Nevada terrain

[SmokeyTheLung]

Just wanted to report some positive feedback.

What a map! Even without ground detail this is proving to be one of the most beautiful maps I've ever experienced, in this and other genres of game.

I quite enjoy the Black Sea map, but I must say I love the direction ED map makers are going with the Nevada terrain. The elevation detail seems much more accurate. Can't wait to see this baby polished up!

Nice work!

[Agg]

Yeah, its nice, but Im hoping that the current textures are'nt the final version, because a lot of them are quite low res...

[andysim]

Now that there is the facility to switch maps from the editor im sure there will be more areas to come in the future maybe from the guys at ED or from mods. Im just guessing though I have no idea what there plans are but I would pay for map area of Nevada that included the Grand Canyon and was generaly huge. Im thinking of an area the size of the Caucus region but as desert.

 

Would be awsome.

[T-Bone]

The Nevada textures are 1024x1024, which is more than the Georgia terrain (512x512). ED is still tweaking the terrain engine since it is not good at color contrasting/clashing at low altitude.

 

Am I right LB9?

[Boberro]

Nevada wouldn't be so ugly if there were obstacles... "Normal" terrain like Ukraine, Georgia has trees, power lines, farmlands and so on... so terrain is more-less masked by these objects.

 

Nevada isn't (can't be) this is why it looks how it looks. To mask it there are needed very high resolution tiles IMHO.

[hassata]

As stated, WIP. Pretty amazing that this theatre is coming from fans.

[T-Bone]

Georgia was created using Terragen. It is not straight satellite imagery. Terragen scenery is more monochromatic so color clashing is less apparent down low.

[T-Bone]

This also raises the question of whether or not to create terrain using Terragen or real satellite imagery, if the imagery has less resolution than desired.

[SmokeyTheLung]

I've got faith that ED will polish this map up to perfection by adding ground objects, better textures etc.

What really blows me away is the intricacy of the base terrain, it's just breath taking. Set some clouds at about 10,000ft, fly at about 20,000 and make it a sunset and your in for a hell of a ride...

 

@andysim Agreed, grand canyon would be awesome. The very end of it is actually in the nevada map, unfortunately however, it's in the "warning no texture zone"

@boberro Actually there are quite a few trees, buildings and other ground objects in Nevada (IRL), it would be pretty suprising if ED didn't add them as they polish this beauty up.

 

Check out some google earth images of nevada to get a better sense of the Actually topography and population

Edited October 23, 2010 by SmokeyTheLung

[Lixma 06]

Why can't the terrain tiles be bump-mapped?

[SmokeyTheLung]

Could you explain what "bump mapped" means

[Boberro]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_mapping

[T-Bone]

I've got faith that ED will polish this map up to perfection by adding ground objects, better textures etc.

What really blows me away is the intricacy of the base terrain, it's just breath taking. Set some clouds at about 10,000ft, fly at about 20,000 and make it a sunset and your in for a hell of a ride...

 

@andysim Agreed, grand canyon would be awesome. The very end of it is actually in the nevada map, unfortunately however, it's in the "warning no texture zone"

@boberro Actually there are quite a few trees, buildings and other ground objects in Nevada (IRL), it would be pretty suprising if ED didn't add them as they polish this beauty up.

 

Check out some google earth images of nevada to get a better sense of the Actually topography and population

 

Sorry the textures are not going to change, 1024x1024 for 10km x 10km is already pushing the limits with a 300km x 300km map and is close to 1GB of textures.

 

The problem is that the transition between high altitude textures and the low altitude noise needs to be adjusted so that the color of the textures is not applied as strongly to the noise texture.

 

This was one of the things LOMAC 1.0 actually did better than FC2 with the advanced haze. Unfortunately advanced haze was removed, I guess to produce more colorful and clear terrain from all altitudes. The colors no longer fade as much once you get down low, which is why you have a color clashing problem.

