The new terrain

[Yellonet]

How are we going to run this new terrain? I already had to turn the draw distance for scenery buildings in FC to low to get a stable frame rate out of a modern computer. Now it's way more pretty! Is ED working on optimizing the engine?

We'll be flying so low that draw distance won't be a problem anyway :D

[RvETito]

The terrain is heavier than FC for sure but most of the CPU load belongs to the Ka-50 physical model.

[nemises]

1/2 the worlds population will be upgrading for this seasons new games anyway (Crysis anyone?) , so hopefully ED go for fidelity over compatibility, at least from my perspective.

[Eagle Driver]

Good point.

Because DCS is a project that is forseen to extend long into the future, I expect them to take the MSFS route and make it look as good as possible, and let the hardware catch up later. Those who want the most insane graphics can spend the money and get it, but the others will have to wait for goodness, rather than it going Falcon 4.0 and being behind the times, graphics-wise.

[Boberro]

Good point.

Those who want the most insane graphics can spend the money and get it, but the others will have to wait for goodness, rather than it going Falcon 4.0 and being behind the times, graphics-wise.

 

Yes and no.

 

How many ppl can afford to buying new PC? I guess everybody wants most insame graphics, but what with their computers? i don't think everybody has Core2Duo or QuadCore with 2x nVidia GPU. Buyining new PC is not like buyining Chupa-chups lollipop;). When somebody creates game it woulb be nice if that game wil be optimilized to approximate times, not that we will have for 2-3 years. I mean I don't buy game to fly in max details for some years cause my PC is to weak. But I agree Falcon 4.0 when it was made already on start was late in times.

[Yellonet]

Yes and no.

 

How many ppl can afford to buying new PC? I guess everybody wants most insame graphics, but what with their computers? i don't think everybody has Core2Duo or QuadCore with 2x nVidia GPU. Buyining new PC is not like buyining Chupa-chups lollipop;). When somebody creates game it woulb be nice if that game wil be optimilized to approximate times, not that we will have for 2-3 years. I mean I don't buy game to fly in max details for some years cause my PC is to weak. But I agree Falcon 4.0 when it was made already on start was late in times.

Here's a solution, just pretend that the setting you find acceptable to play in is the max setting of the game :thumbup:

[brewber19]

Games, particularly flight sims, should be built with the future in mind and not what is possible or average at time of publishing. Why?

 

Flightsims generally have, and intend to have, a longer "shelf-life" than more traditional genres. Just look at LOMAC (and I don't consider FC a new game, simply an expansion of lomac). It is effectively 3 or 4 years old and here we all are still playing it, here we few of us are still maintaining squadrons and other community stuff...and irony of ironies, here is a community of mod-makers working their asses off to bring LOMAC in to 2007/8 gfx with all the terrain/texture mods etc.

 

As it happens I have a reasonable rig, and upgrade as the mind/budget allows...thats PC gaming. A game that can offer more than I can see encourages me to upgrade to experience those things...and is one of many things that encourage me to continue playing it. If LO looked as dated as Falcon I would likely have stopped playing, because there are better experiences out there...thats why I stopped playing IL2/FB/AEP/PF, because LO was just so much more immersive in the virtual world environment. IL2 had high(ish) fidelity FMs just like LO but...after a while the "world" didn't compete well with LOs virtual world.

 

I'm with Yellonet, and ED (since their principal the first time was "max it up", remember LO 1.0), and crank up those polys/resolutions etc etc and bring my current PC almost to its knees...then in 2 years time when we're still waiting for the second DCS module (just kidding) we will still be immersed in the virtual world of BS.

 

P.S. By ED planning for the future and having higher poly/res textures for A/C is what encouraged me to make a skin for my Frog (see sig pic)...I happened to do a similar one + winter version for the vanilla frog but only cos it was an easy copy/paste deal. The vanilla is so "low res" compared to the T that the end result barely justifies the effort. It took me 45 hours to do the skin for the T-frog..and 15 to do 2 similar skins for the vanilla. I was happy to spend that time for the T, I would never have spent 45 hours for the vanilla skins.

 

Yes and no.

 

How many ppl can afford to buying new PC? I guess everybody wants most insame graphics, but what with their computers? i don't think everybody has Core2Duo or QuadCore with 2x nVidia GPU. Buyining new PC is not like buyining Chupa-chups lollipop;). When somebody creates game it woulb be nice if that game wil be optimilized to approximate times, not that we will have for 2-3 years. I mean I don't buy game to fly in max details for some years cause my PC is to weak. But I agree Falcon 4.0 when it was made already on start was late in times.

