1.5.1.46722.87 Model Visibility removal

[xXNightEagleXx]

I find very ludicrous people not even asking for improvement (that really needs a revamp) but for totally removal. One of the biggest misconception in gaming trying to replicate the reality (since consoles) is that most of time these games fall into the same bad habit where reality = hard. A curious thing is that some gamers really believe in this and even talk as if they are cooler for being able to do something that is harder than in real life (most of time without direct/indirect experience so just based on beliefs), in the sense of as they are capable of doing there, they are surely in the path to be an ace in real life too. This happen for all games, with different degrees, that simulate the real world (some was the top of the notch at their time, although today they are considered very arcade).

 

There is another game who use smart scaling and i'll be damned not only it has a very noticeable user pool due to its age but also never created such a problem in the multiplayer (remembering that it is used for pvp), to be honest both side use smart scaling on with pleasure, smaller aircraft like mig 21 are still stealth killing machines.

 

So as I already said, there are too many type of smart scaling technique, ED is trying this one in a BETA product, which is totally normal since this is a BETA. Complain because they are making test on a BETA is like asking them to not try anything new.

 

I find funny to see that ED never stated that this technology is the final version and will remain as such for years.......but still there are people not even giving a negative feedback (which is normal for its current state) but simply whining over and over, without adding NOTHING constructive to help DEVS to take a decision.

 

In conclusion, I've seen this scene too much time where some people ask for hardness to resemble reality where it actually leads to the opposite (even driving simulators has the same effect). I remember when I used to live at Udine, close to AVIANO, and a friend of mine who was an air force member saw that "other game" in my house, one of its first comment was about not only the smaller visibility (due to the uneven confront between real world and a monitor) but also the size proportion to the visible scene. Once I turned on smart scaling, he said that it was still not perfect but much better. I can't speak for others but my suggestions and opinions are base on my life experience as games player, game developer, developer of systems and in this case opinions that came direct from someone that works with real life scenario everyday. I myself never controlled any sort of flying thing but I have friends who does both as hobby and as job.

Edited November 22, 2015 by xXNightEagleXx

[xXNightEagleXx]

I think it is a pretty safe bet everyone in this thread knows your feelings about the current iteration in the current beta build.

:thumbup:

 

 

That's the funny part, he has no iteration since he has not signed for the BETA....

[Golo]

There is no "realistic" level of Enlarged Models and there doesn't have to be. It's a Gameplay Aid. For Full Realism it must be switched off.

 

You are wrong right there.

What we have seen on our monitors before this was unrealistic because of limitation of our monitors as compared to RL.

This has been discuses to death, thats why they started the whole project.

Yes, as of now its gamelpay aid because its done incorrectly, that does not mean it it will stay(and it shouldnt) like that.

If done correctly it will be much more close to actual RL visibility.

 

I also dont think there should be any sort of customization on this, it should be just one correct (closest to RL as possible) setting an it should be hard coded with no changes possible.

There should be consistency in this and not that one server will have it turn on, other turned on and another on half seting, omg what a mess that would be.

[SharpeXB]

I find very ludicrous people not even asking for improvement (that really needs a revamp) but for totally removal.

I'm not asking for it to be removed but in its current state it's a Gameplay Aid and as such needs to be server controlled. This seems to be what ED intends.

 

There is another game who use smart scaling

Yes but it's a legacy feature from when the game looked like this. Nobody cared back then if things looked odd and out of scale due to the primitive graphics. In today's realistic looking games scaling just looks terrible.

Edited November 22, 2015 by SharpeXB

[SharpeXB]

as of now its gamelpay aid because its done incorrectly, that does not mean it it will stay(and it shouldnt) like that.

If done correctly it will be much more close to actual RL visibility

If it was done in a way that simulated real word visibility it would mean some people would still be unable to see anything. So it has a wide range of settings to accommodate everyone.

