Better graphics

[keemarcello]

I just want them to put better graphics. Photorealistic graphics in 3d.

Now with google earth 3D you could take advantage to put in real graphics in 3 dcs as it is in google maps 3D, which by the way, is a pass

[Emmy]

Having both flown over Nevada and driven through a lot of it, I know that the NTTR map looks damn accurate as is...

[Vitormouraa]

Have you... seen 2.2 or even 2.5 that is being released tomorrow?

[ben_der]

He's talking about Orthophoto Image Overlays I think.

I use it in X-Plane and in terms of X-Plane it looks great.

 

But the Detail which is used to make DCS Maps is way higher than the Mesh + OSM Data + Autogen in X-Plane so I don't see a reason to use Orthophoto Overlay in DCS.

 

Caucasus 2.5 and Nevada look awesome as they are in my Opinion.

[Emmy]

Some things in the corners of the Four Seasons video gave me chills.

 

Although Wags never looked directly at anything in particular, the way the haze and smoke seemed to hang in the air and the blinding, seemingly featureless glare off valley fog with a low sun angle is amazing.

 

I think 2.5 is gonna blow people away...

[keemarcello]

Having both flown over Nevada and driven through a lot of it, I know that the NTTR map looks damn accurate as is...

 

 

 

It may be precise, but it will not stop being a drawing.

And I do not mean orthophoto as such. I refer to 3D orthophotos.

Has anyone used google earth 3D? It has a way to fly, it's nothing special, there's no avons or anything, you only see a HUD, well there are 2 planes, a plane and a f18 I think, but you do not see, you only see the hud. But it's amazing. It looks too real, so good ..... That DCS could do the same. And although the drawings are accurate, it has nothing to do with making it look real. The one that has not tried google earth 3D, that does it.

[keemarcello]

He's talking about Orthophoto Image Overlays I think.

I use it in X-Plane and in terms of X-Plane it looks great.

 

But the Detail which is used to make DCS Maps is way higher than the Mesh + OSM Data + Autogen in X-Plane so I don't see a reason to use Orthophoto Overlay in DCS.

 

Caucasus 2.5 and Nevada look awesome as they are in my Opinion.

 

 

But if you look at 3D google maps, everything is real, the height of the mountains, the reliefs, the valleys, everything is real, and nothing surpasses the real thing. Too has the color that is of teer, because it is real and not a drawing. The x-plane orthophotos are flat, 3D buildings are not visible. And as I say someone has to try google 3d earth to know what I'm talking about

[NeilWillis]

Nope. Not gonna happen. It is an entirely different approach, and having invested several years into DCS World, to rip all that up and start again on the eve of the 2.5 merger release? Are you kidding?

 

We already have hi-res terrain mesh, and if you took the time to actually look at any of the 2.5 video footage, with it's light and shading, vapour renditions and explosions, I'd suggest even Google earth would be a retrograde step.

 

So why now?

[Mking]

Xplane on ground with funny textures :D

[Northstar98]

DCS 2.5 looks amazing and it hits tomorrow - for free!

 

I'm with NeilWills on this one - taking the X-Plane approach would be a great step backwards - not forwards. We already have very accurate meshes and textures - apart from they present the world as flat.

 

The Four Seasons video in DCS looked absolutely stunning that it too gave me the chills - I've not seen X-Plane do anything like it - not without heavy modification.

 

Plus DCS maps - especially the new Caucasus map are designed to be useable for air land and sea, not just air. And with 2.5 coming tomorrow - for free, with new Caucasus map, the most immersive, beautiful and largest DCS map - all for free, why would we want anything different?

 

I mean

 

 

And these aren't even the best pictures!

 

Plus the buildings are destructible, plus the trees are collideable and once again it's completely free of charge. (apart from the F/A-18C)

Edited January 30, 2018 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

I just want them to put better graphics. Photorealistic graphics in 3d.

Now with google earth 3D you could take advantage to put in real graphics in 3 dcs as it is in google maps 3D, which by the way, is a pass

 

Please, come back in 48 hours.... :)

[Vitormouraa]

To be honest... 2.5 is what I always wanted in the past when I was playing DCS 1.2.x, but it's actually better!

