Outerra forum
Outerra Engine => Development screen shots and videos => Topic started by: petitfilou on November 03, 2011, 07:16:28 pm
-
With Cameni and Angrypig's permission, here's a video of the beta, having fun with the recording feature in Outerra and editing in Premiere. There's no post process. Everything is straight out of the engine. Hope you'll enjoy it. Cheers. Outerra Chillout (http://vimeo.com/31560308)
-
+1000!
Excellent production quality, and one heck of a good choice for a sound track. That's Karl Jenkin's, correct? Was a fan of that album, if it's the one I think it is.
Kind of interesting that you chose it too ... it was one I had been recently considering for the 2011 Retrospective Video.
Will be sending you a PM shortly ... got a question for you.
-
Wow!
Epic:
- terrain detail
- waves
- water
Not so epic :)
- aircraft self shadows
Anyway, both video and outerra is simply incredible :)
-
Probably one of the most beautiful videos I've seen captured from a game engine! :)
Extremely fitting song!
-
The amount of editing to not show any of the normal bugs must have been tremendous. I feel like making the polar opposite of this video to the benny hill theme. Just Towers of land in the ocean and falling trough the earth in a tatra. I assume he is on an Nvidia which would help him out a bit.
-
The amount of editing to not show any of the normal bugs must have been tremendous. I feel like making the polar opposite of this video to the benny hill theme. Just Towers of land in the ocean and falling trough the earth in a tatra. I assume he is on an Nvidia which would help him out a bit.
You remind me of someone in my current job as a Forum Community Liaison who's been a thorn in my side since I first started lol. Why I made him a Valued Community Member I'll never understand :p
*cough* ATI sucks *cough*
-
Nice video. 8)
-
Hey all, thanks for the comments.
C. Shawn Smith - Yes, I think it is from Karl Jenkins. I feel bad now, sorry you wanted to use it for the 2011 video. :(
ZeosPantera - I'm on Nvidia, and I do get bugs, just maybe not to the Ati standard ;) Actually, my pc is pretty old by todays benchmark. I got an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.17Ghz 8gig Ram Win7 64x Nvidia GTS 250 512mb. So definitely not top of the range here. I get smooth framerate everywhere with a drop near Fractapolis and its crowded area.
ldmytro - I don't know why the self shadows are like that on the plane (I do have shadow map size at 4096), Angrypig's videos seem to display them better. I know that I don't have Outerra set to the max settings. Antialiasing could be increased, etc.
Cheers
-
Awesome
-
It's interesting to note, if you look VERY closely at the valleys in this video and others previously posted, that the natural rivers are easily visible, even if there's no water there. It was one of the first things I noticed when I started testing Outerra. You can call up the Google maps, and literally follow all the tributaries etc.
To me, that alone speaks an amazing volume of conversation to the Outerra engine. You can see this stuff, just itching to be included. Forget the clouds and environments ... to see the Mississippi or Colorado rivers flowing, despite them not currently being in the engine, is amazing. They are there.
-
ldmytro - I don't know why the self shadows are like that on the plane (I do have shadow map size at 4096), Angrypig's videos seem to display them better. I know that I don't have Outerra set to the max settings. Antialiasing could be increased, etc.
Pig says it's nothing to do with shadows, but the material shader that he touched a while back while debugging something, and then forgot to return back.
We'll release a patch, at least we can check if the patch system works. I'm actually expecting some issues on different Windows versions that we didn't test.
-
It's interesting to note, if you look VERY closely at the valleys in this video and others previously posted, that the natural rivers are easily visible, even if there's no water there. It was one of the first things I noticed when I started testing Outerra. You can call up the Google maps, and literally follow all the tributaries etc.
To me, that alone speaks an amazing volume of conversation to the Outerra engine. You can see this stuff, just itching to be included. Forget the clouds and environments ... to see the Mississippi or Colorado rivers flowing, despite them not currently being in the engine, is amazing. They are there.
Funny you mentionned that, as a while ago, I was curious to see how my home village and area I used to live in Switzerland looked in Outerra. And it's on a lakeside, obviously like you said, missing the lake and rivers. But I was getting the same views, and feel as being there. Even without final textures. It was kinda "disturbing" in a good way. ;D
Cameni - Glad to hear that. :)
-
It's interesting to note, if you look VERY closely at the valleys in this video and others previously posted, that the natural rivers are easily visible, even if there's no water there. It was one of the first things I noticed when I started testing Outerra. You can call up the Google maps, and literally follow all the tributaries etc.
