MAIW_WSMG F-16's

[John Young]

I make my LODs in Gmax by grouping all the parts in the primary model and naming the group, for example, "Model_LOD_400. I then clone LOD_400 to make LOD_30, or however else I want to number it, depending on the size of the object. LODs work on pixels not distance. I may use a different numbering sequence for say, a Folland Gnat and a B-29. A group of aircraft hangars in a scenery .bgl might be different again.

I then prune LOD_30 down to the required polygon count - usually half the value of LOD_400 or less. The third LOD (03) is the paper aeroplane. That works for FS9, FSX and P3D. My lights only go in LOD_400. Repeating them in LOD_30 just produces additional draw calls for something the user is not likely to be able to view.

John

[Firebird]

Thanks, John. That is what I understood.

I loaded up Mike's FS9 F-16s to see how it works for his mdl's. He has it setup exactly the same way I set it up. He has only 4 lights for the whole mdl, four are needed for the block 40s, and they are all attached to the nose gear door Top point.

Something is not working according to plan in the conversion. The more I have experimented and the more I have investigated, the more convinced I am becoming.

I am looking forward to what Arno can dig up.

[Weescotty]

MCX change LOD number...

Click the 'Generate LODs' button..

Then click the LOD number you want to change...
Put your new number in the box, then click 'Change'

[Firebird]

OK thanks for that.
I shall keep that in mind in case i need to use that once the investigation is complete.

[Firebird]

OK after a few days investigating the reported issues of lights in the conversion models the following seems to have been ascertained.
1. It is not an MCX issue.
2. Makemdl does not like a gap of 300 between a LOD and the next one so it will change things.
3. No matter what you do to try and force-ably fill that gap the difference between the lights on FS9 models with 7 LODs and a P3D conversion of 4 LODs can not be made to lookalike.

So it is back on the treadmill and the blk 25s have been done.

Started work on the blk30s but temporarily halted whilst an issue with the P3D models is investigated.

[f47420]

Thanks Steve for the update..

MW

[Firebird]

There will be another brief pause for a few days to make some adjustments.

[Firebird]

OK the production line has restarted as the mods are being made available.

I still plan on working my way up the blocks and will report when each one is done. At the moment I am receiving two seaters so still can't clear block 30.

Just to note that all are now getting reflective canopies as they are being redone.

[f47420]

Sounds good Steve ..

MW.

[f47420]

Also were the IDF textures OK .??

mw

[Firebird]

I haven't tried the DXT3 ones but I did test the 32bit I-52 ones to test the Sufa's.

What I found is that the textures looked all gloss in MCX/AIAE. When I looked further I found that they weren't 32bit but 24bit, with no alpha.
I exported the alpha from the one texture I had and imported it. Although it did the job as far as I was concerned from my testing point of view I wasn't really looking at the schemes to critique them.

As the 32bit ones were really for Kev's requirements it would be best to ask him for the definitive answer. Kev is particular about details so it would be wrong of me to speak for him without knowing his thoughts.

[Firebird]

OK after a lot of trials and errors I am comfortable with releasing the first FS9 conversion pack.

Of course this will mean that a couple of dozen issues will be found this weekend alone.

I decided to go away from mirroring the releases that Kev has used purely because I have the advantage of a large body of work to reorganise into what I think are logical groups.

To be clear, I will be including every model that Kev has produced.
I will not be including any additional schemes. That doesn't mean that people can't do them for the appropriate models.
Kev will be happy to supply a detailed PK for anybody that has a genuine desire to increase the coverage of his models.

My intention is to start with the early blocks and work my way up to the latest. The next pack is already underway and is for Blocks 15 ADF/15OCU.

[TheFoufure]

OK after a lot of trials and errors I am comfortable with releasing the first FS9 conversion pack.

Of course this will mean that a couple of dozen issues will be found this weekend alone.

I decided to go away from mirroring the releases that Kev has used purely because I have the advantage of a large body of work to reorganise into what I think are logical groups.

To be clear, I will be including every model that Kev has produced.
I will not be including any additional schemes. That doesn't mean that people can't do them for the appropriate models.
Kev will be happy to supply a detailed PK for anybody that has a genuine desire to increase the coverage of his models.

My intention is to start with the early blocks and work my way up to the latest. The next pack is already underway and is for Blocks 15 ADF/15OCU.

Great news.

Thanks a lot for these release !!!

A F-16 lover, always using FS9

[JohnTenn]

Thank you for these models.

I appreciate the effort that has gone into making them available for FS9.

First small issue found when AI Flightplanner flagged the B version as not available.
Duplicate: title= title=.

The models are great. The animations seem to work well. I did notice a small flicker on the Aircrew ladder moments before it was removed, not really an issue.

My bug bear is with the LOD's. I know I am like a bear with a sore head, but you have gone through all the effort and frustration to get here.

I would be very pleased if the second to highest LOD, LOD_100 currently, was set closer to LOD 050. The transition from LOD_035 to LOD_100 is far too close to me (the gamer or Viewer).

Henry Tomkiewicz F-16 models at LOD_050 look complete save for very small items added at LOD 100 and LOD 201.

I view AI like a fine scale model train set. I watch the Indvidual models move around and derive great pleasure from it.
If models, AI or Scenery detract from my experience I remove them.

The way I understand it, LOD's are there to reduce the load on the computer's processor and memory when objects are out of view from the Gamer/viewer.
My understanding is that the transition to the next more detailed model should happen before it becomes clearly noticeable.

By changing the LOD's to display the Complete (most detailed) model at around LOD_120 to LOD_140 should not kill anyone's system.

The upside is, by changing only the second highest LOD value, the highest value will always be compiled at that value duplicated, plus or minus one, because of the way MakeModel works for FS9.

