Cockpit modeling

Is there any plan to improve the cockpit modeling? Comparing to ED and Belsimtek standards, the M2000C cockpit looks "low polygon".

Best regards.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one...

Is there any plan to improve the cockpit modeling? Comparing to ED and Belsimtek standards, the M2000C cockpit looks "low polygon".

 

Best regards.

You can always do your own cockpit reskin right? The cockpit as is is fine; these guys put a lot of work into it and I'm sure they have other pressing things to address.

You can always do your own cockpit reskin right? The cockpit as is is fine; these guys put a lot of work into it and I'm sure they have other pressing things to address.

No, I said the 3D modeling, not the skin. I paid for a product and I can ask for improvements like any other costumer. This improvement, like any other, will agregate value to the product.

I don't asked to you, I asked a question to the developer. You are not qualified to avaluate or prioritize what is important or not, the developers are adult enough to do that.

Best regards.

3D improvement it's a dead horse, like the M2000C itself.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186390

Just hope in the future to see the M2000C upgraded to the AV8B quality level. Asking for this kinde of improvements in this forum is a nonsense: everything is fine as it is, this is the rule.

Give it up.

This is the polycount of the old IL2 1946 jets, like Mig-9.

I didn't notice already have a thread about it. The switch covers looks flat, the clock, etc., these details could be improved. I don't know if is needed redo the a entire cockpit because of this. I hope they fix it in the future.

thats something that seems to happen especially to Razbam...I also would love to see more "love" in some of those "round" shaped parts...for instance, the canopy frame and the air intakes are the worse parts imo which is weird as the M2000 cockpit is in fact very (uncommonly) square so it saves a lot of polygons there that could be spent in other parts...

Have they ever addressed whether this is something that their looking at?

3D improvement it's a dead horse, like the M2000C itself.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=186390

 

Just hope in the future to see the M2000C upgraded to the AV8B quality level. Asking for this kinde of improvements in this forum is a nonsense: everything is fine as it is, this is the rule.

 

Give it up.

 

This is the polycount of the old IL2 1946 jets, like Mig-9.

More polygons less frame and stuttering the game and lack for the outer gamer in the multiplayer game.

Is it simply more polygon and your PC must work harder?

Is this what you want? lagging and a dump cinema?

Think about this I don't fly solo, I want a multiplayer fluent game.

In your case, you fly with open canopy?

Regards

Tango Lima/Scorpion

More polygons less frame and stuttering the game and lack for the outer gamer in the multiplayer game.

 

Is it simply more polygon and your PC must work harder?

 

Is this what you want? lagging and a dump cinema?

Think about this we all don't fly solo, we want a multiplayer fluent game.

 

In your case, you fly with open canopy?

Regards

Tango Lima/Scorpion

Look at "The Italian Ace", he's a good 3D modeller.

You can have a good and smooth model without increasing polygon count.

Look at "The Italian Ace", he's a good 3D modeler.

 

You can have a good and smooth model without increasing polygon count.

If you build a new core game than its possible. With this core game!

You must think what can the game not what can a Modeler do.

You can build around a VW Beetle a Lamborgini or Ferrari, but it's always a VW Beetle.

Is your 3D modeler able to build a new core we are all happy?

Regards

Tango Lima/Scorpion

What do you mean by core? Some shapes just need to be remodeled/smoothed and that's it. Any 3D modeler with some experience can do that. And one with a lot of experience can surely optimize the mesh to be smoother yet without a big increase of polys, if not even a decrease.

What do you mean by core? Some shapes just need to be remodeled/smoothed and that's it. Any 3D modeler with some experience can do that. And one with a lot of experience can surely optimize the mesh to be smoother yet without a big increase of polys, if not even a decrease.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_(game_theory)

Can you drive a VW Beetle with 80 HP and you build around the Ferrari or Lamborgini 300 km/h with 80 HP?

It's pure fact and Math you can not build ghost polygon and cost nothing in the game.

Or a simple better explaining what I tell you. An Appel is an Appel, can your modeler make a Chicken in real from an Appel?

Or another example: your room fit 4 peoples and all your friends coming but now you have 40 friends what do you do to get all 40 friends in a room where can only 4 friends stay?