[Boberro]

Yes IMHO you're right IF the engine is well done, fast, and do not slow down strong even on worse hardware. If these aspect are present all is OK, game can "beyond" present standards...

 

I give example in FPP game (I know FPP is rather simpler than Flight sims but if somebody wants do good engine he will do). My exaple is Valve's Half-Life 2. When it was released it gave most beautiful graphics, and the engine was really fast... Why? Cause it was well done. Even now Episode Two has pretty graphs (we can see it is some years after engine premiere but authors pretty masked it)

Next eample is MSFS X. It pretty looks and is fast enough.

Lock on when released it was terrible to fly on high and much ppl were nervous... Even now when we can fly high, so when flying close to big city engine slow down... Why? Cause is not well-done (I don't want to offend Creators) but it is true.

 

If authors of game can do that, they can go beyond standards and transfer his imagines to code beyond present graphic.

 

Off course it is only my thinking about it :)

[Yellonet]

Hmm, I was under the impression that MSFS X was one of the most demanding games right now...

[britgliderpilot]

Yes IMHO you're right IF the engine is well done, fast, and do not slow down strong even on worse hardware. If these aspect are present all is OK, game can "beyond" present standards...

 

I give example in FPP game (I know FPP is rather simpler than Flight sims but if somebody wants do good engine he will do). My exaple is Valve's Half-Life 2. When it was released it gave most beautiful graphics, and the engine was really fast... Why? Cause it was well done. Even now Episode Two has pretty graphs (we can see it is some years after engine premiere but authors pretty masked it)

Next eample is MSFS X. It pretty looks and is fast enough.

Lock on when released it was terrible to fly on high and much ppl were nervous... Even now when we can fly high, so when flying close to big city engine slow down... Why? Cause is not well-done (I don't want to offend Creators) but it is true.

 

If authors of game can do that, they can go beyond standards and transfer his imagines to code beyond present graphic.

 

Off course it is only my thinking about it :)

 

Well Half-Life 2's engine has been seriously developed between HL2 and Episode 2. I wouldn't want to run Ep2 on HL2 minimum spec.

 

FSX actually runs more slowly on my PC than Black Shark does . . . and doesn't look as good.

 

 

You inevitably need a lot of power to deal with high-fidelity flight models, large textures, and a large number of 3D objects - if you can get around that, then take a patent out quick!

 

Until then, there's always the option - an unconventional one, I know - of turning the eyecandy down until the game runs more smoothly . . .

 

You can turn it up in a couple of years, as brewber's textbook post points out ;)

[G3]

Here's a solution, just pretend that the setting you find acceptable to play in is the max setting of the game :thumbup:

 

yellonet, you are amusing me enough for a giggle to erupt in the otherwise silent atmosphere.

 

its always going to be a game of catchup, and with hardware and software forever on opposing teams, how can you win.

unfortunately you just have to do as yellonet suggests and go with a lesser settings until you can provide the software with the hardware to do it justice.

 

even today after several upgrades i am still not running lockon @ full settings.

 

as for the coding, yes maybe it can be optimized somewhat but thats why we have moved on to DCS.:thumbup:

[ALDEGA]

How many ppl can afford to buying new PC?

Everybody who's playing Crysis?

[ALDEGA]

You inevitably need a lot of power to deal with high-fidelity flight models, large textures, and a large number of 3D objects - if you can get around that, then take a patent out quick!

It would be great if they could split up the different processing areas (AI, physics, terrain ...) over the available CPU cores...

 

Right now, Intel's Q6600 quadcore costs only 250 euro-ish.

That's what a monocore CPU cost just a few years ago.

By the time DCS:BS is out, it will cost even less, and when the next modules are out, maybe quadcore will be semi-standard on new systems. Multicore CPU's are here today and will only get more prevalant in the future ... *hint*.

It'd be a shame to let those cores idle :D

[Yellonet]

Everybody who's playing Crysis?

...on the other hand, the overwhelming majority of Crysis players wouldn't touch DCS with a pair of pliers :(

[Dagger98]

I touch both Crysis and DCS :smartass:. Now imagine DCS with Crysis destructible environment. Just hovering and letting the cannon go to work on the trees, uncovering those damn foot soldiers with their iglas....aaahhhww...INCOMING!!