New Caucasus Map (and tech needed)

[average_pilot]

I can't engage on the technical discussion, but regarding color I've been using some desaturation for a few years now because color saturation is way too intense. I find DCS looks more natural this way. Although that's a generic problem with games. I'm using a Reverb G2 for the record.

Oh, and this mod that darkens trees so that they look somewhat less cartoony.

To be honest, to me the maps have this look of early 2000's rendering technology on steroids rather than updated graphics. They do the job but makes me wish for something that is actually modern.

[Silver_Dragon]

16 hours ago, Bosun said:

Overall though, I agree with the original post:  We need more detailed landscape engines here. 

Games like MSFS have really pushed the bar, and having 2010 map-technology now is showing its age. MSFS has much higher detail and is still performant, so this isn't an impossible goal. 

The real question is whether or not DCS would require an entirely new engine to support such a shift in detail.  The new Kola map is an example where, given OrbX' other projects in MSFS, their quality is quite high and I can only imagine that the trees and buildings we see in their Kola map being as refined as any other on Caucauses is only due to limitations of the engine itself. 

ED has working on a "Whole Earth" technology and Vulkan engine has arround the corner... diferent engines, diferent map building technics and diferent module buildings, and MSFS a engine without none about damage models, warfare systems, weapons, and a long etc... ED dont need change to engine to other with none capability to make realistic combat.

[GEIST]

Thanks for all the replies!

Re: RGB CMYK: Thanks for all the explanations, that's much appreciated. I think I maybe didn't take the best example to make my point - I was trying to say that there seems something to be going wrong somewhere in the pipe which creates these highly saturated images.

Re: Fidelity and Map details: I think it's fair to say that DCS delivers much more than the competitors do in terms of simulation, so it's understandable that there have to be tradeoffs in terms of quality to deliver on all fronts. And I can see with the new maps that there are efforts in place to improve the quality so there is progress but I think it's okay to look ahead.
I am bringing these things up because I don't see that these are things that are actively being worked on. Trees/grass get simulations and that's great for the helicopter pilots but I hope this doesn't mean they're not being worked on further in terms of rendering and realism. There is a reason why there is no Vietnam map yet and I do really hope ED are working on tech to make that happen in the future ... currently this would not work very well. There needs to be a rethink on how trees blend into the environment and how they are rendered from a distance... and that's one area where MFSF just works really well (not perfect but decent overall). The trees seem to cover an area properly and blend into the environment so we know it's possible and I personally think that can be done with DCS today given resources are dedicated to it. And looking at the newly released Kola map I'd say that's required... the map looks great but the trees from hight altitude ... it's a bummer.

I've done some tests myself on how to imporve the environment. This is an island created to replace the one in the marianas (anatahan). It runs quite well on a 3080ti with DLSS - but obvs not everyone has that kind of GP. I think there is a world where the maps can look better and we still have decent performance. And that's what the settings are for to turn them down if you don't have the hardware - but if you have a 3080 or 4080 or whatever I think that can be done now if DCS spends the time and resources on a project like this.



 

 

Edited May 7 by GEIST

[draconus]

1 hour ago, GEIST said:

highly saturated images

Make sure you start with calibrated monitor before comparing colors to anything. If it's VR I don't know if they keep any standard here.

Maybe it's your preference so just fly in overcast.

You can also use DCS color settings, graphic driver color settings or monitor color settings to get what you want.

Now, remember that RL can generate all kinds of light, contrast and colors and everything inbetween. IRL the flora changes its colors daily. DCS can only recreate some part of that, including sun light, shadows, moon light and seasons (if available). It's like artists can only capture a one moment in time with the textures - everything else is light and saturation that goes with it. So there's no one "correct" image or color range - it's all dynamic.

Edited May 7 by draconus

[Qcumber]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

There's no upcoming Iran map. Maybe you meant Iraq?

Of course. Yes, I meant Iraq. 

[Bosun]

On 5/7/2024 at 3:43 AM, draconus said:

Make sure you start with calibrated monitor before comparing colors to anything. If it's VR I don't know if they keep any standard here.

Maybe it's your preference so just fly in overcast.

You can also use DCS color settings, graphic driver color settings or monitor color settings to get what you want.

Now, remember that RL can generate all kinds of light, contrast and colors and everything inbetween. IRL the flora changes its colors daily. DCS can only recreate some part of that, including sun light, shadows, moon light and seasons (if available). It's like artists can only capture a one moment in time with the textures - everything else is light and saturation that goes with it. So there's no one "correct" image or color range - it's all dynamic.

 

To add in to this thought, the job of modelers and texture artists, lighting and rigging artists, is to create an environment that is a fascimile of the average of what you felt you have perceived. 

Tough job, for sure. 

Again, I agree with the OP sentiment - there is certainly some work to be done.  Just the revisions you've made on the Marianas above are quite pretty. 

As for comparing MSFS to DCS - the point is not to say DCS should use MSFS engines.  Not at all. The point was to say that it is possible to blend that level of detail with DCS' need for dynamic content a little better.  In particular with render-mesh sizes, because outside of buildings being destroyed, the mesh size on the terrain doesn't get destroyed or distorted currently in game.  (If they're working on that, that would amazing, but I haven't heard they are, anyone know?)  

Also texture resolutions, for scanned texture areas. I think DCS could up these a little.  The technology is there to render detail and manage GPU/CPU/RAM load in displaying it when needed. The map tech is a little behind the curve. 

And I do agree, the stock settings, even with a calibrated monitor (mine are calibrated each year for design work), are over-saturated for the amalgamation of perception, average, that I personally feel I am perceiving (including, as above, all the minute variances of lighting and shading and time of day.) 

But - eyesight is different, and where my perception says colors are duller in real life, someone else's eyes may think DCS is duller than they experience. 

Because at the end of the day, if I perceived the spectrum of 'red' as the color you experience as 'green' - neither of us would ever know.  Let that sink in.

[YSIAD_RIP]

@GEIST:  Have you tried Bartheks Caucasus Redone 2022 v2 and Batter Trees for Caucasus V6 by Taz1004?

Both Mods could be implemented by @Eagle Dynamics some day.  ED has many priorities at the moment also would have their internal reasons for not updating Caucasus at this time.