Next DCS (US) Fixed Wing Aircraft Wish List

[Demongornot]

The problem is that we pass from that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSYbH9vtJc&NR=1 for that http://hpics.li/69d1a3e

DCS : Only 1 ugly carrier with bad texture minimum 3D details without any animated or static crew 1 "correct" model of an F/A-18 with "correct" texture, bad sea and simple sky without any cloud and it don't get more than 50 FPS and we have again a bad size effect where we see a plastic model carrier and aircraft impression...

BF3 : in this video we see carrier and F/A-18, sky (cloud) and sea, but what is the difference ?

Extremely realistic sea with nice reflection and good 3D effect and interaction with boat (particle) deck rain effect and reflexion, highly detailed crew member vehicle and other, nice steam effect, other aircraft, other boat and nice animation, nice light effect from cloud shadows, nice carrier hight rez texture and more realistic size effect, it was recorder with only one HD6970 AND FRAPS (the fps killer).

With the same graphic card than i have for DCS, this "cinematic" of BF3 can be pass over 50 FPS with maximum graphics settings.

I have made a test with maximum graphic setting (and maximum view distance) in DCS we can't see ground texture (city, forest or anything else) over 30 Km, above 30Km we don't see anything else than little pixel for little city at 800m and more over the ground.

Ok we can see something like all the terrain but without detailed texture, we just able to see basic terrain form and single texture...

But i will explain differently my simple idea :

I don't talk about use the same graphic engine, but another where we can be able to see nice visual render like in this video, every object in this video its in 3D and the camera move relatively to it, but in every graphic engine, FPS, Flight sim on anything else, we are limited by screen resolution and we can't cause of pixel, see 3D object over a certain range, in real too, i think we can't see car, truck tank and other over 5km, liner aircraft its a big thing 50 to 100m and we see it without any details, no on can see the flaps or the engine of an A380 at 10Km...

Well, why calculate 3D over that in a game ? like i have say so many time, we are able to do it :

We don't need 3D map, 2D with 3D impression its the same thing for eyes, lauch any 3D application in windowed mode, free or pause it, make a screenshoot and compare the 3D screen with the 2D screenshoot, you CAN'T see any difference...

For graphic engine that can be the same, like carrier and boat fleet in the video of BF3 we just have to calculate it when we see it, if the single sky without cloud need performance, its not bad, its extremely bad cause sky its a empty area, like actualy every flight graphic take a lof of performance when we flight inside big frog through we can't see any 3D 2D object or texture except or aircraft, just a color, for high altitude cloud what is the difference about 2D and 3D ? nothing that player can see, just performance gain, same for the ground, we can calculate only close 3D object and use 2D ground map (pretty realistic not like flight sim in a lot of case) win a lot of power and concentrate of extreme cockpit visual rending...

Same for low altitude like 800m, just calculate the proximity terrain, the rest don't need to be 3D, just for far horizon using 2D texture of the ground + under calculate 3D with only basic relief for mountain for example, with that we can be able to show at the screen extreme visual without any bad part, just convert into 2D (not take more than little FPS) 3D object that we can't see, its not complicate...

DCS sucks computer performance when we are at the full sea at high (or low) altitude and we look up to see a sky without any cloud, sorry but its just...bad...

 

Like that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ

If you look we can see 3D object appear, what want mean : its now show in only one time, its calculate when we move, if you look far horizon you can see extremely far mountain, but, i think so much its...in 2D, like a say, and that NOT take performance...

Now imagine the same think optimized for flight only with interior view only (cause its the base of the simulation, in real life external view not exist) optimized with the maximum aircraft speed and where all 3D object over the limit (when it appear) its just convert into 2D and progressively transform into 3D when we approach.

With that we can be able to show extremely nice visual render with nice 3D object with a lot of details and big view distance (maybe over actual flight engine).

With that we don't will have the impression of small object effect like plastic model, saved performance an be using for reflexion for give a true metal impression effect (for example) and when we coming to do low flight, at airport and if we use external camera (without move the camera in free view at 10000Km/h) we can change that : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=809009Screen111108184435.jpg with tree look like that http://clisdebarjols.unblog.fr/files/2008/09/p1070234.jpg for that : http://www.confrerie-des-traducteurs.fr/forum/upload/1248248498_arma_ii_pc_212.jpg

Same thing with TGP, just calculate 3D object where the second camera pass and not for all the map at 20km around or something like that...

And we can be able to see that :

 

But i think we must stop to talk about it (or create a thread) cause we will flood Next DCS Aircraft Wish List, my newt aircraft wish list its simple : F/A-18, better AI and better visual render with nice animations.

[kylania]

The problem is that we pass from that http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNSYbH9vtJc&NR=1 for that http://hpics.li/69d1a3e

 

BF3's Hornet sequence is essentially a pre-rendered cutscene with almost no player interaction. It can hardly be used as a comparison against a flight sim. Nothing more than a rail shooter, not a sim in any way.

[LostOblivion]

Demongornot, no offense or anything, but when seeing your posts I do not want to read them. They are walls of text, you should try tidying up your text into paragraphs, etc., when writing, so people will be more attracted to reading what you are saying! :)

 

On another note, I like Speed's idea. If ED let us mission makers put in our own buildings, treegroups, etc., we could make our own small villages or groups of buildings instead when the terrain is too pale.

 

And yes, I have played BF3, and yes the flight mission sucked bigtime! It cannot even be compared to any flight sim in any way, not even the game flight model of ArmA!

Edited November 10, 2011 by LostOblivion

[Demongornot]

Yeah but you just take a single part of my post without take any consideration about everything i have say about my idea for optimization...

Ok, well, what about it ?

http://unlimiteddetailtechnology.com/

This graphic engine can show anything and i work me too in a concept who can show every detail like details of any little stone or hairs of other and can go away and at the end show several galaxy, all the travel with photo-realistic autogenerate details and that can be using with low power.

[GGTharos]

This graphic engine uses voxels which are not new, and you may have noticed that no one is using it right now.

 

Seriously, if you think you have such a great solution, start programming it and prove us wrong ;)

[HerrKaputt]

Demongornot, sorry to break it to you, but Ethereal and GG are right. With a terrain this big, it's simply impossible to make it look as good as Battlefield without sacrificing something.

 

In BF3, they sacrificed mobility: you go where they want you to go.

[Demongornot]

Its true level of graphic of BF3 but i still sure than we can have better than actual, one year ago i have talk about flight sim with actual realism of DCS and everyone told me that its impossible without supercomputer...

But we must stop to talk about it here or talk in MP or create a new threat cause we will spam this actual threat... =)

[Pyroflash]

Well, you could always wait to see what the DX11 upgrade for DCS will look like along with the new Nevada map. Progress is being made in the visual department. It just takes time for the developers to integrate new technology with existing technology in a stable format that is playable. Feature creep is also a big culprit here, and everything takes time to make. I mean, sure we could technically have a game that looks great, performs great, and handles accurately, but realistically how much time are you willing to wait for that to happen? Two years? Five? With no new modules or anything?

[Laud]

I mean, sure we could technically have a game that looks great, performs great, and handles accurately, but realistically how much time are you willing to wait for that to happen? Two years? Five? With no new modules or anything?

 

Or with a team double the size of EDs actual one -> Prices for products = also double! I'd be happy with that, but too many wouldn't unfortunately...

[Newt]

Speaking of the Nevada map (and thank you for mentioning it. As I was reading through all this that is what kept popping up in my mind.) Anyway, now that the 1.1.1.0 patch is out and the BS2 update is out, has there been any news about when we might finally get our hands on the Nevada terrain?

 

If not, instead of "when it's done" I would prefer an answer of whatever the latest estimate is. (for example, "end of 2011" or "beginning of 2012 sometime," etc.) Because I know the "when it's done" bit lol.

 

And I don't mean to nag. I just don't have time right now to sift through hundreds of pages on the topic that a search would give. :P Just looking for whatever the latest update is.

[GGTharos]

It's still 'when it's done'.

[Newt]

It's still 'when it's done'.

 

:doh:

 

Was there ever a "end of 2011" or "early 2012" statement? lol I could have sworn I read something along those lines a couple of months ago...

[GGTharos]

I think I didn't make myself clear enough. 'When it's done' :D

[Newt]

I think I didn't make myself clear enough. 'When it's done' :D

 

Ugh. :noexpression:

 

Alright, clear enough. I won't ask again...

[EtherealN]

Meh, dude, you need to enter a ™ at the end of that!

[Wichid]

Back in May it was mentioned that the end of 2011 was a hopeful release date. But who knows.

 

I agree with Pyroflash - tweaks to the engine are required to keep it current. The way lighting hits the Nevada desert will give a much better experience than blowing out polygons or using 50gig of textures. Normal mapping and lighting effects are where its at.

 

Frankly, Bf3 was a waste of money. Ask the Germans.

[ALDEGA]

With the recent addition of rolling ships (depending on weather), it must be a naval aircraft for sure ...

[ALDEGA]

Or with a team double the size of EDs actual one -> Prices for products = also double!

They'd be able to release new products more quickly generating more profit ... Perhaps even do some more military contracts on the side.

[Squid]

With the recent addition of rolling ships (depending on weather), it must be a naval aircraft for sure ...

 

[Phantom88]

From earth to Air,F-15 Strike Eagle

:thumbup:

[nomdeplume]

With the recent addition of rolling ships (depending on weather), it must be a naval aircraft for sure ...

Unless they added that so Black Shark pilots could take off from and land on rolling ships... ;)

[Frostiken]

From earth to Air,F-15 Strike Eagle

:thumbup:

Oh man, LIFE SUPPORT? Weapons idiots nearly breaking my antennas off?

 

Avionics was clearly working ICMS on the jet behind the crew chief, as the speed brake is hyperextended and the AGE is out... they threw us off work just to shoot this silly video glorifying people who do nothing (well, except for you little crew chief... though you look way too happy to be one. Maybe you work in support?)

[EtherealN]

Unless they added that so Black Shark pilots could take off from and land on rolling ships... ;)

 

Not to forget the simple point that it's a good thing to have in there in general... :P

[mta35]

pleaseeeeeee F-15 Strike Eagle

[joey45]

^^ in your dreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeams