[New] F16I Skin Project
-
Version3 you posted here: https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?36568-New-F16I-Skin-Project&p=508837&viewfull=1#post508837 is the most accurate, at least to my none expert eyes.
-
-
This post is deleted! -
The colors of the default F16I are more realistic than your’s skin, that i can guarantee. Your skin colors are more closer to the Morocco F16’s than the Israeli one, in my opinion.
I saw F16I “Sufa” lively from up close, and that is my conclusion.
Your skin details are astounding for sure, colors need to be fixed - if you are aiming for a realistic experience. -
This post is deleted! -
WF321 - I already told you Version 3 up there is your MOST accurate version, so I will start by taking that as a reference. Then from there, you can try to improve, I think it’ll make your work easier.
Also, from long time Falcon development experience, I can tell you that you should be 100% open for criticism on your work. You choose to develop something yourself which is by itself more than most do anyway, but the other side of that is that you should be 100% open minded - People looking from the side (Like myself or Asaf up there) only try to help, in order to get you as close as possible.
Cheers!
-
of course the owner project has the last word, but I did some searches and convertions about the right colors around the web
here the results:
sand : 33531> sRGB: 199; 180; 158
green : 34424> sRGB: 169; 173; 149
brown : 30219> sRGB: 143; 116; 96
grey : 36375> sRGB: 156; 165; 171
about grey underneath some reports 36270 like all f16 in the world except hg5 version scheme.
have fun with your beautiful work
Cheers
-
Lol,
Same never ending discussion on the scale modelling forum, especially with israeli camo.
there is no such thing as a right colour in our field of 3D or aircraft modelling. (remember the white zero issue, zero were never white)aircraft colours fade in the sun, aircraft weather, light perception is always different, reflexion is always different.
add then scale effect or monitor configuration/calibration and it becomes a true nighmare with always some guys throwing their grain of saltI see some picture in the BMS picture topic that I find really ugly and oversaturated and it seems some ppl find this nice
It’s called colour perception and it’s different from one individual setup or eyes to another.So let the author of the files do as he see fits, after all, he’s the one doing the hardwork
-
This post is deleted! -
This post is deleted! -
The 3rd is the most suitable
BTW, what are those terrain tiles? Israel photoreal? It looks good from above, but you don’t have enough texture slots to make something 100% photoreal…
-
This post is deleted! -
These are not Tiles so u can use Unlimited numbers of them…
So… you have managed to texture a 3D terrain with unlimited number of photoreal textures? If that is true then you should really sell this TERRIFIC technology! Commercial companies will pay you millions for such code (And, it’s not even code)
Or, there is the 2nd option…
That you tell us what is it that you smoke so we can have that too :rofl:
-
This post is deleted! -
Ha I see… so this isn’t 3D terrain, but some kind of 3D model. All clear now
Also understood now why it is so empty of any objects or vehicles, you can’t really place them.
-
This post is deleted! -
So basically you made a huge parking lot and put on photoreal as it’s texture… cool…
I suggest you put in DEM data as shape, that would give you 3d too…Just don’t forget to reproject everything from 3857 to falcon projection… Or the photoreal and geographic features will not work.
BTW, how to you deal with Z fighting between your “terrain” and all other objects?
-
This post is deleted! -
It’s more complicated… But if the military simulators are using 100% photoreal terrain to train their pilots… it is possible. including building and forth…
You can get the same result with falcon 4 bms because you don’t use tiles… infact - you can build a whole country in 3dMax and get it inside… cut it in small sagements and get the disstance to be let’s say 80nm around you - anything of the 3d model beyond 80nm will be Degraded… so the FPS remains on 60FPS 4K… it’s possible
But it’s a project for very large companies like Lockheed Martin and Microsoft and UbiSoft… and its a little bit more complicated with the tech. needed for running this… You will have to use atleast GTX1080TI 11GB as minimum requirments (I use this video card so it runs ok with 3d mountains test I did) … it’s not a project really can be used for everyone home pc…
I used some of the ideas that are also used on bigger simulators like Xplane and Lockheed’s sim on Bms … its a lot more complicated and for some reasons in some point - your simulator will just won’t be able to handle it and it’ll crash… so it’s the down side for this
Listen up…
Eventually, a 3D terrain is no different than any 3D model, in fact, if you think of it, a 3D terrain is just a mesh, i.e it is EXACTLY a 3D model. The main difference though between terrain and “usual” 3D models is the scale - Terrain is like a HUGE 3D model, so the scaling become a problem. If you just take some photoreal texture and spread it over large geometry, what you will get is the same result - It may look good from 20K feet, but from close it’ll look like shit due to too low resolution compared to the geometry.
Regarding texturing, there is a popular way to measure texturing quality, by simply stating the pixel/meter ratio. For example, KTO and ITO in BMS are textured mostly with 512 textures, and since each such texture cover a 1KM squared area, then you can say the resolution is 2 meter per pixel. That may look OK from high and medium altitude, but will look not so sharp down low.
So, to sum it up, if you spread some huge set of textures on some huge 3D model you will mainly fill your GPU VRAM pretty fast (trust me, even 11GB is nothing for pure photoreal high quality terrain texturing). What you see done in advance engines like Xplan or P3D is to hold in VRAM only necessary mipmap slices of those textures, so for close geometry you see full res texture, while for more distant geometry lower mipmap is used.
However, holding highres photoreal isn’t only about rendering, we are talking about HUGE HD space for high quality textures of large surface. 100s of GBs of data, not that practical for the average user.Xplan and P3D have advanced engines (And advanced terrain engine as part of that), so you can’t really use ideas from there on BMS.
And… highres terrain can run even on average GPUs, the heavy work isn’t really geometry or number of vertices, but mainly texturing. If you have complicated texturing (e.g multi-texturing), it become more complicated than just laying simple textures on geometry.
-
I say it again - It’s impossible to get the full idea into Falcon bms… it’s about alot of details and alot of code problems (I think)…
I flew over a 500 square nm terrain on falcon bms - with 3d mountains … but after a few minutes of flying - the simulator just crash… so I stopped trying…It didn’t worked for you because you try to do impossible things with current engine. You are trying to render huge 3D models, it could be that you also cause some GPU/Driver issues without realizing it.
Leave the Terrain Porject to the Big Companies…
Sorry to disappoint you, but no, we won’t