Jump to content
COMBATSIM Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a section in the manual that says "Setting Up EF2000 in DOS," but this does not cover installation, and everything here can be done from the Configuration Menu in the launcher (i.e. click the wrench icon).  You do need to run a DosBox session to configure EF2000 itself, but this is easily done by pressing the appropriate "config" button in the Config Menu.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...


Hey guys, I know this is a very long shot but I was wondering since Mikew got this working how hard would it be to get the VFX1 thingie working with a modern headset like an Odyssey plus..

 

I was thinking about this last night. I was wondering how possible it would be or just a pipe dream.. thnx guys hopefully I patientl;y wait..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it has been an interesting few hours I found DOSculus and even aquired the source code.. so maybe just maybe this has a chance but I will need alot of help from MikeW ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A first step would be to try and get Dosbox to show something on my Vive.

As DOSculus was written for the Rift DK1, I was hoping to use Revive:

https://github.com/LibreVR/Revive

...to allow viewing with SteamVR which is needed for the Vive (and Odyssey Plus, I think).

 

I couldn't get it to work though. :(

 

So, now I need to find out how to create a SteamVR version of DOSculus.

That's going to take a while...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already great that you take care of the problem.
If it does not pass, you will have tried and it is already very good.🙂
If it works, it will be a great makeover.😀

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if the DOSculus functionality is recreated for EF2000 and the VFX1 tracking added, all we would see is a 2D surface as that was all that was implemented for the VFX1.

The only DOS sim that I know of that supported stereoscopic vision for the VFX1 was Comanche 3.

 

In a further step, it might be possible to introduce the 3D effect in a similar way to Nvidia's 3D Vision system. Rubini got this working quite well for TAW here:

https://community.combatsim.com/topic/46806-taw-now-working-with-3dvision/

 

Anyway, I've only got as far as getting the OpenVR examples working from its SDK:

https://github.com/ValveSoftware/openvr

 

So, it's a just a case of grafting it onto DosBox. How hard can that be? :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Hello everybody,

 

I have noticed something which is a little bit disturbing in EF2000 Reloaded, the viewing distance of aircraft and other objects appears to be quite constrained. Has anybody noticed this as well? I thought of trying out different resolution settings, if feasible to adjust the screen size to a more EF2000 natural width:height ratio, maybe this will work?

 

best regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

In EF2000's successor, F22-ADF/TAW, the viewing distance for each level of detail (LOD) is defined in each model file. EF2000 probably uses the same system.

 

For TAW, we actually changed this to a large value for all models but that caused some performance issues. It would have been better to increase the distance to a more modest level for certain model types.

 

So, to do this for EF2000, it would mean extracting all the model files from the did.dat archive, then change these values and hope that the running of the game is not affected.

It's possible, but I'm not sure I have the time unless we get some global pandemic that means I can't do any proper work...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

is this viewing distance resolution dependent or is it possibly owed to the 3DFX rendering? In the none accelerated version the viewing distance was considerably longer. For the accelerated DOS version the viewing distance appears to be 50% (subjective feeling) compared to the non-accelerated version. The modding unfriendliness is certainly the greatest constraint for the DID sims, on the other hand they crammed in so much stuff in such a tiny install it's impressive even today.

 

Don't waste your time on this, it would certainly be great and much appreciated, but probably not worth the time and effort. It's a bit constraining when trying to visually target parked aircraft on the tarmac or the SAM/AAA concentrations, but that's about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scorpion82 said:

is this viewing distance resolution dependent or is it possibly owed to the 3DFX rendering?

I doubt it's resolution dependent since, as far as the game is concerned, it thinks it's rendering to a 640x400 screen.

 

EF2000 V2.0 which includes the 3dfx DOS version and the non-accelerated SuperEF2000 uses exactly the same data file for both, which tends to indicate there's something else going on from what I wrote earlier if the viewing distance is different.

 

16 minutes ago, Scorpion82 said:

Don't waste your time on this

Taking apart the EF2000 data files has long been on the list of things to do...just not at the top. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will certainly not stop you to do this when you find the time and motivation.😄

 

I always wondered whether it would be somehow possible to port the EF2000 aircraft to F-22 TAW. That would certainly be great, but probably impossible to do without massive coding. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As we don't have the source code for EF2000 or TAW, there is only so much we can do. While we can modify data files fairly easily, there is so much behaviour hard-coded into the exe that makes any meaningful change to flight models etc very hard to do.

 

We've reverse engineered a fair bit though. You should check out TFXplorer:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I understood from the posts around this subject. I've tried the TFXplorer in the past. It worked with TAW, but not with EF2000. At least not back then. I may give it a second try though. I'm arguably completed untalented when it comes to programming/coding. I'm basically a casual user.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While TFXplorer isn't as fully featured for EF2000, it's still useful in 'Explorer' mode, e.g, to see if objects pop into view in a similar way as playing the game.

