Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dillon

Why is the Super Hornet 3.5 bird harder on framerates than other SF2: NA aircraft I have?

Recommended Posts

try it on a different carrier, Dave, one of the other stock ones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to use the Blk II model but on the the flight deck and on approach the thing runs like a dog on my system.  

 

So I need to look at the format of the SF2 tanks that came with the Blk II model, name it differently, then edit the WoX data.ini files to point to the newly named file/folder?

 

Okay I've been cornfused... Okay you can't use SF2 tanks in WoX because methinks you want the custom tank images in WoX?  It's not going to happen since the game engine doesn't support it and can't be done man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clarify the changes I made based on the suggestion above was only the distance settings. Lowering those top two settings which are the highest by default gave me the performance I wanted. Having 'Shadows' set to a lower setting (not the lowest) helped as well when sitting on the carrier. Thanks guys for the help. Understanding why there's a performance problem helps greatly with finding a solution. I can ditch the old WoX model now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not out yet but my SU-16 is not for you then...  will try to get the early low poly one done too..

Num Nodes: 270

Total:    (105395 polys, 316185 verts)

Mesh Max: (5010 polys, 15030 verts)

and thats with no skin yet

I tend to model as best detail as poss,with as few polys as possible...sometimes tho high poly counts cant be helped  mind you my system can handle it ,and I tend to model what I want foremost and for you guys here too...

 

 

What I don't understand is what's the point in a high poly model for only a visual external project.  The WoX and BlK models are basically identical visually...  When you take into consideration other SF2 compatible aircraft that look amazing (F-14, F/A-18A/B/C/D) perform great without the need for a high poly model.  Coming from the world of Flight Simulator, P3D, DCS, and Falcon 4.0 the only way you need a very demanding model is if you were simulating every avionic feature possible with a clickable virtual cockpit and state of art effects that were pushing the envelop. Even with all this the models were created to run as efficient as possible and they actually did (examples include PMDG's 777, iFly's 737, Carenado's GA aircraft).  Usually you'd see a hit in the cockpit not a slow down because the visual model is so demanding.  Unless your like looking/using the plane exclusively from the outside there's no need for this in SF2.  Learning from the BlK Super Hornet the cockpit isn't even a factor here, the performance degradation was from the model itself usually it's the other way around.  If you made an amazing cockpit that would be grounds for a performance hit and understandable.  With basic avionics and nothing done stellar in weapons effects why make a demanding visual model?  It just doesn't make since to me.

 

Not telling anyone how to make their aircraft but with a light sim like SF2 it's a jump in and have fun kind of platform for those that want a taste of real world combat.  More fun can be had with great looking efficient running models versus making them performance hogs for the sake of doing it.  For DCS and Falcon 4.0 BMS I could see the reasoning if needed but not for a platform like SF2.  For the record DCS and Falcon 4 actually run better than the SF2's Super Hornet on my system and these sims offer more in cockpit features.   Some designers I guess get off on over complicating their creations that otherwise could be simplified and look just as good thus making their creations much more enjoyable.  

 

If someone could answer this, what's the benefit in making SF2 models high poly projects (the more I think about it the more I can't wrap my head around the logic)?

Edited by Dillon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If someone could answer this, what's the benefit in making SF2 models high poly projects (the more I think about it the more I can't wrap my head around the logic)?

 

Because some people like the extreme detail. I love the high poly planes. Looks at ravenclaws F-4's, Vipers and weapons packs, the details are amazing. The details are what gives the person the immersion they are looking for. I do not fly the SH very much. I fly Vipers and Phantoms mostly. So I enjoy the high poly models for the little details. The SH on the carrier seems to be right though as far as why FPS is down. When I put them on land my FPS is triple that. Have you looked at FPS on land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dillion

 

Here is a prime example of the detail I want. This is ravenclaws work.

 

post-15260-0-82449700-1386881892.jpg

 

 

post-15260-0-82449700-1386881892.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dillion

 

Here is a prime example of the detail I want. This is ravenclaws work.

 

 

Amazing shot.  The problem is when most of my flying time is in the cockpit I would rather the detail be put there.  Some of these SF2 models achieve a great level of detail and still keep the poly count down.  In the case of the Super Hornet there is no stand out difference that would explain the jump from the WoX model to the BlK version.  If the BlK version looked like your screenshot I'd see your point to a certain extent but when the model is looking exactly the same as the lower poly model the reasoning seems pretty ridicules.  