 

I also dont think there should be any sort of customization on this, it should be just one correct (closest to RL as possible) setting an it should be hard coded with no changes possible.

There should be consistency in this and not that one server will have it turn on, other turned on and another on half seting, omg what a mess that would be.

I agree. The definition of "real" means there is no player adjustment necessary. Real has only one definition and we all know what it looks like. Tanks aren't bigger than houses or seen from 60km

If it's possible to use some sort of sprite without compromising "real" then that's fine. It's possible that Battle of Stalingrad uses something like that and I think War Thunder did at one time.

But

- the effect is not controllable by the player. Allowing that obviously makes it a "gameplay aid"

- the effect is unnoticeable. You don't see giant tanks in BoS

 

Now those are different game engines with a job that's different from DCS. BoS has a "bubble" of visibility range which although it works for WWII would be unworkable in the modern realm of radar and long range engagements. It's possible that this bubble camouflages the Sprite effect. I've played RoF and BoS for years and never perceived anything like that.

DCS needs to give the player the ability to see very far away targets and so it's hard to hide effects like objects being out of scale.

The sprite in DCS would almost have to be just a single pixel to appear "real"

[PiedDroit]

I also dont think there should be any sort of customization on this, it should be just one correct (closest to RL as possible) setting an it should be hard coded with no changes possible.

+1 on that.

I'll add that "closest to RL as possible" does not mean turning it off IMO.

 

To me the model visilibility alone should be kept subtle and supplemented by other effects that replicates RL, like light reflections and maybe a halo around the objects when against the ground to simulate the difference of focus (edit: and also our ability to spot moving objects against static background, which very hard to feel on a screen that displays a moving, shaky scene).

Edited November 22, 2015 by PiedDroit

[xXNightEagleXx]

Yes but it's a legacy feature from when the game looked like this.

 

When someone is capable of comparing a modern 3d game to a 1988 2d vector game (that was actually released in 1984) just to support his idea, he automatically lose all the respect on the topic (at least for me).

 

Let's remember that games (thus commercial products and not professional products) started to actually head to realism after 1997-98 with GP3, GP legends, FSX 98, Falcon 4.0, etc.. (although they were still pretty far from it and some were just about being hard rather than realistic).

 

Comparing scaling technique results of a 2d vector game (that was not even close to be considered simulation, specially in times where nobody would have invested enough money to provide a commercial game simulation) to a full 3d game is just lame.

 

Do you know what it does show? It shows that your experience in this is just limited and you talk just basing on your no experience beliefs. This is the same behavior that you has shown on another forum (about the campaign grinding of a ww2 game) and clearly does here (bashing the beta without being a tester).

 

:doh:

Edited November 22, 2015 by xXNightEagleXx

[SharpeXB]

When someone is capable of comparing a modern 3d game to a 1988 2d vector game (that was actually released in 1984) just to support his idea, he automatically lose all the respect on the topic (at least for me).

 

Let's remember that games (thus commercial products and not professional products) started to actually head to realism after 1997-98 with GP3, GP legends, FSX 98, Falcon 4.0, etc.. (although they were still pretty far from it and some were just about being hard rather than realistic).

 

Comparing scaling technique results of a 2d vector game (that was not even close to be considered simulation, specially in times where nobody would have invested enough money to provide a commercial game simulation) to a full 3d game is just lame.

 

Do you know what it does show? It shows that your experience in this is just limited and you talk just basing on your no experience beliefs. This is the same behavior that you has shown on another forum (about the campaign grinding of a ww2 game) and clearly does here (bashing the beta without being a tester).

 

:doh:

So when you mention other sims using "smart scaling" you're referring to Falcon, right?

Falcon is an old game. None of the current generation of flight sims use a blatant amount of scaling. Really there's only two or three games like this being produced today so it's not a difficult observation.

 

And once again I'm not against the feature. But it has to be server controlled as a "game aid".

Edited November 22, 2015 by SharpeXB

[xXNightEagleXx]

So when you mention other sims using "smart scaling" you're referring to Falcon, right?

