PDA

View Full Version : Can the BoB planes have a skin that can use bump maps please?



Mysticpuma2003
05-04-2005, 12:09 PM
Just give it a little more realism in the effects department.

LuckyBoy1
05-04-2005, 12:48 PM
Pardon my considerable ignorance, but what exactly is a bump map?

VW-IceFire
05-04-2005, 01:07 PM
Bump mapping is where surfaces that are physically flat in 3D terms look like they have depth (usually in small details) because of the casting of shadows on them.

This picture of Farcry for instance has lots of bump mapping:
http://www.polycat.net/gallery/albums/farcry/fc_8.jpg

It adds another level of realism to the graphics making things have alot more detail with a small hit to graphics.

Basically, you end up with two textures on a given surface. One is the actual texture, another is used to gage the depth of the image (using bright and dark shapes) which the video card then renders ontop.

harryklein66
05-04-2005, 01:54 PM
the pb with the bump effect is that u need a good map resolution.

1-because a structure line of an AC IRL make smothing like 2mm or 3mm large, but in il2 for exemple the whole plane parts are on the same uv set,you got a 1024x1024 for the whole plane.
So if u draw a 1 pixel line on a 1024, u will get somthing more like the death star trench than a panel line.
More over u can only see a 2mm line bump effect at short range from the model.

2-because with a low res map u will get aliasing on all curved line...and it's realy ugly.

And finaly it take more graphic resources.

If they keep one UV for a whole model in BOB
a specular map channel, or a good shader would be more usefull than a bump map channel I think.

Mysticpuma2003
05-05-2005, 07:39 AM
I was thinking (hoping) that BoB may use larger plane texture maps, maybe 2048x2048 or even larger (as it's next gen). Oh well it's another one to add to the boling pot.

Cheers.

harryklein66
05-05-2005, 09:38 AM
I am curious to know how they will make the map for BOB.

Harh
05-05-2005, 12:07 PM
I saw some screens of Hurricane cockpit. There were no bump maps. Just plain face&texture. I'm not sure they'll change it in the release.

If say so, than there should be cockpit reflection/refraction and shiness shader maps also. Case is when BoB will be released it will not look so brilliant if there will be no such (merely simple) features. Just large textures will not be enough. IMHO.

MrQBerrt
05-05-2005, 01:14 PM
I'm no expert by any means, but in my opinion, this is where 1C really shoot themselves in the foot. They try to get better graphics by increasing the number of polygon faces, while the rest of the industry seems to be trying to lower polygon faces and improving bump-mapping and texture quality. Take HL2 for example, some of their models have very few faces and look great. This gives them a great performance boost while not sacraficing on the FPS of the user.
I could be wrong about all this, but if I'm right, 1C could run a lot faster and look a lot better. Here's hoping that BOB will implement things like bump-mapping.

EAF51_Ookami
05-05-2005, 01:44 PM
Maybe using some software like Kaldera (http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/index.cfm/ID/202478)...

S!

Ookami

harryklein66
05-05-2005, 02:39 PM
to MrQBerrt,
you can't compaire HL2 to to what is need for a simulator, AC model have more similarity with car model than with charater, or scenery, to put a loop bump map
on a wall to hide the misery is an easy thing to do, but it don't work on an AC model
or on a car anyway...

HL2 is far to be a technical revolution, may be if it was realised when it should it could have been, but now it's already outdated, more
over game like resident evil 4 prove that with higher polygon model and lower rez map, and limited use of candy eye effect (like no bump to hide poor character modelisation, see splinter cell 3 ) you can get a far better result.

the only thing that could confirm what u're saying is the unreal engine 2007, but for now it take 4 pc to run empty scenery with, even the doom3 engine is a bit short for now to give some credible result.

and from what I think those kind of technology use for flight sim will find more application for landscapes than for AC model themself.

but i could be wrong too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lunix
05-05-2005, 06:01 PM
Considering BoB is a next gen engine and there are games on the market now that make good use of these graphics technologies, that are not all that new, I dont think this would be out of the realm of possibility. Some nice normal mapping + a specular channel could go a long way towards making the BoB engine one which could scale well into the future. On the subject of pixel shading how about one to simulate refraction of the windsheild so we could all see over the bar :P

Mysticpuma2003
05-06-2005, 03:04 AM
One lives in hope. Wouldn't it be nice if the industry one day talked about licencing the Pacific Fighters engine rather than the Unreal engine or the quake engine.

Ah well......(eyes go misty, daydreaming begins)....

Harh
05-06-2005, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by MrQBerrt:
I'm no expert by any means, but in my opinion, this is where 1C really shoot themselves in the foot. They try to get better graphics by increasing the number of polygon faces, while the rest of the industry seems to be trying to lower polygon faces and improving bump-mapping and texture quality.

No, polygon quantity is to be increased no matter does bump and other things apply or not. By the way, as far as I know polygons&textures are handled by videocard faster than bump maps and shaders. And higher resolution textures eat card memory, because that to increase texture size by 2 means increasing its size by 4. But just increasing number of polygons will not do the job now. It was good to do so 2-4 years ago, but not now.



even the doom3 engine is a bit short for now to give some credible result.


D3 engine is not capable of handling large scenery. It was not designed for this. It is because its dumb polygon projection shadow model. It is not "even", this engine (in my opinion) is not a good one even for 3d shooters. Except dynamic "space style" shaows I don't know what else it features. There were rumors that it will feature real sound reflection and ditribution, but in release we've got the same as in other games.



Wouldn't it be nice if the industry one day talked about licencing the Pacific Fighters engine rather than the Unreal engine or the quake engine.


How desperade industry should become to license PF engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It is 2001 year made. Some cosmetic changes, but overally the same.

Sorry for trying to answer many posts and making it with bad english http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Everything is IMHO

harryklein66
05-06-2005, 11:39 AM
to Harh : so that's what I'm saying it's a bit short http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

check those like to see what will be possible in a near futur (2007 ?)
images:
http://www.1up.com/do/media?cId=3140086
video:
http://www.1up.com/do/download?cId=3138759

but keep in mind that the unreal engine 3 is a million and million $ investment.

taisto_s
05-06-2005, 12:26 PM
I was really impressed by the speedtree technology demo. Using a system like this would be great way to replace those ugly texture forests we have now. I read somewhere that Oleg is keeping the old way of doing forests, because of the hardware requirements to render individual trees, but even with my basic (3500+,x800xtpe) system the demo runs totally smooth and looks awesome!!

Hopefully he will make use of things like speedtree and high resolution (2048) textures.

You check how good it looks by downloading the demo, from http://www.idvinc.com/html/pangaea_main.htm

those trees responging to air movement coming from the helicopter are how Bobs forests should look like.

(maybe this is old news, but thought I post the link anyway).

harryklein66
05-06-2005, 01:23 PM
the pb with the demo is that all the PC resource are used only for render the trees, u don't have to split the resource between other graphic effect , physics, IA etc...
in a game u have to makeso choice.
For exemple in doom III (again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) they put every thing on the graphic as a result u get a realy poor physic, and realy realy poor IA ( I wonder if it's not even worst than the doom I IA) and never more than 4 monster at the same time on the screen.Fligh simulator (in general) are the game that run the most complex physics and IA with no comparaison possible with FPS.
that's why the probably choose to keep the same system to draw forest in BOB but the method will be improved from what I hunderstand so we will have a better result than in il2 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

taisto_s
05-06-2005, 03:50 PM
Yes, in flight sims most of the work is done by the cpu, calculating fm,dm+whatever, but in the year 2006/2007 cpu/gpu power should be on the next level, making things like speedtree forests basic stuff.

But, if its going to look like cfs3 trees that pop up just next to you, forget it.

Harh
05-07-2005, 04:56 AM
2 harryklein66: links seems to be not working. By the way didn't see any Unreal Engine 2007 screenshots. Interesting.