Edited by Dillon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing shot.  The problem is when most of my flying time is in the cockpit I would rather that detail be put there.  Some of these SF2 models achieve a great level of detail and still keep the poly count down.  In the case of the Super Hornet there is no stand out difference that would explain the jump from the WoX model to the BlK version.  If the BlK version looked like your screenshot I'd see you point to a certain extent but when the model is looking exactly the same as the lower poly model the reasoning seems pretty ridicules.  

 

The FPS difference between the 2 SH models I can totally understand your what you are saying. It is indeed a perplexing problem. I was just talking in general about why high poly count is liked by many.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because some people like the extreme detail. I love the high poly planes. Looks at ravenclaws F-4's, Vipers and weapons packs, the details are amazing. The details are what gives the person the immersion they are looking for. I do not fly the SH very much. I fly Vipers and Phantoms mostly. So I enjoy the high poly models for the little details. The SH on the carrier seems to be right though as far as why FPS is down. When I put them on land my FPS is triple that. Have you looked at FPS on land?

 

Been flying from the carrier as I only have SF2: NA with no land missions.  I like the visual features in SF2: NA so I haven't got into ordering other packages to test more land based operations.  Is it even possible to get other SF2 packages to use SF2: NA's graphic engine.  If not what scenery upgrades are offered for the other packages.  I'm seeing some amazing screenshots where it looks like everything from the sky to the ground has been Modded.  I'd love to get into that and would like some advice as to what package is best and the scenery MOD's to make it look outstanding.  Europe would be a package I'd be interested in.  From there what's the best ground scenery I could get and then sky textures?  From there I could test airbase performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been flying from the carrier as I only have SF2: NA with no land missions.  I like the visual features in SF2: NA so I haven't got into ordering other packages to test more land based operations.  Is it even possible to get other SF2 packages to use SF2: NA's graphic engine.  If not what scenery upgrades are offered for the other packages.  I'm seeing some amazing screenshots where it looks like everything from the sky to the ground has been Modded.  I'd love to get into that and would like some advice as to what package is best and the scenery MOD's to make it look outstanding.  Europe would be a package I'd be interested in.  From there what's the best ground scenery I could get and then sky textures?  From there I could test airbase performance.

 

 

Well my friend, then you have come to the right place. I will start another topic for you and we will lead you to the promise land of what mods to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my friend, then you have come to the right place. I will start another topic for you and we will lead you to the promise land of what mods to get.

 

 

I saw the thread then it disappeared.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go to the general discussion forum right above this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some models do look good enough low poly.....heres some I think need higher polys to get the "Look" right...some aircraft that are very curved etc need smoother modelling,or it looks like some old game model...while not everyone can fly the model most maybe can....I have a good system that luckily runs anything.....my older system just did too...still can run sf well btw...lol

I model something fore most for myself...a\c that I havent seen in any sim ,but can now with sf series get them flying...and share with others....if their systems cant handle slightly higher res models...maybe its time for upgrades lol...if TK had kept going I think the game may have needed better pc`s to run it...anyways thats supposition...I will continue to mod stuff as best as I can for as many people a possible,not all will be able to use them,thats really unfortunate but thats beyond my scope...

 

I like good details and cockpits too...as thats where we do most of our flying....my hawk pit for example,is as low poy as I dare use without it looking blocky and its over 30,000 polys now...and still a lot to make...such as the canopy is only just started..

 

why my models in future will be high res...

post-1981-0-62837300-1420580488_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-42342900-1420580509_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-87984400-1420580515_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-92302200-1420580520_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-74515300-1420580525_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-13874400-1420580531_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-55065100-1420580538_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-34580700-1420580544_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-62837300-1420580488_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-42342900-1420580509_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-87984400-1420580515_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-92302200-1420580520_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-74515300-1420580525_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-13874400-1420580531_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-55065100-1420580538_thumb.jpg

post-1981-0-34580700-1420580544_thumb.jpg

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's just the fact that I like stuff to look good.  As the Super Hornet is concerned I like the jet a lot and therefore feel that it was too low poly in my mind.  But I run SF2, DCS, and rarely FSX, and Arma 3 with decent (maybe too good) framerates. And my ASUS is two years old and I had guys last year in my clan bitching about low FPS with a certain mission, which amazed me but that's that.  Overall I like quality models and that's pretty much it.  A lot of my gunwork in Arma 3 is reasonable for the game and yet highly detailed enough to look like that weapon without going overboard and not kill the FPS either.  I was talking to a guy and he showed me a gun model that was 350MB(!!!) and he was wondering why it worked.  If I remember the SH was like... 20,000? It's been a long time since I knew the figures but overall while there are parts that could use some tweaking and enhancement overall its cool as it is.  Ravenclaw's stuff?  Man his stuff runs highly detailed (sometimes insanely detailed) but its also not much of a hit on the polys.  May want to look at optimizing your card or getting a new one as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do I even begin...

