Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest lionheart777

Improved, Better Fs9 Makemdl Compiler?

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,Is it possible... to create... a far better compiler for FS2004? One that can compile a mesh with Verices closer then 4MM, (like say 1MM or even 0.5MM), and could make it more dense (have the ability to do 'larger' amounts of polygons in a model), and perhaps... just perhaps.. it could do this in seconds instead of 20 min's?I realise that FS9 will not 'see' a model that is too huge in poly counts. But the limit seems to flux. Sometimes a model will compile that is over 70,000 polys, while other times, it will max out at 65,000 polys.What we could do with such a compiler is that we could make FSX style mesh for FS9, (more sophisticated mesh with smoother lines). Thus, we could take our FSX only models and compile them to FS9 as well, thus expanding our market.I wonder if someone like Chris File would know how to do this...? Sure would help us ole developers out. (I wish I knew how to do it, lol... arrghh).BillLionheart Creations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

BillI don't know about the poly limit my current project is at 64600 ploys at the moment and wont get much bigger but make mdl will compile a model with vertices closer than the 4mm limit. If you are using gmax and the gamepack then you will need something like MDL commander to intercept the compiling process. Once you have mdl commander installed you will be able to change the setting in the options tab. Too turn off welding vertices closer than 4mm simply uncheck the WeldPoints option. i routinely export models with vertex distances of 1mm and smaller with no ill effects. If you are using 3dsmax its even easier i use panda exporter to export to a direct x model. (version 4.8.61.0 i have found newer versions don't work with FS for some reason) once you have your .x model file all you do is drop it onto the makemdl icon, makemdl opens up and you can change the configuration setting as you please. Hope that helpsPaul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, that does nothing for the interior model. That is 'hard-wired' in MakeMDL.exe to collapse all vertices <= 4mm... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately, that does nothing for the interior model. That is 'hard-wired' in MakeMDL.exe to collapse all vertices <= 4mm...
HHHmmmmm i didnt know that i have done some pretty fine (as in lots of close vertices :) ) work in my internal model and have never run into that problem must have a closer look thanks for the info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys,Is it possible... to create... a far better compiler for FS2004? One that can compile a mesh with Verices closer then 4MM, (like say 1MM or even 0.5MM), and could make it more dense (have the ability to do 'larger' amounts of polygons in a model), and perhaps... just perhaps.. it could do this in seconds instead of 20 min's?
I'm sure someone would happily develop a new version of MakeMDL that runs about a thousand times faster than the current one while handling more polys for an obsolescent version of Flight Simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure someone would happily develop a new version of MakeMDL that runs about a thousand times faster than the current one while handling more polys for an obsolescent version of Flight Simulator.
While I only work in FSX I can appreciate the fact that FS9 will be around for a long time. Bill does too, and he is trying to market product for both versions. He's wondering if a better compiler is possible. I thought this forum was intended to be a place to help each other out... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I only work in FSX I can appreciate the fact that FS9 will be around for a long time. Bill does too, and he is trying to market product for both versions. He's wondering if a better compiler is possible. I thought this forum was intended to be a place to help each other out... :(
Pay no attention to mgh... have no idea why they're even in here, to be honest. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I only work in FSX I can appreciate the fact that FS9 will be around for a long time. Bill does too, and he is trying to market product for both versions. He's wondering if a better compiler is possible. I thought this forum was intended to be a place to help each other out... :(
I was being realistic in pointing out that it's unlikely that anyone would bother developing an improved MakeMDL, especiaslly to meet those aspirations.Lionheart Creations is a commercial developer. If it really thinks a better compiler is worthwhile then it could commission (and pay) someone to develop it for them - unless you intend to help it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are not a moderator. You are no more significant than any other poster in this forum.You have an ego larger than Jupiter.You really have no reason to be in this forum except to 'stir the pot'.
One doesn't have to be a moderator in order to correct errors in posts. Anyone can do it to avoid other members being given misleading information or do you believe your error in the following thread should stand uncorrecteds?http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=236878

