Jump to content

Shigawire

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shigawire

  1. Seriously. Just do the BASIC tutorials INCLUDED in 3dsmax. If your daddy bought you 3dsmax8 (nice dad), you will have all you need. Then, when you know the basics of modelling, only THEN can you start tutorials on industrial design (planes are "industrial design") There is no easy route for you to directly make a plane from day 1. I see you are composing your model out of multiple primitives, but that's not "modeling" - I did the same the first few days myself. What you have to do is to do polygon modelling. Polygon by polygon. SDS modelling is becoming the norm (SubDivision Surfaces). Learn to use the "Edit Polygon" modifier or "Editable Polygon" primitive. If you have 3dsmax8, you will have access to all the tutorials you need to learn 3dsmax8. You first need to learn 3dsmax8 before you can learn how to make a plane.
  2. For excellent tutorials, you honestly don't have to look any further than the tutorials included with 3dsmax. Also, pressing F1 in 3dsmax presents the "Reference" chm-file, which has the answer to any question you may have. Wonder what a certain button or tool does? Look it up! I've used 3dsmax in 6 years, and though I no longer need tutorials other than to learn new software or plugins, I haven't seen any need for ANY other tutorials for 3dsmax, than the ones that are included. Now a lot of things could be said about 3dsmax having less power than Maya in its design and layout (Alias, makers of Maya, has been bought up by Autodesk now). But one thing 3dsmax excels at, is in the field of intuitiveness and userfriendliness. Though, it is true that it would be best to have a tutorial for making aircraft, if that is what you want to do. I prefer modelling characters and environment, to animate. I'm not a big fan of making inanimate objects like vehicles. :) But it CAN be cool.. I am moving over to Luxology's Modo now, as soon as 201 is out. It looks to be the superior package for subdivision modelling as well as texturing. It does not have any animation or special-fx capabilities yet, but a future version of the program will. Maybe 301? :) Until then, I'll continue to use 3dsmax for animating, though I'll use Luxology's Modo for modelling. Also, Modo is much cheaper than 3dsmax. I have already preordered Modo at $695.
  3. I've just ordered my manual. :) I'd also like those extra pages for the Black Shark when it's out. 32 pages isn't that much. Couldn't you print that and include it with the game? And have it formatted with the right holes so we could insert the pages into the manual. :)
  4. I'd be interested to know if more than the Hokum gets a 6DOF and clickable pit. Chizh or anyone else at ED, care to comment?
  5. These insufficiencies you speak of are all part and parcel of shutterglasses. However, it takes something like 1 to 2 weeks to get your eyes adjusted. It's different with HMDs such as z800 3dvisor, because you may adjust the display for each eye. But as I said, even with HMDs using current technology standards, the Depth of Field effect will still be glowing with its absence. The only way to remedy that would be: 1)Each display being autostereoscopic, thus allowing the field effect to form naturally. or 2)Each display accompanied by an iris-tracking sensor that follows the eye movement. Eye movement is then linked to the software driver. The DOF feature will only be compatible with games and simulators which support it.. These will then need the GPU to render the DOF-effect either as a post-process per frame or as a part of the rendering pipeline in realtime. We're talking about technology quite a way off.
  6. Even then, it won't be like reality. You see, in reality you also have "depth-perception" with just 1 eye! The depth of field effect. Of course, to calculate the DOF in-game in realtime will be impossible without some sensors checking where the iris is looking at any given time. Much like the Fraunhofer prototype autostereoscopic monitor. A better way would be to simply make EACH OLED-screen autostereoscopic. Hi resolution would obviously be a bonus as well.. I think this sort of tech I just outlined is far away though.. maybe 10 years away if markets permit.
