2.5 graphic is way uglier than expected

Dear ED, do you remember when you tease us with amazing screenshots of 2.5?

 

I was impressed by super realistic trees, shadows and how dark the asphalt of the airports was.

 

Well, now i want to know: why don't we have this graphic in our 2.5? Just take a look at the two images below, one is a screenshot i made and the other one is a teaser image posted on facebook by ED, i think they are quite different (i want to point up that all graphic stats are at max).

To me actual graphic looks like a placeholder of 2.5.

 

Do we ever see these dark runways, these trees ecc...? I hope so because i love that sim and it would be amazing!!

 

Please ED, please.

Hi Bignewy, first of all thanks for your quick reply.

 

I try what you suggest, reducing gamma helps a bit, i took this screenshot at 18:00 but you can see nor me or you can have the realistic darkness of the asphalt, not even reducing gamma at 1 and trying other months.

 

Atteched are the new screenshot and my graphic settings.

 

Here are my pc specs:

- GPU: Nvidia GTX1070

- RAM: 16GB

- FullHD monitor,

- CPU INTEL CORE SKYLAKE I7-6700K 4.0G

- ASUS Z170 PRO GAMING

- Windows 10

- SSD 500GB

Why do you think that the darker airfield is more realistic? Imagine trying to spot that runway from the air. There is absolutely no contrast with the grass.

 

Aerial photograph from google maps:

 

Ok, maybe Senaki is the wrong example but there are many other airports with darker asphalt such as Batumi, Kutaisi, Gudauta, Sukhumi and many other.

Edited June 5, 2018 by Mig Fulcrum

Forget asphalt color, what went wrong with the trees?

They look more "flat" than teaser screenshots ones, maybe they used trees of paywere maps to look better, this could explain why some of these are smaller than the same ones in the other screen, maybe ED do this to tempt buying some maps (i could understand business reason).

 

P.S: i know these are minor problems but all mixed they do much more.

yeah, I like how the trees look in the teaser screenshot

me too, it s a shame that we can not get them -maybe if only around airbases- what we have ingame are much more simplified ones. . .

it does appear that the trees have been significantly simplified. It well may be to enable enough FPS..

Oh, at least we can greatly improve the look of fields and mountains with excellent Mustang's mod :D.

Link?

Link?

 

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207541

Thanks!

 

...

the only thing I am really disapponted of 2.5 caucasus is that the airports, the infrastructures are still at same level of 1.5, they could have made new modern airfields with proper equipments, towers, personel etc

the only thing I am really disapponted of 2.5 caucasus is that the airports, the infrastructures are still at same level of 1.5, they could have made new modern airfields with proper equipments, towers, personel etc

You are aware that in the time represented in the Caucasus map (2007 if I remember correct) there were no "modern, western Airports in that area?

 

Even today Google maps shows pretty much what we see in DCS when looking at Tiblisi Soganlug:

https://www.google.de/maps/@41.6727233,44.9485281,2783m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Vaziani seems to be totally abandoned:

https://www.google.de/maps/@41.630407,45.0300745,2854m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Batumi:

https://www.google.de/maps/@41.6097989,41.5987162,2348m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Ok, the Rental Car park and the Mall are missing at Kutaisi/Kopitnari:

https://www.google.de/maps/@42.1799577,42.4767853,2787m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

But Beslan looks accurate to real life:

https://www.google.de/maps/@43.2036928,44.5995761,2138m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Mozdok:

https://www.google.de/maps/@43.7849343,44.5924445,3496m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Nalchik:

https://www.google.de/maps/@43.5120738,43.6300962,2070m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Mineralje Vody:

https://www.google.de/maps/@44.2220593,43.0760883,3862m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Sukhumi/Babushara:

https://www.google.de/maps/@42.8598419,41.1215293,2820m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Gudauta:

https://www.google.de/maps/@43.1008953,40.5661657,3973m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Yes, Sochi-Adler gotten some upgrades for the Olympics etc.

https://www.google.de/maps/@43.4431322,39.9337966,3311m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

but Maykop:

https://www.google.de/maps/@44.6800527,40.0306832,2417m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

and Krasnodar Airports:

https://www.google.de/maps/@45.0372215,39.1542173,4169m/data=!3m1!1e3

https://www.google.de/maps/@45.0829981,38.9449643,2865m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

haven't changed much.

