Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Squid]

aaahhhh Nostalgia !! LOL

[Demongornot]

DCS F/A-18F with the same graphic engine !!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSYbH9vtJc&NR=1

 

Its what we want <3 ^^

[EtherealN]

Demongornot, no, you do not want a DCS product with that graphics engine. The engine would force so much that the result would be a crap simulator. ;)

[Demongornot]

Its just a graphic engine, its not a physics engine, that will impact only for what we see, avionic and flight model not need to change...

I don't know why that will be a crap simulator, explain plz, cause, in this video its a 3D where player control camera and during flight we can see really nice visual range like flight sim need and for the rest, and a simple HD6950 can without lag work with this graphic engine, DCS and any flight sim for graphics like sim city need full power of HD6970 and other best graphic card, don't work with 100% graphics setting without lag...

Same realism with BF3 (for example) graphics engine (or render) just must be perfect !

[EtherealN]

Because they need to do all sorts of scinematic tricks to make it that pretty (that's why you're a backseater and why having clouds to make terrain transitions is such a good thing). If they don't do stuff like that, any terrain or view range bigger than a normal BF3 MP map will slay the computer - and you need a lot bigger area than that to make a DCS style product worth playing.

 

Basically, there's a reason why shooters don't use graphics engines developed for sims, and why sims don't use graphics engines developed for shooters. The needs are just too different.

[Wichid]

Exactly, you can't compare a corridor shooter or a plane 'on rails' to a flight simulator.

 

The only reason they can make it look that good is that they have tightly locked down where the player can go and what you see. Similar to a movie set which appears real but is actually a bunch of card board cut outs when you walk up to them.

 

Anyway my pick: F-15C air superiority fighter.

[Demongornot]

Yeah but a lot of short cinematic can be just transform into animation, i prefer see for every flight the same beautiful animation to see nothing...

And or for BF3 engine its not pefect but it can be optimised, and what about Arma 2 and better Arma 3 engine ? look the fists gameplay video of Arma 3 when free fall, its not an animation, we can do it anytime we want like arma 2 and graphics render its close to BF3, look that :

We can see big visibility distance and like i have always say at high altitude graphic engine can show any 3D object in 2D with basic ground map with HD texture.

Visibility distance its not the same thing than terrain area, for terrain area we just need more HDD space and if we compare the space from any 3D details in big map of BF3, all animation for campaign gameplay and every texture useless in flight sim that not take more HDD space than single HD terrain for flight sim...

Arma 2 and the futur Arma 3 don't kill computer and in flight sim we don't need to see every details of a big area of several place like Paris and other and we don't need too to see inside every building, and that take the same HDD size i think cause if we have 500 hight detailed forest, we don't need 500 hight resolution texture, just 10 or a little more for little difference and for different seasons...

And the graphic engine can be smart, show the same visual quality and animation than the F18's video of BF3 with same quality carrier and cockpit, and when we flight, concentrate for high altitude with simplified ground terrain and 3D object turn into 2D and single big texture, for low flight the fuzzy impression and the "short" distance impression can help too, like the death angle from cockpit that will help for don't need to calculate it, just load it and get ready for the possibility that the pilot will turn or other...

I prefer hight detailed flight sim only optimized for internal view and lag when we pass at external view than flight sim optimized for internal and external view with bad general visual render...

I think the problem its from optimization cause in every flight sim when we flight under big frog what's happen ? low FPS...But its so stupid cause with a big frog we don't see any 3D object or texture, maybe a little we can see our aircraft but that's all, a lot of optimization like that can help for take big graphics engine...

[LostOblivion]

ArmA is still your corridor shooter compared to DCS.

 

Why wouldn't an F-15C be a realistic choice as the next module? :)

[Demongornot]

I always compare with Arma cause i have playing it, but i can give another example like Operation Flashpoint, another good graphics combat sim where we can use aircraft...

In this type of simgame we can stay with nice performance and better visual render than flight sim.

And if i talk about shooters graphics engine its cause its made for give immersion of human eyes with realistic object size effect and simulator must be made for simulate pilot inside aircraft and not camera inside aircraft...

 

and why not, i love every aircraft, Eagle can be nice too, its just that the Hornet have the multirole and carrier possibility, that open more things, but fighter can be nice too i don't have anything against.

