Higher detailed support models - payware

[BoneDust]

We were having a discussion a few nights ago on our wing and we'd like to see ED update certain support aircraft that we often see up close during flights; such as KC130, KC135MPRS, S3 Tanker, SH60, and CH53, E2D. These could be updated and sold as payware, hence revenue for ED and better visuals for those who choose to purchase them; just keep the cost reasonable. All our guys thought this would be good for ED and customers.

 

Also, add a supply ship for the carrier group and a COD aircraft.

[Rudel_chw]

... These could be updated and sold as payware, hence revenue for ED and better visuals for those who choose to purchase them ...

 

ED already did something like that with the WW2 Assets Pack, and it got a great amount of critics ... from guys who tought it should be included for free on the base DCS, and from those who complained that it "fractured" the multiplayer user-base because of such a "paywall" .... I really doubt ED would be willing to repeat the experience, as most likely the revenue barely covered the development costs.

 

Also, add a supply ship for the carrier group and a COD aircraft.

 

I already enjoy a COD plane:

 

 

tough I've met a lot of DCS users that are allergic to user-mods, so may be this nice aircraft is not what you want :)

 

Best regards.

 

[BoneDust]

I use the COD mod now, but I'm not a fan of adding mods for integrity reasons.

 

It is too bad folks expect ED to update and add things for free all the time. They are a business and need revenue, and I'm sure their interest in putting any effort into upgrading these items is slim to none with no ROI.

[NineLine]

Hey guys, thanks. We are looking at updating these older models for sure. Thanks!

[Qiou87]

tough I've met a lot of DCS users that are allergic to user-mods, so may be this nice aircraft is not what you want :)

 

Mods are nice but don't work for multiplayer ; even if they pass IC check, there is no way to make them mandatory for all players in order to use them.

 

I also understand that paywalls are bad and damaging to the community, but we need to find ways for the devs to earn a living so they can invest their time into stuff like this. I could imagine a "high-def AI assets pack" for a moderate price, which would refresh all old assets. If you buy it, you get the nice models. If you don't, you still have the same assets flying, but it is the old 3D models & sounds. This way there is no paywall (everyone can play together, whether they own this pack or not), devs get paid, and after a few years this pack can become part of DCS core.

As for new assets (new planes/boats/etc not currently in the game core), the same could be done : a low-poly model for the core, for free, and a high-poly nice model for those who own the high-def pack. This is a way in which we could reward the devs for their work, give them an incentive to put man-hours into it, but at the same time avoid splitting the community.

[Northstar98]

ED already did something like that with the WW2 Assets Pack, and it got a great amount of critics ... from guys who tought it should be included for free on the base DCS, and from those who complained that it "fractured" the multiplayer user-base because of such a "paywall" .... I really doubt ED would be willing to repeat the experience, as most likely the revenue barely covered the development costs.

 

While the arguments against putting things behind a paywall are valid ones, I can definitely see why people thing that x should be a part of the base DCS and be free. These assets don't cost 0 to the developers to produce, and if the revenue barely covered development costs for the asset pack, then we're in some pretty deep trouble... Having more stuff done for free will just kick ED further down the hole if that's the case.

 

Not only that, but it's no different than the business model of literally every other flight sim out there offering payware improvements. A certain 3 letter sim had payware addons for not only maps and aircraft, but also individual airports, cities, weather, ATC, AI traffic and even cameras. DCS is at least better than this in that upgrades are pretty much always free for people who already own it.

 

I quite like Qiou87s idea, where the assets are consistent for people who own/don't own but are improved for the people that do. There are so many models that a way over a decade old, that don't just look bad in DCS, they look wrong.

 

 

 

[bies]

Wait the moment.

If there is a FREE mod with better model/texture than the standard ED one why not to contact with mod creator and simply implement his model to the game.

[Northstar98]

Wait the moment.

If there is a FREE mod with better model/texture than the standard ED one why not to contact with mod creator and simply implement his model to the game.

 

Yeah, but this doesn't work for things like ground vehicles, ships and other seriously outdated models (like the B-1B, F-117A, Su-30, Tu-95MS, Tu-142 etc).

