Give your eyes a second to adapt
- Thread starter Roger
- Start date
Bjoern
worst developer ever
"aus" wie "ausfahren", "ein" wie "einfahren"
Einwandfreies Technik-Altdeutsch.
So haben unsere Altvorderen das gemacht.
Oooops, totally forgot you're german! :redf:
Okay, ich glaube dir deswegen einfach mal.
:dThanks much Lady(s) and Gentlemen!
There'll be three parts over the time.
Plan is to release the first batch right in time for the christmas tree, end November/early December. This will be the early Fw190 variants, A-1 to A-4.
So far the first package includes 28 skins and a number of different models reflecting all production variants that actually saw service.
There'll be no phantasy/myth or test-only planes like GM1-equipped Fw190 or MW50 injection prior to the A-8.
Every variant will have a cockpit and external model that'll reflect it's original counterpart.
Part 2 and three will be released in the coming month then.
Purchasers of one variant will be able to get the other parts at an upgrade price.
Part #2 will be the later variants A-5 to A-9 including the F fighter bombers and G long range fighter bombers.
Part #3 will complete the trilogie with the Dora and the Ta152.
There'll be three parts over the time.
Plan is to release the first batch right in time for the christmas tree, end November/early December. This will be the early Fw190 variants, A-1 to A-4.
So far the first package includes 28 skins and a number of different models reflecting all production variants that actually saw service.
There'll be no phantasy/myth or test-only planes like GM1-equipped Fw190 or MW50 injection prior to the A-8.
Every variant will have a cockpit and external model that'll reflect it's original counterpart.
Part 2 and three will be released in the coming month then.
Purchasers of one variant will be able to get the other parts at an upgrade price.
Part #2 will be the later variants A-5 to A-9 including the F fighter bombers and G long range fighter bombers.
Part #3 will complete the trilogie with the Dora and the Ta152.
Panther_99FS
Retired SOH Administrator
Thanks for the update Mathias! 
The radiation from the Radium used on instruments wasn't considered high risk during the war. The time the pilots were actually exposed was quite limited and it was much more likely the pilot got shot, before he developed a radiation related disease. As N2056 already mentioned the "dial painters" used to lick their brush to get a sharp point. As Radium is a so called bone seaker it gets stores in the bones causing leukaemia. Many young women had died because of this before they discovered the source.
However in peace time the accepted dose is much lower. I know somebody who measured the doserate inside the cockpits from several historic warbirds. The dose rate in most of these cockpits was actually above the maximum accepted limit for occupational exposure. However as the the aircrafts are only flown occasionally and not occupational it is regarded as acceptable.
To get back to the original subject, the gauges by Mathias look great during the night and also in daylight, but they even look better in close up!
Huub
However in peace time the accepted dose is much lower. I know somebody who measured the doserate inside the cockpits from several historic warbirds. The dose rate in most of these cockpits was actually above the maximum accepted limit for occupational exposure. However as the the aircrafts are only flown occasionally and not occupational it is regarded as acceptable.
To get back to the original subject, the gauges by Mathias look great during the night and also in daylight, but they even look better in close up!
Huub
I think a little drool just escaped the corner of my mouth!
I think i had a little dribble as well.....:redf:
Tony
You mean per gauge?
Average 500 - 2500 depending on complexity.
There's quite a bit of CG hocuspocus going on, I'm not planning to break the world record on poligon abuse.
You know I'm trying hard for years now. :costumes:Mathias
you are working hard to convert me from mossies
you may win!
H
On a serious note, I'm kinda with you on the mossie addiction ever since I first flew that Burnage (IIRC) Mossie in CFS1.
If I hadn't a reputation for making the bad boy's planes I'd build Mossies. :d
You mean per gauge?
Average 500 - 2500 depending on complexity.
There's quite a bit of CG hocuspocus going on, I'm not planning to break the world record on poligon abuse.
Sorry, I should clarify, how many triangles you've used for VC?
Ah ok, the interior bits so far stack up to 43k tris, that includes quite a bit of the left side console instrumentation which is not visible on screenshots yet.
The final VC should be below 100k tris inclusive the external parts which are fully rendered from the pilots eyepoint, means when you lean out the cockpit to look back for instance using TrackIR there'll be no missing fuselage or tailplane parts.
The final VC should be below 100k tris inclusive the external parts which are fully rendered from the pilots eyepoint, means when you lean out the cockpit to look back for instance using TrackIR there'll be no missing fuselage or tailplane parts.
michael davies
Charter Member 2012
100K polys for the VC isn't going to be a problem, it'll be the textures or draw calls that might create problems, but as Mathias is methodical in everything he does I doubt any of the background technology will be a problem.
FSx allows developers to blow poly counts out of the window, personally I think its bad not having a limit as people now have the opportunity to be lazy and just throw polys at a problem, rather than think about careful modelling to get the best visual representation with as few resources as possible.
Still, todays bottlenecks will be tomorrows basics as hardware catches up over time.
