Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WxTech]

I'm trying out different speed ranges for the wreckage which results upon a plane's explosive discombulation. Here, to more easily visualize the results, I've enabled fire/smoke effects for ALL pieces. Normally, 30% will have fire, and half of those (meaning 15%) will have smoke.

I want to have a larger velocity dispersion in the longitudinal direction, or along the original flight path. This is to suggest the differing drag imposed on pieces of varying size, density and shape. The stock dispersion is -15 to +15 m/s, for a range of 30 m/s. Here I've made the range +0 to -75 m/s, or 2.5X larger.

Of course, after I settle on a final dispersion the usual fraction of pieces will have fire/smoke assigned, as before.

[Ta183Huckebein]

Wow, that looks great!!

[WxTech]

Remember, the pic above shows ALL bits of wreckage to which effects can be assigned. I did this temporary enabling of such only to be able to see the pattern of dispersal most easily. The number of particles drawn here push things to the point where some can disappear due to graphics engine limitations. I have gone back to the usual numbers, after settling on the following velocity envelopes, relative to the plane's velocity vector at destruction:

L-R: unchanged at +/- 15 m/s
Up-Dn: unchanged at +/- 15 m/s
Fore-Aft: -75 to +15 m/s (formerly the same +/- 15)

In other words, I've expanded the envelope of relative velocity in the aft direction by 60 m/s, to better suggest the way drag increases as the square of velocity, and where the velocity vector component is greatest in the original direction of travel.

A more sophisticated approach would scale this envelope expansion as the aircraft speed. At zero speed, as when stalling at the top of a zoom climb, the fore-aft component 9f the envelope would have the usual +/- 15 m/s. As airspeed increases the rearward extension to larger negative relative velocity would proceed. This could equal negative airspeed in m/s minus 15. For example, an airspeed of, say, 120kt is roughly 60 m/s. The aft limit could then equal -60 -15 = -75.

The forward component should ideally be reduced, or shifted aft, as airspeed increases. But in this simplified modeling, I like to have the *difference* in velocity at higher airspeed to increase, which emphasizes the drag differential. It looks better.

[RABIZO]

"Glenn" Thanks for your effects.

Will these effects be included in "WxTech's Effects Pack v1.7 for B.A.T and 4.12"?

[WxTech]

Yes.

[baggo]

this looks a brilliant effect Glen, will this be scaled to aircraft size, like say a four engine bomber will make a larger fireball than say a fighter, or are you limited with what can be achieved by the game engine itself, either way it looks very good, many thanks for your efforts,  kev.

[WxTech]

I am (for now, anyway) using the same old one-size-fits-all approach for effects assigned to in-flight explosions. That is, the main fireball/smoke cloud. Larger planes and/or those having more engines will typically generate more firey/smoky debris, as has long been the case. I'm sticking to the same long-standing fraction of 30% of debris bits being on fire, with half of those having smoke trails. Again, The pic in the first post is the most extreme case of having 100% of debris  bits on fire and smoking, only so that I could easily see the velocity dispersion. THAT IS NOT HOW THEY WILL BE HANDLED UPON RELEASE. No more than 1/3 of the bits will be on fire.

For crashes on land, I use the number of engines to determine the fireball size and duration, for a total of three main effect possibilities. And a bit of randomness is applied as well. For water crashes, I use two different sized splash effects.

The crash fires can have different sizes, and the long-lasting smoke columns can have different color/tone and size.

This shot is highlighting the lower left portion of the image in the first post, most of which had got cropped out. Note the different smoke columns in the distance, from crashed planes.

Note also in the distance the flying, smoking plane. My very recent re-working of smoke effects across the board has resulted in a better appearance of a turbulent irregularity along the length of the smoke trail, without having to impart an excessive initial dispersion and also while keeping the starting size a bit smaller than before.

[larschance]

Will these explosive effects have a large hit on the fps rate. I noticed any explosions reduce the fps or give a stutter if several go off at once. While looking fantastic, bomb drops flak gunfire and explosions can play havoc with pc systems trying to keep up.

Having said that I am a great fan of your work and appreciate what you do for this sim.

[WxTech]

Just looking at the airfield complex near Port Moresby on the latest version of the Green Hell map has a worse impact on my frame rates than does a VERY busy scenario where so many effects are causing some particles to disappear.

My i5 with nVidia 2060 running at 2560x1440 is not a particularly potent rig. My worst frame rates briefly get down to around 25, which periods tend to be brief. With more typical action 60+ fps is not hard to maintain.

Perhaps it would be fair to say that my far more varied effects are more suitable for small or moderate scale 'tactical' scenarios. Those who like to involve great herds of bombers that lay waste to built up areas may find game engine limits hit sooner.

However, by way of mitigation I have instituted a scheme whereby static objects are not all given the 'full Monty' in every instance of destruction. I apply a random selection downward to a generally less intensive fire/smoke, and also randomly not invoke a fire or a smoke at all. This helps to make up for the greater variety and the larger total number of different effects possible.