[Wichid]

...

 

I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas but DCS has it's own engine. I doubt they are going to go out and license Frostbite 2 and start from the ground up again.

 

BF3 is highly optimised, thats why it's so controlled. Arma 2 is a great game that I play often but it's not a simulator. Add a complex flight model, a HIGHLY detailed cockpit and systems and Arma 2 would explode. Take a look at performance complaints on Take On Helicopters and you'll see that people are struggling with it with very little units simply because a flight model and tweaks have been added. Arma 3 isn't out yet but I expect it to drain power plants also.

[GGTharos]

Yeah but a lot of short cinematic can be just transform into animation, i prefer see for every flight the same beautiful animation to see nothing...

And or for BF3 engine its not pefect but it can be optimised, and what about Arma 2 and better Arma 3 engine ? look the fists gameplay video of Arma 3 when free fall, its not an animation, we can do it anytime we want like arma 2 and graphics render its close to BF3, look that :

 

Neither will work for DCS. All of them are clipping at too short a range. The BF3 engine you have visibility at maybe 5km at best, ARMA's engine will chug you to death if you put it up to 10km.

 

The maps for BF3 and ARMA are relatively small by comparison as well. Understand this: No one can get away from the memory limitations of modeling terrain. You can either do a very dense (and very good looking up close) mesh, with short viewing distance, OR you can do a rarer mesh wish far longer viewing distance. Each sim has an appropriate selection, and the two don't come together.

[GGTharos]

I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas but DCS has it's own engine. I doubt they are going to go out and license Frostbite 2 and start from the ground up again.

 

Exactly correct.

 

BF3 is highly optimised, thats why it's so controlled. Arma 2 is a great game that I play often but it's not a simulator. Add a complex flight model, a HIGHLY detailed cockpit and systems and Arma 2 would explode. Take a look at performance complaints on Take On Helicopters and you'll see that people are struggling with it with very little units simply because a flight model and tweaks have been added. Arma 3 isn't out yet but I expect it to drain power plants also.

 

You mean it's not a flight simulator - it's definitely an infantry sim though ;)

[Demongornot]

I knon that ED have it's own graphic engine, i just talk about every graphic engine in the world of air simulation and i don't talk about integrate Frostbite 2 to DCS but to obtain the same visual render.

And yes is highly optimized for ground combat, but close graphic engine can too optimized for flight combat without loose graphic quality, for Arma 2, no, cause optimization for flight can give the possibility to integrate HIGHLY detailed cockpit without lag cause system and flight model don't use GPU but CPU...And Arma 2 don't need 100% CPU...

For Take On Helicopter i have try it ad Eyefinity and it work only in one of my graphic card and it DON'T lag and yes it was optimizes like i talk about the possibility to take graphic engine with visual quality close to Frostbite 2 and optimize it for flight simulation, and if it can use crossfire that can be extremely nice at the end...

And for Arma 3 we will see...

[GGTharos]

Not possible. You may have noticed that no one is even attempting to do such a thing. Terrain engines will improve, but like I said ... you either get really tight mesh but less terrain and viewdistance, or rarer mesh and more terrain and viewdistance.

 

There's no magic, no 'optimization' and nothing special to this - these are just facts, cold hard reality of programming a graphics engine.

 

And yes is highly optimized for ground combat, but close graphic engine can too optimized for flight combat without loose graphic quality,

[Demongornot]

Neither will work for DCS. All of them are clipping at too short a range. The BF3 engine you have visibility at maybe 5km at best, ARMA's engine will chug you to death if you put it up to 10km.

 

The maps for BF3 and ARMA are relatively small by comparison as well. Understand this: No one can get away from the memory limitations of modeling terrain. You can either do a very dense (and very good looking up close) mesh, with short viewing distance, OR you can do a rarer mesh wish far longer viewing distance. Each sim has an appropriate selection, and the two don't come together.

 

When we are at low altitude or on ground, its hard to see at more than 5km by terrain and object limitation and atmosphere effect cause air block the light, every people flying at the edge of the space like U2 pilot or Mig25 have say we can clearly see better with low density atmosphere, if we add fuzzy effect to that, good optimization can make the difference and not overcalculate 3D object that we don't see more that a basic form or a single pixel...

