debating without hanging it into other peoples faces is possible too :=)
-
I always wondered what prevents rewrite the code of terrain.
No idea … probably the same as ATC code (complexity) (?)
-
I always wondered what prevents rewrite the code of terrain.
Personal + skill + time. Doable (if it comes to software) are many things…but its an epic effort. Everything starts with an intention or will …rest is just evolution.
-
PS: I made such a remark because you are hanging it out just too often. You dont have to as debating without hanging it into other peoples faces is possible too :=)
My remaks was a clumsy way to point the fact that MAOs are (very) important IRL.
But I wonder … probaly that the elevation difference between stock terrain and yours is not so high (?) … if it is not more that 500ft, then, no big deal, IMO Red Dog’s OCN chart still apply. More sensitive for airfields elevations (due to instruments procedures and minimums.)
That there are compromises to be made sometimes (as it is a “game”) is natural.
100% valid. Arf … Falcon4 is always about compromises.
…
Will try to find some old discussions about terrain on DEV forum. Maybe I can find specific reasons. (?) … but as far as I know, there are a lot of ppl who has mentioned about terrain engine improvements. No idea about “priority level”.
-
The runways are probaly less then 70feet different than the original… as i basically just average “plained” the floor below them so the runways dont have to broken elevation zick-zacks. Same with rest 2600 objectives. The only big difference is probably in the MAOs. Just intall RF4 and try it and keep in mind RF5 is same elevation with new textures shown in 1st post.
BMS reduced from L0 to L2 (250m to 1000M) terrain resolution for different reasons. One of them afaik was no more fartiles and pop-up texture. I remember there was a discussion here about that.
What we really need is not a completly new gfx engine (no), but just a tweaking of the existing one (if possible of course). Otherwise we would need a new terrain engine + plus the ability to define areas, pathes (roads, railroads, rivers etc). The thing is, building a complete theater from scratch (without automated tools) is like a job in hell…epic. -
BMS reduced from L0 to L2 (250m to 1000M) terrain resolution for different reasons. One of them afaik was no more fartiles and pop-up texture. I remember there was a discussion here about that.
Yep … this is what I am seeing on DEV forum. I wonder also if is wasn’t also to fix some MP issues (not sure?) … and allowing sharers.
What we really need is not a completly new gfx engine (no), but just a tweaking of the existing one (if possible of course). Otherwise we would need a new terrain engine + plus the ability to define areas, pathes (roads, railroads, rivers etc). The thing is, building a complete theater from scratch (without automated tools) is like a job in hell…epic.
Unfortunately, I think you are right.
-
I would try:
-
to keep the texture-size still in L2 format (fps consideration and no use of farttiles aka no pop-ups in the LOD-distance rendering of textures, which can be seen in FSX with LOD1 to LOD20 for terrain), but just allow more unique tiles usable in the code (fool-tweak the code).
-
and also re-create the elevation mesh LOD-levels, meaning something like L0 = 10m, L1 = 20, L3 = 30m, L4 = 60m L5 = 120m … and make sure the .mea file (collision data definition) is based on L0. Right now L0 = 250m and L2 = 1000m and L2 is the only used for elevation defition. 1000m mesh terrain elevation is 1980 style.
That alone would allow to litterally IMPORT REAL DATA (elevation and textures) and create some outstanding realsitic looking terrain for BMS (like in tileproxy) …if that tweak is possible of course…dunno. I think it should be. -
Shaders are based on water-tiles atm, but F4 code itself operates (sorts) in this order:
1st Tile-set type (plain, water, etc etc)
2nd Areas (water, plain…etc etc)
3rd Pathers (raods, rivers etc etc)BMS reversed this order for water areas in order to get the shaders working over water-tiles, but this comes with difficulties in the theater-creation, especially while rebuilding the .thr file, which is crucial for a proper save.cam built as the .thr file defines where the GU can go and can not go. It was a “look” versus “functionality” compromise. Functionality comes first.
So shaders would probably need a different implmentation aswell based on water AREAS NOT water TILES (in RF the built order is correct, thus no water shaders, but instread water splashes instead of raising dust if shells hit the water)
- furthermore BMS only uses PLAINS and WATERTILES. Why i can undertand. Tacview itself considered other sets such as URBAN, THINK THINK FORREST, SWAMP while calculating the link values.
