PDA

View Full Version : Long-lasting flames..



oldwheat
October 4th, 2008, 10:49
... from dropped weapons. Is it possible to acheive or is this a redux of my old 'smoke' question? ie. the game has short-lived effects hard-wired in & longer lasting effects aren't in the cards :banghead:..

ckissling
October 4th, 2008, 11:03
There is fx fire and smoke I have I'll look it up and see. Do you have other info on building fx files other than the one by Jaxson? If you do I would like to get a copy. ckissling

ckissling
October 4th, 2008, 11:20
Oldwheat
The file fx_fire_smoke_l.fx It is 17kb by Blade, says fire lasts 10 minutes
or more. If you can't locate it I'll send it. ckissling

jimskifs
October 4th, 2008, 11:36
It can be done I think by tinkering with the "lifetime" line in the effect file. I see the file for fx_smoke_rx looks like this in notepad:

[Library Effect]
Lifetime=5
Version=1.00

[Emitter.0]
Lifetime=0.00, 0.00
Delay=0.00, 0.00
Bounce=0.00
Rate=44.00, 66.00
X Emitter Velocity=0.00, 0.00
Y Emitter Velocity=0.00, 0.00
Z Emitter Velocity=0.00, 0.00
Drag=0.00, 0.00
X Particle Velocity=0.00, 0.00
Y Particle Velocity=0.00, 0.00
Z Particle Velocity=0.00, 0.00
X Rotation=0.00, 0.00
Y Rotation=0.00, 0.00
Z Rotation=0.00, 0.00
X Offset=0.00, 0.00
Y Offset=0.00, 0.00
Z Offset=0.00, 0.00

[Particle.0]
Lifetime=2.00, 8.50
Type=19
X Scale=1.00, 1.50
Y Scale=1.00, 1.50
Z Scale=3.00, 3.50
X Scale Rate=0.50, 1.00
Y Scale Rate=0.50, 1.00
Z Scale Rate=0.00, 0.00
Drag=-4.00, -3.98
Color Rate=0.33, 0.45
X Offset=0.00, 0.00
Y Offset=0.00, 0.00
Z Offset=0.00, 0.00
Fade In=0.00, 0.00
Fade Out=0.55, 0.57
Rotation=-180.00, 180.00
Shade=1
Face=1, 1, 1

[ParticleAttributes.0]
Blend Mode=1
Texture=fx_1.bmp
Bounce=0.00
Color Start=75, 75, 75, 10
Color End=75, 75, 75, 0
Jitter Distance=0.00
Jitter Time=1.00
TempK=107.00
TempRate=0.01
uv1=0.50, 0.75
uv2=0.75, 1.00
X Scale Goal=4.00
Y Scale Goal=4.00
Z Scale Goal=4.00
Extrude Length=3.00
Extrude Pitch Max=0.00
Extrude Heading Max=0.00

I think the lifetime here is in seconds. I was once trying to simulate a fire bomb with a long burning fire, the effect was a huge multiplier on a "phospherous fire" effect. I think it ended up a city block sized fire burning for 40 minutes and a raid by multiple bombers at night was a sight, but the frame rate really suffered.

Jimski

bearcat241
October 4th, 2008, 11:48
Explosion effects written within the effects strings of droppable weapons are hardwired to the visual cue of the weapons themselves. As soon as the weap disappears on impact the effects count down to zero also.

However, when a gp bomb dp is built with fx_gndexpl_l.fx in its mix, this effect will generate a light, but lasting smoke after-effect like a real gp conventional bomb would. If you replace the lasting smoke section of this file per se, with the lasting fire sections from the fx_oiltankfire_l.fx file, all bombs using this gndexpl file will then generate this lasting fire also.

This may not be entirely realistic though when dropping GP weaps in open terrain against troop emplacements or moving vehicles. Unless the grass is REALLY dry, open ground really doesn't burn much at all after a GP bomb strike -- lots of smoke but very little fire. The shock wave and blast vacuum prevents this for the most part. Only napalm and some phosphorus weaps have true lasting flame distinction.

ckissling
October 4th, 2008, 12:03
Bearcat 241
How would you change the direction of fx_fireball_l so it lays flat along the ground or just above and move forward for 300 ft or so like real napalm? ckissling

oldwheat
October 4th, 2008, 12:36
I think that you are reading my mind here Ckissling.

