Graphic engine.

Hi, i make this post cause i want to talk about the graphic engine of DCS.

This graphic engine is one of the best of graphic engine in the world of the simulation, yeah, but...Simulation graphic engine are really bad compare to other graphic engine...

Anytime in simulation, simgame and game with plane, graphics are really bad...

And the worst, that need very powerful computer for working and it still lag at maximum settings...

Ok i know a lot of people don't need big visual rending for like it, but half of other need it for immersion and i think its important to not forget it, if we have great graphic engine people for who visual its don't matter can use it with minimum graphics settings and have more fps and for other people at maximum.

Simulation = realism, realism for flying model, avionic AND visual, and even if people not need it for immersion, its nice to see good things, they can profit...

Well, what i have against sim graphics engine and what is, for me, the solution ?

First we are supposed to embody a pilot or any human eyes and not a camera, in external view the size effect its bad, when we look against carrier or big ship that look like a extremely small think, like a plastic model and the fact that the camera its limited at 3m over the ground and can't come close to the object reinforce that, but that really bad cause the most advanced 3D model are really nice with a lot of details but we can't appreciate it cause of small object effect...

But some 3D model and texture are really bad like infantry or trees...

The new pilot model in the cockpit of MI-8MT and E-2D are really nice like that :

http://hpics.li/22f18ad and its really hard to see it cause by small effect, the fact that the shopper move and cause the cockpit glass are not invisible, and infantry look like that http://hpics.li/9eb8786

Note that the camera it this screenshoot its closest possible and at the minimum ground height and i don't talk about the horrible ground texture...

What is the solution ?

FPS graphics engine...Why ? Cause FPS, First Person Shooters graphics engine are made give impression of human size.

well a lot of people will told me, its not appropriate for flight sim/game...

Are you sure ?

Now demonstration and comparison, look it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ (turn down your speakers cause its loud and jump at 0:45)

Imagine DCS look like that...ok he have really good graphic card but with the same GC we CAN'T turn maximum settings with DCS cause its lag so much...And Arma 2 its not optimized for flying, we don't need interior of any house or to see mat against the door for example...And only one thing are better in DCS, the cockpit, thats all...

Another example with Operation Flashpoint :

And we can save a lot of fps with distance atmosphere effect like we can clearly see it in this video :

For low altitude, the speed fuzzy effect and the shot distance of view will help for winn a lot of FPS and for medium and high altitude ground imagery by satellite can be perfect (like tileproxy in flight simulator X) cause i prefer loose 5Go of HDD space and obtain extreme graphics effect and a lot of persons too, for people who don't want, well they can disable it and/or don't download the texture complement...

And if you use algorithm for generate house, tree and (i have imagine the concept) terrain autogenerate by software using cartography data, satellite imagery and road/railway data, you don't will have to (re)create everything...

Now comparison :

Arma 2 : http://storeimages.impulsedriven.com/product_gfx/arma2oadlc_ss5.jpg

http://www.canardpc.com/img/news/47330/arma2inagme5_52421_1524.jpg

DCS : http://hpics.li/25158d0

Arma 2 : http://forum.tt-hardware.com/fichiers/uploads/upload_17_1/arma2%202009-06-19%2019-52-07-92.jpg

http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/article/108/1086536/arma-ii-operation-arrowhead-20100428022130182-000.jpg

DCS : http://hpics.li/ca5d9d2

Arma 2 : http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/816/arma22009061816433749.jpg

DCS : http://hpics.li/b0b2460

Arma 2 : http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/3642/arma2oa2011030119373542.jpg

http://www.clan-gid.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/arma2-2010-01-10-01-50-33-48.jpg

DCS : http://hpics.li/3593b50

Arma 2 : http://s0.wat.fr/f/2u41b_480x270_13epaq.jpg

http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/4097/arma2oa2011030120000123.jpg

DCS : http://hpics.li/140ffe9

Arma 2 : http://www.otakubrothers.com/arma2boat1.jpg

DCS : http://hpics.li/f3b4ed1

And for the size effect :

Arma 2 : http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6/arma22010050221134009.jpg

DCS : http://hpics.li/187886f

All DCS screenshoots its from me, i have try to give the better effect possible without use software for beautify...

And i don't talk about explosion, flame and smoke effect..

