Project Cy-27

[Ven]

Working on that, too. One doesn't interfere with the other.

 

And by the way, care to explain how one doesn't interfere with the other? Both terrain and aircraft geometry needs to be rendered at the same time. The new terrain let's say has 500K polys which isn't nearly enough. And the SU27 models got upgraded from 20K polys to 100K polys. And I got 3 of them flying off my wing. And I'm barely pushing 30fps. I can already see myself wishing those 240K polys that went into the SU27's were put into the terrain!

 

I have built pretty fast system recently with E6600 with 8800GTX yet I still can't turn up the detail to max setting. Trees for example, I can't set the clipping far enough so I still see them pop in distance.

 

So in this expansion, you're saying we're gonna get quadruple(at least) the polygon count in the aircraft geometry and then also put enough polygons on terrain to make them smooth... yet current systems will be able to handle it? How will that be achieved?

[EvilBivol-1]

No, I meant that developing one doesn't interfere with developing the other. In terms of performance - sure, the more complex models tax the system. This can be managed with LOD's and such, but the overall trend remains. Better eye candy requires better PCs. And let's not pretend that eye candy isn't important... People have only recently begun to feel comfortable running Lock On at max settings - three years after release. At the same time however, Lock On is still the best looking combat flight sim - three years after release. ;)

[Witchking]

okay! There is one point i agree in your argument: Atmosphere is where ED should be concentrating rather than induvidual models. It is true becos...whats the point of a high detail jet when the world around is DRAB and sterile. However, the point that this SU 27 is not better than the one in-game is completely wrong. The su27 in-game NOW was made right when LOMAC was started in development. Hence, its model was good at those standards, but not to todays standards. The WIP u see now is NO where at the detail level where the final model will be. THis has placeholder geometry to give a basic skeleton to add higher detail to. Inspite of that..its already better than the one in-game interms of the higher resolution skin textures (I had made su27 skins before...this one is what I had in mind when I was working on them..this is the detail.), higher poly counts etc.

 

Of course, it does scare me considering every model is being revamped and JUST now we are able to play lomac at high settings with water at medium at decent fps.

 

I do agree though that I prefer more resources to be put into making the immersion better as in ace combat 6 style terrain and lighting. But, I guess the current engine is pretty LIMITED and we can only hope and wait to see what Ed can still squeeze out of it. :)

[Ven]

I'll clarify once more in regard to my comment about the WIP models not better than the ones in game.

 

Modelers build models with very higher number of polygons than what final version will be. Because it's easier to reduce polygon count than to increase. And will render a few test renders like we're seeing in those WIP. But when its time for those models to be put INTO the game, I will guarantee that the polygon count WILL BE REDUCED! For both technical reasons and practical reasons we've been discussing.

 

So saying those models are better just because they have more polygons is unfair comparison between pre-rendered model and game implemented model. I was comparing the shape of the models. If it's because its WIP like you say, okay, then I'll wait and see.

[Troffmeister]

Ven , the spec of you computer now , is what i am currently saving up to buy , hopefully for xmas/ new year 08 , how does Lo run on you rig please ?

[Ven]

Ven , the spec of you computer now , is what i am currently saving up to buy , hopefully for xmas/ new year 08 , how does Lo run on you rig please ?

By X-mas/new year, you'd probably be able to afford something faster. I can turn up everything to max except water and visibility range which are set one below max. I get little above 40fps on ground and anywhere from 60fps to 90fps in the air depending on traffic.

[Witchking]

lol ven! THAT IS A COMPLETELY WRONG misconception.

 

 

these are not concept models...they are FOR THE GAME. lol! have u seen the Su 25T ingame? this is how ED will make all the models from now...tons of detail.

 

 

man! they never do that...in that case, they would have shown the su25t as it is in FC with like 52000 polys and then given us a 100 poly model to play. Thats ridiculous. this is not a cinematic or a render.....its a REAL MODEL for gameplay.

[EscCtrl]

Heh sounds like someone hasn't been to work and rendering 3D models in awhile, technology has moved on.

 

I see what you mean about the renders being better then in the game that is true, but the number of polygons will be the same. The lighting and shadow effects in the renderer will be far better then the game as the renderer can afford to do that.

[Ven]

Well, those screenshots actually helps my point. How many times during a mission do we see the ground units that close? Not me, all I see are dots before they explode. Or our own aircrafts from outside like that. Again, I don't fly in external views to appreciate the exterior details. But I will appreciate better lighting and textures in terrain such as what you see in Ace Combat 6.

 

If you read few of my follow up posts, I tried to clarify that I didn't mean that level of polygons isn't technically possible. It's just not practical.

[EscCtrl]

Well, those screenshots actually helps my point. How many times during a mission do we see the ground units that close? Not me, all I see are dots before they explode. Or our own aircrafts from outside like that. Again, I don't fly in external views to appreciate the exterior details. But I will appreciate better lighting and textures in terrain such as what you see in Ace Combat 6.

 

If you read few of my follow up posts, I tried to clarify that I didn't mean that level of polygons isn't technically possible. It's just not practical.

 

It is practical as like you said you won't see them unless up close so you'd rarely lose any computing power. Changing lighting and rendering ability requires rewriting the game engine somewhat which I imagine is a fair bit of work.

 

So I'm guessing they'll leave that kind of stuff til they next write an engine which will hopefully be done for the next series of games they make. I like the current engine and but it is needlessly hardware intensive and lots of new technology is out that they should really start to take advantage of by making a new engine for a new game.

 

We'll see. :D

[PythonOne]

Ven, you keep switching your statements around. First you said those WIP screens will not have that many polys in game but as we seen with the Su-25T and ka-50, apache that in fact it would be.

 

Then you say those models are not practical. But ED have said you would basically get the same performance as you do with FC due to lods. Also, there are some work done on the terrain. Regardless getting to a debate over this is useless since its not like we're going to change what ED is building.

[Ven]

Ven, you keep switching your statements around.

No I haven't. I'll explain.

 

First you said those WIP screens will not have that many polys in game but as we seen with the Su-25T and ka-50, apache that in fact it would be.

BS Su27 models may have more polygons but NOT to the level of that WIP pre-renders. Round cylindrical objects are where poly count is most obvious. Which Apache and tanks don't have enough of. Those WIP pictures have perfectly round fuselage. The turret of that tank above does not if you look at the joints. Mig29 shot from BS also has faceted polygonal fuselage. This I'll have to prove once BS is released. I already saved those WIP shots.

 

Then you say those models are not practical. But ED have said you would basically get the same performance as you do with FC due to lods.

Not when 3 Su27's with quadruple number of polygons flying off my wing.

 

What I've just said, is repeat of what I said in earlier posts with couple extra comments in regard to above screenshots. Haven't changed my statement.

 

Also, there are some work done on the terrain. Regardless getting to a debate over this is useless since its not like we're going to change what ED is building.

Yea, I agree. That's why my wish in regard to environment remains to be a wish.

[EscCtrl]

You can see the number of faces of the cylinder used to make the nose cone of the flanker if you look carefully on one of those pictures, it's not perfect. I think the way that modelling program renders polygons it adds extra curvature to the ajoining surfaces which leads you to think that maybe?

[Ven]

I'm not sure what ED uses for pre-renders so perhaps. I guess I offended some people when I said I didn't see any improvement but please understand that in my profession, we don't refer to simply higher polygon as better model. It's just heavier model. I was looking for improvements in the shape or more detailed objects.

 

And by the way PythonOne, I'm free to change my statement at will! :p

[EscCtrl]

I'm not sure what ED uses for pre-renders so perhaps. I guess I offended some people when I said I didn't see any improvement but please understand that in my profession, we don't refer to simply higher polygon as better model. It's just heavier model. I was looking for improvements in the shape or more detailed objects.

 

And by the way PythonOne, I'm free to change my statement at will! :p

 

Well you didn't offend me.

 

By the way for your business do you render models for real time use, i.e. games. Or for pre render use i.e. films?

 

 

I think there might be quite a difference between the two.

[Ven]

Both. For healthcare, architecture, and broadcast companies, we create pre-rendered animations. For automotive and electronics, we supplied real time renderers capable of up to 5 million polygons in raytracing.

[Troffmeister]

thanks for the reply Ven re your pc )

 

looking to spend Ј1000 gbp on pc base - cpu / hard drives / ram / mboard / case / 3d card - nvidia 8800 gtx 768 probly - as u say in a few months who knows re price and spec - but intel 6600 cpu will be my min start point )

[S.T.A.LK.E.R.]

Hi. Strikemax, can you make over your model at Su-33?

[Troffmeister]

well my current pc has got no chance with these model specs and black shark etc - in fact my current pc is so poo , i have had to abandon trying to convert 5 hours of home video footage of my 2 yr old daughter .becoz i am getting lock ups , and having to reset the pc - it seems to be related to the pc being put under alot of strain - so maybe its the cpu and memory getting old etc - i have given this pc a good run for its money over quite alot of years - its gone into old age mode i feel on more demanding tasks - lol

 

so i have abandoned the video conversion task and am keeping them stored on mini dv tape - until i get a new pc - me and the wife discussed a new pc last night , and she said October )))

 

i think certain models in Lo should be left alone for ED to make over / replace etc - the su27 is like messing with the holy grail !

