Jump to content

Update Textures


Ignition

Recommended Posts

One thing that has been suggested (wished for) here a lot, is to at least make some of the map scenery available as static objects. Not sure how feasible this is for third party maps such as Syria in respect to copyright, but for the ED maps (like NTTR, PG, Marianas, Channel) I reckon it shouldn't be too labor heavy to convert some of the scenery to static objects.

Not talking about landmark buildings (please no), but there's so much beautiful scenery already modeled (see below), it's a waste we can't place them wherever we like. They don't need much detail at all, but at least some more types to choose from would massively improve options for mission builders.

I can imagine that ED purposely doesn't allow for this, to avoid performance crippling missions, or I'm wrong and it's just a lot of work... But anyway, @Ignition, nobody will disagree with you that the current static scenery models are a tad outdated.

Screen_180412_150408_00073.jpg

19e7a3d02036b55623b926f2aa4067574c8722e6

dcs-persian-gulf-map-review-10.jpg

ss_b6bbd25536b825ccaf49952f24ccd5aade128

286f0875c9a19a468eef2df8b61a50fca81f6dbb

Marianas_DCS_World_18.jpg

FactoryComplex4_View.jpg

 

(small side wish... Please ED at least add some trees and shrubbery to the static objects, so we can manually "dress up" our missions a bit)


Edited by sirrah
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

System specs:

 

i7-8700K @stock speed - GTX 1080TI @ stock speed - AsRock Extreme4 Z370 - 32GB DDR4 @3GHz- 500GB SSD - 2TB nvme - 650W PSU

HP Reverb G1 v2 - Saitek Pro pedals - TM Warthog HOTAS - TM F/A-18 Grip - TM Cougar HOTAS (NN-Dan mod) & (throttle standalone mod) - VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Plus with ALPHA-L grip - Pointctrl & aux banks <-- must have for VR users!! - Andre's SimShaker Jetpad - Fully adjustable DIY playseat - VA+VAICOM

 

~ That nuke might not have been the best of ideas, Sir... the enemy is furious ~ GUMMBAH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Syria, Mariannes, Channel,...looks pretty good to me but yes for sure, map scenery available as static objects could be very interesting.
The concern is mainly on the Caucasus map which loses its interest (especially in helicopter flight) because of the really old models.
The same goes for the FARPs and the numerous vehicles that are really from another era...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FalcoGer said:

I don't mind the houses looking like cubes with 16 pixels worth of texture. I really wouldn't mind an overhaul of some of the units. Most russian ships just look awful.

I'd love to see an overhaul of the naval units.

 

1 hour ago, Razorback said:

Certainly many of us are asking for this but it does not seem to be ED's priority.
It requires resources and does not bring them much financial added value

This is the problem with ED's business model. There is a lot of stuff out there that they should and need to improve, but it doesn't bring in the cash directly. I really hope that MAC is a mega-success that acts as a gate way to DCS- or at least results in ED growing massively so we can see alot of our personal wish lists get finished.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, nukeproof said:

Why would a for-profit business focus on a less profitable product? It must have at least a very good reason to do so

A coupe of reasons that may play a factor:

  • Past profits aren't necessarily a good indicator for future profits. What's important in business is future profit, and developing another highly promising product with the proceeds of another product can make good sense. IIRC that's how MAC currently is financed.
  • Having two products (diversification) reduces risk. Now, MAC and DCS are very similar, so diversification is only over the customer segment with the distinct possibility of cannibalization. However, I hope that this question was resolved by ED's market research before they decided to invest into the MAC product line
  • Since they (MAC and DCS) are very similar, we may see synergy effects (textures, world building, technology, flight model, net code), multiplying the possible return on investment by reducing dev cost and broadening the market for 3rd party devs.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. Seeing that MAC is almost as long overdue as Half Life 3, I have the sinking feeling that it may never see the light of day.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand why ED doesn't put 1 person to do this kind of stuff. It could update or make 1 static per month and the diversity of missions would be incredible.

Right now it feels like a 30 year old game with the same 2 or 3 statics in every single mission.

Most of the assets look like this

DCS_2021_10_04_20_58_55_728.jpg

DCS_2021_10_04_20_56_40_967.jpg

 

Its really painful to place these cubes to make a mission.

At least I expect ED to update the heliport with the MI-24 and AH-64D. I was practicing in the FARP and its horrendous, visually I didn't know the distance to the floor with that texture.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Ignition said:

I don't understand why ED doesn't put 1 person to do this kind of stuff. It could update or make 1 static per month and the diversity of missions would be incredible.

Right now it feels like a 30 year old game with the same 2 or 3 statics in every single mission.

Most of the assets look like this

DCS_2021_10_04_20_58_55_728.jpg

DCS_2021_10_04_20_56_40_967.jpg

 

Its really painful to place these cubes to make a mission.

At least I expect ED to update the heliport with the MI-24 and AH-64D. I was practicing in the FARP and its horrendous, visually I didn't know the distance to the floor with that texture.

