Creating higth poly 3D Models and sending it to the DEVS

[wsoul2k]

Really nice, certainly.

Beautiful too

The problem is very simple and the answer will solve the question regarding Fps and so on : How many polygons at this step ?? i think that this number should be around 10.000 ..........

Means a big challenge to stay beelow 50.000 ......

 

I juts made this same question to 77-StrikeMax yesterday..juts waitng his raply 8)

[britgliderpilot]

Well, the average 21st century computers still can't handle Lock On as it is, and then we have this Su-25T with 52 000 polys as it is causing slow downs?

 

Don't get me wrong, I want a new Flanker model as much as the next guy, but I just don't think that a 50 000 poly model is really necessary. As wsoul2k said before and I said even before that, it's not just the polys, which are actually a lot more than you're letting on; more CPU cycles will be used just for the shading and lighting, for an effect that won't even be noticeably different from a 2-d textured one unless from really close up. The width of the lines are, what, one pixel across? And where're sacrificing thousands of polys for such a simple affect?

 

Welcome to the life of the average 21st century guy, dude. Not everyone can afford a $3000 rig every time a new sim comes out - certainly, I can't ;)

 

Look at it this way - you don't NEED to run Lomac maxed out. If you want to, you can spend all that money on an Uber-Rig . . . . if not, then you can still play it just fine.

 

This way provides the option for the really dedicated among us to get more eyecandy than was ever thought possible . . . . flightsims have traditionally pushed the boundaries of graphics and hardware, and I would be sad to see that go.

 

 

You can run Lomac on almost any PC - just so long as it has a dedicated graphics card - but ubergraphics will always require more power.

 

 

Incidentally, I seem to recall a v1.1 Beta tester saying that it takes about four or five Su25T's flying in formation to start to have a noticable effect on FPS . . . . :wink:

[knellknell]

Incidentally, I seem to recall a v1.1 Beta tester saying that it takes about four or five Su25T's flying in formation to start to have a noticable effect on FPS . . . . :wink:

 

And your computer configuration is ?

[wsoul2k]

Incidentally, I seem to recall a v1.1 Beta tester saying that it takes about four or five Su25T's flying in formation to start to have a noticable effect on FPS . . . . :wink:

 

The Devs have already posted the problems with the F-18 is because it dont have any LOD levels...and the SU-25 run much more smoot

 

I think we will not have any problem even with an model of 50.000 polys

 

of course we can always tune dow the settings in game to a bether fps....but even today i can rum lomac with full shadows 2x aa without major problems

 

My concern about this are:

 

1-How many polys i will loose to get this kind of efect

If it is a great NUMBER of polys i think is bether expend it in other kind of details

 

another point about the efect i have looked some pic of real aircraft

and we can see just some lines...i mean the LINES arent not so DEEP just a twin line. the most important part IMHO are the rivets...and this really made a good skin i think this efect (rivets) cant be made in the model...so we have to still making it on the skin

 

2-IF the Panel will increase to much teh cpu cicles because of the new areas to SHADOWNED ( I realy dont know if this last word exists :D )

 

This are my only concerns about this feature

 

just one question LOMAC suport Bump mapping in skins ??

[Trident]

I agree with Aldega, as long as he stays within the 50k polygon budget, more power to him (it's a fly-able aircraft afterall)! OTOH I wouldn't want this to compromise the quality of other airframe details, such as the roundness of the nose and canopy or small antennae etc., these are more important to me. One also needs to take into account that the 50000 polygon figure includes the landing gear and damage-model IIRC, so 3D skin panels may turn out to be impossible without breaking this limit.

 

D-Scythe does have a point though: compare the Hornet (15000 polys) model with the Su-25T (52000 polys) and tell me if the latter really looks that much better, as the poly-count would suggest. Now, the Hornet does not have a comparable damage-model by far, but I don't think this can account for three times the geometry complexity (correct me if I'm wrong). It's called the law of diminishing returns, I guess ;) (can also be observed with M$ FS add-on planes, some of which are 1,5 to 2x as complex as even the Su-25T and still look no better or actually worse in some cases).

 

IMHO this has implications for ED's next stand-alone project, having reached the standard in object graphics that the Su-25T and F/A-18 impressively demonstrate, I think they should concentrate on improving the terrain in future. This is where all sims still have a great deal of room for improvement, imagine 3D trees like the solitary ones in Il2 and high-resolution landscape meshes as seen in some FS add-ons combined with ED's texturing excellence - a dream come true! Better expend the additional processing power of next generation PCs on features like that instead of doubling the poly-count on the objects with little to no visual improvement.

[britgliderpilot]

D-Scythe does have a point though: compare the Hornet (15000 polys) model with the Su-25T (52000 polys) and tell me if the latter really looks that much better, as the poly-count would suggest. Now, the Hornet does not have a comparable damage-model by far, but I don't think this can account for three times the geometry complexity (correct me if I'm wrong). It's called the law of diminishing return, I guess ;) (can also be observed with M$ FS add-on planes, some of which are 1,5 to 2x as complex as even the Su-25T and still look no better or actually worse in some cases).

 

Apparently the polygon limit is for all LOD's . . . . and the Hornet only has the high LOD. Apparently.

[Squid]

IMHO i dont see realy the reason why exceeding the polycount level of the amazing Hornet ... The F-15 has less than i would like and the F-18 has maybe slightly more than it takes to satisfy me . And i am an old scale modeller and graphic designer . What i think is that maybe the max should be set by the F-18 level.

 

If all planes in LockOn had a polycount of slighly less than that of the F-18 and ofcourse proper LOD (unlike the F-18 ) i think that would had been a golden rule even for future image quality wishes.

 

50000? sorry but seems to me like exageration ... me, and others i think, would like to have a taste, access, on lockon sweet features and technologies without having to spend serious money everytime to do that , only to find that they need to do it again when the next version or update is released ...

 

I have the feeling that everybody would embrace even more ED and the simulator if they receive improvements on performance and smoothnes, if see the devs being concerned and work on making the sim as functional and easy to configure effectively as possible :)

 

just my 2C

[ALDEGA]

50000? sorry but seems to me like exageration ...

It's the highest polygon budget that they propose. It's also only for the highest LOD. You will not see 100 objects with the highest LOD at the same time unless you've done some incredible configuration-file tweaking :P

[wsoul2k]

D-Scythe does have a point though: compare the Hornet (15000 polys) model with the Su-25T (52000 polys) and tell me if the latter really looks that much better, as the poly-count would suggest. Now, the Hornet does not have a comparable damage-model by far, but I don't think this can account for three times the geometry complexity (correct me if I'm wrong). It's called the law of diminishing return, I guess ;) (can also be observed with M$ FS add-on planes, some of which are 1,5 to 2x as complex as even the Su-25T and still look no better or actually worse in some cases).

 

Apparently the polygon limit is for all LOD's . . . . and the Hornet only has the high LOD. Apparently.

 

No the 50.000 poly count is only to LOD1 :!:

 

the others lods are made by a percetual from its predecessor LOD se the first page to get more details on that

 

50.000 to first LOD that is :D

[Squid]

50000? sorry but seems to me like exageration ...

It's the highest polygon budget that they propose. It's also only for the highest LOD. You will not see 100 objects with the highest LOD at the same time unless you've done some incredible configuration-file tweaking :P

 

I dread the idea of having a flight of four su-25T in an action mission .... either all AI or one being flyable ....

 

(i like very much the MiG-29 model approach)

[Caretaker]

The differences between the Su-25T and the F/A-18 model can only be noticed if you do real close-up shots. They are there however, believe me - the former does look better. Whether it's worth it is a good question - sure you don't notice this while flying around, but I guess a lot of people actually do enjoy looking around in external views, or recording tracks. Also, a high polygon limit simply makes it easier to produce a model.

 

Modern graphics cards are quite good at pumping out high polygon numbers. It's not that the Su-25T makes that much of a difference compared to the Hornet; certainly it's not 4 times slower :) Yes, if you watch three or four of those close enough on the runway or in formation, you see a slowdown (similarly to the Hornet currently). This doesn't happen too much while flying a mission from the cockpit though, where framerate is most important.

 

You may also be happy to hear that apparently, the Hornet has received an LOD update with 1.1. Much better now :)

 

I have a P4 3GHz and a Radeon 9800XT. A good system for sure but certainly no cutting-edge 3000$ setup. And I have no real performance difference when flying a mission with a Su-25T or any of the other planes. The TV monitor takes some frames away when turned on, but there's no way around that - but that isn't critical either.

[Squid]

I am very certain the differences are there, no doubt about it, but as you said, to my point of view, its quiestionable if those differences are needed ... who wouldnt be happy if all the plane polycounts in lock on varied between Mig29 and F18 levels .... And your rig i think is quite good, was top notch till a year ago ;)

 

I do spend lots of time externaly more maybe than i do in cockpit , and still i think that theres no point having extremely close up shots ... in many cases with shots like this you may end up having the contrast of an exteremly detailed piece of SU25T surrounded by poor low resolution runway and base facilities textures, absense of vehicle ground shadows, poor facility models, making you want to knock out the plane and embed it on a real life photo enviroment :)

 

The F-18 LODing is more than welcome :P ( i am having thoughts to go dig into that annoying thread about flyable Hornet, Eagle and Hornet pits share at least the same stick wink wink )

 

i hope the final result will be as you describe or even better regarding performance

[Squid]

Heres an example of fine modelship for games (sims), Precision, Smoothness and low polycounts: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/gmaxflight2002/Mirage/mir15.jpg

 

And here's the guys site:

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/gmaxflight2002/index2.html

[wsoul2k]

Comparrison from KnelKnel with real model

 

 

Resolution 1600*1200

http://knell.chez.tiscali.fr/simu/1ressemblance.jpg

[wsoul2k]

Any news guys :?:

[VapoR]

You guys are really doing some nice work!! But surely there has to be more people in the Lomac community that could do this type of work?

 

I really wish I had these kind of skills, I would probably work on a Jaguar or maybe some more ground vehicles.

 

Thanks for putting in your time and effort guys, I hope ED will honor you by incorporating these models into the sim!!

[knellknell]

Thank you !!!!

 

 

 

 

And i hope so !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

[wsoul2k]

Thank you !!!!

 

 

 

 

And i hope so !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

Have you started any conversation with Chizh Knell ??

[knellknell]

Not yet :(

[wsoul2k]

Not yet :(

 

hey we need solve this insue :D

 

here my msn wsoul1974@hotmail.com

..i wanna talk with you send a message or an e-mail to me

 

home e-mail r.f.m@terra.com.br

[knellknell]

Are you from the dev team ?

[wsoul2k]

Are you from the dev team ?

 

No...But i wanna your Opinion about this subject and someone mention the PM system from the forum is not working :( this is why i send to you my msn and e-mail adress and to not became OT is bether we talk in private :D

[knellknell]

I think that this place is free to talk to any issue about my plane :)

[Chizh]

Not yet :(

 

hey we need solve this insue :D

 

Hi guys. :)

I see all and I read.

But I am very very busy with release now. I think we shall talk after Christmas more.

[wsoul2k]

hey Knell dont worry insue solutioned :D

 

tks Chizh

 

 

Not yet :(

 

hey we need solve this insue :D

 

Hi guys. :)

I see all and I read.

But I am very very busy with release now. I think we shall talk after Christmas more.