Falcon is an old game. None of the current generation of flight sims use a blatant amount of scaling. Really there's only two or three games like this today so it's not a difficult observation.

 

And once again (see I have to keep repeating stuff) I'm not against the feature. But it has to be server controlled as a "game aid"

 

 

Don't try to fix anything, you have selected a picture to show smart scaling defects of a game (really prone to arcade) from 1984....this speaks by itself.

[vicx]

For everyone,

 

You do know that Enlarged models are already in the old version of DCS.

 

It's a fact, you can see them with edmodelviewer. Almost all the long distance LOD models in the game ARE BIG BOXES. Much bigger than the actual model. This is the legacy enalarged model system which is part of the legacy rendering system. The legacy rendering system has problems ... which is why alternative strategies were discussed in several threads over the last year.

 

For sharpe, I would love to see your thoughts on the legacy model enlargement system and the legacy rendering system and the problems and possible solutions ... BUT ... you don't want to talk these subjects. I don't know if lack the technical knowledge but I do know that you prefer to remain ignorant of details and spread a simpletons idea of how rendering works in DCS to distract from discussing technical details. My observation is that this is part of an approach you take so that you can poop in this thread and get away with it.

 

This is your poop which I summarise ... All games have a field of view and perspective so fifteen levels of zoom is the only way. Don't worry about any other problems in the DCS renderer because all games have a field of view and perspective so fifteen levels of zoom is the only way.

 

That is your position which we already know very well. But way BACK in this thread you were momentarily more willing to acknowledge some truths about the rendering problems in DCS.

 

... What about a 5K monitor with a 15 level zoom? You do realise that adding zoom makes it possible for a 4K monitor to be better than (real eyesight)eyes without zoom.

 

I mean I just showed that if you have a big 4K TV and you use the Zoom in DCS then you can read the bort number of an aircraft 1km away. What happens when you go to 8K and still have zoom ... can you read the fighter patch on the pilots shoulder from 1km away?

 

No doubt the current zoom level is set to approximate 20/20 vision for a player on a desktop sized 1080p or lower res monitor ... Changing your FOV already has an inherent advantages and disadvantages, since when you zoom in you are tunnel-visioned. So it's basically self regulating.

 

So you said that unrealistic advantages (for you) are self regulating. That is a very convenient position for you to take.

 

It would be technically possible for ED to reduce the maximum level of zoom based on what resolution you are running. I mean that would stop "unrealistic advantages".

 

I suggested an easy fix for this unrealistic advantage, but you don't seem capable of responding directly to a point and so you pooped ... All games have a field of view and perspective so fifteen levels of zoom is the only way. Don't worry about any other problems in the DCS renderer because all games have a field of view and perspective so fifteen levels of zoom is the only way. That is the circular spiral shaped poop you drop in the thread. Your contribution winds back in on itself and sits there.

 

We know your position.

[PiedDroit]

And once again I'm not against the feature. But it has to be server controlled as a "game aid".

Repeating something ad nauseam doesn't make it right...

Also, having the last post in a thread doesn't make you right either.

 

You're only bashing it (without even trying it), not even being constructive, why? What is your stake in that?

And you don't fool anyone, putting this as blatant game aid is exactly the same as being against it, only sneakier.

I don't think that you're the only guy with the truth here while everyone is wrong.

What are your fears? We can help you with that.

We already know that you don't want this feature to make everything easily seen, but I really don't think it's ED's goal either. And everybody understood that.

State your real business, or be silent.

Thank you

[Ultra]

I agree whatever version of model enlargement they implement, the goal should be to replicate real life visibility. I would assume everyone wants more realism. The problem is that there needs to be resolution based settings since one size will not fit all resolutions. It will appear very differently from 4K to VR.

 

I also agree settings should be locked at your resolution. I just don't know how ED would do this seeing as anyone can go in and change their personal game code. Hidden files for this setting maybe?

[SharpeXB]

For everyone,

 

You do know that Enlarged models are already in the old version of DCS.

 

It's a fact, you can see them with edmodelviewer. Almost all the long distance LOD models in the game ARE BIG BOXES. Much bigger than the actual model. This is the legacy enalarged model system which is part of the legacy rendering system. The legacy rendering system has problems ... which is why alternative strategies were discussed in several threads over the last year.

Those are the "LOD" models used to avoid rending high polygon models when the player would be unable to see them. So they're not intended to be seen up close in the game. The previous MV option wasn't actually using those from what has been posted here. At least the example shown of the aircraft wasn't using that. Maybe the ground vehicles do and that's why they look so blocky. But why does it matter? Who cares if a tank drawn as big as a battleship looks good? It looks awful no matter how it's done.

[HornedGod]

Those are the "LOD" models used to avoid rending high polygon models when the player would be unable to see them.

 

You've just shown that you don't understand vicx's post and how the LOD models were being used for visibility purposes. The LOD models are larger then their higher poly counterparts. In this case, size does matter.

[SharpeXB]

You've just shown that you don't understand vicx's post and how the LOD models were being used for visibility purposes. The LOD models are larger then their higher poly counterparts. In this case, size does matter.

Well that shouldn't matter since the sprite is just a certain set number of pixels. It's not based on the actual size of the object. If it looks awkward because you're seeing the LOD model that cant be helped. Those models can't be made more detailed since it would kill the games performance. So you're going to see a 10 pixel cube instead of a 10 pixel tank.

Edited November 22, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Golo]

Stop arguing omg, keeping visual is DAMN hard and I have a proof.

Listen to this

HVK2YtNofeI

[xXNightEagleXx]

Stop arguing omg, keeping visual is DAMN hard and I have a proof.

Listen to this

HVK2YtNofeI

 

XD

[wumas0201]

Stop arguing omg, keeping visual is DAMN hard and I have a proof.

Listen to this

HVK2YtNofeI

 

OH~~GENIUS

The song tells what`s wrong with current settings of visibility.

[Dirty Rotten Flieger]

I haven't read this whole thread yet but I'm confident that this feature is far from finished so I'm not worried. ED will surely do more work getting it right and give servers control of this setting.

 

It has been interesting to see the capabilities of the radar though. I've been playing around with the Mig29 and I can see the enemy planes above the horizon with pilots eyes long before my radar can pick them up. On small size setting. I can also see that a plane flying 35km away above the horizon turns so I am off his beam and he disappears off my radar. Thats above the horizon not below.

If it wasn't for the unfinished and over large enemy aircraft icons I would have just assumed he was below the horizon and notching.

 

At closer range I have also seen a side on plane that I have locked fly in front of a mountain and disappear as he is lost in the mountain radar return and then reappear as he flies off other side of the mountain . As expected.

 

I just expected that above the horizon it would be impossible for him to get in the the notch. Even at longest range my radar can detect him.

 

Anybody else noticed this ? Is this correct for the Mig29 radar? I was looking at F5s

Edited November 23, 2015 by Dirty Rotten Flieger

[Why485]

FYI, no changes to the imposter stuff this patch.

[vicx]

Well that shouldn't matter since the sprite is just a certain set number of pixels. It's not based on the actual size of the object. If it looks awkward because you're seeing the LOD model that cant be helped. Those models can't be made more detailed since it would kill the games performance. So you're going to see a 10 pixel cube instead of a 10 pixel tank./

You totally ignored the point again.

 

You are playing DCS 1.2.xxx and it already has an enlarged model system. That is a fact.

 

The DCS you know and regard as "pure" already has an enlarged model system and it also has some problems that stem from it being an old legacy system.

 

===

 

Sharpe, You can skip this technical part as you always do or you could read it. It would be great if you did read it. I provide this for others anyway.

