Will the expansion also fix the graphics.

[Gunfreak]

So a certain other flight thingy just got released and it's new Normandy map looks fantastic. 

So the question is will the Normandy expansion add graphical overhaul, to bring it up to the quality of the channel map or Ugra's own Syria map?

[REDEYE_CVW-66]

One can hope. One thing is certain- and that is that DCS is capable of more objects and sharper textures. Considering that the latest products of Ugra have been of very good quality (Syria, "Other sim" Normandy) I think it is likely that the quality will be matched and hopefully even surpassed.

I still think Normandy is far superior to the Channel in terms of texture crispness- and flying at over 3000 ft. The Channel is superior in terms of airfields and to some extent towns and cities. In terms of fields, forests and textures, Normandy is still king IMHO.

Since the "other" sims Normandy now has a believable colour palette, one can hope that this also rubs off on DCS. Throw in London and Paris as well as detailed UK coastline and we will have the best western front map yet.

[Art-J]

Some misconceptions don't seem do want to die easily ;), so to clear things up again (though probably not the last time) - the "other sim" Normandy was NOT done by Ugra guys. It was internal job, while some other things were outsourced to Ugra. 

I hope, however, that Ugra takes a note of the texture color palette of that competing map and improves this particular aspect of theirs. There's no use of current texture crispness, if the color palette itself is an oversaturated, eye-burning mess and there's only so much one can improve by using Barthek's summer textures mod.

I'm somewhat optimistic, though. I don't own Syria map, but I keep reading it's one of the finer looking maps in DCS and I can see it on youtube vids. The only major thing wrong with it seems to be RAM consumption and I wonder if extended Normandy is going to become a resource hog as well.

[REDEYE_CVW-66]

Thanks for the info- I stand corrected. Points remain valid though- so I am cautiously optimistic:)

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Funnily enough, no, the competence map doesn't look "fantastic", like at all… it looks like games of the first 2000 which is baffling in, what we're now? 2022… Shocking, to be honest. I expected it could be better than what's been released, not that I care of now but I like to see those good pieces of work. But this one isn't greatly better than other stuff I used to fly 15 years ago, which is shocking to be honest.

Colour palette? Ok, granted, that's better but that's no merit at all, that's the easiest part of it. The lower detail in general, the inexistent coast lines, the objects low poly and texture resolution (don't get me started on that same about "brand new" aeroplanes looking like the ones I used 20 years ago in games). No, it's definitely no better whatsoever, I thought it could be but it's not and I hardly doubt they could match it any time soon while they keep using the dated graphics engine they use.

Colour of the grass? Yes, that's better, honestly not enough for me . And anyhow, of course keep the update to DCS map coming all the way, not saying we don't need it, but come on guys… not even close, and that's despite the many years and problems our DCS Normandy map might have which is more reasons to add to the shocking look of it being a brand new thing…

Edited September 26, 2022 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Skewgear]

The current Normandy map is built using land class scenery with vectors to describe roads, rivers and coastlines etc. It's very old (mature? Well understood? Outdated?) tech. It happens to work very well for producing large scale maps provided you don't fly too high and spot the repetition between land class areas.

Unfortunately the less variety in areas, the more they stick out. This is the case with England in the current Normandy. On the flip side, less variety means less overhead - and better in game performance.

I can't see a full scale overhaul with the most modern scenery building tech. There are lots of unconvincing details around coast lines especially, though the rest of it is reasonable.

What's the total market, 10 or 15,000 customers? And all that for free? Can't see a full rebuild coming. We'll get some bigger land class areas with better definition of towns and cities.

I'm more interested in features like Dreux airfield and others around Paris. That opens up longer range bomber and escort / intercept missions.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

You're totally right, but you're also forgetting that in the current Normandy map England is a low detail area which was only available later on to enable a few aerodromes for playability purposes, it was never intended to be a highly detailed area in the first place. England is "out of the map" actually. Again funnily enough, if we look at the originally intended map by RRG crowdfunding it was like 1/4 of the map we have right now, that "out of the map" usability wasn't planned initially at all but ED saw the map would be a lot more usable with at least those few aerodromes even out of the detailed area. If they now widen the map to include Paris and London it makes no sense they don't do it all the way, it's too much to add to keep the current map "as it is", hence well "out of the map" and low detail area, why would you put that kind of effort to include Paris and London in a low detail out of the map area? They'll need to enhance that detail greatly which is probably like a whole new map, but I wouldn't know the inners of the project of course. In the end we can only wait and watch what they come up with, but honestly even with the meagre details we know about it (those screenshots in the 2022 and beyond video IIRC), I can only wait and hope for the best.

[Gunfreak]

On 9/26/2022 at 3:34 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Funnily enough, no, the competence map doesn't look "fantastic", like at all… it looks like games of the first 2000 which is baffling in, what we're now? 2022… Shocking, to be honest. I expected it could be better than what's been released, not that I care of now but I like to see those good pieces of work. But this one isn't greatly better than other stuff I used to fly 15 years ago, which is shocking to be honest.

