Many objects appear in LOW poly resolution regardless of settings.. C-17 good example.

[Malakie]

Many objects appear in LOW poly resolution regardless of settings.. C-17 good example.

 

My system specs:

i9-9900k w/48 gb ram + 32 gb intel optane cache ram

RTX-2070

2 x m.2 SSD

Tobii 5 Eye & Head Tracking

x56 Rhino Hotas

 

Windows 10 running in 3840x2160 UHD 4K, all settings max, distances set to about 70%, average 45-55 FPS

 

For the objects that run in full resolution, they look beautiful so I figured this is just a LOD error in code somewhere when it comes to displaying other objects..  Not all objects are like this,  maybe 1/3 of all objects appear this way.

screenshot attached

Edited April 25, 2021 by Malakie

[some1]

It's not a LOD error. You've just found one of many 20 year old models that are still in the game. 

[Malakie]

interesting.. I never noticed it before..   It looks really bad compared to other aircraft.. I have some sitting next to KC-135's on the ground.. night and day difference visually

 

[enigma6584]

1 hour ago, some1 said:

It's not a LOD error. You've just found one of many 20 year old models that are still in the game. 

 

Yep, some others that come to mind are the AI aircraft models for the F-16As and F-16 MLUs, Tu-95 and the Tu-142s.  All older models that have never been updated in DCS.

[3WA]

Yep, it's slow moving here.

[rayrayblues]

Helicopters SH-60B and Sh-53 are just as bad.

 

[unlikely_spider]

On 4/25/2021 at 3:32 PM, Malakie said:

Many objects appear in LOW poly resolution regardless of settings.. C-17 good example.

 

My system specs:

i9-9900k w/48 gb ram + 32 gb intel optane cache ram

RTX-2070

2 x m.2 SSD

Tobii 5 Eye & Head Tracking

x56 Rhino Hotas

 

Windows 10 running in 3840x2160 UHD 4K, all settings max, distances set to about 70%, average 45-55 FPS

 

For the objects that run in full resolution, they look beautiful so I figured this is just a LOD error in code somewhere when it comes to displaying other objects..  Not all objects are like this,  maybe 1/3 of all objects appear this way.

screenshot attached

 

Have you seen a C-17 in real life? The actual Globemaster is simply not a high polygon aircraft. I used to live on Misawa AFB in Japan and these came through occasionally. It looks like that in person.

Edited April 28, 2021 by unlikely_spider

[Malakie]

30 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

Have you seen a C-17 in real life? The actual Globemaster is simply not a high polygon aircraft. I used to live on Misawa AFB in Japan and these came through occasionally. It looks like that in person.

 

 

 

You are joking right?  " It looks like that in person"

Not only have a I "seen" it, I have flown on the thing numerous times through out my military career.. .and the C-17 does not look like that in real life!  LOL  That's hilarious.

[Kang]

My go-to example is actually the S-3B tanker, simply because by nature you get to see it rather close-up.

[unlikely_spider]

32 minutes ago, Malakie said:

 

 

You are joking right?  " It looks like that in person"

Not only have a I "seen" it, I have flown on the thing numerous times through out my military career.. .and the C-17 does not look like that in real life!  LOL  That's hilarious.

If you were actually in the Air Force you would know about cost-cutting measures. A higher polygon count was supposed to be implemented as part of the Block 21 upgrades but that part was cut by Congress at the last minute.

[Malakie]

22 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

If you were actually in the Air Force you would know about cost-cutting measures. A higher polygon count was supposed to be implemented as part of the Block 21 upgrades but that part was cut by Congress at the last minute.

 

"If I were actually in.."    Wow, insults right off the bat..  nice..  First off, I was not Air Force. I was US Navy which ALSO uses the C-17's.  Had YOU served you would know that.  Second, I am now a 5 time injured service connected combat experienced disabled Veteran, so don't even go there with me.  In fact even a little bit of research and you could have looked me up rather easily and found that out.   Don't even try to question my service because I fight back...

 

And as for your high polygon count for the real life design of aircraft..  You clearly don't have a clue what that was because if you did, you would know it was regarding INTERNAL structure in places that high counts are not needed.  ANY part of the aircraft requiring specific stress points and levels, would not be impacted by that, thus most of that would be in places you would never see.  It has NOTHING to do with how the aircraft looks LOL.

So don't even try to play this tit for tat with me.  You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and being an armchair general know it all does not make you an expert in real life military at all.. not even close.

 

 

[unlikely_spider]

5 minutes ago, Malakie said:

 

"If I were actually in.."    Wow, insults right off the bat..  nice..  First off, I was not Air Force. I was US Navy which ALSO uses the C-17's.  Had YOU served you would know that.  Second, I am now a 5 time injured service connected combat experienced disabled Veteran, so don't even go there with me.  In fact even a little bit of research and you could have looked me up rather easily and found that out.   Don't even try to question my service because I fight back...

 

And as for your high polygon count for the real life design of aircraft..  You clearly don't have a clue what that was because if you did, you would know it was regarding INTERNAL structure in places that high counts are not needed.  ANY part of the aircraft requiring specific stress points and levels, would not be impacted by that, thus most of that would be in places you would never see.  It has NOTHING to do with how the aircraft looks LOL.