To me, that alone speaks an amazing volume of conversation to the Outerra engine. You can see this stuff, just itching to be included. Forget the clouds and environments ... to see the Mississippi or Colorado rivers flowing, despite them not currently being in the engine, is amazing. They are there.
Funny you mentionned that, as a while ago, I was curious to see how my home village and area I used to live in Switzerland looked in Outerra. And it's on a lakeside, obviously like you said, missing the lake and rivers. But I was getting the same views, and feel as being there. Even without final textures. It was kinda "disturbing" in a good way. ;D
Cameni - Glad to hear that. :)
I get the same thing where I live, which is more or less Flatland. But you can still see it, and it literally sends chills up and down my spine, seeing the possibilities. Cameni and Angrypig have a HUGE gap to fill there, but seeing what I've seen so far, I have no doubt they can accomplish it. :) I know for a fact the first time I see Lake Lewisville, or the Colorado River (let alone half a dozen other rivers in the world), I'm going to cry like a baby. And when they add clouds??? I'm going to need professional therapy sessions.
-
Hey all, thanks for the comments.
C. Shawn Smith - Yes, I think it is from Karl Jenkins. I feel bad now, sorry you wanted to use it for the 2011 video. :(
ZeosPantera - I'm on Nvidia, and I do get bugs, just maybe not to the Ati standard ;) Actually, my pc is pretty old by todays benchmark. I got an Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 3.17Ghz 8gig Ram Win7 64x Nvidia GTS 250 512mb. So definately not top of the range here. I get smooth framerate everywhere with a drop near Fractapolis and its crowded area.
ldmytro - I don't know why the self shadows are like that on the plane (I do have shadow map size at 4096), Angrypig's videos seem to display them better. I know that I don't have Outerra set to the max settings. Antialiasing could be increased, etc.
Cheers
GTS250? And it runs THAT smooth and detailed? Oh. My. God. Can't imagine how good it will run on my GTX 480 SLI system.
Cameni and Angripig - what you did is a miracle. :)
Sigh, I wish I was included in testers team... As a software developer myself I think I would be able to provide you with feedback you need. But alas - I had to be way more active here during this year. :)
-
Nice Video with lovely well chosen music, some of the scenes were breathtaking (mountain peaks & beach) but the aircraft motion is all wrong, kind of plastic toy... difficult to explain what I mean by that.
-
kind of plastic toy... difficult to explain what I mean by that.
I see it.
Great video, loved the mountain scenes the most.
-
Nice Video with lovely well chosen music, some of the scenes were breathtaking (mountain peaks & beach) but the aircraft motion is all wrong, kind of plastic toy... difficult to explain what I mean by that.
Somebody should try. Is it because of the missing turbulence that one would expect in mountains, or what it is?
-
Could be my erratic flying trying to juggle the joypad with one hand and the mouse with the other. :o ;D
I guess without weather system, wind currents, friction, resistance, etc. the plane flies within an empty shell.
-
Hi, Guys!
Very good video of the Outerra Beta!! Looking good!!
Cheers,
Vincent
-
Nice Video with lovely well chosen music, some of the scenes were breathtaking (mountain peaks & beach) but the aircraft motion is all wrong, kind of plastic toy... difficult to explain what I mean by that.
Somebody should try. Is it because of the missing turbulence that one would expect in mountains, or what it is?
I think it is all just down to the speed of the control surfaces. In real life if you told someone to rock the flaps back and forth to full excursion it would take twice the time it does in-game due to all the real life resistance and control movement required.
-
The speed is ok. The wind resistance no, like I said in my previous post
-
I think it's also effected by the camera. Some games have an active camera, meaning it's not fixed but moving with the aircraft but on a damper delay. Hard to explain.
-
You mean the g (gravity) effects in the cockpit like in dcs a-10 where you can active them or not in misc menu ? Without it feels realistic anyway, it's not that heavy if outerra hasn't got.
-
Nice Video with lovely well chosen music, some of the scenes were breathtaking (mountain peaks & beach) but the aircraft motion is all wrong, kind of plastic toy... difficult to explain what I mean by that.
Somebody should try. Is it because of the missing turbulence that one would expect in mountains, or what it is?
There also aren't the strips of wind. When wings cut wind they make white strips, can you understand ? Just take a look at videos of flight simulator or dcs a-10c and you'll understand. Also, when you go slow and turn too fast, the plane should unbalance. If you need tips contact me, I love flying choppers and jets.