 

Below I will provide just one example of the enlarged LOD system that is in DCS 1.2.xxx and also is the base system in DCS 1.5.xxx.

 

Basic Example of a LOD system for a typical object

• LOD0 is a normal size high poly geometry for 0m-30m
  
• LOD1 is a normal size low poly geometry for 30m-3000m
  
• LOD2 is a box geometry 50% larger than normal for 3000m-10000m
  
• LOD3 is a box geometry 100% larger than normal for 10000m-50000m
  

 

*Note* Not all geometry remains visible beyond 30km BUT most ground objects are defined to render all the way out to 100km. Why? Ask ED? I have theory ... at the end of the post so keep reading.

 

DCS 1.2.xx has rendering problems and I've provided the pictures that show this. In these images I added red and orange circles around missing models that should be showing. I didn't have to add these circles to the 4K image because the F-15 models never failed to show. A 4k monitor could exhibit rendering problems but so far it seems to be much worsse on a 1080P monitor or in VR where it is shockingly bad.

 

Why does it happen? On a low res monitor at some point in the LOD1 operating range of 30m-3000m, a model can be in the distance range where it starts to stop showing up. But then if changing distance to the object causes a LOD with a larger size to be used then the object can pop into existence again. Sure a box also renders much more clearly than a geometrical shape but most time it is BIGGER BOX too. You can get instances all too often where an aircraft further away shows up (bigger size LOD) BUT a closer aircraft doesn't (Normal size LOD).

This happens less on a 4K monitor maybe because the extra resolution means that aircraft don't enter a problematic rendering situation as often.

 

===

 

Now when sprites misbehave (with this new BETA feature) whose fault is that? We could blame ED's legacy LOD system for this problem. Why does ED have in DCS 1.2.xx and 1.5.xx a system where a ground object is still rendered all the way out to 100km?

 

Can you see a tank with your eyeball from 10km away ... No. But in DCS 1.2.xx you CAN see that tank if you zoom in on him with a monitor with a large resolution. So there is an exploitable weakness in the system where a tank should just not show up at all past a certain range. With DCS 1.2.xx you will be able to zoom all the way in with an 8K monitor and you will be able to see a tank from truly ludicrous distances ... this I guarantee. So we know that these things shouldn't be possible but they are possible in the old system ... even without the sprite system. Adding sprites just makes it VERY obvious the old system has some weird stuff in it and might not be future proof.

 

Now to add an extra complication, LOD distance ranges change based on zooming ... which means that in some instances with a high resolution monitor a tank might show show up easier if you don't fully zoom in on him. Maybe there is a sweet spot in the zoom where the biggest LOD gets used.

 

Why is this old LOD system a bit weird? I suspect as theory that LODS were tuned a long time ago (at least for ground) to work perfectly with A-10C TGP on a fairly average monitor. My guess is ... LOD tuning was most likely done manually via trial and error testing. It worked at the time and it kept working BUT ED never planned that people would fly with 4K monitors or took into consideration how the LOD system would work with modules without a TGP or Radar/IRST.

 

ED also didn't design the existing LOD system to accomodate a sprite system on top either.

 

So you see my thoughts on this.

• Just attaching a sprite system to an old legacy system and expecting it to work perfectly is not reasonable. It will require tuning. I'd be inclined to start with a new system without any LOD scaling BUT I'm not the guy paying salaries at ED.
  
• Insisting that there are no problems with the old system does not seem that reasonable to me either. ED is trying some stuff ... I don't assume we are seeing anything final for while. It might take a while to find the right solution.
  

 

Anyway I got the pooper scooper ready but I really hope I won't be needing it. I tried to keep this post technical.

 

I got some facts in there and I got some suppositions. If you are going to offer a critique I would appreciate a technical critique. Don't mix up my facts and my suppositions ... there is a difference. If you can't separate them, maybe ask for a confirmation instead of just attacking.

Edited November 23, 2015 by vicx

[SharpeXB]

You totally ignored the point again.