I plead with you to consider this, or for me these models in their present state would be a cause of frustration and not be worth installing.

I thank you for your consideration and intent to produce high quality models for FS9.

Edit:

After some further thought and re-examination of my perceptions I feel I should clarify my perspective on LOD's.

Yes, Henry Tomkiewicz's F-16 have more simple wheels, gear legs and weapons on LOD_050 and LOD_100 than on the final LOD_201.
Those items have dimensions commensurate with that of the final model.

The fullness of the LOD_050 on these WSMG models is closer to LOD_006 on the HTAI models.

Ideally if the current LOD's were set to LOD_010, LOD_025, LOD_050 and LOD_100 the result would be awesome.
I appreciate that would be a great deal of effort and I could not expect that of you.


Regards

John

[John Young]

These days, you really only need 3 LODs: LOD_400, LOD-30 and LOD_03 (paper aeroplane) is a good starter. Individuals might get a different result in any case depending on their screen resolution.

John

[Firebird]

JT,
Thanks for the title=title= thing. I have already amended it and loaded it up again to save anybody that does not already have it having to make the amendment.

Now on the LODs. This was an area that I spent a lot of time checking this and that and various testing. The outcome is this.
The original FS9 created mdls had 7 LODs.
The original P3D mdls only have 4. No matter what the original compiled P3D LODs were makemdl alters them when converting.
Why? It seems that makemdl does not like a large gap between LODs. It does not like a LOD of more than double the smaller one and does not like a gap of more than 100 between LODs.
In short in my testing I found that x files were created with the correct original LOD number but makemdl alters them when compiling.

I tried various things including duplicate LODs and empty LODs but makemdl will not be got around. This is not an MCX issue. This is not a Firebird issue. After various discussions over about a 10 day period it boiled down to the fact that if each mdl had 7 LODs we would be OK. However, there is no way I could ask Kev to, basically, create 3 LODs for each mdl.
Yes, Kev was in the discussions as well.

In short, I do not have access to the source code(s). Nothing that I can do can alter it.
I can rename the LODs but then when the mdl is re-compiled makemdl renames the LODs back to 10,50,100,201.
This is no design of mine.
Now having said that I have not tried lower the LOD numbers. If I were to do a test compile for you what LOD numbers would you like?

The one other thing I would mention is that Hartwig noticed that the taxi lights were different on the converted models than the original FS9 ones. After a couple of weeks of testing and discussions, I believe that the cause is the low number of LODs and possibly the low LOD ids as well.

I am willing to try and reduce the LOD numbers as a test for you and if it solves a very negative issue, without causing others, then I am willing to re-compile everything to the same standard.
I should let you know though that I have converted 110+ F-16 mdls so I would be stupid to continue without a final decision of this issue. It is bad enough recompiling all those without the complication of updating released packages.

So i am willing to do one specific test for you but I don't think that I can commit to multiple tests for an infinite amount of time. Also I would like you to under take complete testing of those new LODs for example in dusk and night time as the altering of the LOD ids will alter things like the taxi/landing lights.

So think about it. Let me know what you would like, and if you are willing to undertake the thorough testing of that config.

[JohnTenn]

Steve

I really appreciate your willingness to entertain my request.

I understand the make model issue and the lack of LOD's.

I have compiled two models originally FSX for FS9. The models had only three LOD's.
I imported them into Gmax smoothed them again and animated the parts I could.

I exported them at LOD 5, 30 and 60. Exported fine and work fine.

What I am saying is the last two LOD's will always have 50 -> 100 relationship.
The more simple LOD's that are not affected by that.

Getting the second to last LOD to 50 or 60 would make a huge difference. (10, 25, 50 and 100.)

Yes, I am willing to test the model at times specified. A list of things to look for would save us both time.

I will start as soon as I get the model.

Thank you again.

John

[Firebird]

OK. I will put the conversion project back on hold.
I will create something for you to test and let you know when I have done it, assuming that makemdl lets me rename the LODs lower.

As for the testing i really don't have a schedule as such. I know that you have an issue with the current release, I strongly suspect that the lights issue is down to the LODs as well.

The only other thing that will affect the outcome is different screen sizes. So testing in a few different resolutions would show what could be generally acceptable. I am led to believe that the LODS will look differently on a 720p screen than on a 1080p screen, and again on a 2k or 4k screen.
These are things that modellers never had to worry about 20 years ago.

I think that maybe the screen size thing may determine whether if everything else goes well it is do-able.

[JohnTenn]

Steve

Thank you.

Awaiting your correspondence.

John

[Firebird]

John,
I have decided that the best way to ensure that any testing you do is accurate is to convert all of the mdls in the pack. This way you can't be fooled by thinking that an mdl was/wasn't converted.

So as I make the pack up for you I would like to know what your FS9 screen resolution is at the moment and what graphics card and CPU you have please.

The reason is this. Whilst I am happy to create a better product for all what I don't want to do is create a better experience for one person and create a worse one for 4 people.
The upshot of the LOD changes, which makemdl did take, is that it will increase the workload for cpus/graphics cards. Whilst the TopAces unit is not going to be too much of a hardship somewhere like Shaw, Osan etc there will be a bigger overhead.

Now I do not think for one minute that we are all using the same computers we were in 2004 there may be some that have fairly old machines and it MAY make a difference.

This is why I would like you to test at dusk/night (for lights) and with differently FS9 screen resolutions. You will get different results by changing resolutions.

Now if you have a low spec CPU and graphics card and it is a better experience for you then great. I can implement the changes.
If you have a high spec CPU and graphics card then I think that I would want to confirm with somebody with a lower spec system that it is OK for them before I sign off on it.

I hope that you agree with this.