2.5 Caucasus Map View Comparison.

[bkthunder]

IMO the lighting is the biggest improvement. Yes, the trees are very nice, the textures are maximum on-par with Barthek or Starway's, but the biggest thing is the lighting.

[Napa]

Its alive!! :P

[VTJS17_Fire]

I like EDs textures much more, than the currently mods. And priority one for me is: I don't need any mods. I can still play DCS vanilla.

 

Maybe the new textures are the reason, why Starways work couldn't or shouldn't implementiert as dlc.

[Konovalov]

very nice look forward to this as its a very unique part of the world. This update is a hard one to wait for!

Not as hard given that the upgrade to the Caucasus map is free.

[boedha68]

Don't forget, in the meantime are Mod starway and gtm 6.5 playable now. :smartass::pilotfly:

 

Those guys did a fantastic job.

Edited July 29, 2016 by boedha68

[Lib]

 

 

The screenshot of 2.5 must have been taken on a Sunday ! Nobody working at factories, no fumes from chimneys ! :D

[Fri13]

Everything looks better in the 2.5, but somehow I do like Starways textures as well, and the lighting being "dull".

 

And while the 2.5 looks nicer with new tree models etc. And it has now the new building textures that were promoted two years ago, I still think that there is something missing, and that is ground clutter.

 

I would really want to see far more bushes, small trees and rocks on the ground between forests and urban areas. Just so that the ground vehicles could hide in those areas better.

 

But there are other fixes for those too, transparency fix. So when the unit isn't moving, it gets 25-50% transparent and its thermal model is reduced as well from the sides (to simulate ground foliage). And then that would require a little better track textures that could reveal the unit positions too, meaning the tracks could be 20% transparent and when group is moving in column, it would stack the tracks making them more visible and easier to spot than when moving in a line.

 

And then when the unit starts moving, its transparency would go from 25-50% to 75% first at distance and 100% at closer ranges linearly. Meaning you can't spot easily at all even a MBT at 1.5km distance when it is stationary, but when it is moving at 40kph you can spot it from 5km distance that there is something moving.

 

That would maybe be the best option to simulate the ground clutter, as that would require a lot of drawings even when being fairly scattered sprites.

 

And that transparency trick really would help infantry a lot, as when camouflaged infantry stands still, you can not spot it at all easily until from very close distances (like 10-20m) if at all positioned to shadow or near something that can hide the shape, but standing on flat field would reveal soldier if not laying down, or if moving. That would make the CA players to be far more careful how to move when infantry could be hidden almost anywhere.

 

One day we should get then a feature where infantry can mount to buildings. I don't know did the modelers and coders count that for 2.5 or future, but it would make infantry far more powerful than they are now, as you would have infantry assaulting buildings, manning them and having far greater defensive capabilities in urban areas and towns than in forest because 3D combat model and improved cover. Aircraft pilots would be more terrified when MANPAAD would be located on rooftops and ground units when ATGM/AT weapons would be as well located on windows or rooftops.

 

But that is already off-topic about the improved 2.5 engine and ground. But just hoping to see more ground clutter in future like can be see in the 2.5 screenshot just on right edge of the screen or bottom left corner where are very small trees/bushes, that could be scattered around the empty areas so we really need to find out the ground units.

[JABO2009]

well thats good , the Cimney smoke looked exaggerated anyway.

[Loz]

@Loz:

 

If thats your maxed out config you might want to check your settings again as there arent any tree's shadowing in your pic which actualy is already implemented in 1.5/2.0 :thumbup:

 

Oops You are right!! I must have accidentaly left Flat Shadows OFF. I've now edited the OP to show Tree Shadows.

Thanks :megalol:

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Oops You are right!! I must have accidentaly left Flat Shadows OFF. I've now edited the OP to show Tree Shadows.

Thanks :megalol:

 

You are welcome mate!:thumbup:

[shagrat]

I would really want to see far more bushes, small trees and rocks on the ground between forests and urban areas. Just so that the ground vehicles could hide in those areas better.

 

But there are other fixes for those too, transparency fix. So when the unit isn't moving, it gets 25-50% transparent and its thermal model is reduced as well from the sides (to simulate ground foliage).

Hmm, we would need a “thermal model“ first. Currently it is just a b/w and contrast adjust. Not representing anything related to temperature.

Current ground forces, even on plain meadows can be nearly invisible on IR depending on angle, background texture and lighting.

I hope we get a thermal map/texture set that represents engine heat, summer sun heated metal parts, thermal cover of foliage etc.

 

And that transparency trick really would help infantry a lot, as when camouflaged infantry stands still, you can not spot it at all easily until from very close distances (like 10-20m) if at all positioned to shadow or near something that can hide the shape, but standing on flat field would reveal soldier if not laying down, or if moving. That would make the CA players to be far more careful how to move when infantry could be hidden almost anywhere.

Careful, what you wish for... ;) I remember lots of mission where I and others as well, tried to find a single f...ing soldier remaining for the trigger "group is dead" to continue the mission.