[some1]

 

While the arguments against putting things behind a paywall are valid ones, I can definitely see why people thing that x should be a part of the base DCS and be free. These assets don't cost 0 to the developers to produce, and if the revenue barely covered development costs for the asset pack, then we're in some pretty deep trouble... Having more stuff done for free will just kick ED further down the hole if that's the case.

 

 

There was a time in the past when ED was pumping out a lot of decent looking AI models for DCS. Most of the AI helicopters we have now are from that era, also some airplanes.

 

But then they raised the bar of AI models so high that currently their quality is at the same level as flyable planes - if not higher. Ground vehicles have undersides and interiors, etc... No wonder they can't afford to release them any more for free.

 

I think ED should step back and do a reality check. If they can't afford to make super-duper-high-quality AI models with 4k textures and put them in the game for free, they should set the targeted quality to the average level of the other assets that are currently in DCS. Some of the most commonly used models in the game are still straight ports from the Flanker game made in the 90's. Do we have to wait another 20 years until ED decides it's time to do something with them?

 

Six models from this picture are still in DCS 2020. And there's more of them.

 

[sirrah]

ED already responded that they are working on it :thumbup:, but still, fwiw:

 

Personally, I'd rather see ED increase the price of aircraft modules, to pay for the expenses needed enhancing the AI, instead of some AI pack.

 

Not only are paid AI packs "splitting up the MP community" (I don't play MP myself, but I can imagine this is going on), it also makes it more difficult for mission designers to spread their hard work. If you want everybody to enjoy your mission (and the tons of hours you put into it), you would need to make two versions. One with and one without the AI pack. We already have this going on with the Suprecarrier, which, let's face it, is far from ideal. Whats next? Paid weather system pack, paid ATC improvement pack?

 

Or simply just stop doing sales and just do 4 free week trials a year. I can't recall I ever paid full price for any DCS modules, because we have pre-order discounts and several sales a year. I wouldn't buy less if ED stopped sales, but right now I know I never have to wait long for a discount.

You could argue and say: "Just pay full price now then".

Well, I absolutely love DCS and I hope ED does well, but if I can save a bit of money without any effort, sorry, but yes, I do..

[Northstar98]

 

There was a time in the past when ED was pumping out a lot of decent looking AI models for DCS. Most of the AI helicopters we have now are from that era, also some airplanes.

 

But then they raised the bar of AI models so high that currently their quality is at the same level as flyable planes - if not higher.

 

The only ones that come to mind are the F-15E, Su-24M/MR, Su-34 - I'm pretty sure those are the only really high definition models to the level approaching full module (though they're not as good as full fidelity modules), the helicopters are decent, certainly well enough for AI assets.

 

The number of helicopters we have a certainly decent, and they should be the base standard, though they were so years ago...

 

Ground vehicles have undersides and interiors, etc... No wonder they can't afford to release them any more for free.

 

The only ones I can think of are in the WWII asset pack, maybe the HY-2 launcher and land rovers. But pretty much every vehicle in DCS has improperly animated suspension (apart from a number of WWII assets) and even then, those undersides might be there but they're not animated or anything and usually the suspension is kinda borked (mind you that's probably down to suspension being completely backwards in DCS for ground vehicles).

 

I think ED should step back and do a reality check. If they can't afford to make super-duper-high-quality AI models with 4k textures and put them in the game for free, they should set the targeted quality to the average level of the other assets that are currently in DCS. Some of the most commonly used models in the game are still straight ports from the Flanker game made in the 90's. Do we have to wait another 20 years until ED decides it's time to do something with them?

 

Even so, the cost of development isn't 0 and even these average quality stuff is starting to show it's age next to other things, of course mileage varies significantly, but I think we should be aiming for better, and I'm certainly interested. I mean the WWII assets pack is getting more and more comprehensive, it's one of the only asset pools with full-fidelity modules and maps that all fit together nearly perfectly. Plus the funding from the asset pack no doubt led to torpedo/submarine implementation, even if both still have a way to go to be fully fleshed out.

 

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

sirrah said:

ED already responded that they are working on it :thumbup:, but still, fwiw:

 

Personally, I'd rather see ED increase the price of aircraft modules, to pay for the expenses needed enhancing the AI, instead of some AI pack.

