South Atlantic Terrain Terrain Look and Feel

[westr]

VR perspective. 

The main issue I find with the SA map is its VR performance around built up areas. It also doesn’t work at low level atm but this is a well reported issue and I believe it must be something that can be fixed as it happens after a period of time. I don’t like the look of the buildings they look unrealistic, I’m not sure if it’s the colours? Can’t say for sure but I’m just being honest, i don’t often moan about Razbams work, I’m a big fan of them. 

The 3 best maps in my opinion in terms of performance and how they look, and it’s my opinion!

Are Caucasus with the Barthek mod, and the better darker trees mod, 

The Normandy map, I do use a darker Normandy mod. 
 

and the Nevada map. 
 

therefore I have voted for synthetic, but I will say at high altitude over mountains on the SA map it does look beautiful. 

 

[Rudel_chw]

On 11/30/2023 at 7:29 AM, Raz_Specter said:

We would like to get the communities opinion ...

 

Hi @Raz_Specter, you may want to edit the thread tittle a bit, as "terrain terrain" looks odd, perhaps change it to "map - terrain"?

[PLUTON]

Without wanting to offend anyone but there is a question that comes to mind,
(it seems to me that flight simulator uses satellite images?)
So how do they keep it fluid at low altitude?
But keep your map as it is at the moment, it is the most beautiful in terms of realism.
Thank you

[seven10]

I am not sure how DCS handles terrain textures, but does it not support layers of detail to swap texture sets based on altitude? If so then the sat textures are mostly great at the highest altitudes and then it would be good if synthetic textures influenced by the sat textures were used more and more as one was closer to the ground.

If that's not possible, I think starting from the sat texture and then artistically modifying it in key areas or where people find anomalies in the photography to be the best compromise. Perhaps some of the current ai up-scaling tools could clean up where sat textures get blocky.

[Montykoro]

Is a mayor roadblock on performance the Satellite image?

Is the km2 (or size) the roadblock on perfomance?

For my is the performace the key to the popularity to the map,

 

[Turbo747]

I think most of us would appreciate the appearance of buildings, handcrafted or not at the spots where you can see on the satelite images that in real life there is something at that place.  Also some of the roads you notice on the map go from nowhere to nowhere.  I mean, nowhere along the road and certainly at the ends you see a building/town.  I do not think this is what it looks like in real life.

[GeoS72]

I voted for the synthetic look. But that comes with a clause: Frame rate penalties should be minimized to the greatest extent possible.

As an example, Rio Grande airport suffers from large frame rate hits. It has improved over time, but the lag when on approach, taxiing, or low-level flying is still noticeable.

@Raz_Specter, I firmly believe this map is exceptional beautiful. Keep up the good work!

[Hardt0kidnap]

Thanks for reaching out for our thoughts on the terrain textures for the South Atlantic map. It's a significant topic, especially given the current reliance on satellite imagery for this map. I feel the feedback for the map overall has been very mixed, partly due to the lack of textures in some areas. The improvements it's had the last few updates have been significant.

While there's no denying the realism brought by high-definition satellite imagery, I believe shifting to synthetic terrain textures could be beneficial. This is particularly true for areas like the Andes, which currently might not fully capture their real-world grandeur.

This approach might better serve the overall gameplay experience, especially in intense scenarios — whether that's navigating a Huey on a MEDEVAC through the streets, or dropping JDAM's from the stratosphere. In such moments, the playability and strategic layout of the map are more pivotal than the ultra-realistic depiction of terrain.

Focusing on synthetic terrain could also mean more playable areas, which, in my opinion, should be a priority. Enhancing the map's functional design can elevate the gameplay experience, making the South Atlantic map not just visually appealing but also more engaging and versatile for various missions.

I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this. The South Atlantic map has great potential, and with thoughtful development, it could see increased use and some day servers might do the switch.

