[New] F16I Skin Project
-
This post is deleted! -
well you might not need such photoshop skills afterall.
As you say it you did it you need a pc with 9900k and 128gb or ram and 2tb ssd to work with it.
With this technique u just need time and fast internet and with xnview or even photoshop batch you can convert them to dds. just convert. You need like 3 times to download the tiles - textures like each for each LOD.
Then even with a script might be able to every square section seems of the 3d object uvw mapping to apply the texture.Or
divide the 3d object to what? 100 sections? thus 100 textures? u could stitch the photos in photoshop (better do it in unity so the raw material is ready for your final object.
-
This post is deleted! -
well now it’s 300kx300k on photoshop… and I don’t think there are pc’s under the 10k€ that can load such file or work in a production environment. Maybe once yes and wait 3 hours for the hdd or ssd to load it and write it in ramdrive cause I don;t know if there exists a mobo with enough ram to full load a 300kx300k picture. :lol:
30kpx^2 for 30klm means 1px=1m thus same resolution as falcon Korea tiles on the highres ones and double the res for most of korea tiles.
the 4096 dds files are what for? to spread the load? and minimize the applied textures to 3ds max?
for 300km its 73,2 dds files… ok near 80 as you said…Now on your process photoshop and dds file sizes must be the same as the break down of the 3d model to make the process easier.
Like if you go for 4096 you must create a plane like that if you had stitched the whole textures it would be the exact same size of the plane in 3dsmax.
so if you get 40x40 equal pieces of textures then you should cut out the 3d model to 40x40 equal pieces , apply each texture as a material for each piece and export each one of the 1600 objects…
Now if you had 80 so like 10x8 it’s 327.680m… near that 300klm.Now those 4k chunks of textures are rather large… so as you advance (fly straight with the airplane at 100ft) and lets say for all those 80@4k u have 80@2k and 80@1k or even better and one set at 512kb. the issue is that when it’s going to load like 8 of those 4k dds which are about 22mbx8= 176mb and the hdd is at ~40mb/s means it needs 4to5 secs to load them… in an ssd it’s half or a second… but still noticeable…
So you see where i’m going with it…
needs optimization and more spread like that the 4096 is way too large for terrain maybe you should go like double or triple thus 160 or 320.
This rings a bell like DCS terrain structure where if not all dcs users but most turn to ssd’s cause of the hickups on loading while flying…
Falcon had it in the old IDE days.In that respect the 320 are overkill and 160 also are kill.
so the falcon way of terrain looks more optimized performance wise and you can have even 4096px tiles if you want for more details in some areas and that’s 4px per mt.
Your thing now is can you have resources to go like 4px per meter? from what I know none free.
-
This post is deleted! -
Arty,
This is not terrain. It’s just big 3D model with textures of satellite photos that are probably in the KoreaObj folder instead of the real terrain Folder. One big big feature on top of the real terrain in Falcon.
That’s it. -
This post is deleted! -
so if the guys in falcon want us to share our tests - and results… I do it already by talkin and explaining here…
Yes, we need a lot of help from you, as you can see. We are so poor
-
This post is deleted! -
The guys from your ‘source code’ can make it as ground… but that needs to be done first… and then make the object functions as ground just like Aircraft Carriers act like a solid ground and not a ghost object…
If F18 can stand on an object like the carrier… helicopters can land on roofs of buildings… terrorists can fire missiles from roofs, and you can land on a mountain or a hill…
You met in your “terrain” test what is HitBox?
-
That looks like the Dark side of the moon (no offense) …
Yes and that F-16 is actually a cover for a X-Wing…
-
This post is deleted! -
You want a screenshots contest?
All you can show is shots from high altitude, because that’s all what you got… We all know that 4m satellite photo will look impressive from 25K+ feet, that’s not a big deal.
You need to understand (again), that the first problem about terrain is mesh, not the damn textures LOL. Sure texture are also important, but mesh is the real problem, and the first one that must be solved. Your terrain is like your “Python 5 360 mod” It’s a damn hack…
-
I do not understand what you wanted to show on these screenshots?
The first one shows your fake terrain, the second shows the real ITO mountains and some flat object. -
This post is deleted! -
Guys - don’t bite…! Deprive a child of the attention it craves, eventually it’ll give up squealing.
-
Where is the facepalm imoji when you need one…
Go home buddy, you are drunk!
I’ll start from the END because you don’t really read. unless you actually have any working knowledge THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO SHARE(!!!). I don’t want to hear anymore on you “terrain” BS.Now for the real explanation you will most definitely not gonna read…
the “real world” distances mean nothing if you don’t get a reliable way go from Real world data to falcon coordinates. You can’t do that from GE directly because the data you get out is 3857. However, when you measure distance, GE will use spherical earth math to calculate everything behind the scenes. you can actually see in over long distances because the line curves.
so your raw output will be accurate distance wise when you go directly north/south. however, on every latitude, distance per pixel changes it’s smaller as you go north. which is why they are doing distance measurements in WGS84. This is all based on the fact that you can go back and forth between those two projections.
So unless you know how to do it in Falcon, all your hard work is BS…
However, if you do know how to do that, that will make you the only person that can in the current falcon terrain engine.This is also the ONLY reason I’m still here, feeding your unlimited trollish appetite is on the long shot that this is the ONLY known occasion, in the almost 12 years I’ve been interacting online that you are not full of shit and actually know something useful. This knowledge will definitely be put to good use.
and to further refine Arty’s math.
if you go with 16px/m you can cover entire falcon theater (1024*1024 km) with 256 tiles each is 4096^. which will be ~2.8GB in DDS form. (in TIFF it’s slightly more then 30GB)
every-time you double the res, you quadruple the space needed (there is some optimization to be done in water only tiles).
so going to 8m/px you’ll need 1024 tiles (4096^ each) taking about 11GB.
4m/px is 4096 tiles taking 44GB.
2m/px will be 16384 which is 177GB
and so on.raw data for 4m/px BTH is about 700GB.
-
Eghi i understood already… thank you.
Wolfox what u try to accomplish and kinda proof to the devs they can already.
Falcon has 4 elevation layers, and terrain tiles number can go from a few to millions.
That way you could have 30m res on heightmap iirc and even 50px per m.Those where restricted cause of performance issues.
So the devs know already, and they have it.
I don’t think there is much difference between your approach and what the falcon terrain engine can already do.
So to overcome those performance issues needs structural changes to the terrain and gfx engine nor to mention whole environment.
Devs know that for years (decades) community also triggered alerts on new findings amd new engines that popped up from time to time, but falcon is unique. Devs know the restrictions and limitations and workload on this and they act accordingly.
We just play around… wasting time some times.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T818A using Tapatalk
-
This post is deleted! -
We have capabilities that no one else has.
That statement alone, in and of itself, PROVES you are full of SHEET!!!
C9