2 taisto_s: AFAIK Speedtree is incapable of creating forest. Single trees will be held greatly, but not a whole forest. Again, as I know, it doesn't have low detail models (6-10 faces) for long range visualisation. Not even 2007 year computer will solve it. It seems to be good only for 3d shooters. But I am unsure about this.

harryklein66
05-07-2005, 07:01 AM
strange the links work for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

try to google unreal 2007 or unreal engine 3
you will find them

Lunix
05-07-2005, 09:32 AM
Using normal maps is actually pretty fast and is a great way of adding geometry without adding geometry. The speedtree technology is capable of rendering forests as well.

The thing is is that if BoB has the same longevity as IL2 and does not support bump mapping and specular maps it is going to look very dated in most peoples eyes. Remember it is the eyecandy that keeps a fresh supply of pilots comming in as older ones retire.

Mysticpuma2003
05-07-2005, 10:49 AM
I was actually meaning, wouldn't it be nice if people talked about licencing the BoB engine in the future for all flight sims, obviously PF was a typo brought on by alcohol. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Harh
05-08-2005, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by harryklein66
strange the links work for me


Now it did work. Strange, first time it didn't. Seen pictures. Nice, but could be better. Too much eye candy. No destructable geometry, as it was said it would be in Unreal2 engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (it was said in early 2000, when it was in development). I mean most games trying to make a good picture, but do not care about more complicated things. In fact, only RagDoll+Newton physics is the main difference (not graphics I mean) between new games and Quake2. Just my opinion.



Originally posted by Lunix:
Using normal maps is actually pretty fast and is a great way of adding geometry without adding geometry.

I'm not sure it is any use now. Seems new videocards are capable to work high detailed models fine. At least if there are no crowds. I didn't see any in the games now anyway and wonder when they will be.



The speedtree technology is capable of rendering forests as well.


Ok, just didn't see any pictures of speed tree forest.


Originally posted by Mysticpuma2003:
I was actually meaning, wouldn't it be nice if people talked about licencing the BoB engine in the future for all flight sims...

I think not. Or all the games will look similar. Better they be different.

Mysticpuma2003
05-09-2005, 02:43 AM
Well, if you look at Unreal Tournamet 2004, and then look at the guys who made the WW2 mod "Red Orchestra", using the UT engine, the game doesn't look the same and in fact looks a whole lot more fun.

It just means that with a licenced engine, people can actually work to get the most out of it rather than the original team 'thinking' they got the most out of it.

Take for example Il2. Oleg and crew have spent years (literally) modding it to get to PF with it's Direct X 9.0c water and really class water splashes.

With an engine licenced to a larger set of developers, the game would (or should) get to that stage much faster.

We'll have to see what the future holds.
Cheers, Puma.

Harh
05-09-2005, 08:42 AM
I see your point, Puma. Maybe you are right, but I have a bit different opinion on this point.

3d action engines are more universal and there are not so many differences between them (except Doom3 with its shadows). Many 3d games are now very similiar no matter what engine they use.

As for flight sims, I think it is an open ground. There are not so many sims and engines for it, so there is much to do there. I'm not really sure about this all, just my opinion. I just don't want to see another game on IL2/PF engine http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We all allready seen alot of them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As for BoB, I don't know what its engine capable of.

Interesting, by the way, what will be difference between Maddox BoB and other WWII air sim game made on same engine.

Platypus_1.JaVA
05-11-2005, 12:28 PM
The question is... do we want Oleg to buy a multi-million $$ engine that might be not so suited for flightsims? I think the engine for BoB wich is in the works, will be an advanced Il-2 engine. Like they want to test out pre-BoB flight models so, the BoB engine probably works about the same. Wich will mean we have approximatly the same structure of skins, speech files, campaigns. Maybe they built in an option to make ingame sound editable. Wouldn't that be a bit simpler? I think Oleg has enough experience in his team to write the engine wich is exactly suited for BoB.

Bumpmaps would be nice but, the one thing I would prefer is editable ingame (aircraft engine!!) sounds. Or at least, proper subsitutes for what was heard 60 years ago. It is probably too much to ask for recordings on real warbirds (like in the M$ sims) but, the engine sounds in PF now are just plain horrible.