Warhawk1130
October 4th, 2008, 12:49
Noticing the effect, and using the upgrades, I notice a significant drop im framerates. 50 to 13 or less while the smoke and fire are going. I am assuming these are the updated effects. I am running a 5 year old 3 ghz and 2 megs ram on a 7800GS.

Is this normal? or do I have something amiss?

bobhegf
October 4th, 2008, 13:39
Warhawk1130, my pc is about the same as yours and about the same age. My fram rates do the samething.:d

bearcat241
October 4th, 2008, 13:52
Bearcat 241
How would you change the direction of fx_fireball_l so it lays flat along the ground or just above and move forward for 300 ft or so like real napalm? ckissling

Don't know for sure, but using Jim's smoke FX from above as an example, i would start with the [Particle.0] section highlighted below:

[Particle.0]
Lifetime=2.00, 8.50
Type=19
X Scale=1.00, 1.50
Y Scale=1.00, 1.50
Z Scale=3.00, 3.50
X Scale Rate=0.50, 1.00
Y Scale Rate=0.50, 1.00
Z Scale Rate=0.00, 0.00
Drag=-4.00, -3.98
Color Rate=0.33, 0.45
X Offset=0.00, 0.00
Y Offset=0.00, 0.00
Z Offset=0.00, 0.00
Fade In=0.00, 0.00
Fade Out=0.55, 0.57
Rotation=-180.00, 180.00
Shade=1
Face=1, 1, 1

Judging from this layout, the Y axis is the one you want to look at for a long, crawling wave of fire. X axis will control the width of the fire wave and the Z axis is the "rise" of the plume. As you can see above, the Z axis has values thrice that of the X and Y, so i'm guessing that this would be the rise of the smoke plume in this case. I can only guess that the "Drag" will also have an effect, but i'd save that adjustment for last. To make it last, you would increase the Lifetime=2.00, 8.50 to something much higher.

oldwheat
October 5th, 2008, 08:26
I have made a number of tweaks using the above info & to be perfectly honest, I can't see a whole lot of difference (if any :costumes:) in how the explosian is rendered. Same constant size & duration. I'm going to try a few new approaches but I fear that CFS2 hardwiring is going to prevail in the end :banghead:.

Corsair Freak
October 5th, 2008, 09:25
I set the Y scale to about 250 last night and there was absolutely no difference at all.

In fact, I didn't notice any difference between a normal explosion and the napalm effect that ckissling uploaded. In Blade's effects the fire goes pretty high in the sky, if we could turn it sideways that would be a huge step.

CF

simonu
October 5th, 2008, 09:29
long lasting volumetric effects are bad frame rate hogs.
the effects SDK for fs2002 will take out the guesswork, attached below is actually a ZIP, rename it. unzip it. read it. Its a word DOC so you need something that can read docs.

(http://download.microsoft.com/download/FlightSim2002/Install/sdk/W982KMeXP/EN-US/Specialeffects_SDK.exe)

Corsair Freak
October 5th, 2008, 09:55
Thanks simonu,

in contrast to what Bearcat said, the Y axis is vertical. So I was making the fire taller.

CF

bearcat241
October 5th, 2008, 10:37
Thanks for the clarifying document Simon...and thanks Corsair Freak for clearing up my speculations on the scales. As i said in the beginning of my second reply, "I don't know for sure...". But... since we were all just hypothesising here, i figured it would be something to look into as another place to experiment.

Corsair Freak
October 5th, 2008, 10:41
Bearcat,

I think FX files are pretty foreign to many of us. There hasn't been many breakthroughs in this field for years.

CF

ckissling
October 5th, 2008, 11:10
The fx_gndexpl_s that I was first using was one by Nanni, it was one I replaced the original with. But for what I am looking for it was just too much effect, so Wolfi sent me a copy of the original.
As I understand the size of the bomb dictates what fx file is used to start
the train of effects in the DP file for that bomb. Due to the fact that normal drop tanks do not explode, you then have to the D/T as a bomb.
If it is a napalm filled tank and so named, you will need the explosion to
start the alterd effects in the alterd D/P file, but you want that explosion
not to stand out very much and take away from the other effects forth
coming.ckissling

bearcat241
October 5th, 2008, 14:40
Well, it seems that the main culprit is the fx_gndexpl_l.fx file. The sim automatically calls this file for every large bomb impact, no matter if its in the dropped bomb's dp or not as a scheduled effect. When it comes in, it completely terminates the end of the bomb's FX string and leaves its own lasting effect, whatever is written into it. So, it doesn't matter what other FX files you edit and write into a napalm bomb's dp effects string, those mods will be shut off and replaced by the fx_gndexpl_l file.

