Tomcatz ShipYard
-
500 as 500.000
-
Hi-Thank you all.
Polygons: arround 52k - Normaly a carrier is the only big object in the hole wide sea so : no frame problems or so. It works perfect.
Cheers
Tom -
Question is if you will create lower LODs… the fact that its working doesn’t mean that its working right. Unlike other sims/games, Falcon dynamic campaign can be overloading, even on strong machines, not creating lower LODs for a new created model means that the old lower LODs will be used, and of course this LODs have different textures assigned to them, so when LOD is transitioned, the meaning is that the GFX engine must load new/more textures… having all LODs using same texture sets is the way to go, of course also creating 1 or maximum 2 large texture sheets for a model is better than having many smaller textures. You would be surprised how loading textures might be critical on game performance…
You are very good at creating high quality models but it’s too bad you aren’t working per requirements for standard models and even if releasing a community independent patch, you aren’t creating lower LODs for your models… how much it takes to create lower LODs? I’m sure way less than the original model right?
-
Question is if you will create lower LODs… the fact that its working doesn’t mean that its working right. Unlike other sims/games, Falcon dynamic campaign can be overloading, even on strong machines, not creating lower LODs for a new created model means that the old lower LODs will be used, and of course this LODs have different textures assigned to them, so when LOD is transitioned, the meaning is that the GFX engine must load new/more textures… having all LODs using same texture sets is the way to go, of course also creating 1 or maximum 2 large texture sheets for a model is better than having many smaller textures. You would be surprised how loading textures might be critical on game performance…
You are very good at creating high quality models but it’s too bad you aren’t working per requirements for standard models and even if releasing a community independent patch, you aren’t creating lower LODs for your models… how much it takes to create lower LODs? I’m sure way less than the original model right?
Why not erase the old lods - textures? and use only new - current?
@Tom Catz wow only 52k poly’s wow man… u are a master…
Could u please give some insight on the reflective surfaces that glow in the night if u have it done (as I believe)?
I’m trying to make my buildings light up in the night and still I can’t finish so to have a complete overview on the subject, so to decide which is best and go ahead… -
Hi WoW!
Now that deserves a “FRAMING”…… ^^^^^^…LoL
Thats what I’m talking about lets get it on…Fantastic cant wait…
I also would like to say I dont agree with “FPS/Polycount this and that Argument” holding back F4 from ever becoming what it should be in todays ……2013 … Flight Simulator Standards.
Its time to make F4 more modern “Rise-the-Bar” higher and higher… as per say!
I say go for it Tomcatz’s look how many “Thanks” your getting everyone wants a high quality modern F4 Sim, not old Falcon 3.0 look, C’mon guys!
Keep going Tomcatz’s your stuff looks awesome and the detail is amazing!
Also like you said here … https://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/showthread.php?11046-Tomcatz-ShipYard&p=177224&viewfull=1#post177224 if you say no problem then people need to just upgrade their systems simple really and expected if you love gaming yet alone Flight Simulators.
You have the wider community support! :headb: …… Your making F4 better all the time!:woohoo:
It’s obvious more Core Code Optimization for Quad Core CPU’s, Memory Usage Bandwidth and a New Terrain Engine, Terrain Mesh, GFX engine tweaked for better photo realistic modeling etc etc work is desperately needed as well, eliminating all the limitations the core code has is truly the way forward and free up the sim to look more like a high end commercial product.
Just surprised this isn’t the case but continually debated in Forum by others who know about this stuff.
I mean the wider community is asking for ARMAII Terrain as an example and rightly so its 2013, gents, C’mon, keeping up with Flight Sim standards is where BMS needs to be looking at the Future of F4, right, lets be honest and discuss this respectfully.
More like this Please…
Good quality models high Definition etc etc is needed.
Point is peoples individual PC Systems should not slow or under develop F4 Sim moving forward and beyond 2013…Final!