Looking good Mathias....as always LOL.
Best
Michael
FSx allows developers to blow poly counts out of the window, personally I think its bad not having a limit as people now have the opportunity to be lazy and just throw polys at a problem, rather than think about careful modelling to get the best visual representation with as few resources as possible.
Still, todays bottlenecks will be tomorrows basics as hardware catches up over time.
Looking good Mathias....as always LOL.
Best
Michael
As you say Michael the issues in DX9/10 are drawcalls and there are ways to deal with. As you know a drawcall is not always a drawcall . I have all maps in and the VC is on the drawcall side in one league with the stock DC3 so there are really no bad effects to expect.
I was initially worried about using such a high policount but doing several tests on various low/mid spec systems I found it's really a no brainer if you use your shaders carefully. On the other hand, reading that the Aerosoft F-16 uses 500.000 tris I consider my little bird to be low poli.:costumes:
. I have all maps in and the VC is on the drawcall side in one league with the stock DC3 so there are really no bad effects to expect.I was initially worried about using such a high policount but doing several tests on various low/mid spec systems I found it's really a no brainer if you use your shaders carefully. On the other hand, reading that the Aerosoft F-16 uses 500.000 tris I consider my little bird to be low poli.:costumes:
Thanks much Lady(s) and Gentlemen!
There'll be three parts over the time.
Plan is to release the first batch right in time for the christmas tree, end November/early December. This will be the early Fw190 variants, A-1 to A-4.
So far the first package includes 28 skins and a number of different models reflecting all production variants that actually saw service.
There'll be no phantasy/myth or test-only planes like GM1-equipped Fw190 or MW50 injection prior to the A-8.
Every variant will have a cockpit and external model that'll reflect it's original counterpart.
Part 2 and three will be released in the coming month then.
Purchasers of one variant will be able to get the other parts at an upgrade price.
Part #2 will be the later variants A-5 to A-9 including the F fighter bombers and G long range fighter bombers.
Part #3 will complete the trilogie with the Dora and the Ta152.
This post just made my month, as someone who has been hanging on to the WoP 190 and Dora since they were released, im looking forward to a new one for FSX, this is definitely at the very top of my must buy list.
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL
Charter Member
Mathias has a handle on it , at netwings is a thread called next gauge if memory serves that covers the rendering methods used to capture super high detail modeled parts that are then applied to the game textures and their low poly fsx counterpart in 3ds .<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
It’s a significant point Michel raised , and one that comes up with each project without exception, where to draw the line in the performance scalar..<o></o>
A given model for FSX can support 100,000 poly's with ease, provided you let the sim do the "spit & polishing" , it’s possible to fit the exterior onto two 2048 x 2048 .dds and with planning get the VC onto another 5 + the $dummy , for a total of 32MB texture load <o></o>
<o></o>
At this point the decision making process begins to affect outcome, it’s a must to add normal maps to any metal skinned aircraft and with them another 8 MB brings our planes total to 40 , the cube map and fresnel ramp are tiny maps of a few kilobytes , the specular map can also make use of a swatch , i like 64 x 64 solid color bitmaps there to control the specular shine but one can add full size specular map to bring our hypothetical texture burden to 48 MB + prop + glass + lightmaps that are added under the right conditions and your basic creation is around 50 MB of textures being hung off those poly's .<o></o>
<o></o>
This hypothetical layout is in reality on the low side and it’s a real battle sometimes between the competing desires of the texture artist and reality to make one of these run well , but it is a battle that can be lost before a single plane hits the runway , it’s one of my design tenets that a plane that can’t be used won’t be used and good framerates in FSX are something the modeller can ensure or deny .<o></o>
fficeffice" /><o></o>It’s a significant point Michel raised , and one that comes up with each project without exception, where to draw the line in the performance scalar..<o
></o>A given model for FSX can support 100,000 poly's with ease, provided you let the sim do the "spit & polishing" , it’s possible to fit the exterior onto two 2048 x 2048 .dds and with planning get the VC onto another 5 + the $dummy , for a total of 32MB texture load <o
></o><o
></o>At this point the decision making process begins to affect outcome, it’s a must to add normal maps to any metal skinned aircraft and with them another 8 MB brings our planes total to 40 , the cube map and fresnel ramp are tiny maps of a few kilobytes , the specular map can also make use of a swatch , i like 64 x 64 solid color bitmaps there to control the specular shine but one can add full size specular map to bring our hypothetical texture burden to 48 MB + prop + glass + lightmaps that are added under the right conditions and your basic creation is around 50 MB of textures being hung off those poly's .<o
></o><o
></o>This hypothetical layout is in reality on the low side and it’s a real battle sometimes between the competing desires of the texture artist and reality to make one of these run well , but it is a battle that can be lost before a single plane hits the runway , it’s one of my design tenets that a plane that can’t be used won’t be used and good framerates in FSX are something the modeller can ensure or deny .<o
></o>