[rkk01]

My initial response would be to stick with the satellite imagery… but as per one of the early posts, it would probably need some comparative screenshots 

South Atlantic is one of the most stunning and atmospheric maps in DCS, especially if you set dark and stormy weather conditions. It would be a great shame to lose that…

Either way, it’s great that South Atlantic continues to receive love and attention 

As a Brit, I’m always going to push for the expanded 1982 assets pack, but I understand that this is going to be a polarised debate.  Personally I would fly SA much more with the full set of UK and Argentinian assets that have previously been showcased

It seems odd to me that there isn’t greater love for Falklands Conflict assets on this sub, yet elsewhere the wider DCS forum appears wildly keen for more Cold War assets… (A RN task force would also fit the forthcoming Kola Map)

ETA - Haven’t voted yet… will try to get some up to date cockpit time today before voting)

Edited December 3, 2023 by rkk01

[markturner1960]

HiI vote keep the satellite imagery...done right, ( paired with a decent high resolution terrain mesh) it worksd really well. I used to fly a lot in FSX 10 - 15  years ago, and had many gigabytes of photscenery as well as hi def add on meshes. The scenery realism achieved using this was awesome and that was a LONG time ago, with way less powerful computers and graphics cards and much less memory. If it was possible easily then, then I dont understand the barriers to implementing it like that within DCS.....if there is an issue preventing this then I am all ears....Here are some pictures from then, please tell me what you think:

[Hiob]

6 minutes ago, markturner1960 said:

HiI vote keep the satellite imagery...done right, ( paired with a decent high resolution terrain mesh) it worksd really well. I used to fly a lot in FSX 10 - 15  years ago, and had many gigabytes of photscenery as well as hi def add on meshes. The scenery realism achieved using this was awesome and that was a LONG time ago, with way less powerful computers and graphics cards and much less memory. If it was possible easily then, then I dont understand the barriers to implementing it like that within DCS.....if there is an issue preventing this then I am all ears....Here are some pictures from then, please tell me what you think:

Looks awesome. Just like MSFS2020 does from high up.

But I dare you fly low through the procedural rendered cities. I'd take DCS everyday.

[markturner1960]

Yeah but we are not asking which flight sim is better here. You still have good photorendered scenery tiles and cities like we have in DCS, Orbx do just that kind of thing with Flight sim with more variety ( and coming to DCS soon in the Kola map) . We are asking which scenery looks best and I think its clear, that done right photoscenery beats tiled and current DCs texture tech. I would just like to understand that given its nearly 20 year old tech and all the hard work has already been done, why it cant be utilised to its full potential with the SA map....as I really feel it could be sooo much better. Just needs a better mesh and some work on masking, transitions etc.

[MAXsenna]

 
Hi @Raz_Specter, you may want to edit the thread tittle a bit, as "terrain terrain" looks odd, perhaps change it to "map - terrain"?

Read it real fast and it sounds like watching and episode of Mayday/Air Crash Investigations.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[MAXsenna]

A mix depending on altitude, like others have mentioned, might be the best if possible. But what happened to the super high-res option which were teased back around release? Some of us would absolutely not mind a ~300GB map.
I also second the request for missing buildings and correct roads where you can see where they should be. (In another sim I can even see the children's play house and other toys in my brother's garden, but that's a little too much to ask for I guess. ).
Cheers

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Rudel_chw]

On 11/30/2023 at 10:09 AM, Rudel_chw said:

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

 

@Raz_Specter another improvement that I'd love to see, is increasing the depth of the channels on the Chilean side of the map .. on 1978 the chilean fleet hid on those channels to ambush the argentinian navy, and this cant be properly simulated withe the channels being so shallow ... for example, this is the closest I could get this ship to the shore:

 

 

I've had the fortune of sailing some of those channels, and they are quite deep, allowing the ships to be much nearer the shore, like this:

 

 

Hopefully, the depth of the channels can be increased without having to rework too much  

Edited December 3, 2023 by Rudel_chw

[rkk01]

Had a fly around East and West Falkland in the MB-339 this pm…

… and voted to keep the Sat imagery.

