Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Perhaps Mav can offer some insight then why the fps is so much worse inside than outside then, since he said he is the only one who really understands it all. It would appear the number of aircraft being rendered doesn’t have nearly as much to do with it as suggested, but more so the manner in which they are being rendered.
u forgot the smilie icon… and the comment:
// Mortesil runs and hides…:lol:
-
Without want to interfere I am not expert only from my little experience always from inside the cockpit FPS are less than external views and my guess is because the 3pit is rendered together with the outside world ,this happens also in dcs but much worse but maybe I am wrong I tell you what I have noticed.
-
Something related has been discussed before and I also did some test for Mav.
External model polycounts or texture number somehow affects FPS more on internal views. Somehow it affects massively below few hundreds ft
-
Something related has been discussed before and I also did some test for Mav.
External model polycounts or texture number somehow affects FPS more on internal views. Somehow it affects massively below few hundreds ft
yeap I believe everyone watched closely this thread… but the info was cut out and no actual final outcome came.
like yeap it’s a pc one user thing, or it’s shadowing or shader or yeap we will optimize it better or anything.
I don’t want to sound like we demand a report or whatever, but I believe we all where left there hanging… waiting for a conclusion…the subject as said was coming to the surface for years now from the OF era. Anyway thanx all in this for their persistence on the subject and analyzing it and trying to get down to it.
Edit: to bless my beard in the OF or 4.32 era I had made it an issue and I kinda had a repetition in the pit when I was zooming in in an area of it… and it was down to the pit and that cause the model was not available nothing could be done if it was a pit thing…
but I didn’t try hard to narrow it down… -
Perhaps Mav can offer some insight then why the fps is so much worse inside than outside then, since he said he is the only one who really understands it all. It would appear the number of aircraft being rendered doesn’t have nearly as much to do with it as suggested, but more so the manner in which they are being rendered.
I’m no expert to Falcon’s 3D models rendering, but I do know 1 or 2 things about rendering. And I think the answer is pretty obvious:
Cockpit has more complicated geometry than what you usually see outside, and also it has heavier textures and many of them. I don’t know exactly how many draw calls we spend on cockpit only, but I bet it’s a pretty high number. That is the simple and probably true explanation to the serious FPS difference. Also, you can check and find that with other cockpits there isn’t such a drop, e.g the F-18 cockpit is much more efficient.Regarding Janhas models, I did a test:
4 F-16Is, external view, airborne, I was flying 1500 feet from them.
FPS difference between stock model and Janhas was IIRC ~35-40%But, more than anything, it is the engine, ladies and gentlemen. The engine is the source of all troubles. Just the fact that we use a draw call for each texture is IMHO crazy. And without sorting that first, we can analyze such cases for years with no efficient conclusions.
-
F-16 pit has crazy textures beside some other 8000 stock textures used in world rendering. I dont remember exactly what is water bump resolution and some others (explosions etc)….but I made them 512 or 256 in my install and I have 40-50FPS stable flight on my intel HD3000 without FPS drops. I made white 128 texture for ground noise layer too(sorry Polak) because it does not fit my aesthetic POV.
There is no reason to be BMS more demanding than AF or OF but texture resolution/quantity + 3dmesh resolution/quantity.
I guess even superb BMS FM is not noticeable for CPUs.Wild thaught…BMS 4.33 UP5 has better MP code/fixes/features etc and is still less stable compared to BMS 4.32 or AF (I used to fly 30+ pilots).
But we need higher model resolution and higher texture resolution of course (sarcasm). You can eat me this has nothing to do with MP, but small piece to small piece…I have a suspiction 30 pilots using my setup with office laptops and Intel GPUs (and black-widow sticks of course) would have cool MP party, while 15 superpit nerds crash into bluescreen during first Jan-Hass (nothing personal, sorry mate) takeoff
:mrgreen: -
Ha I think you have made a little mess
A couple of things:
1. MP stability has nothing to do with GFX. MP usually falls on the smallest bugs you can think of like small structures of code or objects that get corrupted because of many possible reasons Connection delays, low BW, high ping, old old lurking bugs in the code etc etc.