  7. First of all, you get to experience true 3d. Not the fake 3d on a monitor, but stereoscopy. Depth perception. Now there are two kinds of 3dglasses. There's the shutterglasses which utilize the monitor, and gives you a "window" of view. Problem with this tech is the sunglass-effect of the lcd-shuttering, as well as phosphorous remnants causing a "ghosting" effect. The other kind is the HMD (Head-Mounted Display). These often have a motion tracker as well. These VR-headsets became a new phenomenon in the middle 90s, and ultimately flopped because the technology wasn't mature enough. They were too heavy, extremely low resolution, extremely low Field of View, and caused headaches due to low refresh-rates. Recently a new breed of these devices were designed. As of this writing, there is really only 1 which is remotely viable, and that is the Z800 3DVisor. But I'd personally advise against it. The improvements to the Z800 over others, is the very light design using flicker-free OLED screens. There's also a relatively higher FOV, and there's a noise-cancelling microphone. Also important is that it has a motion-tracker. The negative parts: -Despite the FOV being higher than in any other similar product, the FOV is still too low. It doesn't feel like being enveloped by a world. It feels more like viewing a 105 inch monitor from 12 feet away. -Low refresh-rates of 30Hz per eye (60Hz total) causes headache unless you use it less than 1 hour at a time. -Resolution is only 800x600. You can only imagine how visible aliasing will be when you see it up-close. Higher res is more important the closer you view it. It's a very promising first step to rekindle the once-flopped VR-hype of the mid 90s, but I'll wait for the ultimate device. We must hope Emagin works on the next generation.
  8. I once emailed Han/Andrey about the sound issue. I think he said the same thing then as he said here. He means he will fix it for 1.2
  9. If, as Andrey told me in an email, they will add a better sound engine. Yes.. then they have my support.
  10. It's the same one that our pilot took pics of the 24th of August outside Norway. http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=10325&page=1 And.. Splashed one! :rolleyes:
  11. I work at a helicopter base in Norway for the biggest offshore helicopter company in Norway. The 24th of August, our Scottish pilot, enroute to the Norne field, took photos of this "Kuznetsov" carrier and "Kirov." It was 70NM west of Brønnøysund. Here are some pics for your enjoyment. :) Kirov: Kuznetsov: - I spy with my little eye: 1xSU-25 , 3xSU-27K (or SU-33)
  12. I know you guys at ED do your best. You already have other stuff you are trying to do, like adding new planes etc.. But I just think this should be fixed BEFORE making any more additions, since this is a basic fault. I have to turn HW accelleration to NULL (not even basic) every time just to play LOMAC. I believe I read somewhere that LOMAC doesn't even use 3d sound! It even stated that the sound engine is a monaural engine that emulates stereo! IF this is true, wouldn't it be best for ED to remodel their sound engine to do proper 3d, and use a well-established standard like EAX instead? Just a thought. If what I read were lies, maybe the static could be caused by some conflict between the decoder engines? I noticed that LOMAC uses BOTH OGG vorbis and PCM Wave.. And I also noticed that the sound engine uses a lot of tiny short samples to compose into very complex sounds. I know that when multiple soundfiles are played simultaneously, or over eachother, this can indeed cause such an effect.. Because, what appears to happen with the sound, is that it appears not to be "clamped" (as we call it in the CG business) or "normalized" as it's properly called. It is as if the sound engine attempts to play sounds WELL beyond the possible range, thus causing "truncation" of the sound, in the form of glitches, clicks and pops. It's amazing how awesome and immersive the experience can be with proper sound! It would add tenfold to LOMAC.. and we wouldnt need to turn HW accelleration off every time we wanted to splash some bogeys. ;)
  13. I hope this issue can climb up the developers' priority-ladder from "unimportant" to "critical", because it really is critical imho.
  14. Dear developers at Eagle Design. I love your simulation, even though there are some nuts and bolts that needs to be fixed. Like the AI, sound and dynamic campaign (lack thereof)! :rolleyes: Regarding the sound issue.. I actually upgraded from onboard AC97 to Audigy 2 ZS purely for the sake of LOMAC. It did nothing to remove the static. Now I have formatted c: , reinstalled Windows, tried soundcard in 2 different PCI slots (4 and 3). The problem is only prevalent in LOMAC, in other games the problem is virtually non-existant. I know that LOMAC doesn't have any fancy sound, and that it doesn't even have STEREO and has to emulate it using mono, and the result is poor. Therefore, it is understandable that I probably don't need the hardware accelleration... but the problem is that I will have to nullify HW accelleration every time just for the sake of LOMAC! Believe it or not, but there are indeed other games that have NO problems with HW accellerated audio, and I don't want to switch it between full and null for 1 game. I have done enough for LOMAC's sake already. Bought a new audio card, formatted and reinstalled.. Will you look at, and perhaps resolve this issue in the nearby future? Maybe you could look at alternative codecs for the audio? P.s. I have downloaded ZZZSPACE's sound mod 8.0, which does minimize the extent of the bug, but not enough.
×
×
  • Create New...