Woogey Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) In order to increase the map size and expedite the process of map creation, would you support photoreal scenery without objects? I am thinking along the lines of MegaScenery for FSX/P3D. Of course detailed maps could be added on top, or as a later replacement. Would you buy a photoreal only scenery product for DCS World, if you could instantly fly over SoCal, or all of England for example? Just curious, because I would buy it in a heartbeat! Edited July 14, 2015 by Woogey
GeorgeLKMT Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No. + It looks great because it's the exact representation of the area - Might require a lot of work. You need to correct colors and imaging errors (cause I'm not really sure if they do that in the first place). You need to delete roads, houses and such, if you want to add your own. No, I don't like the idea of objects and whole cities projected onto a flat texture. And how would that even work? You need to get a licence from ED to get access to map tools and I doubt they'll agree to that. They want quality, not FSX freeware-level crap. - Takes TOO much space. NTTR is already 25GB or so... I've had sceneries in FSX which took four times that number, even more... - Unless you use very high resolution imagery (which might just not be available for the area) or fly FL350+ all the time, you'll never get nice and sharp textures. And if you do, forget about 25GB and start counting in hundreds. Quality > quantity. I'd wait 2 years for another proper map like NTTR rather than fly above flat blurry crap in 2 months eating all the space on my SSD. ;) ■ L-39C/ZA Czech cockpit mod ■ My DCS skins ■
Aviators Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 no.... L'importante non è stabilire se uno ha paura o meno, è saper convivere con la propria paura e non farsi condizionare dalla stessa. Ecco, il coraggio è questo, altrimenti non è più coraggio ma incoscienza.
Echo38 Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 This technique looks unconvincing at normal altitudes, and horrible at lower altitudes. "Photoreal" is a misleading term, even if real photographs were used. No, thanks.
Highwayman-Ed Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) I would, and it shouldn't be dismissed without consideration. Proper use of high resolution photographic imagery, augmented with lower level texture masks for low level flight would be a great addition IMO. If I'm not mistaken, I believe it is how Wags explained that the NTTR scenery is being created. Of course, there are several poor examples of photo real textures in FSX where there are only blanket medium altitude imagery is used without any 3d objects on the map, and yes... that is terrible. There are others though such as the ORBX scenery add ons that show how it should be done. Edited July 14, 2015 by Highwayman-Ed Intel i9-9900KF @5.2GHz MSI Z390 Gaming Pro Carbon 32GB G.Skill Trident Z DDR3200 RAM MSI RTX 2080 Ti Gaming X Trio 40" Panasonic TH-40DX600U @ 4K Pimax Vision 8K Plus / Oculus Rift CV1 / HTC Vive Gametrix JetSeat with SimShaker Windows 10 64 Bit Home Edition [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Echo38 Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 If I'm not mistaken, I believe it is how Wags explained that the NTTR scenery is being created. Maybe the lower-detail areas. I can't imagine that Eagle Dynamics would do this for the main scenery. There's so much wrong with just tossing down real aerial photographs, e.g. shadows that are where they shouldn't be at most times of day, stationary automobiles on roads, 3D objects which are visibly flat, terrain contours which don't match the mesh, etc.
Strut Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I agree with Highway because if you have seen the ORBX scenery its pretty convincing. Never say never. Regards DL available skins here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?CREATED_BY=Strut Pictures of my Skins here: https://imgur.com/a/bOQyQqW [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Win10 64bit, Intel® Core i7-5820K CPU OC @ 4.50GHz x6, X99A GAMING PRO CARBON, MSI RTX 2080 TI GAMING X TRIO 11Gb, 32GB DDR4 RAM, SSD 960 EVO250GB, SSD 850 EVO 500GB, JetSeat, MFG Crosswind Pedals, VPC Mongoose T-50, TMWH, DSD ButtonBox, Pimax 5k XR/BE
Ironhand Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Assuming the availability of high resolution imagery for the area and a quality production, I certainly would. As a creator of what someone above referred to as that "FSX freeware-level crap", I know what a quality product can do. It all depends on where you spend your flight time. If you're a groundpounder, then it might not be your cup of tea but, if you normally fly at 600m AGL or more, good quality photoscenery works extremely well. YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg _____ Win 11 Pro x64, Asrock Z790 Steel Legend MoBo, Intel i7-13700K, MSI RKT 4070 Super 12GB, Corsair Dominator DDR5 RAM 32GB.
tomcatter Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 Oh, not at all. I don´t like the so called photoreal scenery because is so unreal when you get low, somthing I do often. Can´t imagine flying low with the Hog over a photo texture.....
chromium Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 no. Author of DSMC, mod to enable scenario persistency and save updated miz file Stable version & site: https://dsmcfordcs.wordpress.com/ Openbeta: https://github.com/Chromium18/DSMC The thing is, helicopters are different from planes. An airplane by it's nature wants to fly, and if not interfered with too strongly by unusual events or by a deliberately incompetent pilot, it will fly. A helicopter does not want to fly. It is maintained in the air by a variety of forces in opposition to each other, and if there is any disturbance in this delicate balance the helicopter stops flying; immediately and disastrously.
will- Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 As long as it looks nothing like fsx or p3d.. Photo real yes. Intel i9-9900K 32GB DDR4, RTX 2080tiftw3, Windows 10, 1tb 970 M2, TM Warthog, 4k 144hz HDR g-sync.
