What's up with those rumors
-
It’s rather world feeling way too small. Looking at videos and screenies from other sims I got the feeling sthere’s something wrong with distance perception in F4.
This describes my feeling as well.
The world (terrain) feeling way to small and in comparison the 3D objects are to huge in or visa versa.
(there is an old thread on this topic somewhere on this forum)While it has been already proofed that terrain distances and AC speed and timings are
correct (as possile with the current terrain projection) insim, there must be something else …Thanks a lot for posting vids of Innsbruck, because I started to tile that area for an (now long time)
abandoned project years ago and IIRC the feeling was not close to those Aerofly vids you’ve posted.IMHO, it would be very nice if we could get Aeroflys feeling.
Btw. dunno why I dislike the x- plane vid.Cheers, :yo:
LS -
My main gripe with F4 terrain is not the sense of speed as it comes from ultra-wide views + points of reference (objects/terrain details). It’s rather world feeling way too small. Looking at videos and screenies from other sims I got the feeling sthere’s something wrong with distance perception in F4. Maybe it’s F4 terrain resolution is too small. maybe it lack details that help player to judge the distance, maybe ground tiles are too big in relation to textures (ie for ground textures we have tiles should be 500x500m or 250x250m). Dunno.
Here’s few vids for comparision. Looks tad different than F4 and I think that ones got it right.
also few static screnies (sorry for referencing other forum) https://www.flightsim.com/vbfs/showthread.php?307009-Aerofly-FS2-Innsbruck
Yes of course everything you mentioned is a factor for sense of speed:
Mesh resolution
Textures resolution (Mainly measuring meter/pixel)
Ground objects density and possibly also size (Although I do want to believe that new 3D models of features are built with correct size)Falcon world size “feeling” is indeed a combination of all of those.
BTW I felt like the XP vid is a bit slow actually, maybe the jet was indeed pretty slow, but maybe also sense of speed isn’t “as we think” and as D-J confirmed above from his RL experience.
Also, I’m a bit surprised to see XP11 has such exaggerated “bump holes”, I think it’s a bit too much and breaks the feeling of natural land a bit. Don’t know maybe the vid lie but in the snow period at ~5:40 it feels none-natural, like they tried too hard create extra extra details. But maybe just my feeling.I’m sure however that things for BMS will improve in the future, we are already in better state now and it’ll only get better.
-
My guess is it’s not about size of the objects/terrain per se, but how presented on the screen. As far as I can understand our eyes are like wide angle cameras, things very close seems to be huge, scaling down quicly with the distance growing but as distance grow tempo of scaling goes down.
Just for experiment I was looking at the back of my car and stepped back from about 1 to 50 meters. For first 3m reductin of relative size was huge, above 10m of distance till the final 50, relative size of the car was quite similar.
So maybe algorithm of on display size as a function of physical object size related to distance from POV should be reviewed.
It’s kinda related to the video EGHI posted but kinda reversed. I mean we shouldn’t think in terms of how large in screen pixels object should be but rather how many miliradians of our FOV it should take at given distance. -
I have some cross-country glider and GA aviation experience in Germany (VFR only) and I can say from my end that the lack of detail on the ground is what matters.
I don´t have videos at low altitude in RL, but, I-hawk, if you want I can upload a video of FW-190A3 flying at 300knots at 300ft in IL-2 and compare with an F-16C in BMS, same altitude and speed, all with details and graphics maximized. The difference is brutal. In Falcon you barely feel the sensation of speed. -
Sense of speed depends on the point your eyes are focused, see the posted video of F18 when camera is pointed at distant objects in the fromt sense of speed is similar to what we have in F4, when it looks to the sides at close objects things move very fast.
And yes more details as a points of reference helps alot. -
Thats kinda of a funny term. I Sim/Game for enjoyment, not to be serious, that’s my work life….
To each their own. Id prefer to be paid to fly fighter jets, but as that isnt happening, I get enjoyment from trying to replicate that experience - as exactly as I can - but thats me.