As i said earlier, my fx_gndexpl_l.fx file has a lasting smoke effect written in. So I merged and edited the compositions of both my fx_napalm and my fx_oiltankfire files and renamed the end product fx_gndexpl_l.fx after backing up the original. The pics below are my rough draft so far. The fire is pretty good; duration is excellent; but i need to work on the direction of the blast along the ground and the smoke needs to be "bounced" higher above the fire and widened to the diameter of the full lasting fire.

The work continues...:running:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/bearcat241/Demo%20shots/0084.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/bearcat241/Demo%20shots/0085.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/bearcat241/Demo%20shots/0086.jpg

But even if i achieve the perfect visual, there's still the nagging problem of this after-effect existing for ALL large bombs - GP or napalm - because this modded fx_gndexpl_l.fx will be called everytime. :kilroy:

Corsair Freak
October 5th, 2008, 14:53
Looks good BC, but will this affect all bombs that call for fx_gndexpl_l? Also, how are frame rates? Lasting smoke kills my frames.

CF

ckissling
October 5th, 2008, 16:03
Bearcat
A 250lb bomb would use fx_gndexpl_s, if you listed your napalm as a
1 in the DP file you get a smaller explosion, unless it's one of Nanni's
replacement files. ckissling

bearcat241
October 5th, 2008, 17:10
Looks good BC, but will this affect all bombs that call for fx_gndexpl_l? Also, how are frame rates? Lasting smoke kills my frames.

I think you overlooked my last statement at the bottom of the post... QUOTE: "But even if i achieve the perfect visual, there's still the nagging problem of this after-effect existing for ALL large bombs - GP or napalm - because this modded fx_gndexpl_l.fx will be called every time."

As for frames, i get a broad range of 45-77 on my rig no matter what's happening. Seems that my ancient, 8 year-old, space-hoggin' 21" monitor can't be set at refresh rates above 85 hertz w/o locking up at 1024x768 resolution - 75 hz @ 1280x1024 (even with slight vcard overclocking). So i set the refresh limit at 75 and that's pretty much where my frames max out on average, though some moments it quickly fluctuates between 77 and 120 under the clearest conditions. In this case the frames bottomed at around 40+ on explosions and climbed to 60 when flying close to the ensuing fire and smoke.

CK, point granted but i'm greedy...i want the largest explosion and ensuing fire possible within reason for a standard 150 gal napalm weapon. I'll be working on a compromise for that suggestion.

demorier
October 6th, 2008, 01:39
Not only that guys but there may be a limiting factor in the objects that are damaged. Just like an aircraft dp all objects in the library like buildings, hangers etc, have there own destruction parameters built in depending on what hits them. That's why many objects in the game like boxes of ammo, ships etc were modified to make them explode more. All controlled in those object dp's.

If you want to see how far you may have to modify an explosion effect just check the numbers that were used for the nuc bomb dp...they are astonomical compared to conventional bombs.

bearcat241
October 6th, 2008, 06:15
Not only that guys but there may be a limiting factor in the objects that are damaged.


Already factored that in chief...the collateral values are totally adjustable...no limits. And the collateral damage can be controlled not only in the weap dp gunstations but also in the header of any FX file itself:

[Library Effect]
Lifetime=5
Version=1.00
Damage=1
Hitpoints=6000.00, 6200.00
Magnitude=50000.00, 55000.00
Time=0.40, 0.40
Range=1000.00, 2000.00
Sound=5
Sound Param=34

The reason you don't see collateral damage in my pics is that the objects were placed as non-GSL scenery in MR's Iwo Jima location. Non-GSL don't burn and don't suffer weap damage...

ckissling
October 6th, 2008, 18:05
Simonu

Thanks for the FS2002 effects txt, it's what I have been looking for.
ckissling

oldwheat
October 7th, 2008, 12:58
Any new revelations? Bump :d..

bearcat241
October 7th, 2008, 15:03
Still workin' on it OW...nothin' new yet.


