Special Aircraft Service

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 ... 51   Go Down

Author Topic: Weekly progress report  (Read 127854 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

SAS~Storebror

  • Editor
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 23882
  • Taking a timeout
    • STFU
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #288 on: October 02, 2018, 03:59:46 AM »

Interesting progress, thanks for keeping us updated.
I guess very few people can imagine the dimension of your project.
You definitely have my greatest respect.

]cheers[
Mike
Logged
Don't split your mentality without thinking twice.

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #289 on: October 03, 2018, 01:49:02 AM »

Thanks Mike,

The alpha handling issue turned out to be a bug in Monogame, which I am using as a base layer.

Some bright spark added crazy code to zero all RGB values if alpha == 0

Compiled my own version of Monogame and the problem went away.



Logged

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #290 on: October 24, 2018, 05:44:57 AM »

I have changed the mod tool so it now outputs default animators as well.

So without any work, flaps , slats, rudder, props, etc. will have the correct animation components added. Started with the props, which almost worked first time.



Then I tried a BF110



OOOPs.

The animations can be hand tweaked later in the game object editor
Logged

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #291 on: October 26, 2018, 04:20:27 AM »

Okay , more progress.

I have changed the mod tool to export directly into GuruEngine, which is what I am calling the game engine I am writing for this game.

You have a new menu ...



Clicking on "Export to Guru" will prompt you for a destination directory, then bring up this dialog.



Clicking on the checkboxes on the left will add basic flight controls automatically. These can be tweaked later in the game object editor.

You can also add CVTAnimatorComponents. These use the  same parameters as you use in Java (just with a sign change on the angle, so -85 in IL2 == 85 in Guru )

You can add as many of these as you want. The "Variable" string can be anything though some are pre-defined like GearPosition, RudderPosition, etc.

Then just click on continue and it's done.

Works very well for most aircraft.



Though it has shown us some big problems in my lighting system. I am at a lost why, but look at the rudder. It's black. Like the normals are wrong...... agghh

Now going to add a AngleAnimatorComponent and a TranslateAnimatorComponent for things like cockpits.



Logged

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #292 on: October 28, 2018, 05:36:57 AM »

Oh I am furious with myself.

Spot the horrible bug that ruined all my lighting systems....

Code: [Select]
float4x4 WorldInverseTranspose;

No? Me neither for about 8 hours.

Correct code.

Code: [Select]
float4x3 WorldInverseTranspose;





Now to add SSAO.

After I have repaired the hole in the wall my head left.

Logged

sniperton

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1228
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #293 on: October 28, 2018, 04:54:51 PM »

Spot the horrible bug that ruined all my lighting systems....

Code: [Select]
float4x4 WorldInverseTranspose;

No? Me neither for about 8 hours.

Correct code.

Code: [Select]
float4x3 WorldInverseTranspose;

At least it was not a comma instead of a semicolon. Appreciate the grace of God that befell on you after only 8 hours of desperation.  8)
Logged

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #294 on: October 29, 2018, 12:30:35 AM »

 :) It was on my mind so much, I woke up at stupid o'clock this morning and applied the same fix to the main game.

I ran it up at 06:00 and thought I had broke everything.





Then I remembered all my lighting is created by the sky shader, which uses the time of day from the world state, which is currently set to DateTime.Now.

So I looked out of the window and the sun was just coming up. As luck would have it, a passenger jet was flying overhead at about 25,000 feet and it just glowed as it picked up the first light from over the horizon.

Panic over.  :D
Logged

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #295 on: October 29, 2018, 12:47:18 AM »

AND!!! that showed up that I had forgotten to apply the world location (latitude,longitude) to the sun calculation.




At last it is starting to look nice.

Logged

DarkBlueBoy

  • Supporter
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 674
  • Learning slowly...
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #296 on: October 29, 2018, 01:56:55 AM »

Great work Stainless. I can't wait to see what you show us next.
Logged

Stainless

  • moderator
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1534
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #297 on: October 29, 2018, 04:15:55 AM »

A target rich environment.




Does anyone know the spacing for a standard German formation?

I used 20 metres, but it doesn't look quite right to me.
Logged

P51vsFw190

  • Flying Ass Clown #5/#7
  • Supporter
  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2060
  • Connoisseur of strange aircraft
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #298 on: October 29, 2018, 06:56:27 AM »

Try 40 or 50 meters.

Cheers!

James
Logged
“German humor is no laughing matter”

Pursuivant

  • member
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
Re: Weekly progress report
« Reply #299 on: October 29, 2018, 07:07:17 PM »

Does anyone know the spacing for a standard German formation?

It could vary. The spacing within each "vic" of bombers looks right for a close formation, but it could been looser in practice especially when flying in difficult weather conditions or attempting to avoid flak. Spacing between planes in the vee might be ~25-30 m, with the trailing bombers at a 60* angle rather than a 45* angle off the lead bomber.

Spacing between elements of the formation is a bit too close - more like an airshow than a combat formation. 30-50 meters is probably closer to the mark.

Additionally, the squadron might form a "diamond" formation:           ^
                                                                                               ^    ^
                                                                                                  ^

But, for a first attempt the formation's not unrealistic, with the squadron in a sort of modified echalon right formation.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 ... 51   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.037 seconds with 24 queries.