 

I never imagined that DCS would look like the way it is now, never. Not sure how it can get any better. From the terrain to the visual effects, everything looks great. Especially the PBR and deferred shading.

 

Is it missing things? Yes but it's getting there! It's getting better.

[Fri13]

I'd suggest even Google earth would be a retrograde step.

 

Google Earth actually looks amazing in VR (you really need to use Google Earth in VR with touch controllers!) when you are in a city that has the 3D rendering. As well it is great for areas that has the higher resolution mesh and textures available.

 

But Google Earth doesn't really have a ground elements like trees there and you are stuck to one lighting (mid-day) really and that is the huge downside.

 

If something, I would take the ground texture from Google Earth in use if not just really generating something similar. As the tiny details are that really makes the map, like how grassland changes its look and type by altitude and how rivers has different areas surrounding them etc.

 

Like look at these:

https://earth.google.com/web/@45.91768295,7.61134185,1979.42587146a,1167.78851008d,35y,-15.89691729h,0.41676215t,-0r

 

https://earth.google.com/web/@45.92986505,7.56700058,2566.20326079a,3662.17417637d,35y,57.52791346h,73.58361257t,0r

 

https://earth.google.com/web/@46.52034856,8.29615887,1954.52704465a,2226.40552081d,35y,-54.22861976h,62.42156989t,-0r

 

https://earth.google.com/web/@43.31857245,40.89387219,958.48244807a,14316.18381907d,35y,-0.00000002h,7.56842037t,-0r

 

All those tiny details how terrain type changes is what is creating a huge illusion of depth and the earth.

 

BUT, no more 2D textures on mesh without trees and all like there 1.2-1.5 has been.

 

We will see in the future improvements to the current maps, I really hope so. In sense like random open areas terrain elements from bushes to rocks, more generated terrain textures so there ain't 2D houses and roads.

 

But all that is really difficult to get done and still the main problem is the processing power.

 

And DCS 2.5 looks great as it ain't anymore 2D but it really has the depth.

 

So mostly the Google Earth looks already old, as it doesn't have lighting system and 3D elements than in some cities etc. But in some specific areas it is breathtaking how beautiful the Earth can be. And then the reality strikes that this is a combat flight simulator, not a presentation of BBC "Planet Earth". :D

[Nosferatuwhisky 1-1]

Better? are you kidding?

 

2.5 looks phenomenal.

[Fri13]

To be honest... 2.5 is what I always wanted in the past when I was playing DCS 1.2.x, but it's actually better!

 

I never imagined that DCS would look like the way it is now, never. Not sure how it can get any better. From the terrain to the visual effects, everything looks great. Especially the PBR and deferred shading.

 

Is it missing things? Yes but it's getting there! It's getting better.

 

Just wait when in the future we get processing power to draw even more fine details from bushes to rocks to more subtle small terrain elevation differences. And the terrain texture can have more details (contrast).

 

What I am still expecting to be implemented some day in 2.5 engine is this:

https://earth.google.com/web/@44.52908075,38.33437205,140.9156691a,3157.22032157d,35y,177.98221172h,0t,0r

 

Look how the trees shade turns from brown to dark green in areas that has the moisture, when all the water flow down and it holds the mist?

 

That is what I am expecting to see in future in summer map that trees color is not same dark green but there is the brown shades depending the altitude. Just that subtle detail makes big difference.

 

Same thing is with the autumn, that not all trees should be same orange color as main color, but there should be blotches of different colors among dark green, red ones, bright yellow etc and all variation from the position of the trees.

 

 

That is still a fairly huge contrast to

 

Don't take me wrong, the 2.5 will be amazing what we had and what others have! There is still more things that technology might help like the SpeedTrees as it should allow to just change the properties of the forest areas by values, instead actual 3D models. So small update to change radically how trees gets generated in given areas and what type.

[Cibit]

Each tile of that quality textures that we use in Ortho4Xp would require us all to have several Terrabytes of HDD/SDD. Your blooming crazy. Also what kind of hardware could render that with planes, ships and tanks. We need a NASA supercomputer.

[keemarcello]

Just wait when in the future we get processing power to draw even more fine details from bushes to rocks to more subtle small terrain elevation differences. And the terrain texture can have more details (contrast).