 

I've just installed EF2000 Reloaded on a Win10 PC that's connected to a 65" TV.

Seeing it running in a 3200x2000 window about 50" across is giving me great joy. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just fired up my old laptop to re-check the observation with regards to viewing distance and I used the opportunity to install the non-accelerated version and the Rendition version as well. I've ported these installs to my Win10 PC and it appears that the objects are visible in 3DFX, but at a distance (>1 nm) the dots are so small that they are virtually invisible. In the non-accelerated version the dots are easily visible out to 10 nm. The problem apparently lies with the accelerated version where the smallest lot (=dot) is so small that it is almost invisible. I couldn't test the Rendition version as it crashes when starting a mission for whatever reason. 3DFX and natural TACTOM runs just fine. I have also noticed that in the unaccelerated version the in game time becomes accelerated in an MFD view, that's something I was used to in the Win95 version. The problem is interestingly not present in the 3DFX version. Interestingly the original TACTOM supports the MFDs in the cockpit view (SHIFT+M), while the accelerated version does not. Another observation I have made is that the TACTOM version darkens when enabling VFX1, this problem in turn is not apparent in the 3DFX version.

 

Much to explore I guess. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the feedback!

 

I'm not sure how a 'dot' is defined for 3DFX. It may be one pixel, which remains one pixel while other polygons are scaled up to whatever resolution you've defined.

This would explain the effect you describe, but it's many years since we produced EF2000 Reloaded.

 

Yes, there's something wrong with the MFD zoom in the 3DFX version. It's probably something to do with the Dosbox wrapper.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know whether the smallest lod (errorneozsly wrote lot) is just a single pixel or not. Unfortunately I never played zhe 3DFX or Rendition versions in their original form. In the non-accelerated versions the smallest lod is definitely more than 1 pixel. This is consistent between my old laptop's Win95 version and the TACTCOM version running with reloaded on my Win10 PC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the non-accelerated case, I guess anything on the 640x400 'surface' that the game writes to will be stretched to fit the resolution you're using.

 

For the 3dFX version in EF2000 Reloaded, the original 3dFX commands are intercepted and any vertices are scaled up before polygons are rendered on the target resolution.

So, that applies for triangles and quads etc

 

I'm not sure how a 'dot' is defined though.

 

I suppose we could try setting the resolution to 640x400 in the EF2000 Reloaded control panel, then edit the 'dosbox-ef2000.conf' file to display fullscreen (I'm not sure if the Alt-Enter full screen switcher works) to see if we get the same effect as in the non-accelerated version.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally found the time to do some testing in AA & AG. It seems that the visibility is indeed resolution related. Best visibility of the accelerated version was indeed the natural resolution, also in fullscreen mode. The higher the resolution the worse the visibility of objects. I found that 1024 x 768 still offers a good drawing distance and looks ok from a graphic perspective. So it is my new choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks!

 

The Glide programming manual says this about points:


Points
The Glide function grDrawPoint() renders a single point to the screen. The point will be treated as a
triangle with nearly coincident vertices (that is, a very small triangle) for rendering purposes. If many
points will be rendered, noticeable performance improvement can be achieved by writing pixels directly
to the frame buffer. ( grDrawPoint() sends three vertices per point to the hardware and iterates along three
edges; only one linear frame buffer write per point is required.)
void grDrawPoint( const GrVertex *a )

So, if this command was used, I'd expect the points to scale up in the same way as any other triangle...which means they are likely writing a single pixel to the frame buffer. At higher resolutions, it should be there but much harder to see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the impression I have, yes. It appears to be there, but it's almost invisible or practially invisible under normal circumstances. I used the Custom Combat mode to verify viewing distances with the ever same setup, starting at 12 nm. Against clear skies you are lucky if you see a small dot at 3 nm or so, against any other background you are virtually blind. I particularly noted that issue with aircraft parked on the tarmac first. You can typically see a black dot from some distance which allows you to line up for a strafing run. At higher resolutions even these dots appear only very late which makes it difficult to line up for a shot, unless you memorise the approximate or even accurate position. 

 

For me the above mentioned resolution of 1024x768 is the optimum solution at this point. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I've just tried to see what's happening by zooming in on a couple of distant aircraft at a resolution of 3200x2000 (to maintain original aspect ratio) just before they disappear...and there does seem to be some structure there, and not a single pixel.

ef_dots.png.7451dddfec294c7f636362ef5da7ff26.png

In game, these 'dots' jump around a lot though.

 

Anyway, I've found out the 3dFX DOS version of the game runs fine with the data files extracted from the did.dat archive. That wasn't the case with the Windows version I was running when I last tried this in about 2007.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...