Look here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kG4Pd3RBYs

The same effect (light from explosion fire bullet and missile, particle, smoke, flame and camera) just will be perfect...

or : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rduOhH22bkQ

Real life : explosion effect (a lot of dirt)

In DCS explosion effect is too short like 2 seconds, we see just a bad colored fireball, smoke, so transparent black smoke during 1 second and climb and sometime strange dirt effect and so short too...

And another effect that we ask since several years, the condensation effect on the wings, and like this video show, it not need extreme high G turn, just humid day : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo3owHXK9r8

its present at the final approach for carrier landing...

And too at big aircraft !! http://www.austriasites.com/cliparts/_wallpaper/flugzeuge/KC-135_Stratotanker_05.jpg

We want too to see the mach sound barrier effect...

You have modeled the little condensation effect at the end of the wings, why not finish it and add correct mach, wings vapor and a correct distance of contrail from jet engine...

the proof that some effect not be only for eye candy :

Video of a real A10 strafe, adding vibration effect and screen parasite its not just for good look, that will really add more realist by adding the difficulty to see the ground and the target, this effect its real, look at this really nice video

look too it :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPQ9yzahFx4

Vapor its nice to see but that can hide something like in real, in dogfight when we have an enemy at us 6 and its hide by vapor, that add difficult...

Another example...

The new "simulator" Take on Helicopter...

It use Arma 2 engine, its work and the visual its nice.

And why ED have delete the pilot that we have (and we can hide if we need) from DCS Black Shark ?

Another important thing can be to really see bird for try to avoid it when we cant or for really can make the difference between bird strike and AAA or simple engine problem or anything else..

Same thing for show cockpit glass frost, its add difficulty and realism, same for dirt and oil (oil effect by any smoke), and mainly, humidity and drop of water by rain, cloud and contrail.

Maybe add the exhaust and hot part effect like that for flir view http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=bDrj-5Xlt3Q

But another problem with DCS its the Artificial Intelligence, i will make another thread for that...

And sorry for my bad English...

Crank up Arma 2 visibility to 150km - that's the visibility range in DCS, then try to compare ;)

[...]

Oh dear lord, where to start?

Well maybe you should go on to read a little about those technologies that you refer to and see what their drawbacks are, you might come to find that most of them have absolutely no applicability for a flight simulator. The ARMA2 comparison is so cliche, u will find a ton of reading alone on this forum.

I'm going to post a complain thread soon myself about why the hell the makers of Angry Birds have been so sparse on the graphics. I mean, c'mon! The graphics in Angry Birds are awful compared to, say, let's find a matching competator that is about the same game. Ah yes! Crysis? Why can't they at least try to make the graphics in Angry Birds look like Crysis?! Damned those developers at Angry Birds, they obviously have no idea how to make good graphics..

Brilliant idea! +1

I wonder why nobody came up with this before.

But if ED is really smart, they wait for arma 3 engine and license that. That would be even better, don't you think?!

@Winz & Sobek : Of course we can't have it, but don't told me that for show more visibility range we just exchange that : http://www.1fotech.com/wp-content/up...tlefield-3.jpg

for that : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.ph...1108184420.jpg

That was ridiculous...

And look what you see at 150km plz, its a single 2D relief WITHOUT any 3D object and a almost monocolor texture, and (with maximum distance setting) we can't see any 3D object over 30km, that just was a texture with city (in low resolution with horrible result)

@LostOblivion sorry my English are not perfect but i don't have understand anything of what you are write ^^"

@Geskes Yeah but no, the problem will still the same, its not appropriate for simulation and ED never will buy graphic engine, they must create a new cause actually its the same since LOMAC just optimized (not perfectly)

And i just say again, i know that FPS graphic engine can't be using, i don't talk about graphic like Battlefield 3 but more like that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scXSG3hF3Y everywhere on the map, that will beggin to be really better !!!

[...]

Your links are broken...

And yes, we do trade. Visibility range is what will tear an FPS engine to shreds. If you don't believe me, max out the ARMA2 engine and show me how well that runs on your system. What is the maximum draw distance for ARMA2, 10km? If we assume an even object distribution over a plane map (a fair approximation), then object count will rise with r^2*pi. Now tell me what that means for my object count if i move from 10 to 30 km...

It's not rocket science, just do the math, plz.

Hint: You can't have ARMA2 object density and just blow it up to a farther draw distance.

Thanks for the link, but anyways everyone know how look modern FPS game and simulation...

And like i have already say : in FPS we see extreme details like almost crumb of bread on the ground and inside of building and house.