 

Gelendhzik at least is still there:

https://www.google.de/maps/@44.5813263,38.007749,4257m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

unlike Novorossyisk, which is gone:

https://www.google.de/maps/@44.6803004,37.7753337,8516m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Anapa could do with the nice blue rooftops, though, but when did that change?

https://www.google.de/maps/@45.002791,37.3432366,2327m/data=!3m1!1e3

 

Overall the Airports are pretty much correct to the timeframe presented, from what I can see. :smartass:

Yeah, the airports are pretty much exactly how they should be. I've been to Borispol and Odessa as recently as 2015, the main international airports in Ukraine and even they did not have terminals, etc. You walked out the front door, stepped on a bus, rode to the parking area and walked across the tarmac to your plane.

 

 

That said, I've been comparing that older photo to what I see in-game, and definitely agree somewhere along the way our trees got screwed up. The ones we have now are of relatively meh quality. In particular, it seems the LODs for the trees are off, some of them seemed to be sprites even at relatively close ranges, and the shadowing is DEFINITELY screwed up. A lot of strange flickering and such. I set to flat shadows and the flickering went away, but this made the LOD issue much more obvious (which is what caused me to really notice it).

 

 

Still WiP I understand, but the trees and ship wakes, IMO, are two very noticeable "flaws" with the current engine iteration.

and definitely agree somewhere along the way our trees got screwed up. The ones we have now are of relatively meh quality. In particular, it seems the LODs for the trees are off, some of them seemed to be sprites even at relatively close ranges, and the shadowing is DEFINITELY screwed up.

 

Yes, it seems that the quality of the trees was reduced in order to preserve performance. On the other hand, you can see the new Caucasus has a TON of trees. Many many trees. I've the impression that there was a bit of an obsession with covering the maximum area possible with trees, which resulted in reduced individual tree quality and increased individual tree size scale. The side effect is a hit in image quality and a hit in sense of speed when flying, which IMO outweights that 'wow' factor of seeing large areas covered with forests. I'd love to see the amount of trees reduced, but tree quality (and maybe even view distance) increased. It would give a better look on the map overall and increase sense of immersion. Caucasus is such a cool map.

I actually landed in Tbilisi in 2013 when we dropped some Georgian soldiers off. The view from the air and low level in DCS is the closest to photorealistic of any flight sim on the market today.

 

If you can do better, and get it to run smoothly at 4k60, I'll buy it.

Edited August 26, 2018 by Sn8ke_iis
misspelled Tbilisi

Has nothing to do 'if you can do better'. It has flaws, fact, some of which like flickering shadows are clearly glitches.

 

@PeaceSells

Tree size isn't an issue, really, especially out in the woods. Trees in low development areas get big. These aren't mulberry trees in downtown suburbia USA. ''Sense of speed'' is directly related to the typical 'much higher than RL'' field of view relative to the size of your screen, that's why, for example things in so many games arevdistorted to grossly huge proportions, especially in 3rd person games (to convey size while also avoiding claustrobic locations). You can fix that yourself by zooming in until your HUD is realistically sized based on where you sit. It will be 'correct' but you won't be able to see much and will have terrible SA. That part of the world is pretty heavily forested in-RL, as well.

 

I would just like the option for better trees. And non flickering shadows. And ship wakes. And the janky textures left over from the PBR conversion. *sigh* Someday..... but something else will be broke by then.

I actually landed in Tbilisi in 2013 when we dropped some Georgian soldiers off. The view from the air and low level in DCS is the closest to photorealistic of any flight sim on the market today.

 

If you can do better, and get it to run smoothly at 4k60, I'll buy it.

:lol::lol: That's funny. Actually I got a friend of mine, who was charter pilot for a time, to have a go in DCS and specially the props as he was at the moment working as AG. Just hit the quick mission with cold start of the P-51, and right after he took off just glanced around and said to me, is this Tbilisi? I've flown there a couple of times as charter :lol: :lol:. I mean, one wouldn't expect the somewhat "generic" DCS rendition would be accurate enough for somebody to recognise a place straight out. But yes, it is.

 

 

S!