SF2 Future?

[+Dave 2,322]

I like terrains with lots of stuff to bomb. The one thing the SF terrains killed for me was the lack of trees, HOWEVER the modders took care of that so I easily live with the terrain. Having said that, I'm not a hardcore terrain freak. I'm about the A2A game, a sim MUST have a good dogfight capability. So far I have yet to find a sim that has got that right like the SF series has. IL-2, LOMAC and all its expansions, WWII Fighters, USAF, IAF, Fighters Anthology 's, Fleet Defender. I can go on, I could blow planes out of the sky with impunity in those sims. Some of those I played online and that provided a better challange. The SF series though, has always given me a run for my money. Rolling dogfights, in an gunless F-4 with crappy missiles, outnumbered 2 to 1 against Mig-17's. Or going totall defensive in a B-57B with a Mig-21 trying to ruin your day, or coming off a target in a B-52G at low level with a Mig-23 on your tail and your tail gunner trying to light him up. HOW DOES IT GET ANY BETTER THAN THAT? It doesnt, it doesnt at all.

 

There are things under the hood I wish TK would just fix so we could stop bitching about it. (Lord knows we have pointed stuff out enough) but over all I'm happy with what I have because I can make this sim anything I want it. I can almost bet no two users of these series installs are alike. Just my 2 cents.

[JediMaster 451]

Well, if you're a stock-only guy I'm sure you'll find it the same as other stock-only people!

 

I think most will agree TK has done a better job in the A2A arena than in the A2G one. I call BS on the plane AI in his sims least of all my sims, but I often find the ground attack a bit unsatisfying, especially if it's just "bomb runway/fuel tank/comm building" vs AAA. Only when enemy air units are there putting the pressure on as well does it get good.

 

I don't blow planes out of the sky easily in many sims because of the cheating (I'm looking at you Il-2!!) the AI does along with the stacked damage models (I blow half a wing off a guy, he can still shoot me down, but I get one hit and I lose half my guns, control surfaces, severe engine damage, and maybe even the elevator controls!!)

 

TK makes his AI play fair and that means a lot.

[Wrench 9,848]

if it's just "bomb runway/fuel tank/comm building" vs

 

OH NO!!! Not the the evildamncommbuilding again!!!

 

wrench

kevin stein

[+malibu43 142]

Well, if you're a stock-only guy I'm sure you'll find it the same as other stock-only people!

 

I think most will agree TK has done a better job in the A2A arena than in the A2G one. I call BS on the plane AI in his sims least of all my sims, but I often find the ground attack a bit unsatisfying, especially if it's just "bomb runway/fuel tank/comm building" vs AAA. Only when enemy air units are there putting the pressure on as well does it get good.

 

I don't blow planes out of the sky easily in many sims because of the cheating (I'm looking at you Il-2!!) the AI does along with the stacked damage models (I blow half a wing off a guy, he can still shoot me down, but I get one hit and I lose half my guns, control surfaces, severe engine damage, and maybe even the elevator controls!!)

 

TK makes his AI play fair and that means a lot.

 

 

Agree completely. If I had to ask for one realistic thing for TK to fix/implement, it would employment of A2G weapons. Add the same simple functionality to the A2G Radar that the A2A has. Let us lockup targets using the EO display and radar instead of just hitting the E key. That, for me anyway, would go a long way.

Edited March 3, 2011 by malibu43

[+PureBlue 71]

Agree completely. If I had to ask for one realistic thing for TK to fix/implement, it would employment of A2G weapons. Add the same simple functionality to the A2G Radar that the A2A has. Let us lockup targets using the EO display and radar instead of just hitting the E key. That, for me anyway, would go a long way.

 

I second that, I'd love to see more A2G features..

[+Stary 2,427]

me too!

[Guest Pfunk]

There is but one A2G issue I'd like to see fixed. I'd like for AI flights to be able to use precision-guided weapons on stationary targets like buildings.

[+EricJ 4,245]

which is weird since I have my wingnut use PGMs all the time for CAS missions and have no issues other than sometimes they take forever..