Bearcat
A 250lb bomb would use fx_gndexpl_s, if you listed your napalm as a
1 in the DP file you get a smaller explosion, unless it's one of Nanni's
replacement files. ckissling

CK, i need more detailed info on this "bomb size vs FX used" thing. Maybe someone out there has a brief chart or outline showing the exact relationships of various bomb weights to which gndexpl FX is called?

ckissling
October 7th, 2008, 16:50
Bearcat
This is from my weak memory only, there was a long gone post that said
that there are four numbers for bombs 1 thru 4. BUT cfs2 only uses 1 thru
3. #1 is small 30lb-250lb bombs, #2 is 500lb-750lb bombs, #3 is 1000lb &
larger. That is why you have fx_gndexpl_s-m-l. only three fx files not four. ckissling

sc7500
October 7th, 2008, 17:38
BearGato;

The closest thing to a list of weapons / numbers in my files is the following:

[Weapon Types]
1=Bomb (250 - 500)
2=Rocket (small)
3=Bomb (1000lb)
4=Bomb (2000lb)
5=Rocket (medium)
6=Rocket (large)
8=Rocket (timed)
9=Torpedo (small)
10=Torpedo (large)
15=Drop Tank (<150)
16=Drop Tank (200gal)
17=Drop Tank (150gal)
20=Pylon

SC
:kilroy:

ckissling
October 7th, 2008, 18:15
I am refuring to the weapon type in the DP file, the data below is for 250lb
bomb. The #1 will call up fx_gndexpl_s= a smaller explosion for a smaller
bomb. #3 or 4 will call up fx_gndexpl_l= for 1000lb and larger.ckissling


[MISC_DATA]
unit_family=4
category=37
max_weight=114
weapon_type=1

ckissling
October 7th, 2008, 19:06
From the depths of a warped mind.ckissling.

bearcat241
October 7th, 2008, 19:20
:costumes:...when pigs fly....

Thanks for the info guys. Yeah CK, that weapon_type=X thing i was aware of. I saw those type differences in the various bomb dp's i analyzed. SC's list is the full picture i needed to tie it all together.

Since the small weight bombs are seldom used in most combat sorties, i think i'll use your suggestion and supplant the fx_gndexpl_s config with the napalm mod instead of using the fx_gndexpl_l file. I'll upgrade every existing small or medium bomb dp to use either fx_gndexpl_m or fx_gndexpl_l. That'll leave fx_gndexpl_s open for modding to napalm effects. Then i'll set all napalm dp's to weap type=1 only.

I have a batch text replacer that'll do all the dp's in a few clicks.

ckissling
October 7th, 2008, 20:09
Bearcat
What you can do if you modifie fx_gndexpl_s by using the first part of the fx_gndexpl_s and stop at the smoke, you get a very small explosion and
no sparks-smoke-or debris. But it WILL start the effects cycle. If you do use small bombs and still want the effects, you can add them to the bombs DP file and they work the same or better as they did with the unchanged fx_gndexpl_s. ckissling

bearcat241
October 8th, 2008, 08:34
Bearcat
What you can do if you modifie fx_gndexpl_s by using the first part of the fx_gndexpl_s and stop at the smoke, you get a very small explosion and
no sparks-smoke-or debris. But it WILL start the effects cycle. If you do use small bombs and still want the effects, you can add them to the bombs DP file and they work the same or better as they did with the unchanged fx_gndexpl_s. ckissling

Theoretically that sounds plausible. But another part of this equation that i've noticed and we haven't discussed yet is the sim's default inclusion of fx_debris, fx_dirtspray, fx_dustcloud, fx_sparks, etc., into the bomb explosion effect sequence, in addition to the fx_gndexpl file. Both the stock and modified add-on gndexpl files only have two classes of effects - fire and smoke. It is these other defo FX files that cause the added sparks, dust cloud and debris. These FX aren't written into the gndexpl file at all, so how do they appear by defo? They are automatically called by the engine's bomb explosion triggers at the same time as the gndexpl.

Unfortunately they have the same effect on the weap's dp FX entries as the major gndexpl file - they override them when the gndexpl file is present in the cycle. So using your idea and removing smoke sections from the gndexpl won't cancel them out. This hierarchal battle between the sim's defaults and the weap dp doesn't occur in airborne combat effects. Only in bomb and torpedo explosions do you see this.