Its useless and i never talk about obtain an extreme level like that but the power trade from one the other can't eat so many power, cause the result its Battlefield 3 work with nice FPS on single graphic card (eyefinity or not) and DCS for extreme difference of render need SLI or Crossfire (and the worst its that actually don't work) cause if we force Battelfield 3 (and its just an example) for show 30Km 3D object and over that just 2D map we NEVER will loose s many details.

Why a take FPS example ? cause FPS its created for show FIRST PERSON like real view, its why the size of the object look realistic on FPS and look like a RC model for simulation...

And again when a talk about better graphic engine a talk more about this render http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scXSG3hF3Y for tree ground and object everywhere on the map, and no, its not impossible.

power trade from one the other can't eat so many power

Did you even read what i wrote? Object count rises to the second power with draw distance, is it really so hard to understand?

@LostOblivion Sorry my English is not perfect, and I don't understand anything of what you wrote. ^^

That is quite alright.

On a more serious note, the series can defenately see some improvements in terms of graphics, but I find it most people here will frown when seeing what you compare DCS to, as it is quite an unrealistic claim that it can be done that easily, if at all. Having said that, from what I can see, ED has aquired a lot of attention from the mainstream gaming market for the last few months, e.g. with the introduction of their games on Steam, which may also mean that they will incrementally address mainstream game features in their next titles, e.g. more eye candy, not to diverge into mainstream gameplay of course. These are only my thoughts, of course.

Your links are broken...

 

And yes, we do trade. Visibility range is what will tear an FPS engine to shreds. If you don't believe me, max out the ARMA2 engine and show me how well that runs on your system. What is the maximum draw distance for ARMA2, 10km? If we assume an even object distribution over a plane map (a fair approximation), then object count will rise with r^2*pi. Now tell me what that means for my object count if i move from 10 to 30 km...

 

It's not rocket science, just do the math, plz.

 

Hint: You can't have ARMA2 object density and just blow it up to a farther draw distance.

what about outerra?

Multithreaded rendering ?

Tessellation?

Predicated Rendering?

does ED graphic engine support Geometry instancing ?

what about outerra?

What about it?

Multithreaded rendering ?

Only worth the work if operations are highly parallelizeable. I can imagine running different instances of AI and flight models in separate threads, but the rendering of a single frame is already done by the GPUs highly parallel architecture. Multithreading isn't a miraculous cure.

Tessellation?

Will be introduced with EDGE, AFAIK.

Predicated Rendering?

You mean predictive rendering? Good luck predicting the flight path of a human controlled airplane. Causality cannot be circumvented. Besides, the prediction is going to cause a massive overhead of its own.

does ED graphic engine support Geometry instancing ?

I suppose so, i don't think they are rendering all the trees separately.

Besides, let's not derail this into the graphic engine edition of bullshit bingo.

@Sobek yes i understand, but we coming from object where we can see any details like house with every external and internal details where the complexity its extreme to the "object" in DCS with building look (and be) like a simple box with low resolution texture...

And anyways 10km = 30000 Feet, cruise altitude of flight, at this altitude we DON'T see object and low relief in simulation AND in real.

ED can make like Flight simulator, make disappear 3D object since where we don't see it (less than 10km) for trade with single photorealistic texture of the ground can be possible cause at low and middle altitude over 10km except high building we can't see the difference against 2D and 3D object, and the power saved by the same terrain than Arma 2 with divided complexity and loose a lot of detail like interior of house or extreme details and texture can be using for the simple 2D photorealistic map.

I prefer have a bad transition effect but with nice graphic before and after that than actual, and if its well done with same position and color against 2D and 3D object/texture we will almost not see the difference and we can obtain better graphic...

Actually the size effect make simulator have a false dimension and with correct size effect, where big object close of us not look little but realistic, with a good exploitation of that we can show at realistic way 10Km object and anyways try to give big view range are fail cause we don't see far like real life, well its useless to eat power and kill performance for make at final unrealistic thing...

Its only an idea, don't kill me xD

Anyways i have a good reason to think that soon computer will have a BIG revolution with extremely more powerful and faster hardware with CPU at THZ frequency, and when we will have it, the problem will be solved...

@LostOblivion Yeah i agree

but more important than change graphic engine or new 3D model or any eye candy, i have said it a lot of time :

I think the most important thing that ED must have to make soon as possible its a SDK.