[liamp51 6]

The one thing I would like to see and improvement on is the terrain tile system. You can see the square borders where the textures don't quite match up quite often. I would also like to see better water textures. These are my only suggestions! Oh, I forgot...3D overhaul on the Ol' MiG-17's! :P

[+Julhelm 266]

Cockpits aren't really that hard to make. They're tedious to do but the actual model and texture work is no different from anything else. Environments are by far harder to do because you need a lot more content and any one flaw will likely break the immersion completely. IMO SF suffers from an imbalance of detail as the planes and cockpits are real good but the terrain has not evolved since 2002 and it looked dated back then. Just simple things like better autogen vegetation, SSAO and world-reflecting water and per-tile bump and specular maps would help immensely. Likewise adding a lightmap to the stock props like the carrier and tanks would instantly make them look ten times better, and it is really not that difficult to do for a seasoned programmer.

[Spinners 15,986]

Just simple things like better autogen vegetation, SSAO and world-reflecting water and per-tile bump and specular maps would help immensely. Likewise adding a lightmap to the stock props like the carrier and tanks would instantly make them look ten times better...

 

Spot on.

[+Stary 2,427]

autogen vegetation

 

as opposed to hand placed as it is now...

 

I wonder why there's no such thing as reflective water since SF2, I can't imagine Tomcat sim without one. Also tile-specific bumpmapping

[+paulopanz 2,876]

My wishes are for better terrains, a Mig-25 and a patch for double sided textures shadows fix.

 

But I was wondering about Tw forum.

 

It's closed from several days now and facebook/twitter pages are not longer updated ...

 

Well, I think that or they go all for holydays or they have some surprise incoming.

 

(I hope the second, of course )

 

 

Paul

[FastCargo 412]

a patch for double sided textures shadows fix.

 

Not if the patch puts anything else at risk of not rendering properly.

 

In the original 3ds max exporter notes, it very specifically recommends to NOT use double sided materials. This may have been an anticipated consequence that was missed by the folks who created the models.

 

FC

[+Stary 2,427]

in the original exporter notes polycount was adviced as below what, 5k?

Edited March 7, 2011 by Stary

[+PureBlue 71]

From exporter notes:

 

B. Poly Count

There is no fixed limit to the number of polygons an aircraft model can have. However, for performance reasons, it should be limited to a “reasonable” number. For the current models for Project 1, the target poly count for external aircraft object is 5,000, including landing gears, and another 5,000 for the virtual cockpit.

Edited March 7, 2011 by PureBlue

[+Stary 2,427]

My point was modders made progress as the series evolved during the years since SFP1

[Icarus999 70]

There is but one A2G issue I'd like to see fixed. I'd like for AI flights to be able to use precision-guided weapons on stationary targets like buildings.

 

This is something that has bugged me since the start, and it is at the top of the list of things I would like to see updated. I fly mainly scripted missions in which several flights work together to achieve an outcome. As the sim steps into the late 70's and beyond, it really is desirable to implement realistic modern attack strategies.

 

By the way Pfunk your Black Sea terrain is really a blast to fly...great job on that.

[+paulopanz 2,876]

Not if the patch puts anything else at risk of not rendering properly.

 

In the original 3ds max exporter notes, it very specifically recommends to NOT use double sided materials. This may have been an anticipated consequence that was missed by the folks who created the models.

 

FC

 

I'm not a 3D artist (only a learning painter) but the new patch knocked down ALL Enrico's F-101 & G-91Y .... (and other beautiful planes like Yak-28 serie for example)

.... and I'm very sad about this.

[+Stary 2,427]

I'm not a 3D artist (only a learning painter) but the new patch knocked down ALL Enrico's F-101 & G-91Y .... (and other beautiful planes like Yak-28 serie for example)

.... and I'm very sad about this.

 

shame TK didn't implemented legacy mode for older meshes, something like

 

LegacyLOD=TRUE

 

in the plane.ini file

[FastCargo 412]

From exporter notes:

 

B. Poly Count

There is no fixed limit to the number of polygons an aircraft model can have. However, for performance reasons, it should be limited to a “reasonable” number. For the current models for Project 1, the target poly count for external aircraft object is 5,000, including landing gears, and another 5,000 for the virtual cockpit.