Colour palette? Ok, granted, that's better but that's no merit at all, that's the easiest part of it. The lower detail in general, the inexistent coast lines, the objects low poly and texture resolution (don't get me started on that same about "brand new" aeroplanes looking like the ones I used 20 years ago in games). No, it's definitely no better whatsoever, I thought it could be but it's not and I hardly doubt they could match it any time soon while they keep using the dated graphics engine they use.

Colour of the grass? Yes, that's better, honestly not enough for me . And anyhow, of course keep the update to DCS map coming all the way, not saying we don't need it, but come on guys… not even close, and that's despite the many years and problems our DCS Normandy map might have which is more reasons to add to the shocking look of it being a brand new thing…

 

I've seen pictures in pictures comparison of the Normandy map from 4 different sims. And the new Normandy map is far superior in all ways. From detailed landmarks to including smaller islands that DCS Normandy doesn't even have.

[Beirut]

On 10/2/2022 at 4:47 PM, Gunfreak said:

I've seen pictures in pictures comparison of the Normandy map from 4 different sims. And the new Normandy map is far superior in all ways. From detailed landmarks to including smaller islands that DCS Normandy doesn't even have.

 

Honestly, I don't see it. The Normandy map looks good, but after seeing some videos of it, flying a bit over other maps in that sim, and then flying the DCS Channel map right after, I got an instant feeling of "Ahhhh! That's why I fly DCS." I find the DCS ground textures and colours to be superior. And the buildings on the DCS map don't have that omnipresent gray that the buildings on the Normandy and other of their maps have. The DCS Channel map is much a richer looking map. 

 

That said, if you look at the economics of it, the DCS maps are big budget stand-alone items, whereas the other maps are just part of the package. The package being a map and a half dozen planes, all at the same price as one DCS map  It's understandable that the other maps will be less sophisticated.

[Art-J]

@BeirutMind you, Gunfreak wrote about Ugra Media's Normandy map, not ED's Channel one. The latter is very nice indeed (putting small size and poor optimization aside), while the former just aged poorly and is in dire need of an overhaul to make it competitive with Il-2's offering.

[skypickle]

I found that reshade allows improved colors and also allows tweaking of contrast. As i am not a real pilot tho i cannot imagine what the real colors should be. However an experienced (and not color challenged) set of eyes could do this and those settings could be shared for comparison. 

[Beirut]

6 hours ago, Art-J said:

@BeirutMind you, Gunfreak wrote about Ugra Media's Normandy map, not ED's Channel one. The latter is very nice indeed (putting small size and poor optimization aside), while the former just aged poorly and is in dire need of an overhaul to make it competitive with Il-2's offering.

 

I'm sorry, I referring to the other sim's Normandy map. I might not have written it out clearly enough. My comparison was between their Normandy and our Channel map.

[Rapierarch]

IL and DCS comparison is comparing apples with peers. You can not judge the color quality like that. 

IL-2 has physical sky with physical based rendering globally. It has volumetric atmospheric effects working side by side truesky weather simulation and lighting is calculated realistically and shadows too if you want to get anything better than that it is raytracing. DCS has none of it. Until the engine gets those capabilities it is not possible to evaluate the color quality. 

Mind that the oldest map of IL-2 now looks way better and realistic for color gradation than channel map in DCS. Rendering technique makes huge difference. DCS is nowhere near in the same class with all other populer sims now. We are running a dinosaur  in our systems. It is not the map that's the problem or we cannot judge it at this state at least. 

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Yeah, peoples' eyes aren't apparently watching the same everywhere…

Edited October 8, 2022 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Beirut]

On 10/8/2022 at 3:54 AM, Rapierarch said:

IL and DCS comparison is comparing apples with peers. You can not judge the color quality like that. 

IL-2 has physical sky with physical based rendering globally. It has volumetric atmospheric effects working side by side truesky weather simulation and lighting is calculated realistically and shadows too if you want to get anything better than that it is raytracing. DCS has none of it. Until the engine gets those capabilities it is not possible to evaluate the color quality. 

Mind that the oldest map of IL-2 now looks way better and realistic for color gradation than channel map in DCS. Rendering technique makes huge difference. DCS is nowhere near in the same class with all other populer sims now. We are running a dinosaur  in our systems. It is not the map that's the problem or we cannot judge it at this state at least. 

 

You say "it is not possible to evaluate" and "we cannot judge". Well... I can. I look at the screen in front of me.  If what I see looks better to me, then that's that. I find the DCS maps, including the Channel map, much more lifelike and richer looking. And those DCS clouds are simply the best in the business, physical quantitative atomic ray speculating notwithstanding, they look f****** great! When you tear up through them and find the sky on the other side, it never gets old. Five-star eye candy.

 

To each their own, of course. If you prefer scotch to bourbon, I can say you're wrong all day long - and you would be - but if scotch tastes better to you then that's that.

 

I'll stick with DCS and bourbon. Looks better and tastes better.