2. Texture size - Depends on which size you are talking of and also which HW. Some HW (mainly old) maybe more affected if you switch from 512 to 2048 while some GPUs will hardly notice it. Yes there is a difference with any change you do but it’s hard to judge what is the real impact without dedicated test. The BMS textures are fairly in sane size and there is a Highres config option to use the higher res textures, so I think we are fairly OK regarding that aspect.
Terrain rendering will hardly notice the difference you reduced the detail map from 256 to 128, Water bump map is IIRC 2048 and may have more effect, but actually water rendering in BMS is pretty fast due to the relatively lonely sea areas, so I don’t know if you will gain that much.
Particlesys textures are pretty efficient as they all seat on a large sheet and they are 256 in size each. When the particlesys code is sampling those textures, it takes only slices from the big sheet, and 256 is actually low resolution (Should be higher if you ask me)
3. AF had possibly better performance because there were no shaders. Please don’t compare performance of shaders pipeline to fixed-function one. There is simply no comparison, shading is MUCH heavier.
And BTW, OF had worse performance than BMS IIRC. I even remember when I was still in RV team that OF was very low on FPS compared to RV which was very fast back then.4. Don’t aim for old HW, Falcon maybe was the torch carrier for a game that support low-end HW, but actually I think this should stop. People should aim for a reasonable system.
CPU - The stronger you can get
GPU - Something that will match your resolution, number of displays etc. I.e don’t run 3 4K screens and expect a GTX-1060 to run BMS fast.
Memory - 16GB should be enough. If one can get more, it can’t hurt.In general - As I stated already, Falcon problem is mainly the engine. Number of draw calls is very high, GPU usually is half a sleep, all that is a problem of the engine.
-
Yep, logicaly GFX has nothing to do with MP.
But what about all those heavy clients, running campaign with heavy models on the engine edge, each extracting MFDs etc etc. Logicaly it has nothing to do with MP, but then why we used to fly mission after misson during our LANparties (using dualcores at best) and now we drink beer and make settings, restarting server,enjoy desync….Actually when I participate, it takes me 10 mins and I fly(beer on). My temmates are setting up their hotases, MFDs…some of them give up lonely playing DCS lol
Of course I dont suggest people to buy 9 years old laptop and Black Widow joysticks (my started to be very sticky after 13 or more years).
I just said, I can tweak it to be playable on my Intel GPU (do not use Phong). Without texture resize it runs 10 min 17 FPS, then GPU VRAM overloads and I have slideshow over burnig computer.
This way I have fluid experince and reasonable temperature. This is reality, no speculation.People can enjoy this great sim on very average HW.
Of cource MP impact is pure speculation…just making suggestion (you said its programmed better than before) -
expanding the working tanker planes would be nice. I gave a little try at it with other models from FF6 ka6 carrier tankers and IL78(?) Russian tankers.
I flew to KA6 in FF6 and was not able to hook to drogue, but Tanker was trying and extending drogue when I got close. I can’t fly straight enough and Auto pilot did not work, so I don’t know if it even worked in that version of falcon. but It sure won’t work in BMS with my efforts anyway.
A few people have recently been trying to get a KC130R and Russian tankers to work. Would be very cool to hook an AV8 to a KC130R or have a Russian Tanker working.
-
This post is deleted! -
->F-35 AFM and “stealth capabilities” for F-16 training.
->LIVE ACMI pods to be implemented inside BMS GUI
e.g MENU ACMI AREA button ….Which you can debrief of the view 3-4 Separated screens HUD-MFD’S -TACVIEW combined.
-
I get around the same FPS with the stock model and the Janhas model that I believe is used in the Balkans theater though? Well that is when my game is not crashing but I digress
-
While browsing models in LE, i found F/A-18E/F wingtip slot matrix needs some fix…
left side/ slot 0.
cos 0 sin
-sin 0 cos
0 -1 0==========
right side/ slot 10cos 0 sin
-sin 0 -cos
0 -1 0hope BMS guys already fix it… cockpitwing lod needs fix too.
