South Atlantic Terrain Terrain Look and Feel

[specterStudios]

We would like to get the communities opinion on if we should invest time in synthetically generate the terrain textures like some of the other maps within DCS or keep the satellite imagery we are currently using.

Edited November 30, 2023 by Raz_Specter

[PLUTON]

Personally I bought your map (South Atlantic) as it is at the moment with this satellite view which looks like reality because I don't do combat I fly only to admire the view from above where it feels like reality, If you change the appearance of the card then I would request a refund for a product purchase that will not look like what I purchased.

[sirrah]

Maybe some example screenshots would help, to give us an indication on the impact of the proposed poll options.

(I also DM'd Specter about this)

I expect for this poll there will be a big preference difference between fixed wing (mainly high altitude) and helo players.

[Rudel_chw]

2 hours ago, Raz_Specter said:

We would like to get the communities opinion on if we should invest time in synthetically generate the terrain textures like some of the other maps within DCS or keep the satellite imagery we are currently using.

 

At least on my case, I like and enjoy the Map as it is now. I have also appreciated the performance improvements that have been made and particularly the addition of more airbases.

So, I would really prefer that any development time available be invested on enhancing the assets pack with units appropiate for the Falklands conflict, and have the Razbam aircraft modules enhanced with some missions set on this Map, even if on somewhat fictional setting or not fully historic aircraft variants, like having a USAF F-15E unit operating from the UK airbases, argentinian Mirage 2000's (on air start, to avoid the long way from the continent) against british harriers II, or argentinian Sabres operating against Chilean Mig-19 units on 1978.

 

[Agim]

I like it now, because it is different than other maps. It would lost part of originality if you change it by the common way.

[Minsky]

No offence, but there are places that switched from the satellite imagery to generic textures a few patches ago (around certain airports).

They are now the worst-looking parts of this map.

Satellite imagery can never be perfect, and will always require a lot of tedious work to correct. But it is what makes the ground "pop". Otherwise it would be Caucasus 2.0.

So, unless you see some insurmountable technical obstacles in going forward with the phototerrain ("it does have anomalies" is too vague), my vote is for keeping it as is.

[Northstar98]

Personally, even as someone who flies low (meaning any issues are going to be more noticeable), I prefer colour accuracy even if comes at the expense of resolution or if it introduces anomalies.

[Hiob]

Satellite imagery looks great from higher altitudes, but breaks down (due to resolution) when yoou get closer to the ground.

In fixed wings, I don't care too much, but in Helicopters I prefer the "handcrafted" design of Syria e.g. 

I don't really know how to combine the best of two world here, but since I spend a lot of time in low altitude, I prefer the handcrafted approach.

(I hate the graphics of MSFS for that reason)

1 hour ago, PLUTON said:

Personally I bought your map (South Atlantic) as it is at the moment with this satellite view which looks like reality because I don't do combat I fly only to admire the view from above where it feels like reality, If you change the appearance of the card then I would request a refund for a product purchase that will not look like what I purchased.

Maybe there could be some "LoD" approach. Satellite imagery from far away and more "optimized by hand" textures for closer to the ground. Though I can imagine that it is hard to get the transition well done.

 

[WinterH]

Personally, it being satellite imagery is the greatest one among the reasons I didn't buy this map. It may well look great up high, but down low, which tends to matter in combat flight sims, it tends look less than ideal in my opinion.

But I udnerstand not everyone agrees about this. Besides, the map having been developed from the scratch for so long with satellite textures as the basis, I am not sure it would be even remotely easy to change that. Besides, I guess it is fine having some satellite based maps for folks who like those, and crafted texture based ones for the other side of the coin like myself.

[gulredrel]

Voted for sticking with the satellite imagery. Don't think that popularity of the map will rise when changing everything to hand crafted textures.

I like the latest performance improvements. This and maybe creating more local assets is what the resources should go into.

 

edit: That's just looking great as it is:

Edited November 30, 2023 by gulredrel

[deep]

I think the real issue here is performance. If you have hit a performance brick wall using satellite imagery, then it would be better to go with the same technology that other maps are using. I have no problem suspending my disbelief on the Syria map, even if it is synthetic.

I realize this is probably a huge undertaking, but unless something drastic is done, I'm afraid the South Atlantic map is in danger of being the forgotten step child of DCS.

[GomesPT]

2 hours ago, deep said:

I think the real issue here is performance. If you have hit a performance brick wall using satellite imagery, then it would be better to go with the same technology that other maps are using. I have no problem suspending my disbelief on the Syria map, even if it is synthetic.

I realize this is probably a huge undertaking, but unless something drastic is done, I'm afraid the South Atlantic map is in danger of being the forgotten step child of DCS.

I agree 100% and this is also my opinion.

[specterStudios]

we are continually working on improvements and enhancements every spare minute I get. like today I created another destruction model for one of the buildings.

 

I was curious about this as I feel that this could be an option

 

I was thinking of putting the work in and offering this as a mod until ED have some way to deliver 2 texture sets if they ever do this

 

then you would have the option.