Can easily take a couple hours, be horribly frustrating and often ends in carpet bombing the general area... :D

 

I would definitely like the infantery to support stance settings. Stand, crouch, prone/take cover. Let texture/color do the hiding with the new procedural grass/bushes...

And while we are at it. More infantry! Different types, LAW Team for western army, snipers (with camo-webbing), maybe more diverse camo, civilians, insurgents of different heritage, more civil cars, and such. :)

 

EDIT. You can put MANPAD and even Zsu-23 emplacements on rooftops... and yes, that's scary for most pilots, but as well a huge fun for JTAC/FAC players calling in air strikes.

Edited July 29, 2016 by shagrat

[Fri13]

Careful, what you wish for... ;) I remember lots of mission where I and others as well, tried to find a single f...ing soldier remaining for the trigger "group is dead" to continue the mission.

Can easily take a couple hours, be horribly frustrating and often ends in carpet bombing the general area... :D.

 

That is the reason why never should be used 100% destruction requirement unless something very clear like a building or a bridge.

But for groups 30-40% destruction is enough to render it unable to continue mission/operation.

[shagrat]

That is the reason why never should be used 100% destruction requirement unless something very clear like a building or a bridge.

But for groups 30-40% destruction is enough to render it unable to continue mission/operation.

Unfortunately 90% of the mission designers ignore this truth... ;)

[Bucic]

I don't know if you can see that but the haze is also improved. It has much more volumetric look to it. In 1.5 it was completely off. Instead of the gradient translucency we got blurred terrain textures. Try some crisp textures mod and take a look at a piece of terrain 10 km away.

[Vitormouraa]

The screenshot of 2.5 must have been taken on a Sunday ! Nobody working at factories, no fumes from chimneys ! :D

 

That helps me to see the wind direction! :D

[TheCabal]

Ok so graphics are very hot ok, no words needed on that but..... any words regarding the performance?

[Frostie]

Judging by Wags post, performance = 42

[iLOVEwindmills]

Judging by Wags post, performance = 42

 

What does that mean?

[Frostie]

What does that mean?

 

The answer to the ultimate question.

 

For anyone who has taken time to read the opening thread will know that the product is not released and still being worked on.

[Cibit]

 

Sorry to be pedantic but I thought these shots where at the same time of day, yet the shadows are cast in opposite directions:noexpression:

 

Doh I just zoomed in and one is 10.30 AM and the 2nd is 18.30ish

 

Still looking forward to flying low and slow in my Huey over teh new terrain :)

Edited August 5, 2016 by Cibit

[Loz]

Sorry to be pedantic but I thought these shots where at the same time of day, yet the shadows are cast in opposite directions:noexpression:

 

Doh I just zoomed in and one is 10.30 AM and the 2nd is 18.30ish

 

Still looking forward to flying low and slow in my Huey over teh new terrain :)

 

The two in the OP were taken at the same time of day but someone added a third to show what it looked like with a third party mod, and that one was at a different time.

[scotchegg]

Textures look great, but I am disappointed to read that it's only a possibility the mesh will be updated.

 

Come on guys, the mesh is woefully inadequate making flying around the mountains a real immersion killer.

[Captain Orso]

I like the ground textures a whole lot more. (I hate when the ground texture looks like it was or a 10x10 meter piece of ground, but was enlarged for a 100x100 meter piece of ground on the map ).

 

Ground texutre at 1.2

 

Ground texture at 2.5, much better!

 

That being said, the railroad tracks in 1.2 look better to me. The light colored rail bed is much closer to what I know, but that is from the US and western Europe, where the rocks used for rail beds are granite, which is light gray. But, in the Caucuses, it may be different. Also, rail beds are always raised above the surrounding ground.

 

I like that in 2.5 the building don't look like they were simply dropped into an open field.

 

Buildings in 1.2

 

Buildings in 2.5

 

Then again, not all building have a paved 'platform' extending all the way around them.

 

 

Both look like a one-size-fits-all solution, but neither is quite correct.

 

The windows and balconies in the 1.2 buildings look better to me. They are more varied, like people are living in the building, each having different curtains opened/closed to different degrees, balconies with different furniture, etc. It just looks more lived-in.

 

I too would like to see the hills and mount-meshes fixed. The straight-line ridges are just soooo ....

 

Also, if we're talking about mesh, rivers and streams should all be sunken lower than the surrounding land. That's what rivers and streams do, they eat into the ground and always have an embankment at their edges.

 

Looking forward to the 2.5 Caucuses map. I can already see that it's going to be beautiful :thumbup:

 

Oh, one more thing. I've flown around a couple of times looking for one, but I can't ever remember seeing a gas station :huh:, one of the most common landmarks in the western world, especially at night, they are the most lit-up thing around; but not a one :doh:

Edited August 7, 2016 by Captain Orso

[rrohde]

Another news tidbit from Wags yesterday:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2869234&postcount=2

 

Sounds very promising!

[NineLine]

Yes, you guys will have to re-work your comparisons some :)