So don't even try to play this tit for tat with me.  You clearly have no clue what you are talking about and being an armchair general know it all does not make you an expert in real life military at all.. not even close.

 

 

The screenshot you posted above is the Air Force version, and as I said I lived in Misawa and have seen them. The AF Globemaster in particular uses very low resolution paint for aerodynamic purposes, which is why they look that way. I'm not sure about the Navy ones.

[Malakie]

2 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

The screenshot you posted above is the Air Force version, and as I said I lived in Misawa and have seen them. The AF Globemaster in particular uses very low resolution paint for aerodynamic purposes, which is why they look that way. I'm not sure about the Navy ones.

 

Paint and low poly are two very different things.. Low poly means low polygon, it has nothing to do with paint.   It literally determines the smoothness of a circle or bend in a surface.  And on aircraft and ships both, is very important to the actual overall strength of the ship or aircraft.    Whatever you think you saw was either an optical illusion or some type of metal stress/fatigue if anything.  

I have/attached to this post a photo in 4K and I challenge you to show all of us where it even comes close to matching the low poly of the image I posted from the game...

 

[G.J.S]

10 minutes ago, Malakie said:

 

"If I were actually in.."    Wow, insults right off the bat..  nice..  First off, I was not Air Force. I was US Navy which ALSO uses the C-17's.  Had YOU served you would know that.  Second, I am now a 5 time injured service connected combat experienced disabled Veteran, so don't even go there with me.  In fact even a little bit of research and you could have looked me up rather easily and found that out.   Don't even try to question my service because I fight back...

 

 

 

 

 

C-17 isn't operated by the USN. They may have had a few outsize loads hauled by them if they couldn't use a -130, but they are owned, operated and crewed in the US by USAF personnel.

[unlikely_spider]

6 minutes ago, Malakie said:

 

Paint and low poly are two very different things.. Low poly means low polygon, it has nothing to do with paint.   It literally determines the smoothness of a circle or bend in a surface.  And on aircraft and ships both, is very important to the actual overall strength of the ship or aircraft.    Whatever you think you saw was either an optical illusion or some type of metal stress/fatigue if anything.  

I have/attached to this post a photo in 4K and I challenge you to show all of us where it even comes close to matching the low poly of the image I posted from the game...

 

You are right, it may have been an optical illusion being that I was in Japan at the time. I also noted to someone that they were driving on the left side of the road, but it turns out that too is an illusion because it's in the opposite hemisphere and the Earth is rotating in the opposite direction, so really it's the same side.

But it was a while ago that I came stateside so maybe they updated the poly count of the real C-17s and painted with a higher resolution since then, but DCS devs simply haven't kept up.

[Malakie]

14 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

 

C-17 isn't operated by the USN. They may have had a few outsize loads hauled by them if they couldn't use a -130, but they are owned, operated and crewed in the US by USAF personnel.

 

'technically' you are correct... They are primary a US Air Force airframe.  But the USN does have two in inventory but are not used for the same purposes as most Airforce airframes.

[G.J.S]

3 minutes ago, Malakie said:

 

'technically' you are correct... They are primary a US Air Force airframe.  But the USN does have two in inventory but are not used for the same purposes as most Airforce airframes.

This i didn't know  . Thanks for that fella.

Edited April 28, 2021 by G.J.S

[Malakie]

32 minutes ago, G.J.S said:

This i didn't know  . Thanks for that fella.

 

It's actually common in the US Military especially for special use and evaluating special functions or capabilities.  Heck the US Navy has even had aircraft people would never ever think would have a use.  F-16's and F-15's modified for carrier landing, stuff like that..  Sometimes it never goes further, other times it just appears that way and the thing is used for 'other' purposes and needs 'off' the books or off the need to know side of things if you get what I am saying.

[G.J.S]

43 minutes ago, Malakie said:

It's actually common in the US Military especially for special use and evaluating special functions or capabilities.  Heck the US Navy has even had aircraft people would never ever think would have a use.  F-16's and F-15's modified for carrier landing, stuff like that..  Sometimes it never goes further, other times it just appears that way and the thing is used for 'other' purposes and needs 'off' the books or off the need to know side of things if you get what I am saying.

 

Okie dokey . .  . . F-16's yes - adversary role land based 'N' variants and widely known. But never from a carrier.

F-15's of any mark? . . . No, flat no. The amount of modifications required to enable a trap and launch would be tantamount to a complete redesign - a prohibitively expensive undertaking for what would never be more than a handful of airframes. Just off the top of my head it would require a landing gear beef-up (and possible complete redesign due to narrow track), hook attachment point major reinforcements, wing redesign to encapsulate a fold mechanism, and many more.

 

[Malakie]

23 hours ago, G.J.S said:

 

Okie dokey . .  . . F-16's yes - adversary role land based 'N' variants and widely known. But never from a carrier.