Cause a lot of things that a lof of people ask will never be done for a lot of reason like ED don't want to loose time for several things or simply want but don't have the time or think its eye candy and not useful and more.

With SDK every idea can be exploited make a better simulator with more possibility cause the "fan made" are often best than original and sometime we see extraordinary things.

That can too solve a lot of problem, like people who will rewrite AI script cause actually DCS AI are EXTREMELY BAD and that not only eye candy or other that really important and we can obtain advanced air maneuver from AI, we can be able to adding better effect for explosion and adding (thing that we ask since LOOONG time) vapor effect on wings, ground crew and more...

And most important thing, community already have contact with ED team (like exactly right now we talk with Sobek) for simple "game" that rare and ED can ask to the community to make a lot of things for them, we can have sometime really nice thing cause fan made are nice and ED can have more time for important things like correction of bug and problems, optimization and more and everything of that can help to adding more playable aircraft and ED can take several mods/addons and aircraft and make official things and give to ED really big and better commercial argument without need to give money for work and the time loosing for SDK will be really faster take back and at final give to ED more time.

[...]

Listen, if it's so easy to make the sim look like ARMA2, then do it. All the tools are available to you, do a texture mod, adjust the draw distances in the lua files and show us what your ideas are made of. I'll be the first to do the walk of shame if you proove me wrong, but unless you can pull it off, you are just blowing a lot of hot air around the forum... ;)

You are asking for SDKs? A lot of the stuff that you are phantasizing about is already possible through lua. Go put your money where your mouth is.

Listen, if it's so easy to make the sim look like ARMA2, then do it. All the tools are available to you, do a texture mod, adjust the draw distances in the lua files and show us what your ideas are made of. I'll be the first to do the walk of shame if you proove me wrong, but unless you can pull it off, you are just blowing a lot of hot air around the forum... ;)

 

You are asking for SDKs? A lot of the stuff that you are phantasizing about is already possible through lua. Go put your money where your mouth is.

in outerra the tree can be rendered far with good terrain

let's hope edge get same capability:)

@Sobek i just give idea that's all, i have never say that is easy and its not my work, and like i have say its useless to obtain extreme details like Arma 2 but nice compromise better than actual its possible.

and I'M not asking for SDK a SEVERAL people ask it, i'm just actually talk more about it and i just have giving example, we can do several things with with .lua but the rest count too and word harder with only .lua only for make a Mod maybe not compatible with multiplayer its useless, but do the same thing for possible official integration and by the same way helping ED its better...Its stupid to refuse help i think...

And if that will be easy to do it only with .lua why people (sometime who know programming and write .lua) don't do it and not ask it and know that it will maybe never do...?

You are asking for SDKs? A lot of the stuff that you are phantasizing about is already possible through lua. Go put your money where your mouth is.

To be fair, the graphics engine is mostly still limited to swapping out textures, unless you're fluent in HLSL. (And I'm not.) I consider myself a pretty experienced "modder" and I can tell you that only goes so far. We can spend years trying to work around the limitations of the simulator, but in truth the majority of the graphical features are getting towards 10 years old. I too would like to see more change in that facet of the simulation, if not in all the ways Demongornot suggested.

Not complaining, just providing a counterpoint.

I agree with aaron886, even if it is not with Arma 2's engine I expect some real changes in DCS: Fighter.

For instance I was really impressed by Wings of Prey's terrain. Browse it in youtube, it's gorgeous! Just look at the towns, hills, vegetation... FC and DCS' terrain is seriously aging.

Edit: here's one video demonstrating WoP's graphics although it's not 1080p

certainly looks nice but the viewing distance is very short.

From what I've seen of Nevada, that will be a big improvement.

certainly looks nice but the viewing distance is very short.

it looks fine to me:

Especially if I'm flying A-10C or say Apache, I don't need need to see at 150 km. Actually even in a fast-mover why would I need to see that far, apart from mountains and seas you cannot see anything at that distance in the first place.

Actually, it's "fine", but still a lot smaller than DCS (a lot of the the "view range" you see there is actually faked, a visual trick to make you think it's rendering more terrain than it actually is) - and helped by the smaller maps as well.

But seriously, don't worry. EDGE is coming. ;)

BTW:

Let's try to keep things in one thread. :)

I'll lock this (merging would make it too confusing I think with the timestamps) and everyone can continue in the other one. Demongornot, please try to not make too many threads on the same topic, it makes things confusing and hard to follow for people interested in the topic. :)

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82309