 

What I am still expecting to be implemented some day in 2.5 engine is this:

https://earth.google.com/web/@44.52908075,38.33437205,140.9156691a,3157.22032157d,35y,177.98221172h,0t,0r

 

Look how the trees shade turns from brown to dark green in areas that has the moisture, when all the water flow down and it holds the mist?

 

That is what I am expecting to see in future in summer map that trees color is not same dark green but there is the brown shades depending the altitude. Just that subtle detail makes big difference.

 

Same thing is with the autumn, that not all trees should be same orange color as main color, but there should be blotches of different colors among dark green, red ones, bright yellow etc and all variation from the position of the trees.

 

 

That is still a fairly huge contrast to

 

Don't take me wrong, the 2.5 will be amazing what we had and what others have! There is still more things that technology might help like the SpeedTrees as it should allow to just change the properties of the forest areas by values, instead actual 3D models. So small update to change radically how trees gets generated in given areas and what type.

 

 

Exactly that is what I mean.

It would be nice to take the terrain of google earth and put the effects of DCS, such as smoke, clouds, explosions, etc.

Of course DCS 2.5 is great, I would be a fool if I denied that. But he still needs a lot.

And as they say, it's an air combat simulator, but since airplanes look so real, why not do the same with maps?

2.5 looks great, but it will not stop being a drawing. The trees have the same color, the roads, everything looks the same. And what has Google Earth, is that it does not add things that do not exist. If there are 20,000 trees in a real city, only 20,000 trees appear in google earth. There is no need to add more to make it more beautiful. What you have to do is a simulator as real as possible

[keemarcello]

Each tile of that quality textures that we use in Ortho4Xp would require us all to have several Terrabytes of HDD/SDD. Your blooming crazy. Also what kind of hardware could render that with planes, ships and tanks. We need a NASA supercomputer.

 

 

I do not know what mechanics Google Earth has or how it works, but it barely takes up space on my PC and I do not eat resources. It does not take a pc from NASA to have good terrain graphics. And although it does not have to do, to give an example, look at the orthophotos of ORBX, without going any further. See what quality they have and they do not pay so much, nor do they eat resources

[Northstar98]

I do not know what mechanics Google Earth has or how it works, but it barely takes up space on my PC and I do not eat resources. It does not take a pc from NASA to have good terrain graphics. And although it does not have to do, to give an example, look at the orthophotos of ORBX, without going any further. See what quality they have and they do not pay so much, nor do they eat resources

 

Google Earth downloads it's assets from the internet - that's why it barely takes up any space and doesn't eat resources.

 

ORBX with orthographic photorealism does look very natural - maybe more so than DCS (I don't own NTTR or Normandy - and I'll wait for the release version of 2.5) but DCS still does it better from 1 foot to 80,000 feet, DCS still has a higher level of detail and higher resolution with a downfall being the size of the map is more restricted. What I will say is it's more subject to the specific area as we're always making unfair comparisons. Compare the Caucasus region with ORBX orthographics to 2.5 Caucasus.

 

 

These 2 images from the outset look beautiful - however look more closely and you can see texture rubbishness and absent detail. Imagine being a ground unit with this.

 

You can also see phantom/random trees in places - the issue with autogen defined, it's encroaching on the field, on the roads etc - DCS hasn't got this problem because it's painstakingly tweaked.

 

You see the issue here? We can either have a very well done, very detailed, high resolution and a map full of features, that looks excellent if your a tank at ground level to a Su-27 19km up, that has depth to it's water, that has very good airbases right off the bat, but is smaller. OR we can have an orthographic map which while photorealistic, that looks beautiful in certain circumstances, has more pronounced inaccuracies, lower resolution mesh and textures, that might be fine for a plane, but not for a tank. But is much larger.

 

Now I would love to hope that DCS can have extensions to it's maps to eventually facilitate a more map of the Earth experience without compromising quality too much - but at the moment my preference is with the DCS direction because it works for me things - compared to the P3D/FSX approach which is only good for a limited amount of things - from a graphics standpoint.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Northstar98

[Cibit]

It uses no resources because you are getting the images via your ISP