And I think Im probably a bit weird.
-
And I think Im probably a bit weird.
Don’t think you are. All the guys in my VFS are like that and I know at least 2 more squads which are as well. I’m like you, if it’s not 100% serious, it’s not fun.
-
@ I-Hawk, yes I’m pretty sure things will get better and better, you guys are doing wonderfull ‘job’. I’m just trying to help to nail this particular issue. I hope at some point right person will rethink what was said here, draw his/her (?) own conclusions and make Falcon world feel right
[edit]
Thinking even more about sense of speed. Riding a motorcycle helps a bit to understand how it works.
I thinkt it’s acombination of FOV, details as a points of reference and distance related scaling. It reminds me about a paragraph from original F4 manual about when is a time to start a turn in merge.You can see plane as small dot for a long time once it rapidly starts to get bigger - turn.
So it’s like: small … small … small … small small …small … a bit larger … a bit larger … even larger …WHAM!!! it’s huge … gone.
The faster you go the it takes less time from a bit larger stage to huge.
For the sense of scale the other way around large and very distant objects/terrain features just sits there without changing it’s relative size for ‘eternity’ like you’d be standing still. -
I hope at some point right person will rethink what was said here, draw his/her (?) own conclusions and make Falcon world feel right
I don’t think I have a choice here. For sure I intend to get that thing right. That’s why I said above, it’s hard for me currently to judge exactly if there is even a problem with Falcon itself or it’s “just” the current state of mesh/objects/textures. I already verified yesterday that the speed of the F-16 (And probably anything else) in BMS is 100% correct relative to the world, so at least that was sorted. The next suspect is FOV, and of course there is the well-known problem of the engine itself - Too low-res mesh, low res textures and mostly empty areas (objects-wise).
-
@ I-Hawk, yes I’m pretty sure things will get better and better, you guys are doing wonderfull ‘job’. I’m just trying to help to nail this particular issue. I hope at some point right person will rethink what was said here, draw his/her (?) own conclusions and make Falcon world feel right
[edit]
Thinking even more about sense of speed. Riding a motorcycle helps a bit to understand how it works.
I thinkt it’s acombination of FOV, details as a points of reference and distance related scaling. It reminds me about a paragraph from original F4 manual about when is a time to start a turn in merge.You can see plane as small dot for a long time once it rapidly starts to get bigger - turn.
So it’s like: small … small … small … small small …small … a bit larger … a bit larger … even larger …WHAM!!! it’s huge … gone.
The faster you go the it takes less time from a bit larger stage to huge.
For the sense of scale the other way around large and very distant objects/terrain features just sits there without changing it’s relative size for ‘eternity’ like you’d be standing still.After reading all of this, I think your close to what the differences between the vids that have been shown. There is certainly one aspect that has not been discussed much here. Subtle terrain elevations. Even when flying through a valley, there are subtle elevation changes. The eye straight ahead see’s almost a flat and level terrain. As you fly towards it (and faster) the subtle elevations become only slightly seen until your right on top of it. Once overflown, the subtle elevation has a point of reference that quickly becomes defined or pronounced. What this amounts to in the Falcon (BMS) world is LOD elevation detail, scaling from a distance. Yes, more detail to the terrain is part of the feeling of speed, as well as FOV, but subtle elevations (and not so subtle) create depth of field (almost a 3D experience) we perceive with our eyes in real life. The same can be said for flight sims. DX9.0c could have subtle elevations added as I described, but the lack of smooth transitions and greater detail of terrain elevation (subtle or not) would not be so much of a dramatic of an effect as DX11. It is a new GFX engine (DX11) BMS needs for this kind of performance.
-
I bet absolute numbers are right, I just wonder I the screen representation is right. Our depth perception is not linear, more like EEGS funnel (because that’s what it visualises) and I still think if F4 rendering engine recreates it right. I guess that part is mostly the same from the very beginning (given all the F revisions have this distinct look).
