Regarding the Chinese Naval Assets

[Northstar98]

Hi everyone,

 

I think we need to have a talk about the most recent surface ships added to DCS, those being the type 052B and 052C guided missile destroyers and the type 054A guided missile frigate from Dekka Ironworks.

 

Now I'm not trying to attack Dekka Ironworks in any way or any of it's developers. These are not bad ships in any way; they are good ships, but good ships that in my opinion are in need of a bit of a rework.

 

I will do my best to provide (hopefully) constructive criticism where it's due, I will do my best to highlight this with images and provide reference images as comparisons. I just feel that while these are very welcome additions (how often do we see new ships in DCS?) we can do a bit better on these. I am very grateful of these new ships, for once we see new faces on the water for DCS so they are very welcome as additions. But I think there's a standard that needs to be set, but I'm sorry to say these ships don't quite make the mark, they aren't terribly far away, but to me, in some regards these ships are more like the ships of the past from decades back, long overdue for replacement. Generally, besides the issues I bring up these ships are very good and of a decent level of expected quality, but there are some areas where they just don't meet the mark.

 

I will accept that upgrading the graphics of ships is of low priority, as is the whole of the maritime environment for DCS. But for these ships there seems to be serious things lacking/in need of serious improvement to keep them up to meet the expected standard and to future-proof the ships for new features regardless of how far away those might be.

 

I will try to attach images from DCS to highlight what I mean, I will also try to provide suitable reference images to not only make comparisons but to aid research and help development, I will try to put the constructive into constructive criticism.

 

Again, I'm not trying to make an attack, Dekka Ironworks are quite capable modellers and texturers, they prove that no doubt from there missiles, which for most of them are damn near perfect. And I know myself enough to realise that I can be a bit fussy, pedantic, fastidious and over-scrupulous over such things, so bare that in mind.

 

Right onto business... I'll start with the Type 052B 'Guangzhou' class guided missile destroyer.

 

Type 052B Imgur Album

 

Firstly there's the lower hull, which is mostly feature absent, beside a questionable and incredibly angular (hexagonal from the front) bulbous bow; there are no propellers, no rudders, no stabilisers and no strakes.

 

According to a reference image, the destroyer should have 2, 5-bladed propellers, 2 vertical rudders directly behind the propellers and inline with the shaft. There should be 2 stabilisers on each side protruding at ~45 degree angles from the hull 1/3rd of the way along from bow to stern, and stern to bow. There's also a strake in the middle of the 2 stabilisers. The bulbous bow, should protude in a more spherical fashion, and should be a little larger.

 

Type 052B Reference Image #1

 

Reference image #2(Type 052C and Type 052D destroyers are based along the same hull as the Type 052B), this reference image though isn't the best, as the 3D graphics it presents have a different bulbous bow, one that isn't angular or has a vertical drop from the hull and is more spherical). Reference photos for the bulbous bow and details for the propellers are hard to come by, but even an approximation is better than nothing at all.

 

Now onto the deck.

 

Firstly there's the Type 75 240mm ASW rocket launcher, the tubes are very angular and have no depth at all, as if they were just an octagonal cylinders with the the 2 end faces cut off, the horseshoe shaped ring that supports the actual launch tubes isn't connected to the rest of the mount and is floating in mid air

 

 

 

Type 75 DCS Image #1

 

Type 75 DCS Image #2

 

Type 75 DCS Image #3

 

Type 75 DCS Image #4

 

Type 75 ASW rocket launcher reference image #1

 

Type 75 ASW rocket launcher reference image #2

 

Reference Image #3

 

 

 

Next is the Type 210 100mm naval gun, generally speaking fairly well done, but I think some minor improvements are needed, particularly with corrections to the bottom of the turret (you can see through it) and textures for making it look more natural and detailed.

 

 

 

Type 210 DCS Image #1

 

Type 210 DCS Image #2

 

Type 210 DCS Image #3

 

Type 210 DCS Image #4

 

Type 210 DCS Image #5

 

Type 210 DCS Image #6

 

Type 210 naval gun reference image #1

 

Type 210 naval gun reference image #2

 

Type 210 naval gun reference image #3

 

Type 210 naval gun reference image #4

 

 

 

Moving onto the SA-N-12/17 launchers, these are practically devoid of features, too, careful examination shows the missile just floating, not even the rail is modelled, the base is very angular and all 1 low-res texture.

 

 

 

SA-N-12/17 DCS Image #1

 

SA-N-12/17 DCS Image #2

 

SA-N-12/17 DCS Image #3

 

SA-N-12/17 DCS Image #4

 

SA-N-12/17 DCS Image #5

 

SA-N-12/17 Reference Image #1

 

SA-N-12/17 Reference Image #2

 

SA-N-12/17 Reference Image #3

 

SA-N-12/17 Reference Image #4

 

SA-N-12/17 Reference Image #5

 

SA-N-12/17 Reference Image #6

 

 

 

The H/PJ-12/Type 730 CIWS is also in need of work, at the moment is depicted as the Type 1130 CIWS (owing to the number of barrels, 11 opposed to 7, though the shape still matches that of a Type 730) the base is incredibly angular, the whole mounting is missing quite a lot of detail. Some smoothing out here and there.

 

 

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 DCS Image #1

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 DCS Image #2

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 DCS Image #3

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 DCS Image #4

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 DCS Image #5

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 Reference Image #1 (image is flipped, EO system(?) should be on the left, RADAR on the right)

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 Reference Image #2

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 Reference Image #3

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 Reference Image #4 (better look at the base)

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 Reference Image #5

 

H/PJ-12/Type 730 Reference Image #6

 

 

 

Finally there's the Type 726-4 decoy launching systems, these suffer from the same problem as the Type 75 rocket launcher, the tubes are very angular, a lot of detail is absent.

 

 

 

Type 052B, Type 726-4, DCS Image #1

 

Type 052B, Type 726-4, DCS Image #2

 

Type 052B, Type 726-4, DCS Image #3

 

Type 052B, Type 726-4, DCS Image #4

 

Type 726-4 Reference Image #1

 

Type 726-4 Reference Image #2

 

Type 726-4 Reference Image #3

 

Type 726-4 Reference Image #4

 

 

 

Generally the ship needs a major rework. 3D work, textures, adding of details, some smoothing out here and there, redoing of weapon systems, as well as add detail where possible, I'm happy to help with reference photos.

 

 

Right now onto the Type 054A frigate this ship typically fares better, it looks more natural, a lot of the work above the waterline seems pretty good looking. Features are generally more rounded and smoother, textures are generally better. Though it still suffers some of the same issues as the preceding Type 052B destroyer. Once again the lower hull is identical to the Type 052B destroyer, no propellers, no rudders, no stabilisers, no strakes. The bulbous bow is largely the same but comes more forward. According to a reference image (something is better than nothing), there is a more spherical bulbous bow (unlike the current one); 2, 5 bladed propellers, 2 vertical rudders inline with the prop shaft, 2 stabilisers and 2 strakes - pretty much an identical configuration to the Type 052B destroyer.

 

DCS Type 054A Imgur Album

 

Type 054A Reference Image #1

 

The H/PJ-26 76mm naval gun fares much better than the Type 210 gun, we see better textures and hatches are now visible but there's something that doesn't look right compared to the reference images. This gun looks much better on the whole.

 

 

 

H/PJ-26 DCS Image #1

 

H/PJ-26 DCS Image #2

 

H/PJ-26 DCS Image #3

 

H/PJ-26 DCS Image #4

 

H/PJ-26 Reference Image #1

 

H/PJ-26 Reference Image #2

 

H/PJ-26 Reference Image #3

 

H/PJ-26 Reference Image #4

 

H/PJ-26 Reference Image #5

 

H/PJ-26 Reference Image #6

 

H/PJ-26 Reference Image #7

 

 

 

The Type 87 ASW rocket launcher suffers the same issues as the Type 75 ASW rocket launcher and Type 726-4 systems are exactly the same as on the Type 052B destroyer, see above for details.

 

 

 

Type 87 DCS Image #1

 

Type 87 DCS Image #2

 

Type 054A, Type 726-4, DCS Image #1

 

Type 054A, Type 726-4, DCS Image #2 (due for update)

 

 

 

The H/PJ-12/Type 730 system fares a little better this time around, see above for reference images. But some details are missing, some things need clearing up. The base is much better.

 

 

 

Type 054A Type 730 DCS Image #1

 

Type 054A Type 730 DCS Image #2

 

Type 054A Type 730 DCS Image #3

 

Type 054A Type 730 DCS Image #4 (due for update.)

 

 

 

No real complaints for the HQ-16 VLS, looks pretty much perfect minus some trivial details that don't really matter all that much.

 

 

 

HQ-16 VLS DCS Image #1

 

HQ-16 VLS DCS Image #2

 

HQ-16 VLS Reference Image #1

 

HQ-16VLS Reference Image #2

 

 

 

Generally speaking this ship is a little better, we have better details for doors, there are still some major issues in need of reworking. Once again I'll try to provide references images where possible. Retexturing of the hull and superstructure and small details I think should be considered as with the Type 052B destroyer.

 

On both ships the Type 382 RADAR definitely needs work (identical for both the Type 052B and Type 054A). Most other RADARs are also in need of work.

 

 

 

Type 382 DCS Image #1

 

Type 382 DCS Image #2

 

Type 382 DCS Image #3

 

Type 382 DCS Image #4

 

Type 382 Reference Image #1

 

Type 382 Reference Image #2

 

Type 382 Reference Image #3

 

Type 382 Reference Image #4

 

 

 

It would be really great if these ships, once improved had graphical FFBNW improvements for future-proofing, such as hatches for torpedo tubes/missile reloading (like the Slava class and Kilo class for torpedo tube hatches, and like the Oliver Hazard Perry class) and hangar doors (like the Slava class, Ticonderoga Class, Oliver Hazard Perry Class). Obviously any improvement anywhere in some way would be very welcome.

 

Right, apologies for the death by words, I hope this can be considered as constructive criticisms for what would otherwise be very fine looking ships. I'm probably the only one worrying about this and I can be a bit over-scrupulous when it comes to these things.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Ollie

Edited March 22, 2018 by Northstar98

[Shadow KT]

Woah.... a lot of work put into this, a lot of dedication for some ships, you must be a big fan.

 

Yeah, in general, after the presentation you have made, it is clear that there is a lot to ask here

[VZ_342]

I try not to get that close to warships, they don’t play nice.

[CharDee MacDennis]

Good critique, does anyone know if you can view polycounts in the ED model viewer? I suspect some of the things like the hexagonal bulbous bow and absence of propeller were sacrifices made to add detail to more prominent elements. I recall reading somewhere that at one point the F-15E was the highest poly vehicle in the game, i'd be interested to see how it stacks up against some of the larger more detailed warships we have now.

 

the solution to the problem of high poly warships is of course to replace them all with ddg-1000 :D

 

edit: yes you can see triangle counts in the model viewer, for comparison:

F-15E: 187k

Moscow Class: 202k

Ticonderoga: 94k

Perry: 72k

Tarawa: 772k (wow!)

052B: 81k

054A: 54k

Edited March 19, 2018 by CharDee MacDennis

[Northstar98]

Woah.... a lot of work put into this, a lot of dedication for some ships, you must be a big fan.

 

Yeah, in general, after the presentation you have made, it is clear that there is a lot to ask here

 

I wouldn't say I was a fan of these ships in particular, though like most things in DCS, things I never cared much for I end up respecting, and enjoying. Case study MiG-15, never thought much of it, bought the module, fell in love with it.

 

There's a lot of work to be done, yes, and for the most part for now the ships are fine. The work doing to them shouldn't be really absolutely massive, the main issue is the lower hull, where we only have a reference image to go from, that isn't detailed and will rely on a lot of guesstimates. I hope I've provided enough reference images, but I'm more than happy to hunt for more.

 

What I am a fan of is the naval environment, DCS so far is the most promising full stop really, I got that vibe from the second I spawned a ship in DCS, for the first time. I also love aviation, but especially when you combine maritime and aviation. I am very partial to maritime operations, each and every one; blue water warfare with carrier battle groups, amphibious operations, coastal defence, ASW, SAR, heck even humanitarian stuff on and off ships, all of that interests me and all of those can and do involve aircraft and it's those types of aircraft as well that interest me the most. It's also why ocean maps with islands interest me the most (something like the GIUK gap map I proposed in another thread https://imgur.com/QBaJglf). Sadly we've yet to see a combination, but DCS is the best place to start, it already offers the most for both and offers the most potential and will only improve with the new carrier modules in the near future.

 

I am also a fan of consistency so it really pains me to see some great features go into these ships, but the same level doesn't apply to all of it. It would be like having the A-10C module, which is very good anyways, but the GAU-8 is blocky and angular - it spoils the look.

 

Good critique, does anyone know if you can view polycounts in the ED model viewer? I suspect some of the things like the hexagonal bulbous bow and absence of propeller were sacrifices made to add detail to more prominent elements. I recall reading somewhere that at one point the F-15E was the highest poly vehicle in the game, i'd be interested to see how it stacks up against some of the larger more detailed warships we have now.

My bets are probably EDIT: Just seen your edit, that really shows! Interesting how the Type 054A has a lower poly count, but to me seems better detailed...

 

I suspect some of the things like the hexagonal bulbous bow and absence of propeller were sacrifices made to add detail to more prominent elements. I recall reading somewhere that at one point the F-15E was the highest poly vehicle in the game, i'd be interested to see how it stacks up against some of the larger more detailed warships we have now.

 

The problem here is there are larger, more complicated ships (more complex than the Type 054A or Type 052B) that have less angular, higher poly hulls etc, with propellers. The current standard for me is set by the 4 year old Slava class, which even that needs a small bit of tinkering, but not much at all. So while logical, I can't imagine it's really a factor. For me I think it's the sheer lack of reference material, and the reference material we have doesn't give us much in the way of a head start... I would like to see how the warships stack up to the warplanes.

 

the solution to the problem of high poly warships is of course to replace them all with ddg-1000 :D

:lol: :thumbup:
Edited March 21, 2018 by Northstar98

[Gman109]

Where are all these Chinese ships etc in the game??

[Northstar98]

Where are all these Chinese ships etc in the game??

 

The Type 052B destroyer, the Type 054A frigate are presently in the game and able to be used as an AI unit, the Type 052C destroyer is present but not in the game (it's in the encyclopedia, but not present as an asset in the mission editor).

[uboats]

thanks for your feedback

deka is planning the model improvement for those ships which were originally contributed by other dcs fan years ago.

currently they have only one modeler can work on it while others are focusing on jf-17. so don't expect the refined models come out soon.

[Northstar98]

thanks for your feedback

deka is planning the model improvement for those ships which were originally contributed by other dcs fan years ago.

currently they have only one modeler can work on it while others are focusing on jf-17. so don't expect the refined models come out soon.

 

Ahh I see, no problem at all :)

 

I wasn't expecting a hasty fix by any means, I know it's low priority, and now I know that Dekka are more committed to a higher priority project so no problems at all.

 

I wasn't aware of the origins of these ships, if I had been I probably wouldn't have posted, nor was fully aware of Dekka's current situation (apologies).

 

I just hope that my feedback and critique have been fair and honest, and haven't been offensive or defamatory. (And I know how pedantically fastidious I can be).

[uboats]

:)

[Bad_Karma-701]

thanks for your feedback

deka is planning the model improvement for those ships which were originally contributed by other dcs fan years ago.

currently they have only one modeler can work on it while others are focusing on jf-17. so don't expect the refined models come out soon.

 

NICE:thumbup: I cant wait to fly against the JF-17 since its comparable to the F-16C / F/A-18C in performance and weaponry.

[Mars Exulte]

@CharDee

The MiG-29 has three times the poly count of the F-15 at around 320k-350k polys (I don't remember precisely). The next one down is 200 something.

[Northstar98]

Just a note to the moderators, would it be better if this was moved to the Dekka Ironworks subforum now that they have one?