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One doesn't have to be a moderator in order to correct errors in posts. Anyone can do it to avoid other members being given misleading information or do you believe your error in the following thread should stand uncorrecteds?http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=236878
'Anyone can do it'. Perhaps, however you are still far more interested in 'stirring the pot' in discussions. All anyone need do is search these forums for posts from you and note that you typically post to agitate the discussion. Absolutely nothing helpful in that.Regarding that thread, you stated:
"you don't seem to have initialised the variable Paused. As you code stands Paused could have any random value initially, so repeatedly toggling it won't cause it to change between 0 and 1. "
That statement would be 100% incorrect if the ! operator does what you state here:
"Try the declaration:bool Paused;I may be picky but the !-operator in principle works on boolean values not integers. I know that C isn't too particular about this but you never know! "
and here:
"The unary negation operator ! converts a non-zero or true operand into 0, and a zero operand into 1."
According to Visual C++ documentation:
"The logical-negation (logical-NOT) operator produces the value 0 if its operand is true (nonzero) and the value 1 if its operand is false (0). The result has int type. The operand must be an integral, floating, or pointer value."
Changing it to 'bool' would have not changed the behavior of the ! operator. Also, a bool value is in fact an int. I chose to not bother to respond since it offered no assistance to the thread's topic, despite the fact that you were completely wrong in your responses to the actual issue. That poster's issue actually turned out to be an FS issue and nothing to do with the code itself.Now... since you like calling people out for being wrong... please, call yourself out. As I've stated... you should be completely ignored in these forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Changing it to 'bool' would have not changed the behavior of the ! operator. Also, a bool value is in fact an int. I chose to not bother to respond since it offered no assistance to the thread's topic, despite the fact that you were completely wrong in your responses to the actual issue. That poster's issue actually turned out to be an FS issue and nothing to do with the code itself.
If I was completely wrong why did the Original Poster who started that topic reply?
Hey MGH,My 5 hours of precious time for an Integer!You were right... bool did the trick :( Thanks,Bryan York
http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?s=&...t&p=1507875Again your post needs correcting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, you're stating that a bool is not an int, and that the result of the ! operator is not an int... and that the result of using ! on a non-zero value may not return a zero value?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, you're stating that a bool is not an int, and that the result of the ! operator is not an int... and that the result of using ! on a non-zero value may not return a zero value?
I'm saying what I previously said:
I may be picky but the !-operator in principle works on boolean values not integers. I know that C isn't too particular about this but you never know!
Using bool instead of int did solve the problem in the other thread: the Original Poster said so and he should know!Anyone with real experience of programming in a high-level language learns that not all compilers work in the same way and need various fixes. They also often implement things differently. My experience suggested that using bool might work and it did!C used the int type to represent boolean values before Standard ISO/IEC 9899:1999 in 1999. After that, C included a bool data type which takes the values true and false. This is a new typeand so is not an integer type. C++also has a bool data type. The Visual C++ Language Reference states:
bool (C++)This keyword is a built-in type. A variable of this type can have values true and false. Conditional expressions have the type bool and so have values of type bool. For example, i!=0 now has true or false depending on the value of i.
In Visual C++ 5.0 and later, bool is implemented as a built-in type with a size of 1 byte.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/tf4dy80a(VS.80).aspxand
Logical Negation Operator: !The logical negation operator (!) reverses the meaning of its operand. The operand must be of arithmetic or pointer type (or an expression that evaluates to arithmetic or pointer type). The operand is implicitly converted to type bool. The result is true if the converted operand is false; the result is false if the converted operand is true. The result is of type bool.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/1k6w8551(VS.80).aspxSo I will say that bool is not an int, and that the result of the ! operator is not an int in VC 5.0 and later (and possibly other implementations) and it's poor programming practice to assume they are in any C++ implementation.Finally, as a reminder where this began, your wrong statement in the other thread that I corrected was:
The ! operator performs a boolean operation of inverting each bit in the value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While you may at times be "technically correct," your arrogant, abrasive, abusive and combative attitude does not stand you well here at all "mgh."Apparently, your delight lies in the propensity to argue, rather than in the simple joy of providing correct information without rancor......in short, either you haven't the social skills for civil discourse, or deliberately choose not to use them.In all the years I've been a member here at AVSIM, seldom* have you ever offered anything to the community. In every case, your replies have been solely aimed at "correcting errors" of others with your acid tongue.That is sad.*EDIT: changed "not once" to "seldom" to account for two instance of actual help...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In all the years I've been a member here at AVSIM, not once have you ever offered anything to the community. In every case, your replies have been solely aimed at "correcting errors" of others with your acid tongue.That is sad.
I offered the Original Poster in the other thread in this forum two possible solutions: the second of which worked for him and he thanked me for it. Neither were in a combative manner.First PostSecond PostWould you care to retract your statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I offered the Original Poster in the other thread in this forum two possible solutions: the second of which worked for him and he thanked me for it. Neither were in a combative manner.First PostSecond PostWould you care to retract your statement?
No, but I did edit the post to replace "not once" with "seldom" though. Two 'helpful' posts out of over two thousand isn't much to brag about though... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Two 'helpful' posts out of over two thousand isn't much to brag about though... :(
You have, of course, checked all my other posts because otherwise that statement would still be untrue? that's a rhetorical question, so you needn't bother to reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites