DCS World 1.5 and 2 Discussion

[SkateZilla]

So, in the map building tool, whatever is used, the designer clicks somewhere, makes a dot (pixel), and that dot represents 2 square meters?

 

So, pixel means a literal screen pixel?

 

Pretty sure it's Px of the Texture used, not Px of the rendered map in the tools.

[NineLine]

Maybe this will help with explaining resolution:

 

RESOLUTION

 

A satellite's resolution is defined as the size of the smallest individual component or dot (called a pixel) from which the image is constituted.

 

If a satellite's resolution is stated as "5 meters", this means that each pixel in the imagery is 5 meters by 5 meters in size. While there are cases where objects smaller than 5 meters in a given dimension can be identified by such a satellite the general rule of thumb is that objects smaller than the resolution of the satellite in the largest dimension are not readily or reliably distinguishable in such imagery.

 

Current satellites provide data at resolutions ranging from 0.6 meters per pixel to 1 kilometer per pixel. At 0.6 meters per pixel people are visible in the imagery, not distinguishable from each other, but identifiable as people. At 1 km per pixel you wouldn't want to be looking at anything much smaller than the state of California.

 

We have provided image samples at resolutions of 160 meters, 60 meters, 30 meters, 15 meters, 10 meters, 5 meters and 1 meter. We have created a table that relates the pixel resolution to map scales for those of you more familiar with traditional mapping.

[kontiuka]

^

Thanks.

 

I understand the map resolution thing but how does it affect the world that I'll be flying through? It's not like I'll be flying over Nevada and seeing a bunch of 2m x 2m tiles. This is where I'm struggling with the relevance of the resolution.

[FIN_Centurion1]

It will affect how sharp and crisp the ground texture appears. Terrain resolution in this context means how large a terrain area the ground textures will be stretched out over.

 

Let's imagine a 2000x2000 pixel aerial photo that will be the ground texture. If we stretch this out on a 20x20 km area the each pixel on said aerial photo will cover a 10x10m area, whicj of course wont look very good from close up. If we use said image but only use it on a 2x2km area the terrain resolution will be 1m, ie one pixel covers a 1m x 1m area. This is of course 10 times better, but will also take 10 times as much data to cover 20x20km.

[VincentLaw]

but will also take 10 times as much data to cover 20x20km.

That is a square space, so it is 100 times as much data.

[kontiuka]

It will affect how sharp and crisp the ground texture appears. Terrain resolution in this context means how large a terrain area the ground textures will be stretched out over.

 

Let's imagine a 2000x2000 pixel aerial photo that will be the ground texture. If we stretch this out on a 20x20 km area the each pixel on said aerial photo will cover a 10x10m area, whicj of course wont look very good from close up. If we use said image but only use it on a 2x2km area the terrain resolution will be 1m, ie one pixel covers a 1m x 1m area. This is of course 10 times better, but will also take 10 times as much data to cover 20x20km.

ok. But I wouldn't even think 2m x 2m would look that great close up either. There has to be something done on top of that to make it look realistic. Are the blown up pixels blended together? Are additional textures placed on top of them?

[NineLine]

ok. But I wouldn't even think 2m x 2m would look that great close up either. There has to be something done on top of that to make it look realistic. Are the blown up pixels blended together? Are additional textures placed on top of them?

 

For airfields and such, I think they do indeed create or atleast tweak the textures, for example, runways. But the ground and that surrounding them I dont think they do, but this is where the best textures should be expected, and so far they look pretty good.

[VincentLaw]

ok. But I wouldn't even think 2m x 2m would look that great close up either. There has to be something done on top of that to make it look realistic. Are the blown up pixels blended together? Are additional textures placed on top of them?

Take a look at this screenshot from Mudspike. You can see a sub-meter noise pattern on the ground and a ~centimeter ground detail texture for the soil. The terrain will not just look like a blurry satellite image close up.

 

 

[Art-J]

^ That's what I think as well. It's all about adding and tuning the optimal noise layer, as modders do even now, while making texture updates for our old map.

[Aginor]

wait what?

I think some of you might be confusing terrain geometry detail and terrain detail.

The geometry detail of X meters just tells you that the elevation in the terrain data is like having "tiles" with X meters. That's the pixels. It is the resolution of the map elevation data. So the stuff between those is interpolated.

Imagine a terrain made out of Lego. That's what they have. Some parts are built out of bigger Lego bricks, some are made out of smaller ones.

Then they put a bed sheet over the Lego to create something more naturally looking. In rather flat or rather empty areas you won't notice that the Legos are bigger.

The paint layer on the bed sheet are the textures. You can do them as detailed as you want. That has nothing to do with the Lego brick size though.

 

EDIT: And concerning the textures of course: 2m is the TYPE of terrain. The texture itself could even be procedurally generated for all we know, so it can be MUCH more detailed than those 2m. Like the grass and stones and stuff in the noise layer.

Edited February 2, 2015 by Aginor

[titanium]

Explosion effects

 

After all this time of seeing screenshots and videos of the new engine, one thing I have not seen is any demo of improved explosion effects and physics.

 

One of the shortcomings of DSC really is the explosions. It is really unsatisfying to see a 2000lb MK 84 have the same explosion animation as a 220lb FAB-100.

 

Even something as simple as a plane crashing leaves only a medium sized bonfire in comparison to the fireballs that are usually seen in real life.

 

Any improvements on this coming up?