EDIT: example at 2.02 of the video
EDIT2: AT 2.41 the plane should make the water move at that low altidude, because of the wind it moves.
Means the "Joule-Thompson effect" - actually the principle of any gas-cooling system ... when an compressed air flows trough a small space to an enviroment whyte much lower pressure, the temparature is dropping. By planes, it occurs at edges during hi-maneuvers, when part of the under wings pressured volume of air escapes it from the side or front edges/tips ... its such an temparature drop, that the airhumidity goes back to liquid form making such clowd/fog strips. (Dont be messed whyte airshows-mostly they use fog-dispenzers to make it graphically nicer trought all the turbuence around the airframe| ...
(http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/4706/81237179.85/0_63676_8af57b90_XXL.jpg)
Thats the real one. Notice the little one on the right-wing at the middle of the front-flap too. Normally they are catched at the wingtips, mostly at high altitudes-speeds where the sorounding temparature needs a slightly lower temparature drop to reach the boiling point of water (So at Everest you need a lower temparature to boil water for tee due to lower atmosprere pressure : D| Its also the reason of the interesting look of sound-barier breach, and/orr for problems whyte freezing of the wings, why the ice is staying at the wings making an problem to the performance of aircraft - can see on airfields sometimes how they dispose of them after landing.
-
At low speeds you do NOT have any strips of condensed water anywhere on the plane.
Furthermore, flaps in big airplanes take long to extend. In the plane i fly flaps 10 is i think 2 to 3 seconds. then to flaps 40 is another 4 seconds. Extension of flaps is fast.
I do not have a joystick around here to test the airplane in outerra. Sad, because i would be able to check if the 'feeling' is allright.
Just watched the video and indeed rolling and yawing of the plane seems to be wrong. Can it be that in rolling of the airplane it is not taken into account that lift decreases? It seems like that. furthermore: Yawing causes rolling and the other way around. It seems like this is also not happening in outerra.
If i roll to the left, i will also generate a yawing motion to the right, even without rudders.
Also: when i apply right rudder it also comes with an right rolling motion.
-
At low speeds you do NOT have any strips of condensed water anywhere on the plane.
Furthermore, flaps in big airplanes take long to extend. In the plane i fly flaps 10 is i think 2 to 3 seconds. then to flaps 40 is another 4 seconds. Extension of flaps is fast.
I do not have a joystick around here to test the airplane in outerra. Sad, because i would be able to check if the 'feeling' is allright.
Just watched the video and indeed rolling and yawing of the plane seems to be wrong. Can it be that in rolling of the airplane it is not taken into account that lift decreases? It seems like that. furthermore: Yawing causes rolling and the other way around. It seems like this is also not happening in outerra.
If i roll to the left, i will also generate a yawing motion to the right, even without rudders.
Also: when i apply right rudder it also comes with an right rolling motion.
2 things I can tell back:
1) whoever said at low speeds you have strips ?
2) without testing none can tell about the roll, because he didn't show any (important) rolling.
-
Well true, need a really fast plane to hawe some stripps :D And it would be really iteresting to see all the flight-pref., Cameni and co. surelly used some flight data for the cesna, but the engine testing reason was the thing in it, so I would not expect it to be a "sim" already :D ... such a full-clic cockpit in an hi-sidewind landing at an enginefailure will be a muss in Outerra and I sure am willing to wait it up. No reason to hurry and stress them into it. Lets let them measure twice before cutting to not wait for a bunch of fixes because of us ::) ...
But, back to the video - awesome work to time Outerra Team ! 8) The beach fly-by was really imposant, like the look of the shorewater. Just keep up doing this great job of yours, we all holding some thumbs up for you ! ;)
-
Nice Video with lovely well chosen music, some of the scenes were breathtaking (mountain peaks & beach) but the aircraft motion is all wrong, kind of plastic toy... difficult to explain what I mean by that.
Somebody should try. Is it because of the missing turbulence that one would expect in mountains, or what it is?
There also aren't the strips of wind. When wings cut wind they make white strips, can you understand ? Just take a look at videos of flight simulator or dcs a-10c and you'll understand. Also, when you go slow and turn too fast, the plane should unbalance. If you need tips contact me, I love flying choppers and jets.
EDIT: example at 2.02 of the video
EDIT2: AT 2.41 the plane should make the water move at that low altidude, because of the wind it moves.
You say it here.
If i see the motion in the video's the thing that i see is that the plane moves around it's axis but there seems to be little influence.