 

there is plenty of other stuff to enhance / rebuild or add in - i have just started building a new ground object in 3dmax - there is scope for ships / planes / subs - whatever that would enhance the Lo virtual world , and add in new mission objects to destroy etc , counts as fun and valid items to build and hopefully add in, in my book )

 

i think all the talk of polygons etc is valid but equally confusing - i think trust your eyes - build a new 3d object so it looks round to your eyes - eg the current 12 sided su27 is obviously not round enough - becoz u can clearly see its how it was built

 

those new tank pics etc - you can just see at the end of the tank barrel the shape used - to me this is good - less is sometimes more - you can build a very nice efficient clean mesh , that shape wise looks great to your eyes , without being insanely poly high - remember Lo is a game engine , cpu / 3d card - different peoples pc specs etc

 

the apache helos look great , dunno how big they are poly wise but - i hope they are not too insane size wise tho )

 

Roger

[EscCtrl]

i think certain models in Lo should be left alone for ED to make over / replace etc - the su27 is like messing with the holy grail !

 

Roger

 

Strikemax certainly wasn't messing when he was working on it, the attention to detail and added effects (e.g. condensation being implemented on the LERX) was very impressive. You shouldn't get put off by the importance of a model or the responsibility of taking on a building task. Your work is easily good enough for the game also.

 

Good luck with your future projects - and the new computer.

[Troffmeister]

i think you took the term

" messing around with " too literally

 

sorry i should have used better words )

 

i will clarify - certain models are Ed 's cherished babies shall we say

 

- i think i am correct in saying i read on the forum somewhere that it was implied that ED will enhance the su27 themselves - so my point is / was - is it worth a community 3dmodder tackling this aircraft when its unlikely to be adopted officially by ED ??

 

- obviously we could have 100 community 3d loms of su27- but its not worth officially submitting the su27 to ED for adoption - thats the general impression i cleaned and have formulated in my head - right or wrong ?

 

i personally would also stear well clear of the f15 / a10 as in my opinion the models are good - and they would need to be done really really well - as shall we say there is alot of focus / scrutiny and shall we say a level of politics sometimes on these models

 

for a 3d modeller to tackle / rebuild and replace these models - i feel there would be alot of flak , and the need to do a really really good job on them - damage models / lods etc etc

 

personally i would rather make some nice other objects , and also perhaps rebuild some of the not so smooth models - eg i have used the kc10 as an example in the past - no offence ed modellers , but it could do with a smoothness rebuild imo )

 

these other models and new objects don't carry the same level of potential " heat " associated with them shall we say !

 

i hope that explains - Strikemax's SU27 , is very lovely imho :-)

 

Roger )

[EscCtrl]

I understand your point. The reason strikemax made the model (I think) was because either we didn't know ED was currently working on a model, or that if they were it would have been a long time before we'd get our hands on it. It's still not known if ED's model will appear in BS so could be a year or two before we see it. In the mean time Strikemax's model would be much appreciated. The community unfortunetaly does not knwon all of ED's plans so it is difficult to coordinate work like this.

 

The other reason is choice, yes in a small community like this it seems a waste to have two great models of the same thing but I guess some people like to choose between the two.

[PythonOne]

Troff, i understand your point of view and where you are coming from, this is probably due to your pc. If your pc was better, you wouldn't say you don't want these new models. Like when you said they should steer clear of the A-10 and F-15, I highly disagree with that because those stock models (I'm aware of walmis F-15) are horrible. They badly need to be reworked.

[Troffmeister]

sorry your wrong / misunderstand my post - the reason i am getting a new pc - is to be able to keep up , play stuff and do more 3d stuff - and play blue shark and other stuff like crysis and dx10 pc games etc )

 

i did not say anything about not wanting models x or y - at whatever the poly count is - far from it bring them on - just hope my new pc will cope with them , as and when )

 

what i said is - i personally will not 3d model an f15 , a su27 or an a10 etc myself , and come here to show it off etc , purely becoz of the politics and stuff i mentioned above

 

IF i ever 3d model these aircraft , and i have no intention of doing so right now , i have alot of other ideas of stuff i would like to do / make - too much stuff in fact goes thru my head on a daily basis re 3d building - a plethora of new exciting objects - of which i already have the schematic drawings prepared and loaded into 3dmax , ready for the day i actually start to build model x or y - and thats the truth , i am a building a new ground object today , and will continue later tonight )

 

IF i did build say an F15 it would be for my hobby , my personal pleasure , and the hell of doing it , Not for the Lock On game engine , simply becoz i don't want to model anything and feel under pressure and scrutiny from the community

 

Mr BLACKJACK TU160 - i made becoz i like the plane alot , it was not expected , no politics , no pressure , and simply becoz i could , and i wanted too - and its sitting here waiting for you guys to take it off my hands and add it to the LO game engine - notice i have moved on to a new 3d build )

 

there is lets say alot of expectation in regard to the LO flyable aircraft - in terms if one was to rebuild them , simply becoz they are that , they are the flyables , in essence they are the game we paid cash for !

 

jesus ,soon i will be clarifying my clarifications for the sake of clarification - gasp lol

 

this is what i am saying !

 

Roger

[EvilBivol-1]

http://www.forum.lockon.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=11641&d=1184741105