[GeorgeLKMT]

Aginor, you're confusing things a little bit. Nevada textures DO have specific "per pixel resolution" because they're using satellite imagery (just like when you're browsing Google Earth), not as Caucasus where you have fixed texture set distrubuted all over the place. You can't have those textures "as detailed as you want" because satellites don't have infinite resolution.... and nobody wants to download 500GB of map textures either. Noise texture that is on top of it has nothing to do with that.

[NineLine]

After all this time of seeing screenshots and videos of the new engine, one thing I have not seen is any demo of improved explosion effects and physics.

 

One of the shortcomings of DSC really is the explosions. It is really unsatisfying to see a 2000lb MK 84 have the same explosion animation as a 220lb FAB-100.

 

Even something as simple as a plane crashing leaves only a medium sized bonfire in comparison to the fireballs that are usually seen in real life.

 

Any improvements on this coming up?

 

 

It would seem its possible...

 

• Direct X 11 support
  
• Improved performance
  
• Dynamic shadowing of the terrain and mountains
  
• Improved weather
  
• Improved lighting
  
• Clipmap support for new maps
  
• Higher object counts
  
• Higher resolution ground terrain mesh and textures for new maps (between 1 and 64 meters per pixel depending on area of map and clipmap level)
  
• More detailed tree models with collision for new maps
  
• Better graphical effects
  
• High resolution road textures for new maps
  
• Ability for road signs and light signals for new maps
  
• Additional ground clutter (rocks, cactuses, etc.) for new maps
  
• Skeleton animation for infantry
  
• Better use of multiple GPUs (CPU multi-threading is not being pursued as it will provide little if any gain)
  
• Ability to create dedicated servers in the future
  
• Unified front end and simulation .exe
  
• Improved API sound support
  
• Improved Oculus Rift support
  

[panzerd18]

DCS 2.0 surely needs better effects, such as explosions, fires and general damage animations of damaged/crippled vehicles.

[NineLine]

DCS 2.0 surely needs better effects, such as explosions, fires and general damage animations of damaged/crippled vehicles.

 

A lot of things are getting improved already, many things may get improved after release... what will make release and what will come later is unknown right now.

[KaspeR32]

[*] The map is approximately 600 x 610 km. The airfield locations have the greatest detail (elevation mesh and textures of 2 meters per pixel), the center area of the map between the airfields (as indicted by the area covered by roads in the attached image) has the second highest detail (4-8 meters per pixel), and the area along the outside portions of the map have the least detail (16 to 64 meters per pixel).

 

Wow. This seems incredibly huge! I know the outskirts of the map wont be as detailed, but it's a lot bigger than I expected originally. As far as the last picture goes, I'm assuming the area covered by roads is the only part of the map that will be covered by features. (Buildings, roads, towns, etc.)

[NineLine]

Yeah, little more room to stretch your legs for sure :)

[Python]

It would seem its possible...

 

Can we assume that covers everything, Explosions... vapor, rain etc? That vague line could turn out to be a very big deal if so. :thumbup:

[kontiuka]

Aginor, you're confusing things a little bit. Nevada textures DO have specific "per pixel resolution" because they're using satellite imagery (just like when you're browsing Google Earth), not as Caucasus where you have fixed texture set distrubuted all over the place. You can't have those textures "as detailed as you want" because satellites don't have infinite resolution.... and nobody wants to download 500GB of map textures either. Noise texture that is on top of it has nothing to do with that.

Aginor's explanation makes sense to me. The base texture taken from satellite images must look like just 2m by 2m squares (in the high-resolution areas) and these noise textures which I imagine are repeated patterns would go on top of those squares to add a realistic look. And then you have random ground clutter (grass, bushes, trees, etc.) on top of that.

 

Now, I wonder if the same noise textures get stretched for the lower detail areas of the map. EDIT: Maybe not. That would probably look pretty weird.

Edited February 2, 2015 by kontiuka

[NineLine]

Can we assume that covers everything, Explosions... vapor, rain etc? That vague line could turn out to be a very big deal if so. :thumbup:

 

I would never assume anything, but explosions are a pretty big deal in DCS, so I hope they will get tweaked, I mean, anyone else tired of the same one explosion? I am hoping for some randomizing in the effects :)

[hannibal]

i hope smoke lingers more, than the dcs 1/lockon time of 3 seconds... all the stuff we are blowing up should be causing alot of pollution!!!

[kontiuka]

i hope smoke lingers more, than the dcs 1/lockon time of 3 seconds... all the stuff we are blowing up should be causing alot of pollution!!!

I set up 12 friendly Oliver Perry's the other day and had fun attacking them with unlimited rockets. I was pretty impressed with the smoke and damage. Multiple large and small smoke plumes coming from each ship. It was a sight to behold. Damage model of ships seemed quite improved since the last time I played around with them (admittedly, a while).

[NineLine]

Aginor's explanation makes sense to me. The base texture taken from satellite images must look like just 2m by 2m squares (in the high-resolution areas) and these noise textures which I imagine are repeated patterns would go on top of those squares to add a realistic look. And then you have random ground clutter (grass, bushes, trees, etc.) on top of that.

 

Now, I wonder if the same noise textures get stretched for the lower detail areas of the map. EDIT: Maybe not. That would probably look pretty weird.

 

This is correct, they will use a combination of satellite textures and art generated textures, obviously down low and up close to the ground textures you want them to look good. Satellite imagery alone wont give you that...

[KaspeR32]

Sith, is 2.0 only with internal testers atm? Or are you guys already testing the alpha?

[NineLine]

Sorry I cant say what we have and what we dont, only Wags and ED can comment on what is where...