For example: if you turn you have to increase your angle of attack to not descend. I dont see that here. Aircraft rolls and maintains speed and altitude, this is impossible.
View from the cockpit is actually kind of good!
And dont start me on a/c theory or how an aircraft should 'feel'. Flight simulator is nothing like the real thing.
-
Its just an presentation to a book, still has a buch of problems in math.-terms free to get from the net :
http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lectures.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lectures.html)
I think, for the debate, the 16, 19, 20 and 23 lectures are the ones to be worth looking at in detail. But all of them are really interesting. ... hope it helps a little.
As for te book : Robert F. Stengel-Aircraft Flight Dynamics
... pilots have a lot of math to do too. Getting it to a intuition level is actually the point of it, so they can fastly assume and correct effects in-flight.
-
Well, whatever the behavior is or should be, it ought to be addressed to JSBSim that does the simulation. Though it's entirely possible that we are using a wrong physics model, or not enabling what we should. In any case, this can get fixed when some JSBSim people get their hands on it.
-
Its just an presentation to a book, still has a buch of problems in math.-terms free to get from the net :
http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lectures.html (http://www.princeton.edu/~stengel/MAE331Lectures.html)
I think, for the debate, the 16, 19, 20 and 23 lectures are the ones to be worth looking at in detail. But all of them are really interesting. ... hope it helps a little.
As for te book : Robert F. Stengel-Aircraft Flight Dynamics
... pilots have a lot of math to do too. Getting it to a intuition level is actually the point of it, so they can fastly assume and correct effects in-flight.
It's not thát much ;). The most difficult thing is calculating holding procedures, and that involves only a sinus/cosinus and some multiplications!
It's not that hard!
-
Interesting post about a developer of flight model:
http://www.hoofsperformance.wwiionline.com/flight_model_details.htm (http://www.hoofsperformance.wwiionline.com/flight_model_details.htm)
This flight model was unfinished and limited to the hardware available at year 1999... with current hardware it can be improved a lot.
[...]
The numerical integrator used in WW2OL (at least the one it had when I left the company four years ago) is a 2nd order Trapezoid rule integrator. A common integrator used in scientific applications is a Runge Kutta 4th order integrator. This yields good accuracy, but has a major drawback: it requires several derivatives per timestep. Due to a number of reasons, the WW2OL flight model had a very expensive (in CPU time) derivatives calculation routine. In English, the forces and torques calculation is very expensive (especially when a vehicle has 30+ components). We achieved a rate of 50 cycles per second for the flight model loop for the target computer of the time, meaning that the maximum timesteps the flight model could use using a 4th order Runge Kutta integrator would be 12.5. Obviously waiting for 1/12.5th of a second before seeing responses to your control stick inputs would be unacceptable (imagine seeing a movie at 12.5 frames per second), so an integrator was needed that didn't require as many intermediate steps. Ideally, an integrator that used only one derivative per timestep would maximize the responsiveness of the flight model to user input, however, the fewer timesteps determined, the lower the order of the integrator, and worse the results. An implicit numerical integrator called the Trapezoid rule uses the last and current derivative in order to improve the accuracy of the integration while limiting the number of derivatives needed to one per timestep (it actually uses two, the second is from the last timestep). This gives better accuracy (the technical term is a higher order truncation error) than the typical 1st order Euler integrator that also used only one derivative calculation per timestep (not to be confused with Euler's equations of Motion).
An example of a simple integrator (Euler integrator in this case) is to take the derivative and multiply it by the timestep to get a change in the variable. Say you're updating an airplane's position and you have it's current velocity. Multiply the velocity by the timestep, then add the result to the position. You now have a new position. This computed position is only an approximation of the actual result if the change was continuous. Higher order integrators reduce the error and more closely represent a continuous situation (such as real life). In addition, smaller timesteps also improve the accuracy of the integration.
The flight model runs at a rate of 50 cycles per second, with a time propagation of 50 timesteps per second. This means the flight model works exactly the same regardless of machine or frame rate. In order to produce a smooth visual effect, and to determine exact position and orientation on each render frame, the position and orientation of the vehicle is interpolated between the last computed state vector (last flight model cycle), and the current time. This principal is similar to how the smoothing code interpolates between updates received from the host on another vehicle's position/orientation (which is at best, three to four updates per second and can be as low as one update every two seconds). This means you can fly by a target at 20fps, 50fps, 85fps, or whatever the current frame rate and the view looks smooth (as smooth as the frame rate). However, the flight model is only updated at 50hz, meaning it's average response time is 1/100th of a second and can be as low as 1/50th of a second if you get unlucky, but this means it has that response time even at frame rates lower than 50hz.
