DCS World 1.5 and 2 Discussion

[KaspeR32]

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

 

Copy that. I really hope you're getting to enjoy it. It looks like such a game changer.... :music_whistling:

 

I wonder if ED is going to take advantage of procedural generation. From some of the videos, it's looks as if there is a lot more solid objects littering the ground (instead of just grass like in current engine)

 

I've been seeing procedural generation used in so many things lately. From No Man's Sky to Elite Dangerous to Outerra. I hope it's something ED can take advantage of at some point, just for that extra detail that can't be "hand placed."

[NineLine]

Copy that. I really hope you're getting to enjoy it. It looks like such a game changer.... :music_whistling:

 

I wonder if ED is going to take advantage of procedural generation. From some of the videos, it's looks as if there is a lot more solid objects littering the ground (instead of just grass like in current engine)

 

I've been seeing procedural generation used in so many things lately. From No Man's Sky to Elite Dangerous to Outerra. I hope it's something ED can take advantage of at some point, just for that extra detail that can't be "hand placed."

 

I am pretty sure that is being used, for things like rocks and such to add detail to maps beyond your standard grass, but I dont have details on that.

[Witchking]

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 :)

 

:thumbup:

 

YES PLEASE! DCS has come a way with explosions...but I think it still lacks the PUNCH of something like ARMA 3. We need some nice particle fx with debris from the unit...ground.. nice scorch marks on the ground. damage models need some animation of pieces flying off etc. :p And more explosion wise..rock the units a bit..so give that feeling of impact.

[Neon67]

:thumbup:

 

YES PLEASE! DCS has come a way with explosions...but I think it still lacks the PUNCH of something like ARMA 3. We need some nice particle fx with debris from the unit...ground.. nice scorch marks on the ground. damage models need some animation of pieces flying off etc. :p And more explosion wise..rock the units a bit..so give that feeling of impact.

 

+1 but please don t hire Michael Bay :music_whistling:

[panzerd18]

From the cockpit it still looks good. But with external views and now with Combined Arms, being able to see much more detail due to being closer, the special effects are showing their age.

[DAZnBLAST]

Omg, saw this on YouTube last night, looks mint. How long till release!? Apologies if you've seen this already.

 

Mudspike dcs world 2 F15C flight:

[kontiuka]

Omg, saw this on YouTube last night, looks mint. How long till release!? Apologies if you've seen this already.

 

Mudspike dcs world 2 F15C flight:

Best estimate is alpha release first half of this year.

[Witchking]

From the cockpit it still looks good. But with external views and now with Combined Arms, being able to see much more detail due to being closer, the special effects are showing their age.

 

Yup. I agree. The devs should take a look at arma3 with blastcore..see the paths of missile smoke...the way light illuminates smoke particles. Explosion fx/fire lighting up units ...casting shadows etc. Make dcs 2.0 future proof in terms of graphics.

[NineLine]

Yup. I agree. The devs should take a look at arma3 with blastcore..see the paths of missile smoke...the way light illuminates smoke particles. Explosion fx/fire lighting up units ...casting shadows etc. Make dcs 2.0 future proof in terms of graphics.

 

Guys, Arma isnt a valid comparison, their maps are but a spec in size compared to what ED is doing. Chances are you are going to have to make some compromises to maintain that size and still look good.

[Witchking]

Guys, Arma isnt a valid comparison, their maps are but a spec in size compared to what ED is doing. Chances are you are going to have to make some compromises to maintain that size and still look good.

 

I think currently the ARMA 3 map size is around 300kmx300km which is around the size of the NTTR terrain... isn't it?

[NineLine]

Altis, which is a island isnt it, is 270 square I think, with 1 airfield, something like that. NTTR is right around 600 x 610 I believe...

 

Also remember the combat in Arma is meant to be more contained than what you would want to see in DCS, so I dont think they are a fair comparison.

Edited February 3, 2015 by NineLine

[NineLine]

Here is an old compare I did a while back, now understand Wags keeps updating the map size so this is slightly outdated as the map is now almost a 100km bigger each way I think...

[rcjonessnp175]

Why are we comparing map sizes? What was brought up is that arms 3 does a very much mooor better explosion and fire effects than Dcs. I think most will agree with that and most will agree we need a better representation of terminal effects in this SIMULATOR.....

[NineLine]

Why are we comparing map sizes? What was brought up is that arms 3 does a very much mooor better explosion and fire effects than Dcs. I think most will agree with that and most will agree we need a better representation of terminal effects in this SIMULATOR.....

 

Whoooosh... right over your head ;)

 

 

The smaller the map, the more resources you can pour into fancy effects with bits and pieces and all that... the larger the map and the larger the battle area and units involved will start to reduce the available resources you can spare for certain things...

 

Its why BF4 can have the damage modelling they have right now with the ability to blow up chunks of buildings and what have you...

 

The bottomline of this little discussion is this... DCS could use better effects in certain areas, but they need to be better for DCS... ARMA, or any other game is not relevant as nobody is really trying to do what ED is trying to do.