 

See how the poll goes

 

thanks for filling it in

[AlpineGTA]

I really enjoy flying around on this map, it can look really quite stunning at times flying over the satellite imagery. I love the contrast in colours between the lower plains and the mountains and glaciers. And I don't get the same sense of scale with other maps as I do with this one. But yes, it would still be nice to see some performance improvements, particularly when low over the more built up areas; I appreciate that you're still working on it, thank you. 

[sirrah]

Apparently I'm the only one that not fully understands what's asked here.

Does option 2 (a more synthetic look) means losing the satellite textures all together, or does it mean that some parts of those satellite textures are manually adjusted to remove specific anomalies?

[Biggus]

I'm assuming @deep is correct and there's a performance issue that cannot be reasonably addressed without switching to synthetic scenery.  I voted to switch on the assumption that there's a performance blocker that cannot be addressed without the change.

[Beirut]

I'm a big fan of the map and I like the differences it offers. Love the scenery and sense of distance the map offers. I guess the satellite imagery is part of that.

 

Knowing nothing about making maps; is it possible to mix and match the tech, or touch up some of the obvious anomalies?

[Gunfreak]

Parts of Syria is still the best looking places to be in DCS.

As someone who flies low and make lots of ground attack youtube videos. Low quality ground textures is not great. Neither is the look on some of those fjords. 

I don't think Syria or Normandy look "synthetic " so not even sure what that is about.

[specterStudios]

14 hours ago, sirrah said:

Apparently I'm the only one that not fully understands what's asked here.

Does option 2 (a more synthetic look) means losing the satellite textures all together, or does it mean that some parts of those satellite textures are manually adjusted to remove specific anomalies?

yes, or at least basing the synthetic look on the real thing.

just to be clear I am investigating what would make the map more popular which in turn would better serve the community with more choices with respect to missions etc

so at this stage its just investigation

Edited December 1, 2023 by Raz_Specter

[IvanK]

Is there a way or Map version that represents 1982 ? For instance no RAF Mount Pleasant .

[Iron Sights]

I would say stick with improving what we have. I don’t have a problem with the map. I mean this is what was presented, I think it can be improved here and there, but I’m not at all complaining about it.

[MadKreator]

   I  have never given it a real thought. I am more of a jet “pilot” than a heli “pilot”, however I prefer low altitude, up close and personal kind of approach. Kind of a mixed bag from users. Some say textures are the deterrent, some for performance, some for lack of assets and aircraft for the simulated time period/ location. I bought SA and  I love SA for the terrain type.  I have no performance issues per-se. Drops close to cities, yes, but not really worse than any other map. Not “un-playable” by any stretch of the word. I'm not a VR guy though so I have no reference in that aspect. I am also not a mission maker, so lacking some content, even basic free-flight missions is kind of a bummer… not a deal breaker though
     I suppose I would prefer things up close to look as good as they could. I can’t honestly say I’ve ever had a gripe about synthetic textures on other maps, nor do I know anything about how they are made. I would rather terrain look good overall rather than worrying about snow caps being scale replicas. If synthesized texture could bring about improved performance for those affected, then thats just all the better. At 20k+/- feet I’m not looking at the terrain on any map anyway.  I’m busy programming the jet and heads down finding targets. Planning attack and keeping track of my Situational Awareness. Down low is where I like to “sightsee”. 
    The terrain, especially flying through the fjords in Chile is amazing. Such a nice escape from the sand and desert routine. I could care less about period specific content or recreations of real life wars in the area and whether or not DCS has the appropriate assets. We have what we have and I think it’s a silly idea to avoid a map, in a video game, because if things like that.. To each their own of course. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and reasons
   I really hope the map succeeds for the long haul, It really is ambitious and pleasantly different than any others we have!

Edited December 1, 2023 by MadKreator

[sirrah]

Most of my DCS time, I fly helo's (well, pretty much 99% the Apache actually )

So, in that respect, I should probably want to choose the second "synthetic" option, but...

It's the satellite textures that make this map unique in DCS and (from high altitude) eye wateringly beautiful.

So, my vote goes out to option 1: sticking with the satellite textures (even if that means that I'll probably only occasionally use this map for a soothing high altitude free flight session).

 

As I mentioned before though, I just wish we could have both:

Keep using current satellite textures and manually optimize occasional (low altitude) texture/terrain anomalies.

[swartbyron]

Having synthetic textures as option or a mod is a fantastic idea!

Personally for me, I’ve always found synthetic terrain textures to be the most convincing and therefor the most immersive.

South Atlantic at the moment blows my mind in some places it so beautiful and then is terribly disappointing (ugly) in others, spoiling the immersion completely.

If it could be achieved, a blend of both would work nicely. Something were the satellite imagery slowly blends in with the synthetic textures at a distance and with altitude.

There is still so much work to do to make the satellite imagery convincing on its own. Personally, I would replace most of it with really good synthetic textures and be done with it.

Thanks for reaching out to the community and considering our opinions on this.

Edited December 2, 2023 by swartbyron

[Citizen]

I didn't vote because I don't think it makes much of a difference.  A well-done synthetic can look fantastic and a poorly done satellite texture can look awful, and vice versa.

Neither will look good on a mesh that doesn't have enough detail.