I'll continue modding the gndexpl_S file and when it looks just right, it can be uploaded along with modified dp's for all stock napalm and add-on napalm bombs. I'll leave it to the user's discretion to change his/her 250-500 pounder dp's to larger class weap types to avoid napalm effects when used.

oldwheat
October 8th, 2008, 08:41
Thanks BC :jump:! Now back to that smoke-marker rocket :costumes:.

Skywolf
October 8th, 2008, 09:31
I like it!!! Get it out as soon as possible!:d

bearcat241
October 9th, 2008, 22:14
OK OW and all...testing, one, two, three.....here's my latest mod for the napalm flames. Back up all of your napalm weap dp's in the OBJECTS_DP folder, and then open them up in notepad and change the weap type values to 1 :

[MISC_DATA]
unit_family=4
category=37
max_weight=444
weapon_type=1

Then back up your fx_gndexpl_s.fx file in the EFFECTS folder and replace it with the attachment below. Just change the *.txt extension to *.fx first. I managed a little rolling flame on impact before the main fire starts. It may need some more tweaking.

bearcat241
October 9th, 2008, 22:16
more shots...

demorier
October 10th, 2008, 02:00
Cripes....reminds me of what we all went through quite some years ago....I'll give it a go bearcat. Think my old clunker machine I have CFS2 on will struggle with the frame rates but.....and thanks for the effort.

Jagdflieger
October 10th, 2008, 08:12
Looks like we'll have to call the fire department pretty soon!

bearcat241
October 10th, 2008, 08:15
:costumes: yeah...that's what happens when you fool around with this napalm stuff :greenf:

bearcat241
October 11th, 2008, 07:28
Hmmmm...10 downloads and no test feedback for anyone? C'mon guys, its not a final, so i'm totally open to opinions on this cut because i'm quite concerned about the FPS hit vs the visual appeal. Should i tone it down a bit or at least decrease the lifetime of the FX? On my rig this cut burns for about 25 mins. And i can't fly within 15 meters of the early smoke without the screen being blacked out by the intensity of the smoke...kinda like that huge volcano FX released a few years ago.

OBIO
October 11th, 2008, 07:53
Bearcat

Just got caught up on this thread....I will give your napalm a testing and let you know if I have any frame rate hits that are unacceptable.

Test 1:

T-2 Buckeye (not a frame rate friendly aircraft), armed with 2 Napalm canisters, over stock scenery (Kahili). External view in Free Flight: mid 40s FPS

Zoomed out to have a nice view of the effects: frame rates dropped to the mid to upper 30s.

Dropped the first round of napalm: No frame rate reduction

Dropped second set of napalm: again no FPS reduction;

Began getting into the mountainous region of Kahili and saw frame rates drop into the 20s.

Did 6 more napalm drops and looked back at a line of 8 individual napalm drops (total of 16 napalm canisters and effects): Frame rates were still in the 20's.

Will have to compare this to stock effects later, as I have to take the pup to the vet. The frame rate reduction I experienced was mainly due to A) zooming out from the plane and thus putting more scenery on screen, B) increased complexity of the scenery being drawn (Kahili is very mountainous and I upped the Terrain_Max_thingiejiggy to 21 and increased the detail of the scenery).

My system is a P4 3gig, 2 gig RAM, 512meg video card (can't remember what the card is). All sliders set to max, other than Visibility which is set to 20 miles.

Love the effects! Will look great at night!

OBIO

bearcat241
October 11th, 2008, 09:51
Sounds good Obio...thanks for the update. With a P4 3gig, 2 gig RAM, 512meg vcard you're packing enough power to be crushing higher FPS numbers, with the testing scenarios you've described. I'm maxed out at full scenery sliders also, with a TMV Level=21 as well. But, like you said, it could be the terrain complexity in the test location.

OBIO
October 11th, 2008, 11:06
Sounds good Obio...thanks for the update. With a P4 3gig, 2 gig RAM, 512meg vcard you're packing enough power to be crushing higher FPS numbers, with the testing scenarios you've described. I'm maxed out at full scenery sliders also, with a TMV Level=21 as well. But, like you said, it could be the terrain complexity in the test location.

The T-2 Buckeye I was using is Kirk Ollson's original FS2000 model that I converted over to CFS2....and many of the FS2000 planes I have brought into CFS2 are frame rate hogs. I have gotten far better frame rates with converted FS2002 and FS2004 planes than most of the FS2000 planes.

Will do more testing with other aircraft that I have set up to use napalm: Alpha Sim Super Etandard (very frame rate friendly), Mystere SBM2, Mig-19 and others. Will take notes on frame rates at various stages of each test and will give you a detail analysis as soon as I can. Right now, I am just getting back from the vet clinic (Hazel is showing signs of allergies..most likely to the milk in the puppy chow I feed her...time to get her onto grown up food. She's 10 months, full grown at 7.1 pounds.). And it's just about time to head to the hospital to visit Deb.

OBIO

OBIO
October 11th, 2008, 16:46
Did another test, using the old Alpha Sim Super Etandard that I updated. 5 napalm tanks from the US Modern Weapons Pack. Really had a hard time getting any consistent results because its pretty hard to control a plane doing Mach 1.8 from outside looking backward at the plane. One moment I was at 1000 feet, the next I was at 15,000 feet.

Will set up a much slower prop plane...likely a stocker such as the F4F....so I can have an easier time controlling the plane while watching altitude and frame rates.

OBIO

bearcat241
October 11th, 2008, 18:03
Best to fly low and slow, around 200-250 mph... and fly in HUD view to get the full picture in hindsight.

demorier
October 12th, 2008, 01:14
I'll get to it shortly bear....Bit of a pain at the moment swapping files and hardware between 2 machines.

erufle
October 12th, 2008, 04:59
I dropped 8 of them on a stock pacific island with no scenery in my F-100. I couldn't bring up FPS for some reason but I noticed no slow down. My specs: Intel Core2 Duo CPU T9300, 2.5GHz, L1 Cache 64 KB, L2 6,144; NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS 1280x800 resolution.

I cannot imagine make it any tamer, just lower and wider, if possible. But you still need input from someone with a weaker system.

oldwheat
October 12th, 2008, 10:26
I'm testing when time permits but my PC is running so slow & crappy just now that it's hard to come up with meaningful conclusions.

dvslats
October 12th, 2008, 11:10
First off, let me say that I could not get it to work at first. Problem...delete those cdp files in the Objects Dp folder. Duh..After that was done, everything worked great. No noticeable drops in FR's. "New flak effects by RAF_Mutlly" has a bigger hit on my system's frame rates then this does. Six dropped, lost maybe 4 to 5 on the usual 65 fps for my box. AMDx64 2.3 ghz 1 mb L2, 7950 GT KO 512 mg, 2 Gig ram, 1680 x 1050 res. BTW, the animation in this fx is outstanding. :applause: You have to load it to see it. Screenies don't do it justice.

bearcat241
October 12th, 2008, 12:47
Great shots DV!....glad to hear from you and Erufle on the easy FR hit too. From what i can see in your 1st pic, i should try to add more flaming light splinters and smoke fade-out to the rolling fireball animation, like the real thing, plus what Erufle said about the spread.

In the beginning i started out just curious about increasing the size of the flame, smoke and duration of the after-blast fires. But the animation for the characteristic 'rolling' fireball intrigued me and soon consumed most of my effort. And i'm not happy yet...

I've been wanting to make time for this little project for years. My main motivation for wanting to look into this has been for use in late WW2-PTO and my Korea/Vietnam install, where these types of weaps were used more frequently with devastating returns. But like many of you, i was never satisfied with what's been generally available up to this point. Old Wheat's inquiry by this thread just lit a fire under me, pardon my pun. Thanks OW...:d

And a special thanks to Nanni and Blade for showing the way :icon29:

PS------you're right about deleting the CDP's first. I forgot this because my test location was MR's non-destructible Iwo Jima bases and the dp's of the non-GSL scenery objects are not activated by the sim, so their existing CDP's didn't have an effect in my case.

OBIO
October 12th, 2008, 13:27
DId another test run, again in the AS Super Etandard...this time with full flaps, dive breaks, a power rolled back. Was able to maintain a steady flight at 300 knots! Have the plane set up with 5 napalm canisters. Free Flgiht, external view, no weapons drop: Frame rates in the 180 range. Dropped 5 napalms from 750 feet and frames dropped 10 FPS.

THe earlier test, the one with the Buckeye and the low frame rates: I had my sim in full screen mode...and that lowers my max frame rates to 77fps due to my LCD monitor. DUH! Ran the same test in Window mode and frame rates were double...still lower than the Super Etandard due to the Buckeye not being a frame rate friendly.

OBIO

bearcat241
October 12th, 2008, 14:19
Rgr on the model choices and the selected screen viewing modes Obio - definite factors in judging effects. I have a CRT monitor and run all of my sims and games in full screen mode 98% of the time, unless i get a rare and sudden mood to do otherwise.

Also, i should have mentioned earlier that i deliberately chose the stock Corsair model for delivery to minimize the FR hit due to a/c choices.

demorier
October 12th, 2008, 19:13
Tried the Napalm with pretty much no noticable frame rate drop from the usual on my old clunker. I usually have the terrain, detail and effects settings about at three quarter mark. Dropped 2 tanks together on some buildings....didn't get any of that "rolling flame" effect mentioned. Just the fire explosion. The flame looks real good I think and duration is a lot better than older attempts. Smoke looks good, but because it doesn't pile up and spread out for miles is probably why the frame rates are holding good. Best effort I've seen so far....wish the flame could throw across the ground some more but.

demorier
October 12th, 2008, 23:35
You may be way past some of this stuff. None of it was written by me, but was freely available to those interested quite a while ago. Happy headaches.

bearcat241
October 13th, 2008, 04:38
Thanks Demorier...i already have the second one, but the first is something i haven't seen before...very useful. :)

bearcat241
October 13th, 2008, 11:41
Gettin' closer to my likin'....:d

Initial blast - starts as a rolling fireball and quickly darkens into a low-lying, boiling black cloud of smoke which then disappears.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/bearcat241/Demo%20shots/0003.jpg

****************

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/bearcat241/Demo%20shots/0002.jpg

****************

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v85/bearcat241/Demo%20shots/0001.jpg

demorier
October 13th, 2008, 17:36
I'd like to try some more of it when YOU are happier with it.:mixedsmi:

Ravenna
October 13th, 2008, 18:29
What a difference this makes...not just with napalm but with small bombs (which bacome mapalm by default). With the OH Lightning my FRs were around the low to mid 30s. With Akemi's new Ki-45 the FRs were in the high 20s to low 30s. Good stuff BC!

bearcat241
October 15th, 2008, 06:27
Looks like you found the handle Mike...good show! :wavey: Did you locate the source of that problem as well?

dvslats
October 15th, 2008, 17:37
That second pic in post #57....nice transition. :redfire:

demorier
October 15th, 2008, 18:01
Fiddling with it some more. Trying a patchup job with large bomb effect on buildings. Nearly got it working, but not there yet. Trying to throw the flame around some more with the hitpoints so nearby objects catch on fire as well.

demorier
October 15th, 2008, 23:41
Nearly got something sorted. May have overdone it a bit here. Droppped weapon in line with buildings.

bearcat241
October 16th, 2008, 04:33
Hmmm...Looks like you've been at some serious tinkering with the FX Demorier...the smoke looks OK, but i don't recall seeing that kinda color separation in the flame, and the flame offsets look odd in your shot angle. Looks like the flame is extending into the ground below the impact points.

demorier
October 16th, 2008, 22:03
It's an attempt at getting the napalm explosion to destroy/set fire to something other than just ground. Can I ask what is the specific relationship between weapon type 1 (small bomb) and small ground explosion effect. It would be good to be able to use eg. a medium or large type 2 or 3 bomb for this job, but the napalm effect doesn't register.
I know this stuff nearly sent me nuts several years ago.

bearcat241
October 16th, 2008, 22:07
...Can I ask what is the specific relationship between weapon type 1 (small bomb) and small ground explosion effect. It would be good to be able to use eg. a medium or large type 2 or 3 bomb for this job, but the napalm effect doesn't register....

Dude :icon_lol:...that's already been covered in so many previous posts here...read the ENTIRE thread :d

demorier
October 16th, 2008, 22:54
It's happening again :isadizzy:

oldwheat
October 21st, 2008, 08:21
New thread / same subject. BC, et.all, how is this progressing?

bearcat241
October 21st, 2008, 09:29
Check the other thread...

bearcat241
October 21st, 2008, 09:30
Ummm...sorry fellas...i got a bit distracted with other simultaneous projects. :redf: LOL

I'll just upload what i've done so far and update it over time as i improve it.