My Projects (EricJ)

[sugarblues]

...Wow!

 

Been away from the 'pooter for a couple of days, and come back to see this! Stunning... simply stunning. Your digital models sure beat the plastic one's I make!

 

SB

[+EricJ]

Well as always man, it's FC's beautiful work. I've finally stopped travelling, back "home" and going to start back up. JAT81500 sent me some more minor work stuff, and added that this morning. As soon as I get settled down I'll pick it back up.

[+FastCargo]

While Eric gets 'settled', I've been doing some other work.

 

So what's the difference between these 4 Growlers:

 

 

 

 

 

Answer? About 35000 polygons!

 

I've been working to try to reduce the poly count for those with slower/older computers (like mine). What you see is the result. Doing this isn't as easy as it sounds (you just can't go to town using MultiRes). The heirarchy must remain the same, as well as the part names...otherwise NONE of the LODs will show up. In this example, you'll note only small stuff was deleted/reduced in the second shot, but the third and fourth, there was major rebuilding of some structures.

 

I'd even go so far to say that the second model would work for most people...the first one would only be for those with screaming machines if they want more than one aircraft on their screen in that poly count.

 

Anyway, did this for all models, including AHM rails and drop tanks.

 

FC

[+SidDogg]

hmmm..... they look like levels of detail...

 

...NICE.

[Murphy'S]

Answer? About 35000 polygons!

 

I've been working to try to reduce the poly count for those with slower/older computers (like mine).

 

wasn't etasblished in the past that the fps killing in a plane is more the texture resolution than the polycount?

[+FastCargo]

So what if it's true. End users can fix their own texture resolutions. Fixing polygons is a whole other story.

 

Best to get the grunt work out of the way on the front end.

 

FC

[+Julhelm]

You can actually have a final lod that is only <500 tris.

[+FastCargo]

I thought about that...decided that what I've done works great on my system, which is over 3 years old...so most everyone else should be fine.

 

FC

[+Julhelm]

Yeah well, the biggest problem these days is memory leaks induced by ineffective texture usage.

[+FastCargo]

If that's a comment on how I map my projects...yep, my mapping is inefficient.

 

I map the way I do because it makes it easier for potential texture artists to understand what is being mapped, and how the maps relate to each other.

 

If it means there's extra space, so be it.

 

You want to provide lessons, start your own thread...don't hijack this one.

 

FC

[Jarhead1]

For the team, did yall get the Loadout for the Growler that I sent out? If so, tell me what yall think, I need some feedback so I know what I need to change. Thanks,

 

 

Kevin

[+Julhelm]

If that's a comment on how I map my projects...yep, my mapping is inefficient.

 

I map the way I do because it makes it easier for potential texture artists to understand what is being mapped, and how the maps relate to each other.

 

If it means there's extra space, so be it.

 

You want to provide lessons, start your own thread...don't hijack this one.

 

FC

What I said applies more to things like props that are instanced many hundred times onscreen. For instance if you build a house that uses the walls from one model and the roof from another and you simply use both textures instead of combining them into your own. In SF terms it applies to 3rd party cockpits that often source from the "stock" gauges.

 

Anyway as for optimizing performance, there really exists no point in having a model with a resolution higher than, say, 1000 tris at distances beyond 1-2 miles in this game. You can whip up the final lod in an hour just by modeling around the highres mesh but keeping it free of all unnecessary detail.

 

Just trying to be helpful here, that's all.

[+EricJ]

I got your PM Jarhead1 and sent a reply.

 

Got JAT81500s new system for decals, which is applied directly to the texture. Believe you me, it's just as good as the screenshots above, with only (so far I noticed) the numbers decals, so they can change. I'll still get some pics later on. Also, as per the ALE-50, I've noticed a delay in a radar to lock on a target. Nothings confirmed but something I noticed earlier on, so we'll run tests to see how it works out, so we can get a benefit without having to do anything, and still have to get some confirmation on if my theory is right (unfortunately only one test) and once all involved gets more facts and observations solified, I'll let you all know.

[+EricJ]

Done up a skin for VAQ-129, which is the Fleet Replacement Squadron for the Growler. I had been confused (and thanks to Vampyre, straightened out) but it is an FRS squadron, Pacific. Also Jarhead, I'll go with Vampyre's PM and while the real world Growler doesn't have the weapons capability of the regular Hornets, we'll keep the ability to perform SEAD and DEAD missions, while it's setup for now for Armed Recon, Recon, and of course SEAD roles in WOX. Also a screenshot of JAT81500s work, with the nose showing the decals, while his beautiful textures applied to a VFA-105 SH. Right now that squadron, VFA-11, and VFA-32 have this applied. I'm hoping the other squadrons will be applied (would love to see CVW-8 myself..

[Silverbolt]

oh man, u don't know what are u provoking in me sowing these hornets screens!

i want this beast!!!

[Vampyre]

I'm hoping the other squadrons will be applied (would love to see CVW-8 myself..

 

Keep in mind that the current CVW-8 Electronic Attack squadron, VAQ-141 Shadowhawks, will be going to CVW-5 when they make the transition to EA-18G's. I assume the current CVW-5 Electronic Attack squadron, VAQ-136 Gauntlets, will be assigned to CVW-8 although I had heard that the VAQ squadrons could be assigned to different air wings on a rotational cycle. Also, they will probably be assigned about five to six aircraft per squadron.