In the end all of the thinkgs yu’ve listed gonna be improved at some point -
After reading all of this, I think your close to what the differences between the vids that have been shown. There is certainly one aspect that has not been discussed much here. Subtle terrain elevations. Even when flying through a valley, there are subtle elevation changes. The eye straight ahead see’s almost a flat and level terrain. As you fly towards it (and faster) the subtle elevations become only slightly seen until your right on top of it. Once overflown, the subtle elevation has a point of reference that quickly becomes defined or pronounced. What this amounts to in the Falcon (BMS) world is LOD elevation detail, scaling from a distance. Yes, more detail to the terrain is part of the feeling of speed, as well as FOV, but subtle elevations (and not so subtle) create depth of field (almost a 3D experience) we perceive with our eyes in real life. The same can be said for flight sims. DX9.0c could have subtle elevations added as I described, but the lack of smooth transitions and greater detail of terrain elevation (subtle or not) would not be so much of a dramatic of an effect as DX11. It is a new GFX engine (DX11) BMS needs for this kind of performance.
If there gonna be upgrade to new 3D GFX API I hope it’l be Vulkan. It is not that Vulkan is so much better better than DX12. All of them (Vulkan, DX12, Metal) are apis quite similar in capabilities, but only Vulkan is not prioprietary one tied to one platfom.
-
I just wanted likely similar (?) to others.
If we had a much more detailed terrain the feeling of speed and the size of the theater would be different. If a terrain does not have any distinctive feature what you can use as point of reference and the shape of the hills and mountains are similar everywhere it prevents a lots of things.
As low level. If you just make a very different colored texture and large FOV feeling the illusion of speed is partially true because you sense the rate of changing the position in aspect of different part of texture regardless the terrain is 100% flat. But in RL terrain is not flat and mostly you feel the small “bumps” of terrain as reference which gives the quick relative position change.
Regardless BMS has terrain and level difference comparing to RL and other advanced sims the terrain feels in Korea is almost flat (at least to me) and it has close to 0 buildings except a very few areas.
If anybody asked me on my wishlist currently would be on top the new terrain engine. The game as generally looks good to me. It can handle vehicles with necessary detail, are smokes, clouds, on tactical level weather has impact, DB got a serious upgrade, a better IR code etc. The only major part which still almost identical with F4.0 is the terrain and the objective-map bound. It is a very serious bottleneck.
-
Correct in that depth perception is not linear, yet in ANY game, you are in a linear world (even VR). So, the way about it would be to trick the mind into thinking (as for points of reference) is to create more detail (subtle) terrain elevations (both elevation and depressions). Small details of elevation changes from a distance should not be hardly noticeable. But as you approach the elevation changes, it slowing form until your rather close as the elevation change becomes pronounced. Instead of a flat terrain tile, you have a terrain with small “ups and downs” throughout the FOV. That’s going to take some work.
-
Correct in that depth perception is not linear, yet in ANY game, you are in a linear world (even VR). So, the way about it would be to trick the mind into thinking (as for points of reference) is to create more detail (subtle) terrain elevations (both elevation and depressions). Small details of elevation changes from a distance should not be hardly noticeable. But as you approach the elevation changes, it slowing form until your rather close as the elevation change becomes pronounced. Instead of a flat terrain tile, you have a terrain with small “ups and downs” throughout the FOV. That’s going to take some work.
Even the old 2D games used parallax scrolling as a tool to give the sense of feeling the speed the depth. 2D lines could be much different from flat.
-
My 2c: FOV is definitely a part of it. All you have to do is compare two races in any racing game, one at 20° FOV, one at 80°… the 20° pass feels much faster, at the same speed.
VR gets a sense of speed for this very reason - for them the total FOV is high, but the angular display has the same stretch to it as around 20° on a monitor.
Then again, its not like improvements to terrain wouldnt help (with the sense of speed). Just look at how much of an improvement the trees were.