 

You are playing DCS 1.2.xxx and it already has an enlarged model system. That is a fact.

 

The DCS you know and regard as "pure" already has an enlarged model system and it also has some problems that stem from it being an old legacy system.

 

===

 

Sharpe, You can skip this technical part as you always do or you could read it. It would be great if you did read it. I provide this for others anyway.

 

Below I will provide just one example of the enlarged LOD system that is in DCS 1.2.xxx and also is the base system in DCS 1.5.xxx.

 

Basic Example of a LOD system for a typical object

• LOD0 is a normal size high poly geometry for 0m-30m
  
• LOD1 is a normal size low poly geometry for 30m-3000m
  
• LOD2 is a box geometry 50% larger than normal for 3000m-10000m
  
• LOD3 is a box geometry 100% larger than normal for 10000m-50000m
  

 

*Note* Not all geometry remains visible beyond 30km BUT most ground objects are defined to render all the way out to 100km. Why? Ask ED? I have theory ... at the end of the post so keep reading.

 

DCS 1.2.xx has rendering problems and I've provided the pictures that show this. In these images I added red and orange circles around missing models that should be showing. I didn't have to add these circles to the 4K image because the F-15 models never failed to show. A 4k monitor could exhibit rendering problems but so far it seems to be much worsse on a 1080P monitor or in VR where it is shockingly bad.

 

Why does it happen? On a low res monitor at some point in the LOD1 operating range of 30m-3000m, a model can be in the distance range where it starts to stop showing up. But then if changing distance to the object causes a LOD with a larger size to be used then the object can pop into existence again. Sure a box also renders much more clearly than a geometrical shape but most time it is BIGGER BOX too. You can get instances all too often where an aircraft further away shows up (bigger size LOD) BUT a closer aircraft doesn't (Normal size LOD).

This happens less on a 4K monitor maybe because the extra resolution means that aircraft don't enter a problematic rendering situation as often.

 

===

 

Now when sprites misbehave (with this new BETA feature) whose fault is that? We could blame ED's legacy LOD system for this problem. Why does ED have in DCS 1.2.xx and 1.5.xx a system where a ground object is still rendered all the way out to 100km?

 

Can you see a tank with your eyeball from 10km away ... No. But in DCS 1.2.xx you CAN see that tank if you zoom in on him with a monitor with a large resolution. So there is an exploitable weakness in the system where a tank should just not show up at all past a certain range. With DCS 1.2.xx you will be able to zoom all the way in with an 8K monitor and you will be able to see a tank from truly ludicrous distances ... this I guarantee. So we know that these things shouldn't be possible but they are possible in the old system ... even without the sprite system. Adding sprites just makes it VERY obvious the old system has some weird stuff in it and might not be future proof.

 

Now to add an extra complication, LOD distance ranges change based on zooming ... which means that in some instances with a high resolution monitor a tank might show show up easier if you don't fully zoom in on him. Maybe there is a sweet spot in the zoom where the biggest LOD gets used.

 

Why is this old LOD system a bit weird? I suspect as theory that LODS were tuned a long time ago (at least for ground) to work perfectly with A-10C TGP on a fairly average monitor. My guess is ... LOD tuning was most likely done manually via trial and error testing. It worked at the time and it kept working BUT ED never planned that people would fly with 4K monitors or took into consideration how the LOD system would work with modules without a TGP or Radar/IRST.

 

ED also didn't design the existing LOD system to accomodate a sprite system on top either.

 

So you see my thoughts on this.

• Just attaching a sprite system to an old legacy system and expecting it to work perfectly is not reasonable. It will require tuning. I'd be inclined to start with a new system without any LOD scaling BUT I'm not the guy paying salaries at ED.
  
• Insisting that there are no problems with the old system does not seem that reasonable to me either. ED is trying some stuff ... I don't assume we are seeing anything final for while. It might take a while to find the right solution.
  