And for medium and high altitude we can't see the difference against 3D and 2D object and use a simple map without 3D object don't need extreme computer and the render can be extreme, look that for example :

its a 2D map with texture where we add 3D object (rc plane) and maybe the view distance its not correct for flight sim for like for any texture that can be ad multiple part and cover all the terrain cause this RC sim don't take more than little Mo by map (depend of the map) and anyway i tank about a map for medium and high flight and not for low flight...

 

Another tweak for optimization, when a 3D object don't move why not stope to calculate it and convert it into spherical screenshoot, no one can see the difference and that can help for win a lot of FPS...

For example when we are at startup, aircraft don't move against the exterior, same thing for horizon when we do low flight, sim just need to convert 3D into 2D and update it with a good transition effect for give us the impression of far mountain mooving relatively to us...

[EtherealN]

Look, here's what ARMA did to get you those pretty graphics:

 

ARMA 2 Terrain: 225km²

Take on Helicopters: between 3600 and 14400km²

DCS terrain: ~125 000km² (my rough estimation)

 

This is non-trivial: DCS terrain is an order of magnitude larger than the largest TOH maps, and not far from 3 orders of magnitude larger than ARMA 2 terrain.

 

Basically: does not compare.

[EtherealN]

When we are at low altitude or on ground, its hard to see at more than 5km by terrain and object limitation and atmosphere effect cause air block the light

 

I do not have miraculous eyesight at all, but at the flat terrain at my aerodrome I can visually ID a city ~60km away without getting high up at all - ~800 meters AGL or so.

 

That's real life. If I climb to 800 meters AGL, I can see longer than the entire ARMA 2 map. ;)

[Demongornot]

No, we can compare it, the terrain size its don't matter cause in 3 software wwe don't see all the terrain in one time, its loading when we move.

Imagine if Arma 2 have 2500 tree TOE 45000 and DCS 12350000, and ? We don't need 250 45k and 12350k texture, same thing for a wall, a road, a forest ground, a dirt road or a meadow...

Its just the mesh that it will change and take more place not the texture and with good graphics engine mesh can be small on HDD but highly detailed with a lot of object (used so many time in the same terrain) mainly if we look how DCS terrain are flat, just say the area where wish texture need to be not take extreme size...That can be a simple ko by bit texture and octet by objects...

 

I go sleeping good night here =)

[EtherealN]

I went ahead and made this little illustration to show the differences we are talking about. Not made with exact measurements but approximates roughly:

 

 

I think this should help show exactly how different things are between these products. :)

 

No, we can compare it, the terrain size its don't matter cause in 3 software wwe don't see all the terrain in one time, its loading when we move.

 

But sir, 800 meters up and you should be able to see the entire terrain in Arma2. You don't have to go very high to get to a place where even sitting in the middle of it, you'd see the entire terrain of TOH as well. This means: everything needs to be loaded - and more!

 

Take a Ka-50 or A-10 up in the air and see how quickly you end up having to display the entire terrain of those games and even more than they have.

Edited November 10, 2011 by EtherealN

[Wichid]

Exactly correct.

 

 

 

You mean it's not a flight simulator - it's definitely an infantry sim though ;)

 

Yeah absolutely.

[Pyroflash]

When we are at low altitude or on ground, its hard to see at more than 5km by terrain and object limitation and atmosphere effect cause air block the light, every people flying at the edge of the space like U2 pilot or Mig25 have say we can clearly see better with low density atmosphere, if we add fuzzy effect to that, good optimization can make the difference and not overcalculate 3D object that we don't see more that a basic form or a single pixel...

 

I don't get what you are trying to say. On a clear day I can see upwards of twenty miles easily. Sitting at three thousand or so feet doesn't really limit your view that much. Of course when I climb to around 17,500 feet(legally the highest you can fly level on VFR, after that you are required to fly by instruments and ground visibility becomes a negligible factor), the sky gets clearer, but if my visibility was only 5000 m at 3000 feet, it's not like climbing higher would allow you to see through that fog.

 

And don't kid yourself, Larger buildings are visible from ten miles or more away, and smaller buildings or traffic are visible from a shorter distance, but still a few miles away.