This is fair enough, but I think it's important to note that having paid for dedicated asset packs, is a surefire way to get a lot of them out, comprehensive and very nearly up to the same standard (which is very high) as well as pioneering a few new things: Flak, Torpedoes, Submarines, Searchlights - which arguably would've only come about had the asset pack been paid for (they would've come anyway no doubt, but they probably wouldn't have come as soon).

sirrah said:

Not only are paid AI packs "splitting up the MP community" (I don't play MP myself, but I can imagine this is going on), it also makes it more difficult for mission designers to spread their hard work. If you want everybody to enjoy your mission (and the tons of hours you put into it), you would need to make two versions. One with and one without the AI pack. We already have this going on with the Suprecarrier, which, let's face it, is far from ideal.

I understand, but wouldn't the better option be the ability to place these assets in the mission editor, but not actually have them available in mission to non-owners? I agree that paywalls are irritating and far from ideal, but I reckon if the supercarrier wasn't, we probably wouldn't have seen anything like it for a long while (even if it were just the upgraded models).

sirrah said:

Whats next? Paid weather system pack, paid ATC improvement pack?

I wouldn't be surprised - other flight simulators do the exact same thing. It's not ideal for sure, and I wouldn't advocate for it, but I don't think it's reasonable for these really intensive tasks to be done completely free of charge, especially if we want something major, that's a major improvement. And if we are paying for these things then we should be in more of a position to ask for what we want to see, as the incentive is there to provide it, whereas with free assets, there isn't.

I simply see addon packs as being the lesser of maybe a necessary 'evils' ultimately, these things have a cost and that cost isn't 0, modules at full price are pretty expensive (maybe even prohibitively expensive for new players), and like you, with sales offering large discounts and being once every 4 months, unless you're really impatient it's not hard to save a lot of money.

I simply see having payware packs as being the best way to better get results in a shorter timeframe - again the asset pack is a great example of this, even if it still has some flaws, they're significantly better than the majority of vehicles in DCS.

For things like weather and a weather system and communications etc, these sound more like they would require significant overhauls, maybe even engine improvements.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling, better choice of words

[Rudel_chw]

Mods are nice but don't work for multiplayer ; even if they pass IC check, there is no way to make them mandatory for all players in order to use them.

 

That's not entirely true ... it applies mostly to the case of Public Servers. I flew for a while with a Spanish virtual squadron and on their Server they did make use of some Mods (like the 476th Range Objects) and they had custom liveries for most player flyable aircrafts; and the squadron members had to install them in order to fly the squadron missions.

 

Of course, they tried to ease the mod install process employing custom installers, as there are so many users unable to follow written install instructions :)

 

Anyway, I'm glad to not be doing multiplayer anymore .. I enjoy DCS a lot more on single player mode, as I can use whichever Mod or livery I want, and don't have to deal with some of the less polite people that manages to enter the Servers.

 

 

[some1]

 

The only ones that come to mind are the F-15E, Su-24M/MR, Su-34 - I'm pretty sure those are the only really high definition models to the level approaching full module (though they're not as good as full fidelity modules), the helicopters are decent, certainly well enough for AI assets.

 

 

Well, yeah, because ED can't afford to make more of them to that quality. We get one new AI aircraft every odd year - if we're lucky. At this pace I will retire before they get to replace the dozens of the old models in the game that still linger from the late 90s.

Also Tu-22.

 

The only ones I can think of are in the WWII asset pack, maybe the HY-2 launcher and land rovers.

 

Again, it's because we hardly get any AI models any more. Even those that are previewed in the newsletter often take years before they finally land in the game.

 

Compare the older Smerch launcher to the latest Scud model. Is that extra level of detail really needed in the sim? You really need to play the simulator like an FPS to even notice that things like wipers or door handles have now three times more detail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

some1 said:

 

Well, yeah, because ED can't afford to make more of them to that quality. We get one new AI aircraft every odd year - if we're lucky. At this pace I will retire before they get to replace the dozens of the old models in the game that still linger from the late 90s.

Also Tu-22.

We get far less than that I would've thought, at least things that aren't modules. But anyway, even average quality stuff still cost money to develop and there are far more assets that are very old, than are new. ED didn't update them to the average standard either...

The newsletter teasing is annoying seeing models that are due an upgrade that look basically complete and then nothing is seen for ages.