 

Dillon,

 

First, the Super Hornet model that you see in game was purchased by EricJ for the purpose of bringing it into the SF engine back in late 2008. He asked me as a favor to bring it into game. The model as originally built if I remember correctly was darn near 100k polygons. You cannot simply run it through a poly reducer algorithm in the 3d modeling program...odd things happen that can change the shape, or cause odd deformations. This goes double if nothing has been done to bring it into the game engine yet. Pieces have to be 'cut' and shaped or animated, then texture mapped. This mostly has to be done by hand, sometimes vertex by vertex. It is also personal choice as to how many polygons a modeler wants on his model. If he's got a decent rig, he may accept more detail for less performance. Or, he can make multiple models of varying resolutions so that the farther away the aircraft is, the lower amount of polys it shows. In addition, the Super Hornet was an experiment to try various new modeling features that had not been tried before in SF...and so things were added that aren't on other models, such as the ALE-50, and the 'buddy' A/R pod. And lets not forget the Growler with all it's pods that needed to be modeled.

 

Secondly, most of the other programs you mentioned were so old that performance isn't an issue, or the models themselves aren't that detailed. Some of them use pay addons, where there is financial motivation to reduce polys to have playability to the widest amount of machines out there. And SF2:NA uses a different terrain engine that has significant frame rate hit compared to other terrains because of certain ways it handles land, ocean effects, etc. All of these contribute to frame rate drag.

 

Third, the SH package in all its forms was done for a cost to you of zero. People put a lot of time, effort, and even some money to get this out there for others to enjoy. Understand that to an extent, these projects are not made for you. They are given to you to share and enjoy, but they are not perfect, nor will they necessarily ever be so. Sometimes, they are done to the extent of the modeler's ability, interest, and time. And sometimes, that is all you will get.

 

If you want to improve upon what is available, why not get your hands dirty and start figuring out how the sim works. A lot of those ini edits you can make yourself with nothing but Notepad. Considering you were a backseater in Hornets at one point, this should not be below your abilities to figure out.

 

FC

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Third, the SH package in all its forms was done for a cost to you of zero. People put a lot of time, effort, and even some money to get this out there for others to enjoy. Understand that to an extent, these projects are not made for you. They are given to you to share and enjoy, but they are not perfect, nor will they necessarily ever be so. Sometimes, they are done to the extent of the modeler's ability, interest, and time. And sometimes, that is all you will get.

 

If you want to improve upon what is available, why not get your hands dirty and start figuring out how the sim works. A lot of those ini edits you can make yourself with nothing but Notepad. Considering you were a backseater in Hornets at one point, this should not be below your abilities to figure out.

 

FC

 

 

Just like any other community the add-ons for a particular platform are given by people who have allot of love for the hobby.  All too often when a question is asked the developer takes it personally.  All I wanted to know was why performance was an issue with this particular model verses other offerings on my machine and I got my answer.  I also got a fix for the issue that works on my system.  If one never asks one never get's a problem solved.  That being said did you design the flight dynamics for this model as well?

Edited by Dillon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some designers I guess get off on over complicating their creations that otherwise could be simplified and look just as good thus making their creations much more enjoyable.

 

This is NOT asking a performance question.

 

FC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like any other community the add-ons for a particular platform are given by people who have allot of love for the hobby.  All too often when a question is asked the developer takes it personally.  All I wanted to know was why performance was an issue with this particular model verses other offerings on my machine and I got my answer.  I also got a fix for the issue that works on my system.  If one never asks one never get's a problem solved.  That being said did you design the flight dynamics for this model as well?

 

serverandenforcer did some work on the FM as I'm NOT in any way an FM guru, I'm more of a texture artist than just FM stuff.  As for performance hit?  It could be the two 2048 x 2048 textures for the aircraft as well as other smaller textures as well.  You may have to resize them to 1024 x 1024 and see how that goes.  But that means it's more like a VRAM issue as opposed to anything else.  Or you may want to check or downgrade your Anti-aliasing as well per your card settings.  Maybe your Anistropic filtering is a bit high?  If so dumb it down a bit and see how that goes.  I usually leave it to the application and so far I have really good framerates but doesn't look like shit either as far as for screenshots and the like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sharing of the considerable efforts and personal time and expense contributed freely by a group of extraordinarily talented individuals for the enjoyment of us all, is probably as close to experiencing utopia as any of us will ever come.