 

Note how this reads. It says very specifically the count should be limited for performance reasons, and for the current models for Project 1, the count is limited. It says nothing about rendering errors, merely performance. Most of this has been nullified simply due to the increase in CPU power (of which the TW engine is primarily dependent).

 

Also, from the exporter notes (written in July of 2001):

 

1.Although 2-Sided option is supported, it is recommended that it be kept OFF. 2-sided polygons have problems with normal and sorting, so they should be used with extreme care.

 

Note here that although it is supported, 2-sided is recommended to be kept off. There are no caveats for performance, and in fact, the notes warn of there being problems with normal and sorting. This to me was a much more serious consequence (parts not rendering properly) than slow frame rates due to high numbers of polygons. This is why I don't use 2-sided materials in my models...which means I accepted the consequences of things such as not seeing canopies when looking from the inside. Also, there was no assumption of this being fixed in future iterations due to performance increases in computers...the way this reads is that this could ALWAYS be true.

 

This is a different issue than the 'props' because there was no warning in the exporter notes of future 'flags' being incorporated that would cause problems rendering older models, which is why TK issued a patch to fix it. There was no note that said "Hey, put these 'flags' in the mesh properties so the props are compatible with the future."

 

And as far as shadows go, there is still not a fix (nor is there expected to be one) for the 'shadow spikes' of older models. Most of these were caused not by open meshes (as is the popular opinion), but by meshes that are sometimes welded where they shouldn't be. An example would be taking 2 coffee cans, and welding them together at a single point on the edges where they sit on each other. If you made such a mesh in MAX and exported it, you'd probably get a 'shadow spike'. Basically, because you have meshes welded at a single point with no dimension, the sim can't figure out what faces are 'out' and what faces are 'in' to create a proper shadow...resulting in a 'shadow spike'. Unfortunately, this can sneak in when building a model, and may not be noticed until exporting and running in a sim patched to Oct 08 or later...which means some models will always have it unless the modeler can find the original MAX file, and go in to find the offending vertex...

 

Also, the current version of sim engine (as of Jan 2011) in fact does recognize older LODs, that's how the 'props' issue was fixed. I suspect the fix was the rendering engine, upon detecting an older version of a LOD simply applies the CatchShadow and CastShadow flags as FALSE to any transparent materials in that LOD.

 

Look, this does not mean that those folks who built models using 2-sided materials screwed up...on the contrary, their stuff is usually way the hell better than the crap I put out. But, there will always be risks in doing things that the builder recommends you don't do, with resultant consequences. It is always a trade off in risk/effort/reward. Ini edits are one thing...those are easy to fix. MAX/LOD files are different in that the fix may not be easy, especially if the source file is lost.

 

If TK can fix it, hey, that's great, but it won't kill me if he can't. If you notice, we already have models that don't use shadows because of the 'shadow spikes' (the RAZBAM EA-6B comes to mind) and there doesn't seem to be a big uproar about it.

 

FC

[+Dave 2,322]

What can Erikgen do about the missing shadows of his Voodoo and G-91Y?

[FastCargo 412]

Well, as long as he has the MAX files available, just go back into MAX and unselect 2-sided in the Materials Editor, re-apply and re-export. Takes 5 minutes per model at most.

 

FC

[+Dave 2,322]

I do know how to export a model, I wonder if Erikgen would let me do it for him so he doesnt have to do another project?

 

 

[+ErikGen 44]

Dave ,

Voodoo and Yankee (and Fiddler too) will be soon modified with single side meshes ... and updated with bump and specular features; it's only a matter of spare time, however thanks for the offer of help.

FC, the conversion isnt a "5 minutes" job because you have to double (with reversed normals) all the faces that need to be seen from both side (chute , damaged surfaces, inside glasses of canopy ,....) for at least 2 or 3 LOD for each model (so 14/21 models only for the Voodoo).