But still my point stands - the fastest way to get new assets is to have a payware pack, we've had far more WWII assets as part of the assets pack (done to high quality as well, not perfect but above what we're used to seeing) in 3 years than we have with others in like 8+ years?

ED did redo a lot of BLUFOR weapons basically to perfection, primarily for the F-16C and F/A-18C but that's mostly it.

some1 said:

Again, it's because we hardly get any AI models any more. Even those that are previewed in the newsletter often take years before they finally land in the game.

Agreed, but again, my point stands.

some1 said:

Compare the older Smerch launcher to the latest Scud model. Is that extra level of detail really needed in the sim? You really need to play the simulator like an FPS to even notice that things like wipers or door handles have now three times more detail.

Needed? I don't know. But give me the option I prefer the SCUD model to the Smerch, though the level of the Smerch should be the base standard. Plus, and while it's severely underdevelopment and I doubt many use it direct control in CA is a thing.

And as for detail, I'd rather go higher than stagnate (so long as performance isn't significantly impacted), but this is a matter of opinion here.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Dragon1-1]

I think that one way to avoid splitting the community is to make the pack visual only. So that owners of the HD assets pack get the new models, while everyone else still has the AI aircraft they represent, just looking like from the 90s. This would have the additional benefit of allowing the HD assets to be easily toggled off or even refunded, if it turns out the user's computer can't cope with having all those textures in memory. Seeing as DCS is already suffering from poor optimization, this would likely be appreciated.

 

Also, I hope they prioritize things that people see. That is: airport equipment, tankers, and AI aircraft, in that order. Vehicles like the Smerch are nice, but how often do you have a rocket artillery battery on the airfield? You can have it near a FARP, and this isn't an argument to leave them completely untouched, but assets seen up close by everyone should take priority over things that would only be appreciated by the helo community and CA players.

[Northstar98]

Dragon1-1 said:

I think that one way to avoid splitting the community is to make the pack visual only. So that owners of the HD assets pack get the new models, while everyone else still has the AI aircraft they represent, just looking like from the 90s. This would have the additional benefit of allowing the HD assets to be easily toggled off or even refunded, if it turns out the user's computer can't cope with having all those textures in memory. Seeing as DCS is already suffering from poor optimization, this would likely be appreciated.

Agreed, this sounds like a win-win all things considered.

As for the optimisation, the vehicles use different LODs (as do aircraft) to make sure that you can have lots of vehicles, but further out things like the model and textures will reduce in detail to save on resources. When it comes to AI assets, AFAIK it's more about the computation with regard to pathfinding etc, rather than graphics that causes poor performance. Than and DCS' outdated engine.

Dragon1-1 said:

Also, I hope they prioritize things that people see. That is: airport equipment, tankers, and AI aircraft, in that order. Vehicles like the Smerch are nice, but how often do you have a rocket artillery battery on the airfield? You can have it near a FARP, and this isn't an argument to leave them completely untouched, but assets seen up close by everyone should take priority over things that would only be appreciated by the helo community and CA players.

Agreed, and that should definitely be the case. Personally, I think the priority should be aircraft closely followed by weapons/effects then ground vehicles then closely followed by ships. But if new assets are going to come, I'd rather them be up to standard, it's just that now that standard is fairly high.

Edited February 22, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[BoneDust]

I was referring to visual updates only in my original post.

[Silver_Dragon]

 

The only ones that come to mind are the F-15E, Su-24M/MR, Su-34 - I'm pretty sure those are the only really high definition models to the level approaching full module (though they're not as good as full fidelity modules), the helicopters are decent, certainly well enough for AI assets.

 

The number of helicopters we have a certainly decent, and they should be the base standard, though they were so years ago...

 

 

The only ones I can think of are in the WWII asset pack, maybe the HY-2 launcher and land rovers. But pretty much every vehicle in DCS has improperly animated suspension (apart from a number of WWII assets) and even then, those undersides might be there but they're not animated or anything and usually the suspension is kinda borked (mind you that's probably down to suspension being completely backwards in DCS for ground vehicles).

