Brandnew models 2014 by TomCatz
-
You can create 3d models and stuffs with an ‘old’ pc, but you can’t fly with that pc, is this what I am reading? really? I don’t think it’s a good compromise. I hope someone understood my words in previous posts also.
Life is a choice -
well there could be a rich version a med version and a low version… not as for the pocket actually but for model details and the ability of hardware to run them mostly cause u might have rich ppl with poor hw and viceversa…
the problem is human resources mostly to accomplish something like that. -
I believe due to a demonstrated case by FighterOps in the past, that one can achieve great looking and well detailed 3D models of planes even not using overly exaggerated and unnecessary high polygon counts.
There was a demonstration on their forums, comparing a DCS Su-25T ie. with i think 25-30k plygons in comparision (no cockpits included) to their own technique, which used way less polygons for planes, but yet looked phantastically detailed and no less visually appealing than the Su-25T by FlamingCliffs. Performance efficiency was a big topic and i do remember it was elaborated to some extend (the how), but i can unfortunatly not remember exactly what kind of methods (or simplifications) were used.Furthermore, i think - my own conclusion - after following all those poly-count debates and after digging into the matter myself, that 8k polygons for LOD 0 is more than enough for external BMS 3D models of planes … and any other lower LOD instance using less consequently.
One has to ask, how much “detail” is really required where planes are only seen close-up on taxi and in formations or in external views for movies? …and what the sacrifice will be between extreme visual based depiction and FPS and truly tactically!!! required details?Intonation on TACTICALLY REQUIRED DETAILS and not visual hollywood movie rendering standards. Smart balance and trade-off ??!??! or as RedDog used the term “the bigger picture”.
-
well AS, Im sure some of us would like to have tactically required details like features being visible at correct ranges, as well as hollywood movie rendering standards as well, no?
Im not unconvinced that we cannot have both with enough LODs.
-
A.S.
that’s the famous ’ light years ’ distance to “how think” between a pilot who fly with a simulator like falcon and a dev is creating and it tests his creation. If you are both you can understand the compromise.
Regards
-
well AS, Im sure some of us would like to have tactically required details like features being visible at correct ranges, as well as hollywood movie rendering standards as well, no?
Im not unconvinced that we cannot have both with enough LODs.
Hehe. You know what? EVERY sim i every played had this messed up to some degree - the FPS and/or the visibility of shapes and details at various distances.
Believe it or not, but BMS is one of the (if not the) best sim, where visibility of planes and ground-units is made really well from close to far. No LOD swappings, no blurings of shapes, no disapear and pop-up LODs and objects with changing distances etc. etc. It is not perfect, but much better than most sims regards, but i also do know, where and how this can be further improved - something i partially did in RF, but not for all vehicles, just for the ones used in the theater (for example compare the visibility of the wing-tip lights at night in KTO and RF to your wingmen at various distance, or the spot-ranges on a bright day of an F-16, frontal and side aspect, no objectives or buildings poping-up … just to name a few of many fixes the normal user doesn´t really see at first ).Sometimes one just can´t have both (or everything) and smart compromises are to be made for different reasons.
As being a realistic simulation (or trying to be) tactical recognition (visibilities and distances, SPOT- and ID-abilities of shape at various ranges by eyes or pods, background-clutter, environmental effects on the perception, etc. etc.) come for me way before the “hollywood HD brilliances” or the totally “pimped” details and effects so often misleadingly used in the gaming industry to pitch a product.
-
If you are both you can understand the compromise.
Correct. Can´t improve one does not use. Can´t fix one does not understand. Or - for better understanding - hard to improve a car if one can´t drive.
-
well in those FO tests there was terrain and 3d models… was there anything else? like AI war and campaign war taking place? I don’t think so… so this test was just like testing a 3d app only… not our case.
to optimize such war simulators demands lot’s and LOTS and WAY LOTS of resources (human / time / coding / testing / report back / loop the previous) and come down to conclusions and find the mean values for optimal performance.
-
Great work Tom.
Thanks very much! -
Beautyfull models
any others with this problem?