[...]
-
C´mon guys ! ... we want some Outerra videos and photos to be seen. That stuff can be settled in PM´s and by a "cup" of beer ;D. Cameni, i just thought, it would be nice to see some of our birth-place screenshots (in the screenshot thread that is, and if it doesnt be a timepresser of course|, like Namestovo city space whyte the look catching the dam. Must be an interesting look to see the terrain before it was flooded after the 2.W war ... at the Orava castle is an great plastic-map from 1906 (if im remembering it right, is about 1, x 1,2 m big| i liked to look at that certain place, and the towns that must have been deserted.
-
I moved the infected part of this thread to offtopic, so some people can learn how to explain things in a simple, effective, polite way there. Or not.
Anyways ..
C´mon guys ! ... we want some Outerra videos and photos to be seen. That stuff can be settled in PM´s and by a "cup" of beer ;D. Cameni, i just thought, it would be nice to see some of our birth-place screenshots (in the screenshot thread that is, and if it doesnt be a timepresser of course|, like Namestovo city space whyte the look catching the dam. Must be an interesting look to see the terrain before it was flooded after the 2.W war ... at the Orava castle is an great platic-map from 1906 (if im remembering it right, is about 1, x 1,2 m big| i liked to look at that certain place, and the towns that must have been deserted.
The problem is that we don't have satellite data from that period :)
With lakes not yet supported, the terrain is flat there. I'm was thinking about some algorithms that would create the lake beds out of the available data, though it's going to be random. Or have people submitting the data for their regions, produced from old maps.
-
Well ... so then. Must hawe been some nivelation screening of the terrain for the dam-building. Maybe there will be some data on that in some Oravan archives ... will try find some if possible.
-
Ok someone didn't understand what I said but anyway...
I was meaning to the time 2.03 of the video where he does a loop and entering stall. So I said "ok let's get a proof" and here you go.
Spinning in a cessna 152 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN5YNxeELp0#ws)
Cessna 152 Spin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0QO6jszwCc#)
You can easily stall with the cessna and here is the proof.
P.S. you said too the speeds were low, so now don't contradict yourself please ;)
-
Speed has nothing to do with an aircraft stalling. It is all about angle of attack, which has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with speed!
And yes this are stalls that are not corrected properly (opposite rudder, lower nose, apply power).
-
Speed has nothing to do with an aircraft stalling. It is all about angle of attack, which has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with speed!
And yes this are stalls that are not corrected properly (opposite rudder, lower nose, apply power).
Nothing ? I can't approve.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight))
-
Stalls are 100% angle of attack - the whole wing need not stall at once and it is usual that the designer will induce the root to stall first (rectangular wings particularly, but semi-tapered wings to some extent). Twist can be used to allow this desirable characteristic in elliptical wings, but this is at the expense of their marginally better induced drag in the untwisted condition.
Even an aircraft that 'cannot' be stalled (because of inadequate pitch authority), will do so if it is zoomed to a steep attitude and held there. If this is insufficient, then applying crossed rudder and aileron will normally induce a spin, which is an auto-rotative spin where MOI may hold the nose up.
A benign aircraft will usually unstall and exit a spin by itself (or at worst with moderate control movements in the correct directions for the aircraft arrangement (aerodynamic and mass distribution)).
-
Sure, the angle of attack is the major thing bringing a plane to a stall.
BUT, the slower you fly, the faster this will happen.
If you fly fast enough and have plenty of power in the rear, you will never get a plane to stall.
So, speed IS a part of getting a plane into stall.
Speed has nothing to do with an aircraft stalling. It is all about angle of attack, which has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with speed!
And yes this are stalls that are not corrected properly (opposite rudder, lower nose, apply power).
-
At a given apparent weight (ie mass x g load) the stalling AOA and stalling speed are nearly constant (ignoring hysterysis and rapid onset variations)
However, as an aircraft can fly at varying mass (payload/fuel/structural/equipment) according to configuration, and it manoeuvres almost entirely by altering the g-load (by changing the AOA) it can be seen that stalling speed will vary enormously (a 6g capable airframe with a 50% useful load will have a range of stalling speeds with a factor of 3 (ie 100KIAS and 300KIAS) - It will probably not be capable of much more than 6g at low weights, even if it remains capable at nominal MTO, as many fittings (eg equipment, engines, fuel tanks and lines, pilot seat, instruments are only mounted to '6g' (plus the usual safety factors) mountings.) By comparison, the AOA at which airflow separates will be nearly constant - the character of the stall will usually be sharper and with more buffet and rates after the break when loaded to above 1g, but the orientation or load/airspeed will have little difference to 'when' the aircraft stalls. (Ie you can stall while diving vertically, if the AOA increases too much during a pull-out manoeuvre.