I wonder if different or more tile-types (like in original F4) have an impact on GU move speeds if re-introduced??? That would be interesting.
-
-
Yep … this is what I am seeing on DEV forum. I wonder also if is wasn’t also to fix some MP issues (not sure?) … and allowing sharers.
=>
It suppress the far tiles system and use only near tiles. At the same times, it resolve a old MP bug for elevation.
So is normal that he take much more FPS to run, because he use only near tiles , so huge resolution tiles.Its not only the tiles but I think the terrain resolution is at the same level as the old terrain running with a -g31 (or something like that) switch. If you wish to compare performance you should run old terrain with -g31 switch and then note FPS (you’ll get ~half or even less than without the switch and less than new terrain).
So … BMS terrain engine is already a “new” engine compared to OF, FF or AF … maybe one day, it will be enhanced a bit further (?)
There would be quite a bit of worked involved to change this (including mesh collision detection). Frankly I do not have the time for this.
And yes, we need a new terrain engine.Probably not tomorrow!
-
Yeah i remember the -g command :=)
I highly doubt a simple elevation grid (or mesh) improvement (resolution) WHILE KEEPING SAME TEXTURE SIZES will have a huge impact on FPS on modern machines, because its simple just a “blank” 3D elevation grid (like empty low poylgons as an analogy) and not more tiles (textures) to be loaded or processed.
Keep texture as is (L2)…allow more unique L2 textures tiles… increase elevation resolution. Infact - as example - textures can even be 2000x2000m instead of 1000mx1000m (currently) because as long a good mesh will allow to “lay” those tiles (texutres) over the better elevations …the textures will fit it naturally and cover respectively and naturally.…i think i will jump under cold water…its ridicilously hot here today…
-
@A.S:
I highly doubt a simple elevation grid (or mesh) improvement (resolution) WHILE KEEPING SAME TEXTURE SIZES will have a huge impact on FPS on modern machines,
My 1st couple of quotes is from 2008
… the third from 2013.
-
Copy… i ´ve read them before… someone posted same before.
-
BMS reduced from L0 to L2 (250m to 1000M) terrain resolution for different reasons. One of them afaik was no more fartiles and pop-up texture. I remember there was a discussion here about that.
Why? Just because of texture resolution (?) issues?
-
Why? Just because of texture resolution (?) issues?
Because of post '73 (Dee-Jays quotes)
-
Errr may I add…
First Molni from 1000 to 100 will be 10 times better not 100 times. This is important. Why?
It will load 10x4=400 times more tiles (or 10x3 in some cases), and the problem ain’t on the GPU’s yeap GPU’s can cope (maybe?) with the load but HDD’s also if the resolution is upgraded and use 1024x1024 or 2048x2048 then u killed it just by that, the problem as I remember from the OLD days it was stutters - freezes which was found that it was loading freeze cause the CPU-GPU was waiting for the data to be loaded from the HDD, this was noticable even on fast Hdd back then. Ok now we have SATA and SSD but I’m sure we will pump up the resolution for sure, so we r back at the same point. (?)
Now this 10 times more detailed elevations automatically result in 10 times more CPU calculations consider this specially in a campaign… Don’t u think that this will have a huge impact on performance even with MONSTER super trooper ultra wow pc’s??? On the other hand we ask for larger Bubble… yeap right…
To do so then needs way much optimization and if u create a “heavy” theater then u r dead meat and the wagging of performance will be endless… So this is mostly why BMS did it I believe…
Also it might need optimization and on 64bit code and multicore multithread and all HELL others to bring it down to reasonable performance levels, and don’t ask for +3.000€ pc’s just to run a TE.So it’s not that simple at all IMO.
If u have the bubble size u can do the math for the tiles load demand… I remember it was done in the past… -
First Molni from 1000 to 100 will be 10 times better not 100 times.
Ok, it is not 100 times better but also not only 10 times… Surafce is a 3D object which defined by mesh. The 1000 m base terrain is defined by 4 points. How many nodes we have with same size of terrain with 100 m node distances? Not only 10 times more…
I never asked bigger bubble size.