 

And for the record I would love it if everything looked as good as reality, but seeing as how coming even close to that requires several tens of thousands of dollars in computer equipment and even more money in electricity, I don't think that the general population is going to see that level of quality any time soon.

[Speed]

Well, what I'd like to see is a much, much, much larger DCS map. It's really too small at the moment for realistic fixed wing fighter flights- IRL, those fixed wing fighters do a lot of aerial refueling, and they have to fly a long ways!

 

So here's where I think the ED team should/could "cheat": model theaters with less stuff in them! Iraq is pretty flat, in alot of places, perhaps they could get away with lowering the terrain mesh size over much of it. It is also rather unpopulated, in many areas, so perhaps you wouldn't have to worry about quite so many buildings.

 

Another, and even more valid example, would be something like a Kuril Islands map. Mostly water using zero resources, period. You could get away with really gigantic maps if they were mostly water!

 

Anyway, just repeating for the 6th or 7th time, my wish for a bigger map :) Hopefully this new terrain engine will allow significantly bigger maps. There were some indications it might, if I remember correctly.

[xhaos]

What I would really like to see, is something I notice every time I look out the window of a real airplane, "random" reflections of the sun from building windows.

[nomdeplume]

No, we can compare it, the terrain size its don't matter cause in 3 software wwe don't see all the terrain in one time, its loading when we move.

There's (at least) three issues. One is the ability of the graphics engine to render highly detailed terrain from altitude. That can be solved by having various mechanisms for reducing the complexity of the visual environment when you're a long way from it. It's still a very complex problem to solve though, especially if you're flying something with for example a targeting pod. You can't simply not load any detailed object and terrain data for things that are more than a few km from the player's position, because you can point the TGP at anything at any time and expect to see what's there in high detail. Nobody's going to appreciate playing a sim that thrashes the drive constantly every time you try to pan the targeting pod around.

 

The next issue is with AI and related things. Just because the player can't see something, doesn't mean it's not happening, doesn't mean it's not going to have some effect on them, and doesn't mean it can necessarily be simplified. Combat can be going on in any location across the entire DCS map at any time, and for that to be resolved 'correctly' requires a constant level of detail of the environment for pathfinding, collision, evasion, etc. If you have a "bubble" of detail around the player and less detail elsewhere, you can easily have situations where a particular force vs force encounter will go one way if the player happens to be nearby and go a completely different way if the player happens to be elsewhere.

 

The third and maybe largest issue is actually generating a large expanse of very highly detailed terrain in the first place. This is the thing that results in the vast gulf between 'flight sim' terrain and 'shooter' terrain. Flight sims need to cover massive areas and it's impractical for people to make every part of it look really nice. It's mostly computer generated from various sources of topographic data, with human touch-ups where needed - which still tends to be a massive amount of work. The terrain in Arma gets the human touch across its entire expanse - which is why it's a much, much smaller area.

 

Also, the flying aspect of Arma 2 is pretty... well, it leaves something to be desired. The draw distance is so short in order to get playable frame rates it's hard to fly in anything resembling a realistic manner, and if you do fly in a realistic manner regardless of not being able to see your targets you spend half your time off the map.

 

Well, what I'd like to see is a much, much, much larger DCS map. It's really too small at the moment for realistic fixed wing fighter flights- IRL, those fixed wing fighters do a lot of aerial refueling, and they have to fly a long ways!

I think including fleshing out the part of Turkey that's currently in the map (at least) would be useful. That way US aircraft could be based in Turkey and have to cross the Black Sea to get to Russia/Georgia, which would burn a fair bit of fuel.

Edited November 10, 2011 by nomdeplume

[Squid]

1. Bug & Super Bug are more than exciting subjects ... actually, they are uber cool. But i think it can wait a little on the line for Vipers to take off first, since our air force doesn't have hornets but vipers and F4 is not totally my cup of tea and i am also not getting any younger. ED assured me my well reasoned arguments are dealt with outmost serious consideration.

 

2. What about FSX style solutions. I think that graphic engine proves that vast space can be combined with eyecandy and good perforance. Maybe ED to build a new graphic engine from scratch ? :D although i just think A-10C graphics are orgasmic. I really just wish for once since 2002 to get rid of fr$%@&!*@ stutters ....