I flew at various altitudes, including low level trying to use the terrain to mask approaches to various warships.

Its a lovely map

 

ETA - wheels touched the tarmac with 3kg of fuel remaining

Edited December 3, 2023 by rkk01

[rkk01]

40 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

 

 

Wait up… that’s a Type 23…?

 

[Rudel_chw]

6 minutes ago, rkk01 said:

Wait up… that’s a Type 23…?

 

 

Yes, this one:

 

 

[rkk01]

11 minutes ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Yes, this one:

 

 

Thanks @Rudel_chw - I see those every day… will look up the mod

 

… and that really is hot off the presses… Will download the Admiral’s Albion as well

Edited December 3, 2023 by rkk01

[DimSim]

I voted to keep the satellite / aerial photos vs synthetic, but it is a hard and possibly uniformed choice.

Photos look great at high resolution and clean (of eg. clouds, shadows, anomalies). At low resolution, they are often unsatisfying.

Synthetic can look very sharp and detailed, particularly at low altitude, but often has repetitive patterns of color, shape and design.

Combining the two is a great challenge, particularly for any transition to be seamless. Cleaning up photographs can be very time consuming, particularly when done by hand. Creating unique landmarks or even placing trees and buildings to recreate realism, though much of that is shared between the two terrain imagery choices, is understandably time consuming.

I think, near equally important is elevation map detail. This is not unique to photo or synthetic color imagery. This is mostly observed on mountain crests and valleys, but most critically roads near both of those features. Immersion is terribly broken when a river runs along the side of a hill instead of through the valley. And roads winding around mountains look terrible without the detail required to show a flat road cut out of the mountain side.

Final random thoughts:

Storage is relatively cheep these days, so I'd vote for more detail even at double or quadruple the storage footprint.

The terrain and atmospheric lighting effects plus clouds that already exist have helped tremendously with realism and satisfaction looking outside the cockpit.

[attackdebris]

Really enjoying this map having spent some time on the Falklands circa 2000, I think the islands barren nature is well reflected.

Whilst I also like the satellite imagery it would be nice if some of the obvious anomalies could be removed or tidied up. It does break immersion flying past a flat house and jetty next to a lake (for example). Is it not possible to simply copy the surrounding land textures to replace the house imagery and replace the jetty with water textures i.e. removing these features from the satellite imagery (assuming you’re not able to model everything in).

My only other gripe at the moment is poor performance around urban areas, it still seems to be an issue at low level even after the latest update.

I look forward to your future improvements to this great map!

[Mike Force Team]

I want the synthetic look. 

Mike Force Team 

[Aqua]

This is the possibly the best map in DCS with a very unique look and feel, it stands out from the crowd and has a realistic edge compared to most of the other maps.

We invest a lot of time and hard earned money into our flight sim hobby, with technology moving forward we should embrace any new advancement that brings us closer to that real flight feeling as has happened with the rapid development's in VR. Do we want a modern military flight sim or a game?.

Following the synthetic route only stagnates and delays the advancement of improvements and development techniques. Someone has to stand up and push the boundaries first. I to do not believe that changing to synthetic will increase its popularity.

 Some say they get bad performance and visuals at low level, but for me this is the same on any map including Syria, every map has areas that don't match or are a bit 'low quality', and even using different aircraft modules can have an adverse effect on the same maps performance and our enjoyment.

The look and textures of this map is what drew me to it, for me it is getting closer to visual realism, whether flying a Hind or a Hornet, high or low.

In an ideal world we would have both a synthetic and a satellite option, and the choice would be yours as to which you purchased. 

I personally choose satellite.  

[Hotdognz]

Voted for satellite imagery, this map is so gorgeous now, its a pleasurer to fly it high and low, it is in fact the best map right now in DCS it just needs more towns and citys

 

[Mr_sukebe]

Stick with the current method.  
Both methods have their pros and cons, so changing might improve certain elements, but worsen others.

More to the point, the effort/cost to change could be used elsewhere to further improve the map, or maybe add additional assets (eg ships).