The other point is the compatibility of a new 3D source code to display it in the virtual world, work it with the old hard coded core? Or the game crash always?

You must be a good engineer

Regards

Tango Lima/Scorpion

You can have a good and smooth model without increasing polygon count.

By which miracle ? (former 3D modeler & 3D developper here)

Anyway, adding some polygons on sensible circular parts will certainly don't disintegrates your graphic card...

3D modeler here too...

I recommend you have a look at this post, but unfortunately, the pictures don't show anymore, but I can guarantee you, they looked identical: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3174223&postcount=48

from this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=184731&highlight=mc+202&page=5

Scorpion, changing the whole look and smoothing some parts aren't the same...

3D modeler here too...

 

I recommend you have a look at this post, but unfortunately, the pictures don't show anymore, but I can guarantee you, they looked identical: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3174223&postcount=48

 

from this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=184731&highlight=mc+202&page=5

 

Scorpion, changing the whole look and smoothing some parts aren't the same...

Okey, it is just mater of common sens optimization... avoid useless polygons on flats parts and increasing on round parts, but i hope the M2K cockpit is already optimized as this... Fact is: if you want something rounded to not appear angular, you have to increase the polys count.

whether or not it's good for people running a potato pc has nothing to do with the fact it's below standard.

nevertheless, 3rdparties overhauling their models post release has been unprecedented and i dont expect anything of the like from razbam.

No offence here, but Thomas Loeffelmann not sure if you are just trolling or what??:huh:...if a model has lets say 300.000 polygons and you can clearly see that the canopy frame is a pentagon (for instance) how much performance do you think you would lost by improving it to a 20 sides polygon?? I can assure you that your system would not melt...look at other planes, they are much better than razbam on this so I think its possible...

Again, not needed to total revamp the model but just improve some parts like air intakes and canopy frame, as I said, the M2000 cockpit is very square so they could save a lot of polygons in many areas while using them in others that really need them...

... Again, not needed to total revamp the model but just improve some parts like air intakes and canopy frame, as I said, the M2000 cockpit is very square so they could save a lot of polygons in many areas while using them in others that really need them...

As I'm sure you are aware, the M-2000C cockpit will have started out as a high poly model that has been heavily pared down for the game engine/performance reasons.

The trouble is, there is a lot of variation in users system specs. only recently in the Gazelle forum there was a complaint about how poorly it ran (fps) compared to the M-2000C.

Granted that particular user's system was below spec. but it does show that no matter what a dev. does, they can never please everyone. Imagine the complaints if a 'high poly' cockpit rework took 5-10 frames from people running minimum spec. PC's or VR for no improvement in function/game play.

Would I like a few more poly's here and there, sure, but I'm not sure it's worth the rework when there are other aspects of the M-2000C to complete.

I'm sure RAZBAM will take M-2000C feedback into account making the Harrier.

nevertheless, 3rdparties overhauling their models post release has been unprecedented and i dont expect anything of the like from razbam.

That's probably the most rational thing I've read on this thread. Fair point. I haven't personally felt like it's below standard, but to each their own. Skinning wise there are a few things I could see being fixed in the future.

But hey, everyone has a right to ask

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

They are not fixing the obvious bugs in flight systems and you guys think they will fix the "round" shapes ? lol.

Yes, some parts could use more polys, but on the positive side, its light on frames, at least on my PC: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=189375

Heatblur/Leatherneck customers praise the visuals but complain about FPS. Damn if you do, damn if you don't.

Your post shows only performence differences, but the aircrafts are different by different developers running over a WIP plataform, it's a lot of variables.

I think these performance differences related by you, there's nothing to do with 3D modeling or texture, it's more about how the aircraft systems and the flight model was coded.

You could have the FPS increased/decreased by a lot of factors: hardware, software, game settings, scenaries, objects, scripts, etc. The developers can add more routines iterating to simulate sensors, gauges, aircraft behaviors, etc.

All these stuffs can be tunned by developers. The DCS still a WIP, each new release, everything can change for better or not.

So it's safe to assume that Razbaam can at the very least re-do the canopy rail.

So it's safe to assume that Razbaam can at the very least re-do the canopy rail.

I'm sorry if you live in USA and have a potato PC, but I expect the same standards of ED and Belsimtek modules. The price of a single module is the same of a new AAA game.