Tomcatz SAM factory
-
Nice Job Tom
-
Downloading. Thanks!
-
Tom, they are skinless. Did you create texture maps for models?
-
Hi Comrades.
Please tell me, how to increase the size of the object SA-6 Laucher (in LOdeditor program) -
Thanks Tom
-
Tom, the standart KoreaObj.LOD file is eta 250MB including ALL models of the sim.
You added 17 3D models and the file increased to 700MB ! Seriously?Can we do that more efficient?
-
Well…I created complete higly detailed aircraft carriers, big missile cruisers , higly detailed SAM systems and modern Radar- Of course that level of details need space. But I think that memory space isnt a problem for actually systems- my cell phone have 16 Gigs…
Yes, I didnt create textures- Because BMS is very graphic card hungry. I thing, with that BMS shadow and lightning engine my models looks fine. So I still save memory for FPS -
Tomcatz 2 questions:
1. Are the Dof’s working?
2. Is there a significant FPS hit with the models or is it more or less the same frame rate with the old ones?Thx
-
Hi,
yes- the DOF`s are game ready and working. No- there is no FPS hit but a small loading time at the start of the game. The loading sequence needs some seconds more-thats all.
Best regards,
Tom -
@Tom:
Hi,
No- there is no FPS hit but a small loading time at the start of the game.
Tom40.000 + polygons per vehicle ??? no FPS drop ???
Maybe not if you load it, but if you fly it on big scale campaign with a moving (on the fly) bubble …omg.
1 Sa-6 Site 100000 + polygons ??
The F-16 (most detailed model in the sim) has eta 4500 polygons in comparision.Tom, i love your work, but that is not how you efficiently do models in sims.
You can create high-detailed models with less polygons … this “ballance controversy”, meaning
detail-performance-relation reminds me actually to the same issue in 2 other sims (classic topic). -
Tom Catz the models are absolutely beautiful in the game, but my friend unfortunately they are absolutely not practical in falcon, the polygon counts are huge and the frame rate hits are massive in fact, it’s unplayable in even on the best of systems under 10 frames at times, if you want these models viable for campaign play in falcon you need to significantly reduce the polygon counts, eg. for the sa-10 (just 1 Launcher) its 40,000 polygons, we need that to drop to about 2000-3000 or less.
They are beautiful models really…. but I only wish we could use them in a campaign.
-
Well- Every model have arround 15 faces. That is not a big deal for a modern PC just like i5 core. Basecally in modern simulations the grafig GPU set the limits- not the core. But that is my own experience because I build models for simulations since 10 years. However: a model with arround 15k faces is very “gaming friendly”, I think it will work well
-
We just tested it on a high-end system (i7 2600k, 470GTX 1,5 gb, SSD drive). Unflyable!
I believe you, that you are an expert in 3D models, but do you also know how falcon loads and processes the models?
De- and aggregating mechanism of models and the polyon-bugdets in falcon (or sims)?Loading the models ONCE into 3D is one thing, but loading them “on the fly” with a moving bubble …its not working. It will cause major lags on a MP-server i.e.
This specific matter (LOD count vs performance) we have encountered in 2 other different sims in the past (expirience here),
but your polygon counts set new records in this branche Tom.Come to our Teamspeak, your are welcome, and we show you why.
-
Tom Catz we just tested it, and I’m only sharing the results with you.
I understand that you may have built lots of models through the years, however when 1 sam site is over 100,000 polygons it will bring even the best of system’s to a grinding halt.Trust me on this… I really want to use your models because i think they are exceptional, but at the moment they are not viable at all even on the best of systems especially in a multiplayer environment.
If you would like to chat more you are welcome to join us on TS and we can explain why in more detail.
Look forward to talking with you.
-
Here’s my test and screen shot, oh BTW my System Specs: i7 @ 4.7, 8gb ram, Nvidia 470GTX super Clocked and OCZ 120gb SSD Drive. I get some where from 82 to 100 FPS at the Same Place just a FYI.
-
You setted 4 Batallion of SA6 at one place and flew above them?! :shock: I`m not pretty sure but it could be a bit unrealistic, couldnt be? So I think: If you want to fly into such scenarios you better still use the stock models. Maybe I could try work morer with the different LODs. Thanks for testing- Best regards :headb:
Tom -
@Tom:
You setted 4 Batallion of SA6 at one place and flew above them?! :shock: I`m not pretty sure but it could be a bit unrealistic, couldnt be? So I think: If you want to fly into such scenarios you better still use the stock models. Maybe I could try work morer with the different LODs. Thanks for testing- Best regards :headb:
TomIt does not metter that place them so close. Do not forget campaign uses many, many battalions. So if oyu place 2 SA-6 quite close - it is no unreal, it can happen - and other vehicles from your pack polycount reaches 100k level very quickly. I can organinze battalions with your units just for testing if you wish.
-
@Tom:
You setted 4 Batallion of SA6 at one place and flew above them?! :shock: I`m not pretty sure but it could be a bit unrealistic, couldnt be? So I think: If you want to fly into such scenarios you better still use the stock models. Maybe I could try work morer with the different LODs. Thanks for testing- Best regards :headb:
TomThe performance of a model design is not at all judged on the final look of the model, it is judged on how many polygons the guy has for the visual rendering. The hard work being indeed to reduce polycount without altering visual quality
-
I’m not an expert but only the most critical parth which I see.
You can left thousands of polys by using this. The best way to reduce poly number is a HQ skin.
-
The performance of a model design is not at all judged on the final look of the model, it is judged on how many polygons the guy has for the visual rendering. The hard work being indeed to reduce polycount without altering visual quality
Exactly!
Molnibalage nails it ! Use skins where you can to “simulate” 3D surfaces. Use wider polygons and kick out “tactical unimportant” details.
Bring each model down to <3000 polygons and you should be fine.I tell you a story from the past: In on specific simulation we were able to add up to 50-100 ground vehicles in on place, and FPS was quiet nice flying over them.
But sometimes it became so laggy and the objective-rendering-counter (advanced FPS counter) went up like crazy and it became unflyable.
This happened because only few 3d models had so much polygons (like the Humvee i.e) that you couldnt even place 20 of them on the ground without dramatic FPS loss.It is also important to define the levels of detail in the “range-layers” in the .HDR file (LOD1, LOD2, …LOD5) as this defines what LOD-levels will be rendered at what distance. Close=detailed, further away=less details and after "beyond visual range no rendering!! (is forgotten often and if so, you use cpu-cylces for no reason - beyond visual range, right?).
Mystic used this concept to improve the FPS and the quality of units in the same time with his LOD-fix i.e.No worry Tom, you are doing a great job… See it this way… that will save you alot of work infact, creating models with less polygons
Example: http://www.atangeo.com/ or http://meshlab.sourceforge.net/ or http://3d-coat.com/retopology/