-
That is truly amazing. I would love to see working dials, rain, clouds, and tunnels. :D
-
Well, whatever the behavior is or should be, it ought to be addressed to JSBSim that does the simulation. Though it's entirely possible that we are using a wrong physics model, or not enabling what we should. In any case, this can get fixed when some JSBSim people get their hands on it.
I will first offer my appologies to the Outerra Team because having made a negative comment about the apparent motion prtrayed in this video I failed to clarify my remark with any explanation and that is not a fair or responsible thing to do. I have not followed this as closely as I should have as I was distracted by the arrival of my first grandson into the world and the installation of my new PC into my dedicated flight cockpit replica.
I have now re-watched and thought carefully about the apparently strange motions of the aircraft shown in this otherwise brilliant video.
The problem with it boils down to two issues, 1st is :- camera behaviour ... the camera is positioned in a tethered state but the tether is clearly perfectly fixed in space when in reality it is almost impossible to maintain a perfectly fixed reletive camera position on an object in flight, there should allways be RELETIVE MOTION betwee two objects in flight.
2nd issue is :- Aircraft centre of mass pivot point, whenever the aircraft was changing attitude in pich or roll it was painfully clear that this motion was occuring around a fixed unmoving point in space (presumed to be the aircrafts centre of mass). Such a crude movement contradicts what all pilots know to be true, that the aircrafts motion while loosely acting around its centre of mass is greatly variable because of the effects of inertia and aerodynamic forces, (in short the fixed pivot point that the aircraft is revovlving around is wrong) and is instantly recognised by any pilot as completely counter to their experience.
I hope this attempt to clarify my comment is usefull and please accept my regrets at not having written this up before.
-
What I find important in this project is that this is the first engine to my mind that demonstrably replicates in some part the true beauty of the natural world. In that respect Outerra is a revolutionary feat (specifically around 1:20). Some of the scenes in this film make hairs stand up on that back of my neck. Truly amazing stuff.
-
Interesting post about a developer of flight model:
http://www.hoofsperformance.wwiionline.com/flight_model_details.htm (http://www.hoofsperformance.wwiionline.com/flight_model_details.htm)
This flight model was unfinished and limited to the hardware available at year 1999... with current hardware it can be improved a lot.
The numerical integrator used in WW2OL
W/o reading this full thread and only roughly your quote:
The quoted text is about the choice of integrator to solve the differential equations of the flight model.
You can either study maths (especially the dicipline numerics) to figure out the best integration method for the special type of probelm you've got.
Or take the easy approach: as long as you aren't leaving the stability region it doesn't really matter. Especially as we have the big constraint of doing it in real time we are bound by a explicit method with a fixed step size. So just use an Euler1. That's how the whole engineering world is doing it.
And if you figure out that the current problem doesn't fit for an Euler1 you can still figure out ways to get around it (e.g. by embedding an implicit solution in the explicit solver).
As JSBSim has much more useage than Outerra you can be sure that if such a problem would pop out, it's seen somewhere else first and then solved...
And one more point: the flight dynamics are a real simple set of differential equations. The hardware of 1999 could easily handle those... The biggest difference in the "old" and the current hardware is a explosion in graphics capabilities. And the advancement of CPU could be used for AI.
-
While the 'flight equations' are really simple, they also lead to 'canned' effects as noted by the original comment.
There are several methods that can be used to improve this somewhat - I once upon a time used external pre-processing of the aerodata to emulate the 3d flowfield around a Bf109F4, with the slat/flap/tail interaction and downwash contributions at the tail to correct the output from a "simple" flat-plate, multi-element simulation, and the behaviour near to the stall and in bunts was enormously (albeit subtly) improved... but it was a bear finding the appropriate modifications to align the output from the simulator to those from the engineering data/formulae.
To actually do it 'properly' wasn't possible in real-time, and even now might be all that a mid-range PC can do (and that in a still-simplified mode).