 

 

Even so, the cost of development isn't 0 and even these average quality stuff is starting to show it's age next to other things, of course mileage varies significantly, but I think we should be aiming for better, and I'm certainly interested. I mean the WWII assets pack is getting more and more comprehensive, it's one of the only asset pools with full-fidelity modules and maps that all fit together nearly perfectly. Plus the funding from the asset pack no doubt led to torpedo/submarine implementation, even if both still have a way to go to be fully fleshed out.

 

 

I recomend check the "unofficial roadmap", ED has making more work witout "only working on WW2".....:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-world-2-5/115732-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

I recomend check tthe he "unofficial roadmap", ED has making more work witout "only working on WW2".....:

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-world-2-5/115732-dcs-roadmap-unofficial-no-discussion-here

 

Your official roadmap is truly remarkable SD, and I check it frequently. The point I was getting at is that the WWII asset pack has had more units in a faster period of time, while being of a consistent era than much of the rest of the other assets in DCS.

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

As for the optimisation, the vehicles use different LODs (as do aircraft) to make sure that you can have lots of vehicles, but further out things like the model and textures will reduce in detail to save on resources.

The problem is, unless you actually unload the offending textures from memory (and DCS doesn't), this is only going to save GPU performance, which isn't really what's bottlenecking DCS. LODs are certainly nice to have, but they only solve part of the problem. GPU performance is not a concern for me here, the memory load is. Right now, I run at 8GB, and it's only enough on Caucasus, but it does work, even in VR. If you're not careful, it's easy to fill up even 16GB, especially if you go crazy with 4k textures. It's not so much about the number of units, but about how many different types there are, which makes this counter-intuitive.

 

In this context, DCS optimization issues are in its assets, and would actually be an easy fix, such as batch-converting all normal and specular maps to one quarter the size. A lot of DCS textures are 4k even when there's absolutely no reason for it. Optimizing that would cut down on memory and HD use, both in terms of space and in terms of disk access time, saving them for things that actually matter.

[Northstar98]

The problem is, unless you actually unload the offending textures from memory (and DCS doesn't), this is only going to save GPU performance, which isn't really what's bottlenecking DCS. LODs are certainly nice to have, but they only solve part of the problem. GPU performance is not a concern for me here, the memory load is. Right now, I run at 8GB, and it's only enough on Caucasus, but it does work, even in VR. If you're not careful, it's easy to fill up even 16GB, especially if you go crazy with 4k textures. It's not so much about the number of units, but about how many different types there are, which makes this counter-intuitive.

 

In this context, DCS optimization issues are in its assets, and would actually be an easy fix, such as batch-converting all normal and specular maps to one quarter the size. A lot of DCS textures are 4k even when there's absolutely no reason for it. Optimizing that would cut down on memory and HD use, both in terms of space and in terms of disk access time, saving them for things that actually matter.

 

Sounds like unloading textures when switching between different LODs (which should be using mipmaps) could be a solution. I'm running a mobile GTX 1050Ti, but I've got 16GB of RAM and an i7-8750H and a pretty decent M.2 SSD so I only run into issues when there's lots of objects (particularly high detailed ones) at their highest LOD in view.

Edited November 23, 2020 by Northstar98
Be great if I could string complete sentences together

[Dragon1-1]

That wouldn't work, because loading a 4k texture (especially with its assorted normal and specular maps) into memory takes too long. If you unload it, then when LOD switches to the most detailed variant, you have to load it again, which could cause a noticeable pause. This would not be a pleasant experience.

 

Your bottleneck is the GPU, which can be addressed by LODs and mipmaps (as evidenced by the number of objects being the issue). Mine is memory size, which needs to be addressed by optimizing the things being loaded into memory. So far, the map is the worst offender here, but if ED added a lot of 4k textures for AI units, that would contribute a lot, too.

[Northstar98]

That wouldn't work, because loading a 4k texture (especially with its assorted normal and specular maps) into memory takes too long. If you unload it, then when LOD switches to the most detailed variant, you have to load it again, which could cause a noticeable pause. This would not be a pleasant experience.

 

Your bottleneck is the GPU, which can be addressed by LODs and mipmaps (as evidenced by the number of objects being the issue). Mine is memory size, which needs to be addressed by optimizing the things being loaded into memory. So far, the map is the worst offender here, but if ED added a lot of 4k textures for AI units, that would contribute a lot, too.

 

Okay, all I will say here is that mileage definitely varies.