Devs can utilize the BMS Config Editor so users can turn ON or OFF certain functions for better performance like I.e 3D Cities, HDR, Blur, other effect add-ons and GFX settings etc etc etc like in FSX, Oh C’mon gents, seriously now.
I mean simply going by what I read in Forum it will have to happen anyway old code and limitations and what not etc etc etc…
We all want a better and modern Falcon, so keep going Tom Catz’s…my 2 Cents anyway!
Thanks for all the work!
Regards,
SkyKnight
-
Why not erase the old lods - textures? and use only new - current?
Because you still NEED them?? looking at the carrier from 5K feet shouldn’t be a 52K poly model but more like 5K…
-
Hi,
the look is very nice, the frames are stabil and good and dthe overall look is much better if you want to land on the carrier.
Polycount is not important- The workload for the grafic card is much more important.
I use a 2048x2048 texture for the hole carrier. After a long time I was able to manage the export problems with textures which uses alpha sources. Some day I realized that I still have to use only one texture but I could use these texture with different materials and material settings. So I have one texture but a lot of effects. And now I have reelings, antennas, cables and big painted areas…
Cheers,
Tom -
Hi Tom,
@Tom:
Hi,
the look is very nice, the frames are stabil and good and dthe overall look is much better if you want to land on the carrier.
maybe this is true for you, but our goal is to get the sim running smooth for people with some older HW also…
So you’re building nice models, but unfortunately no way for them (with such high poly count) to go into BMS db.Cheers
Biker -
Polycount is not important- The workload for the grafic card is much more important.
You say this. I tried your SAM stuff and FPS was halved on my rig. So as long as possible pls. spare with polys and create lower LODs or your work is pointless. Most of useres never will enjoy your HQ models because cannot be integrated… Or even anyone try to put into 3rd party DB many players HW are not able deal with too many polys.
-
Hi JP,
Mmhhhh i Would prefer from LOD as ramp is not
Linear .Any idea ?
in RV I did hijack the slot data (they have x, y, z coordinates) to generate deag positions on carriers.
Maybe we can use a similar approach (new type) then also we can get rid of bounding box usage.Cheers
Biker -
Hi JP,
in RV I did hijack the slot data (they have x, y, z coordinates) to generate deag positions on carriers.
Maybe we can use a similar approach (new type) then also we can get rid of bounding box usage.Cheers
BikerI hacked data as well for catapult and arrester positions. However I need real z posit on the LOD because ramp is not linear at all
-
@Tom:
Polycount is not important- The workload for the grafic card is much more important.
The work load comes form many things, poly count and also the vertex count. There are many things which cause the graphics card to have more work e.g. shading breaks, DOF, switches etc.
One the to also remember is that if we let everyone make models like this then it will start to be a problem. Try not to be greedy with your poly counts as there are many other that want to use or create high poly models. Think about the user that has installed all of these new high poly unoptimised models.
Regards
Dave -
…
…
…
… I … dont know what kind of problem there is. Better models (more accurate models) needs more polygones. If you wont accept that fact I should stop my efforts now and you can still land on that painted box what is called "Carrier. I really do not understand it- I wont!
Cheers -
You simply do not want to accpect the requirements of a game. Not BMS Team, nobody will accept a stuff which have only most detailed LOD. Only supercomputers will accept this polycount. So as long as your aspect won’t change your work should be treated as an art, but not pratical application. I have seen people who made 2M poly models just for fun as an art, they never wished to intagrate any game. But if you wish…
In short +1000 thanks from users for a big nothing and some nice screenshot. Sad.