-
JSBSim is using lookup tables for the stability derivates. Those should already contain all required data for the realistic result in little calculation time.
Obtaining the stability derivates on the other hand can be a very tedious job. Either you need a wind tunnel or lots of processing power. Nothing for a real time application. (Modern GPUs might change that, though)
-
The problem is that we don't have satellite data from that period :)
With lakes not yet supported, the terrain is flat there. I'm was thinking about some algorithms that would create the lake beds out of the available data, though it's going to be random. Or have people submitting the data for their regions, produced from old maps.
... Cameni, seems SHMU wont for some reason give away their data out of schoolar projects ... anyway, the regional authorities may have some out for us, so I would like to ask about known/reported lakes, streams and dams out of our Orava one, that have no data in outerra out of SR. Will write them to make us those available in any usable form, so i would ask right for all of them at once ...
And just for my interests: What strategy will you in future try to apply for river streams? Just making another material-layer whyte predefined borders on the map, or making something "hi-soft" like making the water find its way to the low-ground, witch would make it find itself their position (height gradient oriented and adjusted to their constant(or combined|-flow/actual-areaprofile ratio | for any change in the terrain profile for the map-editor ?
-
Simulating water flow for the whole world would be a demanding task, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to the same state of the world as we know it now, because of the limited resolution of elevation and precipitation data, and because of complete lack of historical data for such simulation. Since the elevations we've got are computed from the lengths of the reflected rays from satellites, and the rays happily reflect from water surfaces, we don't have the river beds there. So, the end result would be quite different.
Our plan is to use a vector database for the main rivers, but a kind of simulation might be employed for small streams for which there are no readily available vector data, but that can be inferred from the terrain itself. Running the simulation on a smaller scale, basically just by identifying the drainage basins of the smallest rivers from the vector dataset and simulating the flow on them separately might just work.
It's also something that we would like to do for a planet designer, where you start with a planet by outlining the continents, mountain ranges and arterial rivers, and fractal-driven algorithms would refine it into details. Unlike the main rivers, course of which largely depends on initial chances and weather during the ages when they formed, small rivers better follow the simple downhill flow rules. So while you could largely affect and determine the course of a large river, small rivers will flow as they must, or else you would also carve the mountains anew.
-
Simulating water flow for the whole world would be a demanding task, and it wouldn't necessarily lead to the same state of the world as we know it now, because of the limited resolution of elevation and precipitation data, and because of complete lack of historical data for such simulation. Since the elevations we've got are computed from the lengths of the reflected rays from satellites, and the rays happily reflect from water surfaces, we don't have the river beds there. So, the end result would be quite different.
Our plan is to use a vector database for the main rivers, but a kind of simulation might be employed for small streams for which there are no readily available vector data, but that can be inferred from the terrain itself. Running the simulation on a smaller scale, basically just by identifying the drainage basins of the smallest rivers from the vector dataset and simulating the flow on them separately might just work.
It's also something that we would like to do for a planet designer, where you start with a planet by outlining the continents, mountain ranges and arterial rivers, and fractal-driven algorithms would refine it into details. Unlike the main rivers, course of which largely depends on initial chances and weather during the ages when they formed, small rivers better follow the simple downhill flow rules. So while you could largely affect and determine the course of a large river, small rivers will flow as they must, or else you would also carve the mountains anew.
Can something like this http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/game-programming/polygon-map-generation/ (http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~amitp/game-programming/polygon-map-generation/) method be use for generating rivers in Outerra?
-
Maybe outside of Outerra, in the preparation phase. The engine will take the resulting vector data of generated rivers.
-
Also, I saw that you said something about realtime destructible terrain, right?
Can we expect this feature in upcoming demo thingy? (I know it's a very slim chance, if not impossible, but you know...)
Because I want to tear down Himalayas and bring it to Tatra! You would like to do so, too, if you was on my place.
-
Also, I saw that you said something about realtime destructible terrain, right?
Can we expect this feature in upcoming demo thingy? (I know it's a very slim chance, if not impossible, but you know...)
Pretty sure the terrain destruction thing will include tracks left behind by the tatra on soft surfaces and craters from explosions. We had discussed things like digging holes and moving dirt and it is possible but likely unnecessary at this point of the game.
-
No, the demo will be just for exploration. Destructible terrain will come later to the game, in sandbox mode.
Of course, not for moving the whole mountains :)
-
No, the demo will be just for exploration. Destructible terrain will come later to the game, in sandbox mode.