Edited February 3, 2015 by NineLine

[rcjonessnp175]

Whoooosh... right over your head ;)

 

 

The smaller the map, the more resources you can pour into fancy effects with bits and pieces and all that... the larger the map and the larger the battle area and units involved will start to reduce the available resources you can spare for certain things...

 

Its why BF4 can have the damage modelling they have right now with the ability to blow up chunks of builds and what have you...

 

Not over my head at all I'm perfectly aware of that. Point still stands Dcs needs allot of improvements in that and many other realms. Which is very much doable with that shiny new engine they are working on.

Edited February 3, 2015 by NineLine
oops sorry

[NineLine]

Not over my head at all I'm perfectly aware of that. Point still stands Dcs needs allot of improvements in that and many other realms. Which is very much doable with that shiny new engine they are working on.

 

And someone brought up Arma, and I stated why Arma isnt relevant... argh my head hurts...

[Raven68]

And someone brought up Arma, and I stated why Arma isnt relevant... argh my head hurts...

 

You need this....

 

[vicx]

Someone brings up Arma but that is OK there are some comments which can apply here.

 

Truth is that Arma3 engine is more than advanced in terms of separating component parts and spreading he load. It is OK to give the Arma developers credit for this without making direct comparisons to DCS development. BUT the componentisation of Arma engine has not been entirely smooth for Arma devs and Arma fans. Physx implemenetation for example has been lengthy and has not always been supported by players.

 

Whenever you ask for features in DCS consider if YOU have the patience and the ability to SUPPORT devs while they roll out code that DOES have lots of bugs and DOES require lots of fixes over periods of time stretching out over months and perhaps years.

 

For new engine features you have to be willing to have distruption.

 

New stuff always breaks old stuff - seems like some kind of rule.

 

The DCS community strikes me as being very conservative and not very forgiving of anything that doesn't work perfectly straight away.

 

Resistant to change is OK but it means you get not many new features and you wait much longer for them.

[NineLine]

This thread isnt about giving Arma devs credit, whether they deserve it or not.

 

ED has already added some new effects, and they are adding more. And when 2.0 goes open alpha or whatever the first public release will be, you will see those effects and be able to comment on them then, but I trust ED to make things prettier than they were, but still manage to have a sim that runs smooth. I would rather see a real world explosion and say, that is what I want an explosion to look like, not one from another sim... hope that makes sense.

 

Someone brings up Arma but that is OK there are some comments which can apply here.

 

Truth is that Arma3 engine is more than advanced in terms of separating component parts and spreading he load. It is OK to give the Arma developers credit for this without making direct comparisons to DCS development. BUT the componentisation of Arma engine has not been entirely smooth for Arma devs and Arma fans. Physx implemenetation for example has been lengthy and has not always been supported by players.

 

Whenever you ask for features in DCS consider if YOU have the patience and the ability to SUPPORT devs while they roll out code that DOES have lots of bugs and DOES require lots of fixes over periods of time stretching out over months and perhaps years.

 

For new engine features you have to be willing to have distruption.

 

New stuff always breaks old stuff - seems like some kind of rule.

 

The DCS community strikes me as being very conservative and not very forgiving of anything that doesn't work perfectly straight away.

 

Resistant to change is OK but it means you get not many new features and you wait much longer for them.

[rrohde]

Well, what it comes down to is this -- we need more EDGE / DCS 2.0 eye-candy really, really soon. Bring it on.

[blackbelter]

Well, what it comes down to is this -- we need more EDGE / DCS 2.0 eye-candy really, really soon. Bring it on.

 

No amount of eye-candy is enough... Only EDGE itself is.

[Witchking]

I guess the major thing is perhaps for ED to take advantage of more cores...not for sim purpose, but for offloading special fx calculations. I know this has come up in wishlists before, but what about havok? I know ED prefers to build everything in house due to code compatibility etc..but something like havok can surely take the destruction/damage fx to a whole new level compared to whatever we have seen so far in flight sims. PhysX being a NVidia proprietary tech is not as advisable as havok. I know Havok is CPU intensive, but perhaps loading off havok to a separate core of the CPU can truly open up new avenues for DCS....falling buildings, tanks wreaking "havok" in the WWII terrain.

[NineLine]

Guys, lets try and get back on topic, discuss what we know, and leave the what ifs out...

[VincentLaw]

discuss what we know

Okay, I was looking over this NTTR video footage again and I noticed a spot that could use a minor tweak. Currently the Las Vegas Motor Speedway front stretch turns off from the pit road, but it would be better if it was the other way around because the front stretch is part of the main track. See my picture for an example of what I mean. I realize some inaccuracies are probably constraints of the EDGE road system, but this fix should be doable.

 

 

[NineLine]

Okay, I was looking over this NTTR video footage again and I noticed a spot that could use a minor tweak. Currently the Las Vegas Motor Speedway front stretch turns off from the pit road, but it would be better if it was the other way around because the front stretch is part of the main track. See my picture for an example of what I mean. I realize some inaccuracies are probably constraints of the EDGE road system, but this fix should be doable.

 

 

 

The Las Vegas Motor Speedway isnt a big part of NTTR, its modelling will be basic at best, whether they will tweak landmarks like that is unknown and pretty doubtful at this time.