-
Better models need more polygons but it doesn’t mean they have to have EXPLODING poly count! Look at Hayeb models… 4K tris (not polys!) for great quality ground units or 15-20K tris for a nice AC model. Look at the AN-24, how nice it is with sane tris count, lower LODs, matching textures etc, so it can be standard in BMS DB and stay there forever for EVERYONE to use without the need to manually install models/textures, worry about unoptimized models and lower LODs etc…
You have decided to work that way and I respect your choice but I don’t see the logic in it. I guess you do like the sim and you do care about people using your models so think this way:
1. You make models like now - Your models stay always some 3rd party work, after long time (when maybe you will not be around anymore or stop making models, or stop caring, it does happen…) your 3rd party work stays hovering around forever, like tons of old times models and skins that no one ever use anymore because its forgotten, disappeared with the years and mostly the DB changes that people have to do manually… its forgotten.
2. You make correct models with sane tris count, lower LODs etc and your models go into BMS DB and they sale with the DB forever… for years, not one will forget them because they will always be in there, for all theaters, all DB changes etc… and even if in the future the GFX engine will change to allow more poly count to be rendered easily, they will be replaced only when better models are introduced. You can always send your high poly work for BMS to keep for maybe someday when GFX engine and HW will be good enough to handle it in Falcon.
I know its sounds dramatic but this is reality of what happen through the years… your choice.
Cheers!
-
Give up guys and let Tom build the models he wants… Tom do not want to (or can’t ?) understand “why” all those recommendations from Dev team. Let him do his HP models and let the people enjoy the time they can … finally, let models be unusable in one years or more. (:()
Tom is building beautiful hight ploy models, but that is not the most difficult… I do prefer focus on what can brings us a durable evolution… Hayab’s models.
-
I dont know why I have to run against walls here.
I thought I can do something for the BMS community but I wont discuss the same points ever and ever again. I
ll stop my efforts and molnibalage can be happy. Some people are very fast to criticize other peoples work while doing simply nothing for the community. I
m so bored about these poeple. However: I have position and I wont go in any direction - So this is what Iam.
So thanks for the support- be happy- and out -
I dont know why I have to run against walls here.
You don’t have to Tom … Do what you want… or what make youn happy!
It is YOUR work, YOUR time, YOUR choice.
Nobody is judging you. They are just sad to see all this work wasted in a long term.
-
Tom,
I don’t work on BMS. I’m not a dev, modeler, or anything related to BMS other than a pilot.
What they are saying, is that they WANT to use your work. They WANT to have it be something that can go into the default BMS installation for EVERYONE to use.
However, you insist on only creating max LOD versions. They absolutely WILL NOT put that into BMS, because they also want the sim to still WORK for people who have lower-end hardware.
Thus, your work will be forgotten and ignored, because the only way to get your models into the game without it being included in the BMS install files, is to manually edit LODs and whatnot.
Prime example: I refuse to do LOD editing of my database. Thus, despite the fact I want to use your models, I refuse to do so. I’ve seen the performance impact they have, and I refuse to go through the effort involved to install them after each and every BMS patch. Therefore, your work is completely wasted on people like me. I assure you that I’m not alone in this.
So you can do what they’ve asked, and make lower-LOD versions as well, and your work can be an integrated part of future BMS releases for EVERYONE to enjoy, or you can continue to do things as you have been, and virtually nobody will care because only 2% of the flying BMS pilots will bother to go through the hassle of installing them.
Thanks for the screenshots of what BMS could look like.
No thanks for refusing to actually do what’s necessary for this to be integrated into BMS for everyone.
-
You don’t have to Tom … Do what you want… or what make youn happy!
It is YOUR work, YOUR time, YOUR choice.
Nobody is judging you. They are just sad to see all this work wasted in a long term.
No its not only that… the models are spreaded around, folks are using them, then people are reporting low FPS or worse, bugs or CTDs, who knows… it takes a LOT of time for DB guys to adjust the DB, the LODs transitions, for balanced performance, but it takes just a few “bad” model with only single LOD (and some not really accurate per RL shape BTW…), no animations etc to ruin that balance… and break many things in bad case or just cause VERY low FPS in the better one…
Speak about talking to walls :mrgreen: