Amazing vehicles!!

[Stratos]

Look that vehicles!!

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bbs/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=146;t=001121

Hope we can get something similar for SB

[dejawolf]

is the difference really that noticeable?

steel beasts bmp-1
http://www.dejawolf.com/steelbeasts/gallery/bmp-1.html

if you compare, you'll see that the black shark do have a lot more polygons.
the wheels are rounder, and they have indentation, and even hubcaps.
it also has various handles on the roof. however, the hatches are flat and uninteresting. the same goes with the firing port covers. in addition the texture almost looks like a rushjob, the sideskirts having a limited and inaccurate bumpmap, and the turret is missing the attachment points for turret equipment.

[Homer]

Whats wrong with what we got in SB now? Im sure eSim could produce models with equal, if not superior fidelity as evidenced by deja's obsessive attention to detail, but it will cost you in other more important areas, like performance. Game play is why I keep coming back to my favorites, not pretty screenshots.

They are nice pictures but I think they are very excessive for a flight sim (BLOMAC).

[Skybird03]

No useless frame sacrifices, please. SBP already looks better than just good enough, even more so when replacing the default skins with modded skins.

[ARM505]

I think Lockon's shading/rendering engine also makes quite a difference too, giving more realistic lighting and shadows.

Of course, computers aren't getting any weaker, so at some stage more detailed models would be *nice* but of course not necessary.

However, some improvement of the models we have wouldn't go unnoticed. For example, it would be nice not to see grass rushing by underneath the tank when in the 'up' TC view on the M1, looking down at the hull (I think through the forward view shield). Or seeing through the interior onto the ground around some of the turret bases. I'm not asking for more detail, but there are a few little 'holes' that bug me. A very efficient effort all round though, and I don't want it to seem that I'm whining at all.

As has been said, it's a minor point, and gameplay is of course the No. 1 factor.

[Floydii]

The Black shark BMP has a missile at least. There is nothing stopping the SB BMP from doing the same, as a the M2 already empties it's tubes when it fires TOWs.

The important thing in SBP though is that I can differentiate a BMP1 from a BMP2 or a BMD. So the model is adequate for the job.

[bics]

I think the stuff in SB measures up, the Hinds look great and some of the skinned vehicles look as good as that, CZ's russian BTR-80 is as good looking and detailed as anything in that pic. I dont see why they've spent so much time on that stuff in a flight sim it's only eye candy as you cycle through the ground objects before blowing them up, how much time are you going to spend viewing the vehicles just moving around?

[Jester_UK]

..... I dont see why they've spent so much time on that stuff in a flight sim it's only eye candy as you cycle through the ground objects before blowing them up, how much time are you going to spend viewing the vehicles just moving around?


Bear in mind these changes have been brought in for the new addition of the Ka-50 attack helicopter. So with the lower speed, lower altitude and the visual targeting system you will see a lot more detail on the ground unit models. The downside is the effect a collumn of those high poly-count models will have on your frame rate at close range.

But to be honest, if I had the choice between a few extra rivets on a vehicle model and a couple of extra FPS, I'll take the FPS everytime. The new models in LOMAC are certainly good work, but I agree that the use of models of a higher poly count than SBPro is pointless, especially in a flight sim.

[Homer]

Pretty screenshots is what sells games... and LOMAC's decision makers have profitted from knowing that. If you remember when it first came out, these pretty pictures brought many of computers to their knees when running at the higher graphics settings. Lucky for them that hardware improved quickly enough to solve this problem for them but not all of us have the latest and greatest and have to be conscious of what we burn computer cycles on...

[Homer]

Bear in mind these changes have been brought in for the new addition of the Ka-50 attack helicopter. So with the lower speed, lower altitude and the visual targeting system you will see a lot more detail on the ground unit models.

... if you are taking the time to sit there and notice these nice details, you are definately doing something wrong :)

[Vati]

In my opinion, LOMAC's new ground vehicle models are waste of resources. And it is not only about vehicles, it can be said for any 3d model there. Polycount is totally uneconomical. Who the hell needs to have 3k poly bomb?

The one thing I did when I installed LOMAC was, to replace all ground vehicle models with the older Flanker 2.x. It enabled me to have actually a playable A2G experience.

SB 3d models are more than enough. Only thing what I miss is some indication of a crew. It is extremly unnatural to have empty vehicles running around

:thelmut:

[Stratos]

How you made that Vati??

[Vati]

I simply copied over the files :)
Granted, you cannot do this for every 3d object, but it works. Just check for files with the same file extension.

:thelmut:

[ARM505]

I'm still not won over by the 'high polygon models are a waste' argument against the Black Shark models. (There is a long discussion of this on the Lock On forums as well.) As I said, computers get faster, not slower. I *still* want to play Janes F15 - BUT, I remember the designers motto of 'frame rate is god!' And look at what happens to it now, limited to 640X480, when they could have included a simple resolution option. If your PC can't get acceptable frame rates, then lower the detail level! I can get frame rates in the 100's in Lock On on my very much mid to low spec PC! It's that simple. If the devs want to make high poly models, well then let them! It's not like dedicated 3D modellers would have all been coding away in C++ if they weren't doing models!

My point is that sims, which have long developement cycles, and stay on peoples hard drives for a long time (not like the dime-a-dozen FPS's etc which are released all the time), should make some effort to 'future proof' themselves - or at least the devs shouldn't be shot down for doing so.

My 2c...

[Vati]

ARM505, have you ever done any 3d model?

But lets get to the definition of the 'wasted time': If you want to have 50k poly models in sim, then only having such high poly will bring down your computer when few pop into the screen. Now to avoid this, you need to make lower resolution models. There are two choices: a) dynamic algo done by coder or b) discrete lower resolution model done by artist.
Most of the times, you will end with b), as you have better control on it which means you need to create several models. All dandy till now, but when you go into the game and do some statistics, you will notice that 99.9% of the time, you will NOT be close enough to even see the full glory of 50K model except looking in outside orbit camera view.
I call this a waste... time spent to do all this LODs could be used to get more different vehicles, buildings, planes, etc.

And belive me... "frame rate is God!" is good motto. It means physics can run in high resolution as can AI do more cycles, and that, my friend, is what is very important.

[Ghost]

ARM505, have you ever done any 3d model?

But lets get to the definition of the 'wasted time': If you want to have 50k poly models in sim, then only having such high poly will bring down your computer when few pop into the screen. Now to avoid this, you need to make lower resolution models. There are two choices: a) dynamic algo done by coder or b) discrete lower resolution model done by artist.
Most of the times, you will end with b), as you have better control on it which means you need to create several models. All dandy till now, but when you go into the game and do some statistics, you will notice that 99.9% of the time, you will NOT be close enough to even see the full glory of 50K model except looking in outside orbit camera view.
I call this a waste... time spent to do all this LODs could be used to get more different vehicles, buildings, planes, etc.

And belive me... "frame rate is God!" is good motto. It means physics can run in high resolution as can AI do more cycles, and that, my friend, is what is very important.

Hail to that!!!

Lomac is probably one of the most overmodeled sims ever.

[actionhank]

I'd say the models in Lock On are looking good (That hind makes me wish it was planned to be flyable, doing some troop insertions followed by a CAS run sounds too fun) but i can definitly see the argument against them.
As it is now, flying anything but the Su-25T with the Video targetting system (The A-10's Maverick Display is pretty low-res) the ground targets are often little more than a black speck that soon dissapears under an explosions.
But with the Ka-50 coming, the ability to loiter and select targets on the targetting screen from close range with the Vihkr missiles will make the higher quality models appreciated.
And as stated, you can always scale the model quality, and texture back to keep it playable, and if you can. Then you can enjoy the newer models

[HotTom]

I tried Lock-On and it certainly is pretty.

But then Falcon 4.0 Allied Force came out (the original F4 should have been called Crash to Desktop, a pity because it had so much promise) and Lock-On was erased from my hard drive. The depth and complexity of F4AF more than compensated for the out-of-date graphics (a new patch is due out this month; I hear the wheels on the airplanes actually are going to roll :) ).

That's why the rather poor graphics in SB Pro PE didn't really bother me (and the add-on skins are VERY cool). Again, the depth and complexity of SB Pro PE were the selling points to me. I would put it on a par with F4AF except for the lack of any campaigns in SB. F4AF's campaigns are the best ever devised, IMHO.

So, if I ruled the world, I would make two changes to SB:

1) Graphics: I would add shadows (F4AF has 'em, although very crude). I'm not a tanker, I'm an old ground-pounder. I'm always aware if I'm up-sun or down-sun of the enemy. I want to move in the shadows, not in the light. And they help keep me oriented on direction. Graphically, that's the only thing I would change. Shadows are a big part of my SA when I'm out in the field.

2) Campaigns: There's only so many times anyone can (or will) play the same single missions over and over. Part of simming is "telling a story." Whether they are linear or dynamic, some campaigns would help maintain interest over the long haul. I strongly suggest some of the better mission-writers consider writing some campaigns (I certainly will once I get a bit better at mission writing). Keep 'em simple. Company size at the largest. But they should tell an ongoing story. Lots of other sims have player-written campaigns.

And, yes, FPS should be the primary consideration. There are many SB scenarios that I have found to be unplayable because the frame rates drop into single digits (and I have a pretty good rig). Too many objects.

Just my opinion and I consider myself more a simmer than a gamer so I'm probably not typical. Other folks (probably the majority) are attracted by the eye candy. So they can choose Lock-On instead of F4AF. And we'll all be happy :)

HT

[ARM505]

Frame rate is obviously important. So is the physics/mechanics of the sim. BUT, I'm saying that having something that is scaleable is also important in this type of software, which has a long development time, and we spend years playing. As I mentioned, I would still be playing Janes F15 if they hadn't limited it to the (now) dog-ugly 640X480 res. I don't fall into the trap of installing a new sim and cranking every single slider to the maximum, thats just ridiculous.

So, if 3rd party modellers want to make Lock On look good - I say let them. If you don't get acceptable FPS, then turn some settings down. As to using that 'wasted time' to develope other models/planes etc - well, I don't know how many 'multi-purpose' programmers they have who can model in 3DS Max as well as program the flight models/ parameters of new models, perhaps if most of them were like that you could consider the time wasted.

I only have CAD/CAM experience, trying to teach myself 3DS Max now. Luckily pretty similar to Gmax which I fiddled with a while back. I made a flying pencil with retracting gear+suspension, working controls etc for FS2004!

[Vati]

ARM505, it would all be great if this 'turn down settings' would actually work :D

And Janes F15 640x480 was not as much related to frame rate, but to graphic cards for that time. It is unrealistically to expect that you could program something for hardware which did not exist for several years to come. 640x480 was first voodoo's max resolution. And as we had seen, glide lib died very soon and direct3d took over. How can you expect that developer would be able to predict that one?
As time goes by, OS specs change, hardware changes. It is unfair to call developers shortsighted when it comes to this.
I will say it is bad design policy to publish product that you expect it to run normally only 5 (if you are lucky) years after release.

As for 3d modeling. Good luck with your quest :) I am sure you will find out that CAD/CAM has very little to do with how you do production quality 3d game models. 3d game models are about aproximation, while CAD is about accuracy.
Speaking from personal experience, I have nothing but respect for those who can create model with very low poly count and catch all the important features of the object. Almost everyone can do hi poly models.

:thelmut:

[ARM505]

Well, Janes F15 did receive a D3D patch, but I do understand your point. I can get LOMAC to run with frame rates in the hundreds (max of course, down to the 40's min) by playing with settings using Modman. Of course, I'm perhaps cheating by not counting the rather sub-optimal fps sucking cities (20's using scenes on 'high'), which I agree have some kind of cpu/gfx card killing problem! But I just turn the buildings off if needs be and then it's fine, silky smooth even on my old system.

And yeah, the only thing CAD helped me with was thinking in 3D, use of different views, etc. I also have great respect (even more so now!) for people who can make game-efficient models, and it's a lot of hard work, especially if you have to make multiple LOD's. I'm just doing it as a kind of diversion, there's no way I'll be able to churn out anything great.

Regarding fps in BS, I'm only going on the reports of the beta testers, who almost universally say that BS runs at about the same fps as FC. In any case, those models are made now, and can't be unmade. I just don't reckon it's a big waste, or anything like that.

[Vati]

Yeah.. u can use 3rd party tools to tweak. And that is already a problem IMO. Why should I need to use extra program to tune the options?
What you have described works indeed wonders.. but only for A2A. A2G, you soon get into problems if you want to do anything more than blowing up vehicles. For example, if you decrease the building range and you need to destroy the bridge, it will be very annoying to prepare the pop up and attack run. Then if you decrease the terrain resolution wrt range, you can soon loose the ability to navigate by VFR. :) In all such tweaks you get great fps, but functionality drops too much.
In the end you loose 1 week of tweaking graphics, and when you think you got the golden solution, you get stuttered to death when few vehicles explode behind you. :D

All this is the reason that graphics was a low priority for a soaring simulator I designed while waiting for SBproPE. Our goal was to have physics #1, because physics is what makes plane flying and not eye candy. Any graphics was done in a way to be functional only. If it looks pretty it is only a side effect and not a design goal.
And judging from the feedback, we had done the right decision.
This is also the reason why I think SB is on the right track regarding grfx functionality (few critical things still missing tho) and thus 2d sprites inf does not bother me.

[ARM505]

This is also the reason why I think SB is on the right track regarding grfx functionality (few critical things still missing tho) and thus 2d sprites inf does not bother me.

Agree 100% here - the models are detailed enough in SB (I do like Lockons models though, they look very nice, and I don't seem to have a problem with fps even in A2G), and I also find the 2d inf in SB fine. I would like a few holes in the models 'patched' though, and like they say, better lighting and shadows. We'll get it one day I reckon, and I'm still really enjoying it - I don't even think about the model detail while playing, which means it's detailed enough!