PDA

View Full Version : Dear Oleg, about LOD models



Jetbuff
06-01-2005, 10:09 AM
A big part of the visibility problems in IL-2 is the LOD modeling. Might I suggest that this be addressed as early as possible for BoB? I think that the current 109 LOD models should be used as a basis - i.e. base the size of the various plane's LOD's on their relative size to the 109.

The reason is, the 109 was one of the smallest fighters size-wise in the war but in IL-2 it is one of the more visible aircraft. Yet, it feels "about right" in terms of visibility - planes do not usually disappear at such short distances; it only happens because of resolution/screen-size limitations.

In spite of the discrepancy between it's size and the size of it's LOD it still works very well so there is no reason imo not to adopt it as the yardstick for other LOD's.

Jetbuff
06-01-2005, 10:09 AM
A big part of the visibility problems in IL-2 is the LOD modeling. Might I suggest that this be addressed as early as possible for BoB? I think that the current 109 LOD models should be used as a basis - i.e. base the size of the various plane's LOD's on their relative size to the 109.

The reason is, the 109 was one of the smallest fighters size-wise in the war but in IL-2 it is one of the more visible aircraft. Yet, it feels "about right" in terms of visibility - planes do not usually disappear at such short distances; it only happens because of resolution/screen-size limitations.

In spite of the discrepancy between it's size and the size of it's LOD it still works very well so there is no reason imo not to adopt it as the yardstick for other LOD's.

Scen
06-01-2005, 10:41 AM
Just to add to your post which I think is a great idea...

A really good example IMO is LOMAC. I understand its a completely different engine and I'm sure there are certain limitations but they did a heck of a job.

The Flanker series always impressed me with how they represented distance.

Scendore

WWMaxGunz
06-01-2005, 02:06 PM
Maybe there can be fewer LOD's if the ones that are harder to see than the Dots get
dropped from the sets. Or at least rendered in black like the Dots are.

LEXX_Luthor
06-01-2005, 02:41 PM
Bf~110 turns from LOD to FB Dot at shorter range than Bf~109. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Remember when testing FB Dots, you need a formation of aircraft, because the aircraft you have selected with External View ignores any dotrange modifications.

Getting into Strike Fighters now--with *everything* changed deep in the configuration files so its a fantastically functioning simulation--and it seems Strike Fighters does not even use Dots...just smaller LODs until they vanish. You can see B~52 LOD out to a good 30km if you allow it, but the LOD becomes about one-pixel size out there, and you will never see it unless you know exactly where to look for it--at tip of contrail for example. This is Real Life stuff. The Strike Fighters LOD size literally controls the equivalent of FB "dot" sizes and distances. Very good stuff here. And, when changed dramatically from conservative default settings, the Zoom and View controls allow perfect visual interaction with other aircraft LODs in a high speed and so rather long range dogfight--no LOD Turns To Dot issues--just smoothly changing LOD sizes.

|CoB|_Spectre
06-01-2005, 03:21 PM
Since many of us may not have these games with the "good LOD", some screenshots would go a long way toward demonstrating what you're talking about. Back during these forums' IL-2 days someone posted a sequence of screenshots with icons showing distance and identity of the pair of subject aircraft. It was astounding to see how much more visible the 109 was at the same distance than the comparably sized Allied aircraft (don't remember which Russian plane it was).

IIJG69_Kartofe
06-01-2005, 04:36 PM
Personally i think it's not unfair.

If allied pilots see 109 from a longer distance they will have a better chance to fly away before being shot down by a so dangerous ennemy. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LeadSpitter_
06-01-2005, 04:38 PM
now i seen it all BOOOHOOOO and bs!

IIJG69_Kartofe
06-01-2005, 04:42 PM
Got a kleenex for you if you will! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Fennec_P
06-01-2005, 05:32 PM
Leadspitter and Kartoffe, valuable posts, as always. Keep up the good work.

On 109 visibility... you'll notice that most of the old IL-2 planes have far LODs that are much larger than the near LODs.

For the original modeling guide, this was a requirement that far lod thicknesses be scaled up a factor or 2 or 3. It was intended to make it so the plane, or parts of the plane, did not vanish at long distances (become less than 1 pixel). This was necessary because old machines couldn't run high resolutions. So, wings would become thicker, details would be enlarged, and the whole plane itself would often be made bigger to improve far visilibity.

Most noticably, you will find that the Ju-88, Ju-87, bf-109, IL-2 and others present in IL-2 will get significantly bigger as they get farther away, which has the side effect of making the plane much easier to see at these distances.

However, these conventions were not uniform in IL-2. Some planes get bigger than others at far LODs, other planes don't change at all. In the 3rd party modeling guidlines, there was no specific size each LOD should be (it just says to make parts bigger and thicker). It's up to the modeler. As a result, you have huge visiblility differences between the original IL-2 planes. In particular, the 109s have large far LODs, whereas the Yaks do not. The Ju-88 and Ju-87 get gigantic at long ranges, whereas Pe-2, Pe-3 do not.