104th_Cobra Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 High resolution (0,5 - 2m) orthoimagery in DCS is bad idea. It's pointless to have operation's theaters / terrains without ground objects. And to have the ground objects locations coherent with the imagery / ground textures, it will be needed a lot (and I mean a lot!) of work, not to talk about the size in drive. Even for ground operations it will bring no improvement, only entropy. Remember, DCS is a combat sim, not only a flight sim. 104th Cobra [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Vitormouraa Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No. please.. no. SplashOneGaming Discord https://splashonegaming.com
104th_Cobra Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 If there would be an option to superimpose terrains in a geodetic coordinate system, suppressing the differences between them, why not to have the option of a "generic"/low resolution and textures terrain beneath a higher resolution terrain populated with ground objects? The contrary does not apply, it's pointless to have an higher resolution terrain outside some area of interest. 104th Cobra [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Rongor Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I would support any development of additional sceneries, no matter if photorealistic or not. DCS lacks theaters.
Woogey Posted July 14, 2015 Author Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) No. + It looks great because it's the exact representation of the area - Might require a lot of work. You need to correct colors and imaging errors (cause I'm not really sure if they do that in the first place). You need to delete roads, houses and such, if you want to add your own. No, I don't like the idea of objects and whole cities projected onto a flat texture. And how would that even work? You need to get a licence from ED to get access to map tools and I doubt they'll agree to that. They want quality, not FSX freeware-level crap. - Takes TOO much space. NTTR is already 25GB or so... I've had sceneries in FSX which took four times that number, even more... - Unless you use very high resolution imagery (which might just not be available for the area) or fly FL350+ all the time, you'll never get nice and sharp textures. And if you do, forget about 25GB and start counting in hundreds. Quality > quantity. I'd wait 2 years for another proper map like NTTR rather than fly above flat blurry crap in 2 months eating all the space on my SSD. ;) Hey George, all valid concerns, however, I am not suggesting I make this. I am simply measuring the communities opinion on what they want. All Photoscenery is built upon a detailed elevation mesh, and should include accurate water masks. Because of this, it would still have mountains valley's rivers lakes, etc. If you read the post, you would get a better understanding of what I meant. Also, I am not suggesting I make this scenery, I am suggesting E.D. or a partner consider this as an alternate product to sell to us user base, to expedite scenery creation. That is all Good or Bad idea? -Woog Edited July 14, 2015 by Woogey
Griffon26 Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No. + It looks great because it's the exact representation of the area - Might require a lot of work. You need to correct colors and imaging errors (cause I'm not really sure if they do that in the first place). You need to delete roads, houses and such, if you want to add your own. No, I don't like the idea of objects and whole cities projected onto a flat texture. And how would that even work? You need to get a licence from ED to get access to map tools and I doubt they'll agree to that. They want quality, not FSX freeware-level crap. - Takes TOO much space. NTTR is already 25GB or so... I've had sceneries in FSX which took four times that number, even more... - Unless you use very high resolution imagery (which might just not be available for the area) or fly FL350+ all the time, you'll never get nice and sharp textures. And if you do, forget about 25GB and start counting in hundreds. Quality > quantity. I'd wait 2 years for another proper map like NTTR rather than fly above flat blurry crap in 2 months eating all the space on my SSD. ;) +1 same opinion [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Never parachute into an area you've just bombed You never have too much fuel, unless you burn.
Gaanalma Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 No! THX! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] www.36stormovirtuale.net
Home Fries Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 I agree that a mix of photoreal textures with tiles for low level flight is a good combination. When you're high, tiles look like they repeat, and when you're low photoreal textures look blurry. In contrast, photoreal looks great at high level and you see no tile repetition at low level. Best of both worlds if the transition is done properly. AFAIK, the NTTR map does this, and appears to do this quite well. -Home Fries My DCS Files and Skins My DCS TARGET Profile for Cougar or Warthog and MFDs F-14B LANTIRN Guide
theropod Posted July 14, 2015 Posted July 14, 2015 (edited) Yes but if it will be with autogen and vegetation Edited July 14, 2015 by theropod
7rooper Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 I'm not sure if DCS world has an autogen feature... Photoblurry sceneries only will not work in a realistic simulator like this. Imagine you spotted a tank column surrounded by flat 2D cars that were there when the photo was taken... Horrible!! The best is to use landclass scenery as the vainilla FSX does. Well, we'll yet to see how the NTTR map looks and how it was done. My rig specs: Intel Core i7 4770 @3.4Ghz // Corsair 16GB DDR3 // MoBo Asus Z87K // HDD 1TB 7200RPM // eVGA Nvidia GTX 760GT 2GB DDR5 // LG 3D 47" 1920x1080 // Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS // Saitek Combat Pro Pedals // Thrustmaster MFD Cougar pack // PS3 Eye + FTNOIR
Grigs Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 I personaly do not think it is a very good thing. But some simulators have shown that the result can be quiet beautiful (e.g. Aerofly). The main problem lies in the fact that, as far as my knowledge goes, it is not possible to change the time. It will always remain the same time of the day while flying.
Recommended Posts