As for the heliports (single and 4-helipad FARP models); I suggest you better just use the invisible landing pad and dress it up with other static (cargo) units. Like this:

dcs-world-flight-simulator-mi-24-hind-07.jpg

(personally I like to make use of the ground textures as well when choosing a nice landing spot)

 

But true, we could definitely use more variety of static objects to choose from, so we don't have to rely on mod makers (and their constant support after updates).

 

I have no idea how difficult it would really be and I'm not sure if I'm right, but I'm under the impression that ED is too fixated on only adding high detail/quality assets. Personally I'm not even too bothered by the slightly outdated static models like in your screenshots (one has to consider performance), but I'd rather just see more of them added so we can actually create believable settings. I mean, like a few different houses (and clay houses/huts for desert maps), offices, some variety on warehouses and Industrial facilities. It's all already there (see the screenshots in my previous post).

I'm working in a completely different sector here (plant design/engineering), but even I can create a believe-worthy 3D factory model (a fictional model would probably cost me a day at max), so I can't imagine that it'd be a lot of work for the whizzkids over at ED to convert the already existing 3D models into mission editor objects 😉 

 

Although I hope I'm wrong, it's probably just a matter of ED not seeing any value (and therefor priority) in putting effort/resources into this.

  • Like 4

System specs:

 

i7-8700K @stock speed - GTX 1080TI @ stock speed - AsRock Extreme4 Z370 - 32GB DDR4 @3GHz- 500GB SSD - 2TB nvme - 650W PSU

HP Reverb G1 v2 - Saitek Pro pedals - TM Warthog HOTAS - TM F/A-18 Grip - TM Cougar HOTAS (NN-Dan mod) & (throttle standalone mod) - VIRPIL VPC Rotor TCS Plus with ALPHA-L grip - Pointctrl & aux banks <-- must have for VR users!! - Andre's SimShaker Jetpad - Fully adjustable DIY playseat - VA+VAICOM

 

~ That nuke might not have been the best of ideas, Sir... the enemy is furious ~ GUMMBAH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, nukeproof said:

If MAC is a great success, from a business perspective, it runs the risk of funneling its profits and EDs development resources towards itself instead of DCS. Why would a for-profit business focus on a less profitable product? It must have at least a very good reason to do so.

Even if ED reinvested every penny of MAC profits back into MAC instead of a general fund, it would still benefit DCS. First from my understanding they use the same code, the only real difference is a DCS module has a fully clickable cockpit and a MAC module will not. So if Eagle is redoing all the assets for MAC, they would lose nothing if they reused the updated assets in DCS.  Second if MAC is highly successful, that will mean more customers for ED and that could in turn mean more DCS users. Even if the conversion rate isn't high, as long as ED is making money from DCS they won't abandon it, which brings us back to point 1.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, cfrag said:
  • Having two products (diversification) reduces risk. Now, MAC and DCS are very similar, so diversification is only over the customer segment with the distinct possibility of cannibalization. However, I hope that this question was resolved by ED's market research before they decided to invest into the MAC product line
  • Since they (MAC and DCS) are very similar, we may see synergy effects (textures, world building, technology, flight model, net code), multiplying the possible return on investment by reducing dev cost and broadening the market for 3rd party devs.

Some time back @Wags released a video showing an ED testing desktop which had an icon for the F-4 Phantom II and MAC. So from a coding stand point it looks like they are the same except MAC has simplified cockpits   

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2022 at 2:55 PM, Ignition said:

I don't understand why ED doesn't put 1 person to do this kind of stuff. It could update or make 1 static per month and the diversity of missions would be incredible.

Right now it feels like a 30 year old game with the same 2 or 3 statics in every single mission.

Most of the assets look like this

 

 

 

Its really painful to place these cubes to make a mission.

At least I expect ED to update the heliport with the MI-24 and AH-64D. I was practicing in the FARP and its horrendous, visually I didn't know the distance to the floor with that texture.

 

I did a quick updated tech building myself

New Tech building V1.0 (digitalcombatsimulator.com)


Edited by joey45

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.

"Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.."

https://ko-fi.com/joey45

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think, or maybe I should say I hope it doesn't have anything to do with ED not seeing any value in developing other aspects of DCS.

I think it has more to do with the amount of time spent on task.

I really hope they find a way to get more on top of the ground/sea aspects. I would really like to see them release a FF Abrams/T90 duo as a test. I am sure it would be successful and they would see the benefit to follow with other modules.

But yes, ground/sea assets/modules deserve a lot more attention and could use a major update to textures and physics models.

Spent nearly 3 hours last night playing with the Super Carrier after downloading the latest stable patch. A lot of fun just working with Ai!

Anyone that hasn't picked the SC up yet should really give it some consideration, because it really is well worth the price. And I don't even own the F18/F14 yet!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

I don't think, or maybe I should say I hope it doesn't have anything to do with ED not seeing any value in developing other aspects of DCS.

I think it has more to do with the amount of time spent on task.

That is the reason that I think Eagle will prioritize module development. Any improvements will help dcs. The issue is finding the time and money. I believe this is one the reasons for MAC. 

A dcs graphics and engine overhaul will be awesome. However there is the issue of the return on investment.  This is why I think mac is being developed. It is based on dcs, so I think Ed is going to use it to pay for graphics development.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...