[asheshouse]

Yes you do get a few problems on the boundaries.

Each object has a "location point" which will lie within the texture defined by a specific pixel. If the location point is near to the pixel boundary and/or if the object is big then part of it may lie in the adjacent pixel, and may overlap with another object.

The only solution is to manually edit these areas, but then this also has to be done for sections of town that have a road or rail passing through them.

I don't see this as a major issue. AutoPop does a good job of producing a "first draft". It is then quite quick to delete or move any objects which are not quite right. But still a big job on a large map.

[asheshouse]

Still exploring the limits.

Northeast France map has map_T 2000x1352 pixels = 2704000 pixels total.
of this, built up area is now 36483 pixels = 1460 sq km.

Total object count 1.8 million, from inBuildings.txt = 50 objects per pixel in built up areas.

Time taken to process actors.static is approx 3.5 hours.
size of actors.static 14.6MB

Time to load mission file 1min 15 sec.
Runs ok in offline game.

[deovis]

At this point i have to say something, as a profane, about the object density in the new mod maps for il2.
Well first of all this is my system, upgraded on december 2007(5 months ago!!!!!!!!!!):

amd 6400+ 3.2ghz dual core
4mb ram 800mhz
GF 8800 gts 640mb gdr3 evga superclocked

config.ini: all max but water=3 and Effects=1

AAx4 AFx4 1280x960

avg fps 60 actual fps 60

with the russia's maps no fps problem at all(obj density is well calibrated)...but with kiev, berlin, all the Pacific and 4.09 patch maps i lose up to 20-30 actual fps(online and offline) when i fly near a city(even on medium city) or a group of ships(the much on Slovakia map). I'm absolutely sure that both the pacific and 4.09 objects have a great impact even on medium-high machine like mine.
The questions are: Will all those overrealistic and overdetailed maps run on all the systems(what kind of systems do you have...a Star Trek Holografic Room Computer?)? why such overmassive use of the new objects( over all the SK ones) that have the merit or the fault to be, like in my experience, a quasi system killer? why dont you use the old objects(as in old russia map to REPRESENT a city(REDUCED in area and TYPE of objects for gameplay where applicable) and a very little part of the new for a little, repeat little, detail and atmosphere here and there?
There was a reason why Oleg and the map making guys made them with a sparse objects density.

GAMEPLAY MATES!!!!!!

So dont try to play too much with harbours, cities, airfields, filling them of useless details...instead try to make a RAW representation of this structures(WTF... IT IS A SIM!!!)! Moreover consider that if you want to use such maps online you have to add other objets as targets(trains, vehicles, forts, hqs, AAA etc).
I'm afraid that all these new maps for il2 are nude and crude a sample of what SoW (with all those objects and 3d trees for woods and forests) will be in the near future in terms of system configuration and power...A VAMPIRE!!!! (I'm tired to change a computer every f*****g 6 months period!)

So PLEASE dont exaggerate too much with the details in your maps or they will be unplayable(online and offline as the Berlin one...remember?)

Sorry for my rudeness...but try to understand! :wink:

PS
The new ItalyGreeceAfrica map by RedFox isnt an overrealistic one; it has a low object density for city and airfields, as the old il2 russia maps has, because it was decided by the creator that what really counts is "giving the idea and the feel". I dont mind to find, for example, in virtual London a street with a building that has a door with the Number 10 on it or the Air Marshall wife's orchard near an airfield only because "i-see-it-in-a-black-and-white-photo-of-that-period".COME ON...It's meaningless!!!

[RAF_Magpie]

deovis. Quite simple really. Dont like it. Dont run it :roll:

Have you tried new .dll's? My machine;

AMD 5000+
1gb ram, dual channel 800
8800GT 512 (with zalman cooler)

Everything maxed out, with water = 4, AA all the rest of the bs, and I can fly over the built up areas on Solvakia without much drop. Berlin, not a problem, can participate in a bomber intercept over the city...

Its relative, of course, as to what detail is what... But I think you'll find that the detailing being put where it is wanted by the maker, is the map makers own decision. And yes, immersion is important to a lot of people, and thats where a lot of this sort of thing comes into it.

There was a poll running for this sort of thing a month or two ago, and the out come pointed that the generalised public WANTED in depth detailing. I ran the poll, and remember the out come quite clearly, much to my chagrin considering my NZ map's size (but thats RAF_Sharkzz's problem he's doing the cities).

The people have spoken. The map makers have listened.. if you wish for something... emptier, I suggest once these maps are released you request permission to edit them and eliminate the unwanted details....

[asheshouse]

The people have spoken. The map makers have listened.. if you wish for something... emptier, I suggest once these maps are released you request permission to edit them and eliminate the unwanted details....

Magpie has it in a nutshell here. It is much easier to depopulate a detailed map than to add detail to a sparsely populated map. -- and in reality you will not need "permission". Just do it -- but let others know what you are doing. The Malta map sets a good example with the same map available in various levels of detail.

This is the latest on the Northeast France map after further object pruning, and is the basis on which the map is now being progressed. It seems to be only number of objects on screen which affects FPS rates, not total number of objects on the map.
viewtopic.php?p=54770#54770

Incidentally, my PC specs are way lower than either of the specs quoted above, but I am too embarrassed to list them out in detail. :oops:

[deovis]

The people have spoken. The map makers have listened.. if you wish for something... emptier, I suggest once these maps are released you request permission to edit them and eliminate the unwanted details....

Its not the point Magpie...the problem isnt the details or the total numbers of objects but, i think, are the new 4.09 objects.I have noted that a big city like, for example Smolensk, that uses the old object types, doesnt reduce fps in such way as a medium city in Slovakia or Bessarabia maps does.What i said in my previous post is: use the old objects (especially buildings and houses for the cities) to populate cities etc the most and the new 4.09 objects for characteristic details.
I dont know why but the new objects are very heavy in terms of system resources IMHO!!!I can be wrong!

It seems to be only number of objects on screen which affects FPS rates, not total number of objects on the map.

you are right asheshouse the fps drop is caused by the number of objects in the field of view.But again i have noted that the difference in the drop between the old and the 4.09 objects is very high: with the olds you can have a drop of at max 10-15 or even nothing; with the 4.09 the drop rise to 30-40 for a medium city in the Slovakia map!!! hock:

Well if Magpie tell me that the fps drop is minimal on his computer, maybe the fault is in my graphic card settings (Magpie could you tell me how did you set you graphic card in the nvidia control panel please?) :wink:

[fly_zo]

... its not so much about number of objects at one area .... it's number of different objects that coses fps drop

if you 're using only three types of building to represent most of the town and just few different to represent some specific building .... you'll save fps drastically


just my opinion


cheers
Z

[mkubani]

I have modelled 90% of Slovakia objects and worked on placing them on the Slovak map.

There are 3 factors that impact the FPS:

1. Maximum distance visibility of objects and LOD switch visibility. This is out of scope for you guys. That was something I had to adjust in order to get the right balance. I had to do it 3 times to get it about right. Otherwise it would kill your machines.

2. Total number of objects in view. It seems that as soon as IL-2 engine reaches some sort of critical limit of object count, it suffers a very noticeable drop of FPS. I don't know what the limit is though. It's a trial and error thing you must test yourself. Focus especially on this one. Make the towns smaller in their size. Cities on some old maps are unrealistically huuuuuuuge.

3. The diversity of objects. More different objects you place in your map (especially in heavy populated areas), the more significant impact on performance.

Better quality (in terms of 3D modelling & texturing) of Slovak objects has NO IMPACT on your FPS. We have tested them for months. They have a bit higher visibility distance but this is a very low resource killer. Again, we have tested for a long time.

Old maps use about 5 different house objects per city/village (I think). They are also not much densly placed and their maximum distance and LOD distances are lower than Slovak ones.


@deavis: Try to fly right over Berlin. If Berlin is a FPS killer for you, Slovakia will be as well. I have a much much older PC than you do and I am able to run Slovakia ok. Yes, the big Slovak cities (about 5 of them) are a real problem, but this map is intended to be fully playable in couple years. We aimed at the future. However, small and medium towns should be very smooth with your machine. If they are not, I am sorry to point out that it's a hardware or software issue on your end.

[deovis]

Better quality (in terms of 3D modelling & texturing) of Slovak objects has NO IMPACT on your FPS. We have tested them for months. They have a bit higher visibility distance but this is a very low resource killer. Again, we have tested for a long time.

I too noted that in the Slovakia map the LOD and Visibility Distance are higher.The real impact on fps was given meaningly by the housing on the BigCity textures (those with the blocks completely greyed out) and the new industrial areas.In fact as you said, in this map there are 4-5 cities in which i experienced a drop from 60 to 17 fps when the whole city is in the field of view.The medium and smaller ones are ok!

I think Berlin is a nightmare for all of us if we fly low on the city.Consider that the city area is completely covered with that BigCity textures and buildings...the bigger this area is in a city the more the fps drop...here it is the real fps killer in my opinion!!!GOT IT!!!!

thank you mkubani for your usefull hints!!!

[mkubani]

Actually, in Slovakia cities, the most demanding area (in terms of object count) is the suburb/residential one, not the downtown/old town one.

[deovis]

RAF_Magpie

Everything maxed out, with water = 4, AA all the rest of the bs, and I can fly over the built up areas on Solvakia without much drop. Berlin, not a problem, can participate in a bomber intercept over the city...

Good! If you fly high over Berlin or on Banska Bystrica in Slovakia map, fps dont drop at all...instead try to fly low, mate, on those cities and let me know! I'm afraid that the WIP overdetailed maps wil be unplayable for many players, specifically during low level fights and bombings!

Mkubani has given very good hints about map population...but honestly i'm afraid,(i'm not unfailing!!!), that very few people will really enjoy these beautiful maps ! Anyhow, i will try them, BOB and France, because i like them very much!

2. Focus especially on this one. Make the towns smaller in their size. Cities on some old maps are unrealistically huuuuuuuge.

3. The diversity of objects. More different objects you place in your map (especially in heavy populated areas), the more significant impact on performance.

Very usefull hints! BTW Mkubani... is there a way, for a mod map maker, to reduce the visibility range or LOD in their maps?

[352nd Persecutor]

@deovis,

You make very good points, and the Battle of Britain team is very cognizant of the problems that you are describing. The BoB map is very large (two other planned maps are even larger), and while we want the map to be as accurate as we can make it, we also want it to be playable.

Thus our airfields are created to be historically accurate, but not too densely populated; enough to make them look "real" but not enough to kill your fps. We hope.

Our cities, so far, are filled enough to make them look like cities, but certainly no Berlin.

Cross your fingers; it's a trade off and compromise to hit the "sweet spot", and we're tyros at this, so we may get it wrong. But if it does turn out to be wrong, it won't be because we didn't try, or because we aren't aware of your concerns and taking them into consideration. And if we find out we missed the mark, well, that's what version 1.1 is for (be sure!!).

[FC]

1. Maximum distance visibility of objects and LOD switch visibility. This is out of scope for you guys. That was something I had to adjust in order to get the right balance. I had to do it 3 times to get it about right. Otherwise it would kill your machines.

We can change max visibility and LOD switches if necessary although I wouldn't recommend that.

FC

[deovis]

@ Persecutor
Dont worry i'll cross my fingers :lol: i know you are doing all the best you can to make the BOB map playable and "as real as it gets"...as i told I CAN WAIT! The mine was only a profane doubt about what i think is a very decisive aspect of a game or map, the playability...nothing else!
Well, keep up the great work you have done until now, mates! Thanks for your attention!

My gift to your efforts:
"Never in the field of Map Mods was so much owed by so many too so few (Winston Deovis)" :wink: :lol: :lol: