Ambient occlusion for dcs

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

This has been a visual effect I have missed so much in dcs. I think it would greatly improve the graphics of the world, but it would also make spotting ground units so much better and easier as they would create an undirect shadowing arround them making them look properly placed over the ground. This is a quite old graphic feature now that most modern (and most old too) games have nowadays and I think it should be added in dcs so badly...it is 2020 and getting rid of the faked occlusion maps would be a HUGE improvement.

 

About performance, it can easily be included as an option in the settings menu, in case someone doesnt want it.

 

With all the new lighting improvements I think there is nothing better than ambient occlusion in terms of lighting realism, and dcs is lacking it at the moment.

 

Thanks.

[Fri13]

That effect is a fake, no direct relation to lighting and shadows directions etc. It helps to separate objects yes, but unrealistic.

[Danny_P]

That effect is a fake, no direct relation to lighting and shadows directions etc. It helps to separate objects yes, but unrealistic.

 

^^ THIS! Whilst AO can be a good effect in certain cases, it just makes everything look 'dirty'. A LOT of the issues can and hopefully will be addressed with improvements to lighting and colour. Also the size of the AO depth to be visible from altitude would have to be huge. The only place where I personally think it could have a 'valid' use is just to help the building 'sit' into the terrain a little better. Again though, this can all be resolved in texturing and lighting

[Harker]

You can already enable SSAO from the graphics.lua file, located in Saved Games. The effect is there, but it's subtle and I don't know if it's even present for objects outside the cockpit (haven't tested much).

[Fri13]

Also the size of the AO depth to be visible from altitude would have to be huge.

 

The DCS main problem with the terrain is, that there is no ground clutter. There is only trees and then there are buildings and otherwise it is just a billiard table with some texturing.

 

It has been since the begin, and it will be so forever until ED will implement the Terrain Engine to have a ground clutter, meaning lots of rocks, small bushes, uneven terrain areas etc that they will randomly generate on the terrain by painting it there, but it will be permanently stored so it is always same way and synced across multiplayer.

 

That means that there is really a requirement to get generator capable make all the small ridges and dips and such that get then textured around. Most of this will not be so detailed for others than helicopter pilots and ground unit operators, but it will be corrected with textures for higher altitude and simply making units semi-transparent.

 

The only place where I personally think it could have a 'valid' use is just to help the building 'sit' into the terrain a little better. Again though, this can all be resolved in texturing and lighting

 

One thing map makers should avoid is using any satellite imagery that includes buildings, roads etc. Those should be purely the buildings and such 3D models and textures. There is no really excuse not to have a tools in SDK to take a open public data like from OpenStreet Map that allows separation of the buildings locations, roads etc and use that data to map a random buildings to their correct locations and draw roads and such through those places. Not everything needs to be perfect (like they already ain't even close) but you can generate a lot of these fine details using automation tools.

 

The problem is as well that people has these illusions that once you are up in the air, you can see all easily and well. Completely forgetting that in military the concealment is one of the main strategies of the war.

 

And when you have even a non-camouflaged but just with painted vehicle like a MBT or APC on the ground, it is spottable from the air only at about 500-1500 meters depending the terrain. So if the MBT is located middle of the yellow crop field, that will be popping out like a torch at night. But drive that MBT to edge of the crop field where is something green grass, and it is very difficult to spot.

 

Drive it next to a small tree island (just few bushes and a tree or two) and you do not spot it until you really are around that 500 meters range.

 

Now camouflage that MBT with nets, few branches etc, and it becomes invisible when well done. You can even hide a MBT from ground troops so well that they literally will walk on it and hit their head to it.

 

Movement reveals position. So if the "bush" is moving on the similar terrain, it becomes easier to spot. If there is dust or smoke coming out, it can be visible for much further distance (but still talking about < 2-3km range in optimal cases). And if you have lights On in middle of night, then you become easy to spot for multiple kilometers.

 

Since the 70's and 80's the modern military has trained everyone to hide their troops. Vehicles are covered, camouflaged and hidden so that you will not spot them from the air. You can point your thermal cameras at them and you don't see them. You will more easily even spot a squirrel in the forest than a MBT or APC when it is correctly done.

A-G radars are completely incapable to detect such vehicles either, as it is same as scanning a normal ground. So what really becomes the danger is the movement, sound and lights. Overtime the thermal will get changes to spot targets more easily if engines are kept running longer times, but it is mainly then already the situation where either vehicles are marching or it is assaulting and the location is already known.

 

So the easiest way to get spotted from air, is to be stupid and idiot on the ground and park the vehicle on wide open, without camouflage, engine running constantly and maybe even driving circle so you raise all the dust and create all the motion that is required. Then it becomes easy to spot the ground units from past 2-3 kilometers in the air.

 

But otherwise you really need to know already the location of the units to get change to find them. Boots on ground are extremely important in that. They hear and spot things that you can't from the air, and opposite. But when someone wants to be unseen, they can do it very effectively manner. Even when it is a 50 tons weighting main battle tank.

 

Once you start to build structures (like checkpoints, camps, etc) and leave clear tracks (on snow, fields, mud etc) they become easier to be found.

 

And one way how DCS could try to fix that is to add a additional terrain layer above the ground, like 1-5 meters, that is semi transparent and would stay above the ground units in many cases, and it would become visible once you start to gain altitude. And it starts to create a optical illusion of the ground clutter without requiring a 3D objects etc to be even tried drawn at long areas.

 

Camouflaged units could be made semi-transparent when stationary, and start to make them opaque when moving etc.

All kind visual tricks could be done for higher altitude cameras than low flying ones.

 

Now in the DCS we can in VR spot the ground vehicles from 10 km distance if they are at open. Very easy if you get sun glare to their windows. And far further distance even when you have them edge of forests or trees than you are suppose to.

And that is something that should be fixed. Already one great way is to use those third party ground textures, but they help just somewhat. But that is easiest way to make more detailed textures when getting closer, and then blend the ground units on them.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

That effect is a fake, no direct relation to lighting and shadows directions etc. It helps to separate objects yes, but unrealistic.

 

Well, a full global illumination calculation would be amazing but sadly that wouldnt be feasible from a computational performance point of view, thats why AO was invented as an aproximation to how indirect light would behave...so imho, having AO is waaaaay better than not having anything to represent indirect light dont you think?, also it shouldnt be too hard to implement.

 

When RTX become a reality in terms of GPU power then a real ray tracing indirect lighting will be possible in DCS, meanwhile we should stick with AO.

 

You can already enable SSAO from the graphics.lua file, located in Saved Games. The effect is there, but it's subtle and I don't know if it's even present for objects outside the cockpit (haven't tested much).

 

Will take a look, thanks!

[Richard Dastardly]

Wait for Vulkan, a lot more things may be possible then.

[Fri13]

 

When RTX become a reality in terms of GPU power then a real ray tracing indirect lighting will be possible in DCS, meanwhile we should stick with AO.

 

 

It still looks bad, because it is fake. Shadows has been done right already over two decades, not heavy for hardware. Exactly that ambient occlusion had been very resource hungry since it came available.

 

The world is full of hard shadows when sun is lighting it, as it is one tiny (but powerful) light source. That is why you don't need that effect in outside.

 

Now set a cloud between sun and terrain and it gets diffused. Now set a overcast and there is hardly any shadows because everything is diffused.

 

Where does a DCS need a best shadows? Only in cockpit, and that is extremely small and low detailed 3D object compared to few years old games (ahem... Crysis...) And today almost all few years old cards can perform Ray tracing, even non-RTX.

 

And it doesn't impact much to perform it to cockpit in DCS.

 

It is not required for clouds to cast shadows on terrain. It is not required to reflect light from aircraft wings to cockpit.

 

It would really only be required for two things.

Cockpit global illumination, how light cast shadows to cockpit. Like sun hitting to plexiglass and diffracting to cockpit instruments and shades etc.

Not even a light from warning lights or flood lights require ray tracing in DCS.

Why? Because that's light that doesn't move. And we do not require so subtle effect that when you move head around cockpit, that warning light reflection would be correctly calculated how it bounced few times around panels.

 

It would only be required for the plexiglass and mirrors. So the cockpit instruments would draw correct reflections to plexiglass and then sun (missile launches etc) would cast correct light inside cockpit.

 

Small and subtle effect to make a major impact to visuals.

Could be done without race tracing, but already easier with it.

 

But to apply fake effect to outside cockpit? No... Would look so bad and unrealistic.

 

But in external cameras ray tracing could be applied to surface like wet ground and aircraft landing lights, or similar. But then at moment not inside cockpit.

[Harker]

It still looks bad, because it is fake. Shadows has been done right already over two decades, not heavy for hardware. Exactly that ambient occlusion had been very resource hungry since it came available.

 

The world is full of hard shadows when sun is lighting it, as it is one tiny (but powerful) light source. That is why you don't need that effect in outside.

 

Now set a cloud between sun and terrain and it gets diffused. Now set a overcast and there is hardly any shadows because everything is diffused.

 

Where does a DCS need a best shadows? Only in cockpit, and that is extremely small and low detailed 3D object compared to few years old games (ahem... Crysis...) And today almost all few years old cards can perform Ray tracing, even non-RTX.

 

And it doesn't impact much to perform it to cockpit in DCS.

 

It is not required for clouds to cast shadows on terrain. It is not required to reflect light from aircraft wings to cockpit.

 

It would really only be required for two things.

Cockpit global illumination, how light cast shadows to cockpit. Like sun hitting to plexiglass and diffracting to cockpit instruments and shades etc.

Not even a light from warning lights or flood lights require ray tracing in DCS.

Why? Because that's light that doesn't move. And we do not require so subtle effect that when you move head around cockpit, that warning light reflection would be correctly calculated how it bounced few times around panels.

 

It would only be required for the plexiglass and mirrors. So the cockpit instruments would draw correct reflections to plexiglass and then sun (missile launches etc) would cast correct light inside cockpit.

 

Small and subtle effect to make a major impact to visuals.

Could be done without race tracing, but already easier with it.

 

But to apply fake effect to outside cockpit? No... Would look so bad and unrealistic.

 

But in external cameras ray tracing could be applied to surface like wet ground and aircraft landing lights, or similar. But then at moment not inside cockpit.

I kind of agree with you on the fact that, at least as a first step, it'd be nice to have some RT effects in the cockpit, in terms of reflections. Shading is done quite well right now, but we really do need dynamically computer reflections for the canopy glass, instruments and cockpit displays. Right now, we have to choose between static textures, that look awful in my opinion, or no reflections at all, minus some glare from the sun, at best.

[112th_Rossi]

AO definitely does have a place in the rendering of terrain.

 

The rendering technique used is not the same for all distances. For close up, relatively local views, real time global illumination could be added without a major performance hit so long as the resolution was configurable.

 

However at larger distances where detail is not noticeable, BAKED ambient occlusion and shadowing can be applied. This would give an approximation of real time GI but with a low performance cost. Also, instead of baking AO you could use post processed AO (that is, applying AO to just the final rasterised render). This is already done with the likes of ReShade with virtually no performance hit at all.

 

It's not just one technology against another, its a mix. So saying AO would be unrealistic is not true, it depends on the usage.

[SharpeXB]

The world is full of hard shadows when sun is lighting it, as it is one tiny (but powerful) light source. That is why you don't need that effect in outside.

Actually the effect of indirect lighting on shadows is really pronounced outside. (I’m an Architect... I draw shadows on stuff like buildings) when you make renderings of exteriors it’s something you need to show (and I mean with colored pencils or computers) or things look very bad and flat. There’s a difference between shaded surfaces and surfaces in shadow. It’s a very basic drawing technique that’s of course applicable to game rendering.

 

DCS cockpits could use some indirect shading, the Spitfire with its bright green interior looks too flat and simplistic. Even a faked in AO effect would help.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

It still looks bad, because it is fake. Shadows has been done right already over two decades, not heavy for hardware. Exactly that ambient occlusion had been very resource hungry since it came available.

 

The world is full of hard shadows when sun is lighting it, as it is one tiny (but powerful) light source. That is why you don't need that effect in outside.

 

Now set a cloud between sun and terrain and it gets diffused. Now set a overcast and there is hardly any shadows because everything is diffused.

 

Where does a DCS need a best shadows? Only in cockpit, and that is extremely small and low detailed 3D object compared to few years old games (ahem... Crysis...) And today almost all few years old cards can perform Ray tracing, even non-RTX.

 

And it doesn't impact much to perform it to cockpit in DCS.

 

It is not required for clouds to cast shadows on terrain. It is not required to reflect light from aircraft wings to cockpit.

 

It would really only be required for two things.

Cockpit global illumination, how light cast shadows to cockpit. Like sun hitting to plexiglass and diffracting to cockpit instruments and shades etc.

Not even a light from warning lights or flood lights require ray tracing in DCS.

Why? Because that's light that doesn't move. And we do not require so subtle effect that when you move head around cockpit, that warning light reflection would be correctly calculated how it bounced few times around panels.

 

It would only be required for the plexiglass and mirrors. So the cockpit instruments would draw correct reflections to plexiglass and then sun (missile launches etc) would cast correct light inside cockpit.

 

Small and subtle effect to make a major impact to visuals.

Could be done without race tracing, but already easier with it.

 

But to apply fake effect to outside cockpit? No... Would look so bad and unrealistic.

 

But in external cameras ray tracing could be applied to surface like wet ground and aircraft landing lights, or similar. But then at moment not inside cockpit.

 

RTX "fake"???:shocking:...ray tracing is, in fact, the best and the only way to do, with a high degree of accuracy, indirect lighting based on the real light physical behavior (actual displacement of the photons) instead of using rasterization. It is based on the way the best ray tracing and G.I rendering engines work for CGI and advanced visual solutions so not sure why you think it is "fake",unless you meant it is not "reality" :dunno: ...and even less why you say it looks "bad" :huh:...AO would be a great compromise between performance, ease of implementation and visual fidelity, period. And cant believe you think that it wont make much of a difference because outside you only have the sun light (which actually generates LOTS of indirect bounces due to its power)...it would actually make a H U G E difference in pretty much EVERYTHING in the world, from the mountains, valleys, buildings, trees, objects in general, planes, smoke, COCKPITS!, etc.

 

It is not only about "shadows" but the indirect shadowing which at the moment is completely missing (unless based on textures) making things look awfully flat and dull compared with today's (and past) standards in gaming industry...you think it wont make much of a difference?, take a look at this small example (it would make a bigger difference in the terrain at any time, for instance at noon which now is the time of the day looking worse due to the lack of any proper AO):

 

here it is even clearer:

 

All that darkness over the belly of the plane and in the ground due to the bounces of the light is missing, and the one that might be there is because is pre-baked into the red channel of the roughmets.

 

This makes the objects being on the ground to look kind of "floating" over it, instead of properly "close" or touching it, definitely being there, because there is no any kind of interaction between them in terms of lighting. I think AO would make a great improvement at it's performance penalty.

 

And that affects EVERYTHING...imagine how much better the cockpits would look with the strong sun light entering in so many different ways and having such hollow places...if it werent because of the AO prebaked channel they would look really bad, now imagine a much better solution (that in fact doesnt require further work from the devs) which on top of that works dinamically...yeah, HUGE improvement. Imagine the cities and objects placed on the ground:

 

 

I kind of agree with you on the fact that, at least as a first step, it'd be nice to have some RT effects in the cockpit, in terms of reflections. Shading is done quite well right now, but we really do need dynamically computer reflections for the canopy glass, instruments and cockpit displays. Right now, we have to choose between static textures, that look awful in my opinion, or no reflections at all, minus some glare from the sun, at best.

 

RTX computing would require RTX hardware (if looking for using it in a realistic way, otherwise you would have a nice slideshow) so for the moment I think a simple SSAO technique would suffice...about reflections, Screen Space reflections are not that resources hungry and look amazing (if well implemented) so some nice and detailed glass SSR in the canopy/instruments, planes, etc. would be perfectly doable...textured reflections are a crime, yeah!.

Edited February 5, 2020 by watermanpc

[Harker]

RTX computing would require RTX hardware (if looking for using it in a realistic way, otherwise you would have a nice slideshow) so for the moment I think a simple SSAO technique would suffice...about reflections, Screen Space reflections are not that resources hungry and look amazing (if well implemented) so some nice and detailed glass SSR in the canopy/instruments, planes, etc. would be perfectly doable...textured reflections are a crime, yeah!.

I'd definite take SSR right now, but I think the choice of implementation should be based on how long it'll take. If it's more than a year or two away, RT capable hardware will be more affordable and matured, so there would be little reason to stick with SSR.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

You can already enable SSAO from the graphics.lua file, located in Saved Games. The effect is there, but it's subtle and I don't know if it's even present for objects outside the cockpit (haven't tested much).

 

Are you sure you meant SSAO? I just cant find it, but there is a SSAA transparent AA, maybe you are confused?...could you point where it is please?

[Harker]

Are you sure you meant SSAO? I just cant find it, but there is a SSAA transparent AA, maybe you are confused?...could you point where it is please?

Try the options.lua file. Check there. If it's not, let me know and I'll try looking for it when I get home.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Try the options.lua file. Check there. If it's not, let me know and I'll try looking for it when I get home.

 

Yeah, there is a SSAO entry in the options lua...thanks, will check it out :thumbup:

[SkateZilla]

PBR Aircraft already use A.O. in the Red Channel of their PBR Maps.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

PBR Aircraft already use A.O. in the Red Channel of their PBR Maps.

 

Yes, I already mentioned it several times in this thread...however that is nowhere near as good, accurate nor useful as actual real time AO, not to mention that pre-baked AO is a static effect that wont change properly or dynamically according to light changes so it is not possible to make it work for objects that move over the terrain for instance.

 

Also only updated models have pre-baked AO textures, and is quite unlikely every single object (and terrain) will ever get a unique AO channel for it so, pretty much useless and definitely NOT the way to go in the future.

[112th_Rossi]

Yes, I already mentioned it several times in this thread...however that is nowhere near as good, accurate nor useful as actual real time AO, not to mention that pre-baked AO is a static effect that wont change properly or dynamically according to light changes so it is not possible to make it work for objects that move over the terrain for instance.

 

Also only updated models have pre-baked AO textures, and is quite unlikely every single object (and terrain) will ever get a unique AO channel for it so, pretty much useless and definitely NOT the way to go in the future.

 

Thats not quite accurate. It will change with lighting since the map is just information regarding how AO should be applied. Its a value between 0-1 which is offset by lighting intensity

[twistking]

Thats not quite accurate. It will change with lighting since the map is just information regarding how AO should be applied. Its a value between 0-1 which is offset by lighting intensity

 

Global AO would still be way superior!

 

Those saying that it looks fake, have obviously never seen decent implementation of it. If done correctly it is a subtle effect, yet it really grounds the objects in the world in a way prebaked AO can never do.

Edited February 7, 2020 by twistking

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

Thats not quite accurate. It will change with lighting since the map is just information regarding how AO should be applied. Its a value between 0-1 which is offset by lighting intensity

 

It will react to light intensity, but no, it will never react to light direction or to changes in object placement which would lead to changes in the own "shape" of the occluded effect. It is not possible to use this pre baked ao for moving objects because being a static (texture) effect it wont make sense. This ao method is kind of an ancient workarround and extremely limited...ssao would be a massive improvement over it.

[112th_Rossi]

It will react to light intensity, but no, it will never react to light direction or to changes in object placement which would lead to changes in the own "shape" of the occluded effect. It is not possible to use this pre baked ao for moving objects because being a static (texture) effect it wont make sense. This ao method is kind of an ancient workarround and extremely limited...ssao would be a massive improvement over it.

 

I would say SSAO is even less accurate since it applies a fake AO effect on the final render (hence Screen Space AO). Horizon Based AO would be better.

[Ala12Rv-watermanpc]

I would say SSAO is even less accurate since it applies a fake AO effect on the final render (hence Screen Space AO). Horizon Based AO would be better.

 

Definitely, HBAO would be better, of course, but the performance penalty is bigger, thats why I said SSAO...probably the best solution with the best ratio quality/performance.

[SkateZilla]

Yes, I already mentioned it several times in this thread...however that is nowhere near as good, accurate nor useful as actual real time AO, not to mention that pre-baked AO is a static effect that wont change properly or dynamically according to light changes so it is not possible to make it work for objects that move over the terrain for instance.

 

Also only updated models have pre-baked AO textures, and is quite unlikely every single object (and terrain) will ever get a unique AO channel for it so, pretty much useless and definitely NOT the way to go in the future.

 

The PBR AO Zones are Prebaked, the Intensity of the map/shadowing is not.

 

as for RTX, it's simply a new Gimick launched by nVidia, any GPU is capable of hardware based light rendering. Most games already use it in shaders.

 

It's no Different than HairWorks, Faceworks, WaterWorks.

 

GameWorks API as a whole is just nVidia Exclusive Precompiled Effects, GPU Instructions and APIs, this includes RTX.

 

AMD Didnt buy a License from nVidia to include RTX in the new Navi GPU's, they simply included the same instruction sets built into the new GPUs, that way there are dedicated blocks for the instructions.

 

Same w/ intel and amd both supporting "MMX" etc etc.

[Fri13]

Actually the effect of indirect lighting on shadows is really pronounced outside. (I’m an Architect... I draw shadows on stuff like buildings) when you make renderings of exteriors it’s something you need to show (and I mean with colored pencils or computers) or things look very bad and flat.

 

Architects does lots of fake things to make things look nice.

 

Sorry, but physics are that light that shines behind the object, can't cause shadow toward the light source.

 

We can take a simple lighting case, and the Ambient Occlusion doesn't make it right.

 

 

In this case the highlight side of the sphere is closer to the light source than the surface that the sphere rest, making it correctly by inverse square law.

 

There is no way that there would something cast a shadow from left side of the sphere as there is not a single light source to do so at right side, the edge for sphere for the left side is result of the inverse square law where the light source hits the surface further distance on the left side surface and so on gets much darker than the sphere itself.

 

The only good way to render such a scene in 3D is to use a light ray tracing, as we can calculate the reflective effect of light rays hitting below the sphere, reflecting to sphere and then reflecting back to shadow below the sphere, making it gradient.

 

Same is with the opposite side of the sphere, without ray tracing, we can't cast a reflection from the surface back toward the sphere backside that is opposite side of the sphere, but it is not by any means bright enough to cast any shadows toward left side as it is reflection from below toward upward and can't cast shadow back to surface.

 

 

No ambient occlusion in such scene, but that is very simple sample as it doesn't count for the reflective properties of the surface or the sphere itself, nor the light source.

 

The ambient occlusion was great years back, it does generate much more clarity, depth and defines the shapes, but for a correct shadows, reflections etc, it is raytracing that is done today.

 

In DCS we could likely with very small impact for performance apply a nice couple bounce raytracing, especially when the Ambient Occlusion adds lots of fake shadows as one doesn't need to perform any calculations for lights directions.

 

We can take a classic example of how the Ambient Occlusion is completely wrong:

 

 

As if we trace all those shadows back, you can't have any of the light sources to exist in that space to create the shadows.

It does look very fancy, but as you do not need to calculate any light sources, you can create very easily and cheaply a visual effect top of that, like place nice sunray textures coming from large windows or make the ceiling lights as pinpoint light sources.

 

Extremely effective and cheap way to add a depth to the scene without making it look real, but just more 3D.

If that scene would be rendered with even couple reflections raytracing, it becomes far more realistic.

 

Example:

 

tjf-1BxpR9c

 

The ambient occlusion is just completely fake for sake of higher performance.

 

And here is good explanation for that:

 

 

So what we need is a ray tracing to get out cockpits to "come a live".

Just adding a pure ambient occlusion doesn't make anything else than add fake shadows.