Of course, not for moving the whole mountains :)
Yes yes better than frostbite I hope :>
-
lol ::)
-
Of course, not for moving the whole mountains :)
**sound of disappointment**
But maybe in some game made in future? Uberdark-esque...
Anyways...
-
I can't quite imagine the machine that would be able to move the mountains .. not even thinking about how it would deform the continental plates and render the continents unstable for ages :)
-
Well, but I guess that we could be able to tunnel mountains out pretty much at least...
(I want to have a straight tunnel from Poland to some eastern Russia. Why? Because I would be able to do so.)
-
I can't quite imagine the machine that would be able to move the mountains ..
(http://wstoollibrary.org/files/2011/09/Shovel-pic.jpg)
This will do. This and a bit of time. That is what he meant. No-one is asking for the mountains to move in an instant. But if some crazy bastard wanted to. They could get a shovel and try.
-
It's the only shovel you get. If you break it, that's it.
-
I can't quite imagine the machine that would be able to move the mountains ..
(http://wstoollibrary.org/files/2011/09/Shovel-pic.jpg)
This will do. This and a bit of time. That is what he meant. No-one is asking for the mountains to move in an instant. But if some crazy bastard wanted to. They could get a shovel and try.
I am a crazy bastard and I'll do it :>
-
1,000 AI slaves with shovels.. No, this will not do.
1,000 Human players with shovels digging me a mountain pass so my gold train can move through them much more efficiently.
"Back Breaking Labor Simulator 2012"
-
"Back Breaking Labor Simulator 2012"
Possibly best sim idea since Street Cleaning Simulator
http://www.excalibur-publishing.com/streetcleaning.htm (http://www.excalibur-publishing.com/streetcleaning.htm)
-
Possibly best sim idea since Street Cleaning Simulator
Now when people on reddit argue with me that nobody needs the whole world as a game. And I argue people want to do real world things. I can prove it with the existence of that.
Want to be a commando? Fine.. but Hanz over there wants to clean the streets in outerra.. and Iincyo wants to drive buses http://www.simshack.net/product_info.php?products_id=305 (http://www.simshack.net/product_info.php?products_id=305) and Billy Bob wants to work on a farm http://www.amazon.com/Farming-Simulator-2011-Platinum-PC-DVD/dp/B005YB8I4K (http://www.amazon.com/Farming-Simulator-2011-Platinum-PC-DVD/dp/B005YB8I4K)
WOW.. A garbage truck sim http://www.excalibur-publishing.com/games_sims.htm (http://www.excalibur-publishing.com/games_sims.htm)
-
You didn't already know about those? :o
(http://cdn.pimpmyspace.org/media/pms/c/pw/q3/6l/mated_fire.gif)
-
You didn't already know about those? :o
Of course I did. But who would want to admit that.
-
Now when people on reddit argue with me that nobody needs the whole world as a game. And I argue people want to do real world things. I can prove it with the existence of that.
I guess you are right.
Maybe no gamer needs the whole world as a game yet. Military organizations, meteorologists, sim people etc. could utilize it I suppose.
For games, the hard part after the hard part of creating the entire Earth will probably be filling it with content.
-
I can't quite imagine the machine that would be able to move the mountains ..
(http://wstoollibrary.org/files/2011/09/Shovel-pic.jpg)
This will do. This and a bit of time. That is what he meant. No-one is asking for the mountains to move in an instant. But if some crazy bastard wanted to. They could get a shovel and try.
^This^
Also
(http://historicism.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/4632pickaxe.jpg)
that thing
(http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVKTHq6Jf63FRh63CezdIvPn9Avp-DdqtLBScw6bjyW-_iVrgu)
and this should do, too...
Trust me - that would be hard work, but satisfying as hell...
(a good material for a timelapse, I guess...)
-
Im thinking i'll start a shovel sharpening buisness...you might just need one of those :D
-
Hello All,
Yes you can't play everywhere at once but there is definitely allot of 'want' for a open world as a base for large scale military simulations, being able to have engagements all around the world without having to painstakingly generate half the terrain would be a huge asset to games like ARMA series or even Civilisation games.
Atm allot of developers of war/combat games spend huge amounts of time getting the terrain right/comparative to real-life, all that time could be cut out. Only thing needed is to populate the region, and general clean-up.
Outerra is definitely looking to be a fantastic toolset for indie developers, interested to see how human character systems turn out, but atm the vehicle systems in place look quite impressive. One could make a game based on that alone (i.e. WorldOfTanks).