Is the texture resolution increased by 400%?

[LucShep]

So, this may be the single worst title in the gaming universe when it comes to VRAM consumption, especially in VR, and you're going again for overkill sized textures?

You haven't learned a thing, have you?
DCS World, as it is, is already very problematic in this aspect, why exarcebate the issue even more?

....why??
To please the few close-up screenshot nerds?
Is this a screenshot contest game or a practical usable simulator, able to accomodate the largest number of hardware from its user base? 

Huge thumbs down.
I honestly don't understand who makes such decisions, for hardware resources logistic/management when developping modules and maps.
It just shows how disconnected ED is from the current issues, IMO. 

[Vakarian]

Yeah, not too happy about that, but it could also be poor wording. If the textures are higher res, but normals aren't, that should be fine. Also, it doesn't mention what was the base for the 400% increase figure.

But in any case, ED should be really careful not to overdo the textures. It's all fine and dandy to look at the birds while on the ground, but for the 99% of the time, we are in the air, pretty far away. Even when in the dogfights, we are moving by so fast that even 256x256 textures would be good enough for the purpose

Please, be reasonable when choosing the texture sizes, there's only so much VRAM GPU manufacturers put on them and it's doesn't bode well if the game requires 1500+ euro cards to be able to enjoy that work.

[diego999]

Put 10 of these side to side in an airfield and you'll be looking at (very beautiful) single digit FPS.

Screenshot simulator as you said.

[skywalker22]

400% means 4-times more. Which is practically nearly impossible. NM textures by now are 4096x4096 (up to 30MB) as far as I have seen. So having 4-times bigger? Come on.... would be also completely useless. All over-ground objects look like they are made 10-15 years ago (mostly are squares with low poly textures), so why making some aircrtaft looking so much better? Waste to time and pc resources.

I hope this is typo.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

7 minutes ago, skywalker22 said:

4-times more

5x actually. ‘Increased by 10%’ = 110% so ‘increased by 400%’ = 500% 

[pjbunnyru]

18 часов назад, LucShep сказал:

So, this may be the single worst title in the gaming universe when it comes to VRAM consumption, especially in VR, and you're going again for overkill sized textures?

You haven't learned a thing, have you?
DCS World, as it is, is already very problematic in this aspect, why exarcebate the issue even more?

....why??
To please the few close-up screenshot nerds?
Is this a screenshot contest game or a practical usable simulator, able to accomodate the largest number of hardware from its user base? 

Huge thumbs down.
I honestly don't understand who makes such decisions, for hardware resources logistic/management when developping modules and maps.
It just shows how disconnected ED is from the current issues, IMO. 

in russian version of news there are no percentages:
 

Спойлер

it only says that textures resolution has been greatly increased.

Edited December 25, 2024 by pjbunnyru

[Megalax]

Current model textures are 2048x2048. 4x more or 400% increase just means they went with 4096x4096, as a 4096 sheet has 4 times the pixel capacity of a 2048 sheet.

Those complaining about texture sizes and numbers saying it will drag resources down should stop playing with the F-16, HB F-14 and F-4 then.

[JalilDoran]

Whatever the maths is here, as someone running a low end system that's fine with modules like the F-14 and definitely intent on getting the MiG-29 I really hope they don't tank the performance for the sake of screenshots.

[Vakarian]

On 1/18/2025 at 8:00 PM, Megalax said:

Those complaining about texture sizes and numbers saying it will drag resources down should stop playing with the F-16, HB F-14 and F-4 then.

You are making it sound like this isn't the case already... Chinook, Apache, F-4, all have ludicrously high texture requirement that basically require people with 16GB VRAM cards to lower the textures a notch to be able to play. 

So what's the point of creating those super high-res textures if what, few percent of people will actually see them?

[LucShep]

18 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

You are making it sound like this isn't the case already... Chinook, Apache, F-4, all have ludicrously high texture requirement that basically require people with 16GB VRAM cards to lower the textures a notch to be able to play. 

So what's the point of creating those super high-res textures if what, few percent of people will actually see them?

Touché!

For graphics cards, you need an Nvidia RTX 3090, 4090,  5090, AMD RTX7900XT or XTX (i.e, more than 16GB VRAM), if you're hoping to run those modules in one of the latest maps in VR. And it seems the trend is spreading to every new module and map.

I don't care how "high-end-hardcore-elitism-best-art-ubber-detail-fidelity" type of arguments are thrown to excuse such a poor decision.
This is absurd, and we've been saying it for some five years now.

More, to add insult to injury, the reduction of texture setting in the game options means a horrible downgrade in image quality, because it's done through the MIPs of the .DDS texture (modules use single set of textures, they don't have HIGH and LOW packages, only the terrain maps), really blurry as there is no propper textures resizing through manual process, to ensure it's done in the best quality.

   Honestly, at this point I simply give up, it's useless.  