 

Anyway I got the pooper scooper ready but I really hope I won't be needing it. I tried to keep this post technical.

 

I got some facts in there and I got some suppositions. If you are going to offer a critique I would appreciate a technical critique. Don't mix up my facts and my suppositions ... there is a difference. If you can't separate them, maybe ask for a confirmation instead of just attacking.

I'm not sure what the point of this is.

 

Bottom line: in DCS 1.2 the player never perceives the LOD models looking odd or out of scale. Sure many of these games play some tricks with those models to make things a little more visible but not to the point where the player actually perceives it.

And I don't know what you think the solution is since you can't change the LOD models. They're tied into the performance of the game.

And the reason DCS draws objects 100km away is that there's radar which can detect them. The games radar "sees" the models which is a reason they can't get scaled up and why there's an imposter used.

Edited November 23, 2015 by SharpeXB

[xXNightEagleXx]

the reason DCS draws objects 100km away is that there's radar which can detect them. The games radar "sees" the models which is a reason they can't get scaled up and why there's an imposter used.

 

hahahhahaha

 

Things like this are one of the evil of the society/internet, just because they believe on something (sometime just because they read something on the internet without even understanding) they take it as a fact and come to forums, or wherever, to teach and drop "facts".

 

There is no relationship between rendering and anything else, as a manner effect the render layer is totally above anything else (software architecture), which means that it might not even be implemented that still everything else works 100% the same way (like a dedicated server does).

I will not even waste my time explaining who/how/why works like this, besides just because they did this way, it doesn't mean that it is the best or even among the better, that's why they have made from 0 a whole rendering engine because the way it worked previously 1.5 was just bad bad bad (just to avoid worse word) for an open world.

 

Are you a programmer? Clearly not, so why drop facts about something so technical that you just don't know, don't have even a small clue.

 

Your posts are full of this behavior

 

:doh:

Edited November 23, 2015 by xXNightEagleXx

[xXNightEagleXx]

I'm not sure what the point of this is.

 

Surely you don't, you just don't understand but still come here to drop your facts based on stories that you tell to yourself in your head.

 

Bottom line: in DCS 1.2 the player never perceives the LOD models looking odd or out of scale. Sure many of these games play some tricks with those models to make things a little more visible but not to the point where the player actually perceives it.

 

I've noticed almost from my first flight on DCS, after a quick search (here in this forum) I found out about this behavior and realized that was something known, something that was related to models and graphics engine.

 

And I don't know what you think the solution is since you can't change the LOD models. They're tied into the performance of the game.

 

As I wrote, just because ED did this way, it doesn't mean it is the best. It might also be old and among the worst (compared to modern techniques/algorithms) , it happens often in software development (specially when working on a very old game that uses the same old engines).

 

 

Like you have done for that ww2 ARCADE game, you accept everything that support your idea as god truth and unique way and bash anything that goes against it with lies .....in my house we call this as worship

Edited November 23, 2015 by xXNightEagleXx

[SharpeXB]

hahahhahaha

 

Things like this are one of the evil of the society/internet, just because they believe on something (sometime just because they read something on the internet without even understanding) they take it as a fact and come to forums, or wherever, to teach and drop "facts".

 

There is no relationship between rendering and anything else, as a manner effect the render layer is totally above anything else (software architecture), which means that it might not even be implemented that still everything else works 100% the same way (like a dedicated server does).

I will not even waste my time explaining who/how/why works like this, besides just because they did this way, it doesn't mean that it is the best or even among the better, that's why they have made from 0 a whole rendering engine because the way it worked previously 1.5 was just bad bad bad (just to avoid worse word) for an open world.

 

Are you a programmer? Clearly not, so why drop facts about something so technical that you just don't know, don't have even a small clue.

 

Your posts are full of this behavior

 

:doh:

Wags explains that in his video which described the initial MV feature. DCS cannot literally scale up the models since that would affect their radar cross section. So they are somehow related.