A possible reason for these patterns is that the same modeler(s) probably made the Ju-88 and Ju-87 and 109. Another modeler made another group of planes. Each modeler has his own method, and you can tell who made what.

Nowadays, this technique is not used at all. Maybe because most modern machines can run the game at high resolutions, there is no reason to make the far LODs any bigger than near LODs. Another possible reason is to prevent the exploit of deliberately setting 3D object detail to low, and therefore super-sizing all the planes. Turn your object detail to low and zoom in/out on a Ju-88, and you will see what I mean.

The lasting problem then, is that the old IL-2 planes are simply much easier to see in the 0-5km range than all the new ones, and a handful of IL-2 planes that did not incorporate enlarged LODs. The ones most affected being the oft complained about 109, and our Stuka and IL-2 friends as well.

That said, it's kind of a non-issue since it won't be fixed. Probably BoB will not have jumbo 109.

IIJG69_Kartofe
06-02-2005, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fennec_P:
Leadspitter and Kartoffe, valuable posts, as always. Keep up the good work. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye aye Sir!

Will do my best to raise a bit above the average level sir.

WWMaxGunz
06-02-2005, 09:04 AM
I for one sure wouldn't mind if the models were standardized simply because I'd like
to have one completed good sim on my shelf, something to use without warts not just
while the new one is being made and patch by patch completed but just to have as a
finished, clean product!

LOD's are not a matter of recoding. We get new planes every time, work done by people
not coding but modelling and putting the smoothing, correcting finishes on those so
yes I would like very much to see what had been done that is STILL PART of the new and
used with the new brought up to the same standard just in interest of completeness and
fairness. I could easily live with a new plane or two less if it means LOD's and a
cockpit or two being brought into more evenness and realism.

Things like this leave something of the open source as an advantage. Players who are
sick of faults can correct some of them. Closed source, it is up to the maker.

Jetbuff
06-02-2005, 09:46 AM
The 109 may come off (comparatively) badly in the LOD department but this is by no means an Axis Vs. Allied problem. E.g. the 190 has one of the smaller LOD's in the game while the La5 LOD's are as big as (if not bigger than) those of the 109.

Here's a simple mission for you to observe the differences. Copy and paste into a test.mis file, run it and switch to the external camera Ctrl+F2 immediately upon load. 6 planes will fly overhead and you can quickly see the vast differences in LOD models even though, theoretically, most of these aircraft were very similar in size. (except for the IL-2 far left) The discrepancy is magnified by the SeaFire III on the right which loses it's wings in a couple of the earlier LOD's. Note that the size difference also persists into the dot area.

The planes from left to right in the mission are: IL-2, La5FN, 109G-2, 190A5, Yak1b, SeaFire III.
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre">[MAIN]
MAP Net1Summer/load.ini
TIME 12.0
CloudType 0
CloudHeight 1000.0
army 1
playerNum 0
[Wing]
g0100
g0101
g0102
g0103
g0111
g0113
[g0100]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.BF_109G2
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0100_Way]
NORMFLY 19000.40 17798.87 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 27000.65 17798.34 500.00 300.00 &0
[g0101]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.FW_190A5
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0101_Way]
NORMFLY 19002.12 17698.97 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 26999.23 17698.86 500.00 300.00 &0
[g0102]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.YAK_1B
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0102_Way]
NORMFLY 19000.72 17599.60 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 26999.82 17599.65 500.00 300.00 &0
[g0103]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.SEAFIRE3
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0103_Way]
NORMFLY 19000.74 17500.37 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 26999.12 17500.31 500.00 300.00 &0
[g0111]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.LA_5FN
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0111_Way]
NORMFLY 19001.16 17900.16 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 27003.83 17899.40 500.00 300.00 &0
[g0113]
Planes 1
Skill 1
Class air.IL_2MEarly
Fuel 100
weapons default
[g0113_Way]
NORMFLY 19001.46 17999.60 500.00 300.00 &0
NORMFLY 27000.40 18002.60 500.00 300.00 &0
[NStationary]
[Buildings]
[StaticCamera]
18664 17718 300
[Bridge]
[House]
</pre>
What I'm proposing is that, in the future, all the LOD's be standardized around a certain size and I would recommend the 109 as a yard-stick.

Tvrdi
06-02-2005, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:

The reason is, the 109 was one of the smallest fighters size-wise in the war but in IL-2 it is one of the more visible aircraft.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

correct....and if you remember, in first il2 release Bf109 was even bigger.....like a f ship in the air and in RL it was one of the smallest aircrafts of the ww2....I remember how easy was to determine which are vvs planes and which are LW-es from greater distance...all you needed then is to look at the BIGGER dots - those were the LW....that is fixed fortunately