 

Edited January 20 by LucShep

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, Vakarian said:

Chinook, Apache, F-4, all have ludicrously high texture requirement that basically require people with 16GB VRAM cards to lower the textures a notch to be able to play

It depends on the mission scenario: I have no problem with frame times in the AH-64 nor F-4 unless there's a lot of them nearby.
The CH-47 is unplayable even as sole unit on an empty map (unless you enable DLSS: in that case a 16GB card is just about able to keep up).

[aaronwhite]

On 1/20/2025 at 7:01 AM, Vakarian said:

You are making it sound like this isn't the case already... Chinook, Apache, F-4, all have ludicrously high texture requirement that basically require people with 16GB VRAM cards to lower the textures a notch to be able to play. 

So what's the point of creating those super high-res textures if what, few percent of people will actually see them?

To future proof it, to a certain degree. Some people may need to turn down their textures for now, but handicapping yourself because of the lowest-end systems at the moment just means you'll be recreating work sooner in the future. Look at all of the legacy models. From the ones that looked to be ported over from Flanker 2.5 to the stuff that was added in the Lock-On days. Even just looking at the 3D models and old textures is pretty mind blowing. Doing texture work on the original DCS Ka-50 was comparatively simple. I think it was 2 or 3 texture files and if I remember right they were 1024x1024. Now those textures on the new Black Shark III with the new model are wild. I think it's 5 or 6 4K texture files. They are massive by comparison, and there's so many more details that weren't included before, like interiors showing the internal systems, engine details that are hidden behind panels most of the time, other electronic gear and things like that. 

At some point you've got to rip the bandaid off and start moving forward, and people can either upgrade or lower their settings. 

I have to imagine DCS generates enough data for ED to look and see what kind of systems people are using and craft the game engine and textures to be playable for the majority of those systems, while still having an eye towards the future and developing things that will be cutting edge. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

23 minutes ago, aaronwhite said:

At some point you've got to rip the bandaid off and start moving forward, and people can either upgrade or lower their settings. 

While that is fair enough, the major problem here is that nVidia doesn’t seem to know (or care) about the importance of VRAM - unless they use that to persuade people to spend ridiculous amounts of money on a X090 graphics card.

Edited January 24 by Raven (Elysian Angel)
Grammar

[MAXsenna]

28 minutes ago, aaronwhite said:

To future proof it, to a certain degree. Some people may need to turn down their textures for now, but handicapping yourself because of the lowest-end systems at the moment just means you'll be recreating work sooner in the future.

Totally disagree with this. They could've easily had 2048 textures at "High", and added another "Ultra" level for 4096. I've tried the texture resize script, and it had tremendous impact and everything was fine. Couldn't see the difference at all. (resized to 2048) Medium setting sucks and is very ugly with smeared text in the cockpit. The old modules are even worse. Yes, it was fine. Then ED dropped a "optimisation" patch before Christmas, and I was back to a slide show in the Chinook, even with the script mod. 

 

34 minutes ago, aaronwhite said:

They are massive by comparison, and there's so many more details that weren't included before, like interiors showing the internal systems, engine details that are hidden behind panels most of the time, other electronic gear and things like that. 

Yes, I live eye candy!  

34 minutes ago, aaronwhite said:

At some point you've got to rip the bandaid off and start moving forward, and people can either upgrade or lower their settings. 

I payed more than 100K for my computer in 2013. Not doing that again, when it's totally unnecessary. Add another tier, and like some other user said about the patch I mentioned above. "Seems ED optimized backwards". 

[Benom8]

12 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

They could've easily had 2048 textures at "High", and added another "Ultra" level for 4096

I'm not sure of the mechanics of that slider, but it is frustrating that the only option other that full res is blurry mess (EDIT: mainly referring to cockpit text)

Don't want to armchair dev it, but there must be a solution to give more control, or sharpen up text in the mips. 

 

Edited January 25 by Benom8

[Lyrode]

2025/1/25 AM4点16分，Raven (Elysian Angel)说：

While that is fair enough, the major problem here is that nVidia doesn’t seem to know (or care) about the importance of VRAM - unless they use that to persuade people to spend ridiculous amounts of money on a X090 graphics card.

It's like Apple selling a 256gb laptop.

We just need the vram but nothing else? Then Nv just doesn't offer enough and make us purchase uptier overpriced cards we don't need.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, Lyrode said:

We just need the vram but nothing else?

I'm simply stating that VRAM clearly is a limiting factor to many models in the nVidia line-up. I'm not the only one who's saying that: the tech media picked up on that too.

[Lyrode]

2小时前，Raven (Elysian Angel)说：

I'm simply stating that VRAM clearly is a limiting factor to many models in the nVidia line-up. I'm not the only one who's saying that: the tech media picked up on that too.

I totally agree with you, sometimes it's just vram bottlenecking a 8k vr capable gpu to 4k. What I mean is Nv did it intentionally so that we have to buy over-priced better cards to just get the vram needed.

Main reason I puke at 50 series too.

[aaronwhite]

On 1/24/2025 at 2:31 PM, MAXsenna said:

Totally disagree with this. They could've easily had 2048 textures at "High", and added another "Ultra" level for 4096. I've tried the texture resize script, and it had tremendous impact and everything was fine. Couldn't see the difference at all. (resized to 2048) Medium setting sucks and is very ugly with smeared text in the cockpit. The old modules are even worse. Yes, it was fine. Then ED dropped a "optimisation" patch before Christmas, and I was back to a slide show in the Chinook, even with the script mod. 

 

Yes, I live eye candy!  

I payed more than 100K for my computer in 2013. Not doing that again, when it's totally unnecessary. Add another tier, and like some other user said about the patch I mentioned above. "Seems ED optimized backwards". 

I think these are two separate issues though. 

There's the visuals and then there's the optimization. Obviously, we want the game to be as optimized as possible.

But optimization isn't the same as the visuals themselves. If the game ran incredibly smooth but still looked like Flanker 2.5, it's likely not getting as many people playing it as it does with the graphics we have now. Sure, they would still probably have fans, but a lot of people are very much going to judge a game on the graphics the game has, and they do increase the realism of enjoying the game to a degree.

So yes, they should work to optimize the game, and they do. It's not a one step process, but one that constantly evolves with technology and changes in systems. My bigger point was that you shouldn't sacrifice on visuals for the lower end systems all the time, because eventually, those systems will be replaced and obsolete anyway. 

On 1/24/2025 at 2:16 PM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

While that is fair enough, the major problem here is that nVidia doesn’t seem to know (or care) about the importance of VRAM - unless they use that to persuade people to spend ridiculous amounts of money on a X090 graphics card.

Absolutely. Like I mentioned in another reply, optimization is a constant process and one that should and is being worked on by ED constantly. But it's also going to be a lot of work for them on the backend, as they are trying to make the game work with technologies that likely didn't even exist in commercial hardware when the engine was made. I know there's more that could be done, but I also think ED should get some credit for how good they've been able to make the game look while working with an older engine. 

[MAXsenna]

5 hours ago, aaronwhite said:

My bigger point was that you shouldn't sacrifice on visuals for the lower end systems all the time, because eventually, those systems will be replaced and obsolete anyway. 

I agree, but here's the kicker. On my system, 2560x1600, I can't see a difference at all between the pre and post output of the script I mentioned above. In other words, bad performance has been added with absolutely no visual gain for me, to the point the Chinook is absolutely unplayable, even in Caucasus, which it wasn't at release.

My hope is that they will revert whatever they did to "optimize" the Chinook last fall, and add higher levels than "High" textures for the 4096 ones, and let us have native 2048 as "High". 

DCS looks stunning! But not with medium texture settings for most modules.

Cheers! 

Edited January 28 by MAXsenna
spelling and grammar

[diego999]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

I agree, but here's the kicker. On my system, 2560x1600, I can't see a difference at all between the pre and post output of the script I mentioned above. In other words, bad performance has been added to absolutely no visual gain for me, to the point the Chinook is absolutely unplayable, even in Caucasus, which it wasn't at release.

My hope is that they will revert whatever they did to "optimize" the Chinook last fall, and add higher levels than "High" textures for the 4096 ones, and let us have native 2048 as "High". 

DCS looks stunning! But not with medium texture settings for most modules.

Cheers! 

 

Absolutely.

DCS is ruining performance and choking VRAM with overkill textures we can't even tell apart from another half its size. It's nonsense really.

[Fitzcarraldo]

1 hour ago, MAXsenna said:

DCS looks stunning! But not with medium texture settings for most modules.

Exactly this. Medium textures look very bad, while high textures are overkill. There needs to be a well-made, balanced and optimized option in between...

I think that medium textures are not done with artistic oversight, but just quarter (or half) sized versions of high textures. For some textures that's ok, for some it's not enough and looks terrible...

Edited January 28 by Fitzcarraldo

[Dragon1-1]

We need an option that gives us full sized diffuse maps and halves every other map. Text and small details are on the diffuse map, resolution of normals, speculars and glows is not critical.

[SkateZilla]

For Those that arent "Graphically Knowledge-able"

The Current FCS: MiG-29's Normal Maps are:
2048x2048 for 4,194,304 px

a 400% / 4x Increase to a Surface ^2 Texture is:
4096x4096 for 16,777,216 px, 

4K ^2 Textures are standard for pretty much everything now.

Put the Pitchforks away.

Edited January 29 by SkateZilla

[Mars Exulte]

14 hours ago, SkateZilla said:

Put the Pitchforks away.

Never! I logged in for the first time in months just to say this!