F-15's of any mark? . . . No, flat no. The amount of modifications required to enable a trap and launch would be tantamount to a complete redesign - a prohibitively expensive undertaking for what would never be more than a handful of airframes. Just off the top of my head it would require a landing gear beef-up (and possible complete redesign due to narrow track), hook attachment point major reinforcements, wing redesign to encapsulate a fold mechanism, and many more.

 

 

You might actually be surprised at the planes that have been tried or even been modified and tested for things just like this.   Keep in mind, while I know of some there are others even I don't know about as they are highly classified.     One of the most famous of course, that is public, is the testing of C-130's that actually occurred.  Both arrested and non arrested.  The non arrested did actually happen, the arrested was not done as far as I know.  The arrested testing was to see if it could stop loaded with cargo but most likely someone finally just decided the risk was way too great to attempt both modifying the aircraft and of course damaging the ship and killing a lot of people if it failed.   BUT the non arrested testing DID happen and was very successful.

I know of a couple other aircraft you would never think being used or tested for carrier landing.. but they are still classified tests as far as I know and being I was actually part of the task group at sea when they happened, I can't talk about them nor any other details about such occurrences.   At one point before my time, there was even talk about the SR-71 landing on a carrier, which personally I don't think would have been at all possible.

[G.J.S]

6 minutes ago, Malakie said:

 

You might actually be surprised at the planes that have been tried or even been modified and tested for things just like this.   Keep in mind, while I know of some there are others even I don't know about as they are highly classified.     One of the most famous of course, that is public, is the testing of C-130's that actually occurred.  Both arrested and non arrested.  The non arrested did actually happen, the arrested was not done as far as I know.  The arrested testing was to see if it could stop loaded with cargo but most likely someone finally just decided the risk was way too great to attempt both modifying the aircraft and of course damaging the ship and killing a lot of people if it failed.   BUT the non arrested testing DID happen and was very successful.

I know of a couple other aircraft you would never think being used or tested for carrier landing.. but they are still classified tests as far as I know and being I was actually part of the task group at sea when they happened, I can't talk about them nor any other details about such occurrences.   At one point before my time, there was even talk about the SR-71 landing on a carrier, which personally I don't think would have been at all possible.

The SR-71 would need a carrier at least 4 times longer than anything in the inventory for a start, AND a major redesign (view over nose would be ridiculous at low IAS), carrier storage? Maybe if the wings fold and the front 30 feet including cockpits can fold over backwards and lie on top of the aft fuse. If it was talked about, my next question would have been ‘what the fook are they smoking?’.

I still maintain however, that there is no way the -15 or -16 could use a carrier in any capacity. I’ve been close enough to plenty of them - it is incredibly easy to land base a Navy aircraft, to ship base an Airforce spec aircraft just won’t happen as they are not designed for the environment, are not protected FROM the environment, and structurally are not strong enough (relatively speaking) to withstand the rigours of Naval flight ops.

The Tornados I used to fly were designed for Airforce use, yes they had a tail hook (of sorts) - and admittedly they could land on a carrier - ONCE. It would have ended up FUBAR as a result I guarantee it.

The F-4 I flew for just over two years prior to Tornado, was designed initially as a Naval aircraft, and was stressed and had a higher level of corrosion resistance in the structure.

[Malakie]

11 hours ago, G.J.S said:

The SR-71 would need a carrier at least 4 times longer than anything in the inventory for a start, AND a major redesign (view over nose would be ridiculous at low IAS), carrier storage? Maybe if the wings fold and the front 30 feet including cockpits can fold over backwards and lie on top of the aft fuse. If it was talked about, my next question would have been ‘what the fook are they smoking?’.

I still maintain however, that there is no way the -15 or -16 could use a carrier in any capacity. I’ve been close enough to plenty of them - it is incredibly easy to land base a Navy aircraft, to ship base an Airforce spec aircraft just won’t happen as they are not designed for the environment, are not protected FROM the environment, and structurally are not strong enough (relatively speaking) to withstand the rigours of Naval flight ops.

The Tornados I used to fly were designed for Airforce use, yes they had a tail hook (of sorts) - and admittedly they could land on a carrier - ONCE. It would have ended up FUBAR as a result I guarantee it.

The F-4 I flew for just over two years prior to Tornado, was designed initially as a Naval aircraft, and was stressed and had a higher level of corrosion resistance in the structure.

 

 

Suffice it to say, a lot happens that you would have no knowledge of being many tests are classified NOFORN, not just Top Secret.   We don't give away all our secrets, even to allies.   

Some of those secrets lately, I am very surprised at having been released publicly but I suppose they decided to do so as a message to china etc... i.e. arming both F-22 and F-35's with energy weapons (in progress now), most combat naval ships being up armed with energy weapons (although they have retained exactly the type and number as still classified thankfully to those without need to know or access)..  or even today's announcement that all three Zumwalt's are going to be armed with hypersonic weapon systems by 2022-2023.

 

Trust me when I say the stuff you can find public and online about much of what is really happening, is usually decades behind reality... 

 

 

[BIGNEWY]

removed off topic and trolling, please remember the rules when posting. 

 

Older models will be updated as soon as the team have time, a lot of work is ongoing now. 

 

thanks