-
the super hornets just need a skin that isn’t canned food and a little love to the flight model and the cockpit art and they would be great, currently not fit for human consumption because of the underthrust and broken flight model.considering how much of the skeleton is there it might be a doable bump for a touted addition in 3-4 weeks
-
also, a basic cockpit on the f-117 with the TGP setup centrally allowing IR and laser guide on all the munitions would be both mostly accurate and very fun. for dessert storm first night, that was a silver bullet- it literally won an air war by taking out C&C and power logistics to most of the larger IAD sites, which allowed conventional aircraft free range. the f-117 also destroyed large numbers of aircraft on the ground. much of the duty logs of the 37th fighter wing has recently been made public. they fought a 43 day war. it’s a very interesting read. apparently there is still an undisclosed stealth asset from the era, or, the raptor was operational much earlier than we are lead to believe.
the f-117 just needs a tgp and an rwr. everything is thermal, IR, or laser guided, and it doesn’t use a traditional radar it uses a digitally pre planned map overlaid with GPS information. I still don’t understand why no one makes a simulator of that plane. it seems to have a very specific difficult flight and delivery plan, which begs for a sim treatment…I see it like a submarine.
-
doesnt need a RWR I believe
or perhaps have police radar gun detectors up front in the cockpit.
-
doesnt need a RWR I believe
or perhaps have police radar gun detectors up front in the cockpit.
yeah i think that’s accurate right? I know the use of commercial radio scanners definitely happened by the other side they found them later on.
-
Towed decoys.
-
Towed decoys.
It is not possible to model them as long as we do not have even lobe modeling or very specific radar modeling.
Towed decoy is for example good against 2K12 Kub (SA-6) because it has fixed HW and does not have any SW in its “brain” but against the stone age S-75M Volkov (SA-2F) and S-125M Neva is pointless. The human operator simply see the target and the towed decoy. Because of the age when designed these old SAMs required more manual work but has some off design benefits. Kub is advanced literally in any area comparing these old SAMs but surprisingly it is cannot handle towed decoy. During AF many times hit the Kub the towed decoy.
As long as SAM anti SEAD tactics does not exist and SEAD is way to over modeled I rather not add any tools which just make the balance shit even more towards to airplanes.
My vote is on the following:
Day/night modeling for eyeball and visual tracking. Currently AI is able to launch night MANPADs and IR SHORAD while in RL visual spot and tracking is required for this except a very few systems where IADS and datalink help is needed to find the target at night.
Only a very few SHORAD/MANPAD have night engagement capability but only in case they can get coordinates via datalink from other radars. And these are the most advanced systems from the latest years.https://forum.htka.hu/threads/9k35-s…-2#post-516825
Even Strela-10MN has night vision camera its FOV is only some degrees of less. Autonomous search and target acquisition is not possible. You have only a funnel view.https://forum.htka.hu/threads/9k333-…-2#post-516827
9K333 Verba with datalink eq. and night vision. Same case as Strela-10MN.https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/mpcv/
Mistral also has such version where the launcher system has IR cameras but also requires target coordinates via datalink.As long as are only some exceptions and all of them latest XXI. century stuff with minimal produced qty. IHMO all visual eyeball tracking SHORAD and IR MANPAD should be disabled a night. In DB of Falcon are mostly Cold War or just a decade latest eq. which are not capable to do such thing. It would be far, far better general modelling disable all of these. In current DB is not a such IR SHORAD or MANPAD which is able to perform night time engagement.
(This is one of the reason why attacked USA during EDC in 1986 because only rad SAMs and AAA were the threat and Libyan fighter did not flew at night.)
Of course if night has effect on eyeball, aircraft without night time engagement capability should not be able to take off because it is pointless and it would be cheat when AI perform night strikes with J-5/6, H-5 etc.
I always bet my vote in such modelling upgrade instead very specific things.
-
Since you mention it, weather should also influence the ability to use IR SAMs. Also the delay before firing can be ridiculously low against a fast and low aircraft.