-
Few years ago, we did a low level egress, and I uploaded this excerpt because I liked the sense of speed in the turn as I was looking at my lead and seeing the textures / objects below pass by. Unfortunately, the stuttering of the recording and not actually flying diminishes the effect somewhat, but it does show that variation in your line of sight play a large part in your perception of speed. IMO, the lack of diversity is probably one of the biggest problems in BMS in terms of filling the world, and giving that speed perception.
Where you look also matters. If you cover half of the screen, one side feels slow, while the other looks pretty fast.
-
I don’t think I have a choice here. For sure I intend to get that thing right. That’s why I said above, it’s hard for me currently to judge exactly if there is even a problem with Falcon itself or it’s “just” the current state of mesh/objects/textures.
My best guess is that Microprose coded it in a way that 3D objects and cockpit view are oversized and therefore good visible,
even on a 13" CRT monitor in 640x480 res. back in the day.
(regardless of smart scalling, whereat I can’t remember if this was already
a feature of the release version)If the terrain distances are 100% correct as you’ve said, and if our 3D objects
are 100% in scale with RL referencies like some good SAT maps, then it must be the cockpit view FOV,
scale, zoom or whatever.While writing about zoom, … could it be that there is a “standard” zoom-in hidden in the code somewhere?
Cheers, :yo:
LS -
After reading all of this, I think your close to what the differences between the vids that have been shown. There is certainly one aspect that has not been discussed much here. Subtle terrain elevations. Even when flying through a valley, there are subtle elevation changes. The eye straight ahead see’s almost a flat and level terrain. As you fly towards it (and faster) the subtle elevations become only slightly seen until your right on top of it. Once overflown, the subtle elevation has a point of reference that quickly becomes defined or pronounced. What this amounts to in the Falcon (BMS) world is LOD elevation detail, scaling from a distance. Yes, more detail to the terrain is part of the feeling of speed, as well as FOV, but subtle elevations (and not so subtle) create depth of field (almost a 3D experience) we perceive with our eyes in real life. The same can be said for flight sims. DX9.0c could have subtle elevations added as I described, but the lack of smooth transitions and greater detail of terrain elevation (subtle or not) would not be so much of a dramatic of an effect as DX11. It is a new GFX engine (DX11) BMS needs for this kind of performance.
Yes that’s why modern engines also add usually bump mapping to terrains, as it’s pretty hard to simulate all the small details with real mesh.
To be more accurate, I think today even the number of tris isn’t a problem as the need to back everything up with physics. It’s possible to create today CRAZY detailed meshes and HW will digest it for rendering, but part of the problem may be to hold also data for physics, and get a sync between what the GPU renders and what the CPU can simulate. If you look in the web today you will see crazy meshes created using fractals, but backing that up with CPU/System-RAM isn’t that easy.
If there gonna be upgrade to new 3D GFX API I hope it’l be Vulkan. It is not that Vulkan is so much better better than DX12. All of them (Vulkan, DX12, Metal) are apis quite similar in capabilities, but only Vulkan is not prioprietary one tied to one platfom.
No, it won’t be Vulkan. Unfortunately changing to Vulkan will be much harder than a DX API.
Regardless BMS has terrain and level difference comparing to RL and other advanced sims the terrain feels in Korea is almost flat (at least to me) and it has close to 0 buildings except a very few areas.
Yes Korea is flat only in Falcon world. The KTO area is actually full of mountains all over.
-
[…]
No, it won’t be Vulkan. Unfortunately changing to Vulkan will be much harder than a DX API.
[…]
Too bad, anyways i’ll take whatever you’ll bring to the party. Hopefully once new engine will be out DX11/12 to Vulkan wrappers will be in good shape.
For world mesh, i thionk SRTM is still the way to go, one can enchance it even further with procedural tricks. Outerra might be a bit forgotten now due to their slow development process, but still it’s amazing piece of tech.