[+EricJ]

Cool stuff, didn't know they floated around like that, but I was also thinking about VFA-31 and CFA-213 as well

 

Been doing some testing with the ALE-50 and without any modifications, it seems to "work". Did a test on the Range map (or custom stuff added to it) and the Desert Storm map. I flew over an Iraqi AB and got a lock when I was on top of it, rather than even before I hit it (map showed Shilkas and a SAM perhaps). My reasoning is that the AI "sees" the 3D model (not so much the wire) but doesn't know what to do. Given that I have my Enemy AI set on Normal may be different, but overall I think the addition is worth it. The screenie below shows me running up on an SA-13 and just a few seconds it launched, as you can see here.

[+EricJ]

Minor update, adding the step area on the right side, according to Vampyre, since the US Navy is implementing them on all aircraft.

[+EricJ]

And Jarhead1, you may need to clean out your inbox, as Vampyre is saying that your inbox is full....

[+X RAY]

Negative Ghostrider your INBOX is full!

Great guys the supabug family is growing superb day by day!

[+FastCargo]

Interesting info about the ALE-50 in game so far.

 

Now, I asked about what the 'missile' aims at in game on the TW forums. TK said that the IR missiles go for the engines (like you'd expect), but the radar missiles go for the mean of the hitboxes.

 

I'm wondering if it's more than that.

 

Here's why.

 

We already know the sim MUST take the position of the pivot points of the mesh into account for the following reasons:

 

1) Flight controls, wheels, etc (duh).

2) In 'Hard' FM mode, the sim uses the pivot point as the 'center of mass' for the particular mesh...I inadvertently figured this out while working on the F-107's 'lean left' problem.

 

The question becomes...what if they are used for more than that? If the radar missiles aim not for the middle of the hitboxes, but the mean of the pivot points, that would give a good representation of the middle of the mass of the LOD file.

 

This would work to our advantage, in that whenever the ALE-50 is deployed, the pivot points for the segments of the ALE-50 all move way to the rear, beyond the center of mass of the main aircraft model. This would have the side benefit of causing a recalculation of where the 'mean' of the points are...moving it to the rear. If the radar missiles all aim for that point...you've basically just reproduced what the ALE-50 can do in reality.

 

Have to admit, that would be cool if it really works like that...

 

What we need are tests in a controlled enviroment. One on one, BVR range, give the shooter SAHMs or AHMs only, do tests with and without the ALE-50 deployed, and no ECM, various aspects (tail, head, side).

 

If we see a definitive difference...there ya go.

 

FC

[+ST0RM]

Wow FC! If this works as you hope it does, you've reached another milestone for this sim engine.

 

I wish you luck on your "test flights".

 

-S

[+EricJ]

Interesting info about the ALE-50 in game so far.

 

Now, I asked about what the 'missile' aims at in game on the TW forums. TK said that the IR missiles go for the engines (like you'd expect), but the radar missiles go for the mean of the hitboxes.

 

I'm wondering if it's more than that.

 

Here's why.

 

We already know the sim MUST take the position of the pivot points of the mesh into account for the following reasons:

 

1) Flight controls, wheels, etc (duh).

2) In 'Hard' FM mode, the sim uses the pivot point as the 'center of mass' for the particular mesh...I inadvertently figured this out while working on the F-107's 'lean left' problem.

 

The question becomes...what if they are used for more than that? If the radar missiles aim not for the middle of the hitboxes, but the mean of the pivot points, that would give a good representation of the middle of the mass of the LOD file.

 

This would work to our advantage, in that whenever the ALE-50 is deployed, the pivot points for the segments of the ALE-50 all move way to the rear, beyond the center of mass of the main aircraft model. This would have the side benefit of causing a recalculation of where the 'mean' of the points are...moving it to the rear. If the radar missiles all aim for that point...you've basically just reproduced what the ALE-50 can do in reality.

 

Have to admit, that would be cool if it really works like that...

 

What we need are tests in a controlled enviroment. One on one, BVR range, give the shooter SAHMs or AHMs only, do tests with and without the ALE-50 deployed, and no ECM, various aspects (tail, head, side).

 

If we see a definitive difference...there ya go.

 

FC

 

I think I got a taste of that last night on a strike mission on the DS map. I had gotten the ALE-50 deployed, and was taking missiles from a flight of Su-27s, so I'm really not sure if it works against so much A2A missiles, more like ground launched, maybe do to the "power" of the radar being used, how it reacts to the environment. Needless to say I got shot down but I think that was a good test try on that angle as far as air launched vs. ground launched missiles.

 

Then again, thinking about the issue... I know I still had some dead to rights shots at me, I mean four against two, so maybe it did work, just that I wasn't really in an evaluation mood

 

On a more other note, JAT81500 has given me the CVW-8 textures... so realistically we're at the tweak phase, the only stopper right now is the ALE-50 "does it work" issue, but unless anybody on the team objects, once JAT81500 does his rudder position at takeoff fix (somehow disappeared) I would really say it's almost ready to go?

[+76.IAP-Blackbird]

ready to go?! ..... confirmed!!!!!

[serverandenforcer]

ready to go?! ..... confirmed!!!!!

 

 

The correct quote was "almost ready to go".