We are not worthy.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sharing of the considerable efforts and personal time and expense contributed freely by a group of extraordinarily talented individuals for the enjoyment of us all, is probably as close to experiencing utopia as any of us will ever come.

We are not worthy.....

 

 

I agree the amazing things I've seen so far given away for free can't directly be criticized but more so appreciated.  I just needed an answer to my problem.  I expanded on that from years of experience in seeing the direction some developers take to build their creations, it's a valid observation.  I've seen this for 20+ years, it's not a slam to mention it.  Sometimes techniques are used in old ways where newer approaches achieves better results with better performance.  Just because you give something away doesn't alleviate you from making something quality especially if you want/expect your work to be appreciated.  If your just giving away junk for the sake of it then who cares (even if it's criticized).  That being said the Super Hornet is not junk (in case you think that's where I'm going) but let's face it there's no visual difference in the older model versus the BlK version.  I mean that's what we're going for right???  I'm not seeing the extra detail the F4 posted here has.  So rightly so I don't understand why it runs slower on my machine than the older model.  No one is slamming the effort it just doesn't make since.   

serverandenforcer did some work on the FM as I'm NOT in any way an FM guru, I'm more of a texture artist than just FM stuff.  As for performance hit?  It could be the two 2048 x 2048 textures for the aircraft as well as other smaller textures as well.  You may have to resize them to 1024 x 1024 and see how that goes.  But that means it's more like a VRAM issue as opposed to anything else.  Or you may want to check or downgrade your Anti-aliasing as well per your card settings.  Maybe your Anistropic filtering is a bit high?  If so dumb it down a bit and see how that goes.  I usually leave it to the application and so far I have really good framerates but doesn't look like shit either as far as for screenshots and the like.

 

 

Eric, I figured out the issue on my end or should I say found a work around.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah because I rarely get an FPS hit (I don't go ultra but I like my jets as high as possible, they ALL have to look good :smile:) with SF2 and quite frankly could use more tweaking :deadhorse:  but overall still good enough for producer work :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its real simple.  The SH was done that way because that's the way it was done.  The amount of effort was dictated by my ability, interest, and time available.  Personal motivations as to why someone approached a project in that way are really not your concern.  You asked your question - Why do you get a performance hit?  You got your answer - Lots of reasons.  You asked a question - What can you do?  You got your answer - Have the sim switch over to the less detailed models at a closer distance.

 

Why people like nice, detailed, poly heavy external models and criticizing them for doing so is not relevant to the discussion.  Fellow modders are excepted from this suggestion because they've shown they are willing to put in the skull sweat and time to make their mark on the sim and contributing to the community.  And some are good enough to share their techniques and/or projects with others so that we all get better.

 

Understand yet?  I am not critiquing your question about why you are getting a performance hit and how you can fix it on your end.  I am critiquing your judgment on other people motivations on what they like, why they do it that way and how they like it.  That somehow your considerations are superior to theirs, even though you have contributed very little to no content to the community.  That you haven't even bothered to learn how the sim basically works...that half your answers to your 'issues' could be solved by just reading the inis, most of which are in plain English.

 

In other words, most of your posts have come off as 'It's all about me'.  I'm sure that's not the intent...but it comes off that way.

Finally, understand this.  This sim has been around for more than a decade.  It has gone through 2 generations, 3 engine upgrades, several releases, expansion packs, and shitloads of patches.  The modding community has been around almost as long, modders moving in, moving out, moving on, dying (literally), having major real life crisis, contributing tons of their own content, time and money to offer a spectrum of stuff from simple text edits to full blown packages that can damn near rival any payware addon.  

 

Modders taking it personally?  

 

You fucking betcha.

 

FC

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally, understand this.  This sim has been around for more than a decade.  It has gone through 2 generations, 3 engine upgrades, several releases, expansion packs, and shitloads of patches.  The modding community has been around almost as long, modders moving in, moving out, moving on, dying (literally), having major real life crisis, contributing tons of their own content, time and money to offer a spectrum of stuff from simple text edits to full blown packages that can damn near rival any payware addon.  

 

FC

 

 

Got it and totally respect where your coming from. Over time hopefully I can contribute as well.

Edited by Dillon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..