 

Here's an example using satellite terrain textures in LOMAC 1:

 

 

LOMAC 2.0/DCS BS/DCS A-10C Beta:

 

 

BTW these are the exact same textures with no changes applied. The way the terrain is rendered changed between LOMAC FC 1.x and DCS/FC2

[T-Bone]

Here are some pictures to explain why ED's Terragen terrain doesn't have the problems those of us using satellite imagery are experiencing:

 

 

Look at this pic above; the color pallete is a lot more muted and monochromatic. DCS uses the terrain textures as a color map placed on top of the noise texture. Now look below:

 

 

When you are using satellite imagery there is a bigger range of colors, and the new engine tries to make the color mask sharper and stronger. Unfortunately this makes it stand out at low altitude which is why you are noticing the low resolution of the actual color mask. The noise texture itself is high resolution to give you a sensation of speed.

 

I tried making the colors have less contrast, but that just made the terrain end up looking faded. This is something I'm sure that is still WIP, and hopefully ED finds a way to correct it.

 

I would suggest bringing back advanced haze to maps made with Landsat or other types of aerial/satellite imagery.

[Skwurl]

My problem with the ED terrain engine is that there are multiple textures for different altitudes. It blends the textures depending what altitude you're at. Unfortunately, this often creates blurry transitions when changing altitudes.

 

To be honest, I think FSX handles terrain much better. Ever flown some of the expansion terrain? It's insane.

 

[T-Bone]

 

Here is a shot of the old LOMAC 1.0x Nevada map with advanced haze and different color masking. You can see the satellite imagery fades out farther away.

[T-Bone]

My problem with the ED terrain engine is that there are multiple textures for different altitudes. It blends the textures depending what altitude you're at. Unfortunately, this often creates blurry transitions when changing altitudes.

 

To be honest, I think FSX handles terrain much better. Ever flown some of the expansion terrain? It's insane.

 

 

That FSX terrain is very high resolution and probably covering a much smaller area than the entire Nevada map. More than 1024x1024.

 

While that type of imagery is available for North America, it is rarer to find for combat hotspots such as Georgia, etc. I think default FSX uses artificially generated terrain for most of their areas:

 

[T-Bone]

 

Sorry Blaze, I hijacked this pic from you lol... But you can see here what is going on. The color mask of the terrain texture is overpowering the much higher resolution noise texture in the A-10C beta.

[T-Bone]

Another option would be for map makers to take the ED approach and use Terragen to generate terrain without good enough satellite terrain. I did a side experiment and generated a 50km x 50km slice of the Fairbanks Alaska area with Terragen and here is how it looks:

 

 

 

While not as "photorealistic" as terrain created with photographs, it is more monochromatic and generated using fractals. These are 1024x1024 terragen textures. At lower altitudes the transitions are much more seamless, which is important for a game like A-10C where you are down low most of the time and can notice the texture issues.

[SmokeyTheLung]

Thanks Boberro.

Bump mapping seems like a good idea, although the topography of the Nevada map already seems much more detailed than the Black Sea map.

[T-Bone]

 

This is a picture of a 2048x2048 tile without noise. Note this is even higher resolution than Nevada, but still not detailed enough to look convincing down low without proper blending/etc.

[SmokeyTheLung]

@t-bone, goes to show how little I know about such things... ;)

 

I am a little suprised to here that though, to my inexperienced eye the base texture in the the Black Sea map looks Alot more detailed than the nevada texture. As stated above, just goes to show...

Edited October 23, 2010 by SmokeyTheLung

[StrongHarm]

Nellis Area.. lookin good

 

I really enjoy flying the Nellis area. I've never experienced anything like this in any sim. I recently flew over the area in commercial and found that not only does the DCS:A-10C have a good model of the area, but that I was wishing I was in the SIM instead of viewing the real thing ROFL! Below are links to HDR pics and a movie. Back to the Vegas strip now.. to dream about getting home to fly my hog (and to consider planning a few psych visits for same!).

 

Pics

(switch to 1080p!)

[Spectre_USA]

Cool pics, for an iPhone.

 

You can tell it is commercial due to the altitude, as I never got that high out there.

 

As to the Nellis theater, that is pretty much all I fly, as I know the area from years ago,

and it is a good place to wring things out.

 

As to the psych visits, the wife has been trying to get me committed for sim addiction

for over twenty years. Dodged the bullet thus far... :D

[MrYenko]

...but that I was wishing I was in the SIM instead of viewing the real thing...

 

Thats cause the seat of even a simulated military jet is still light years better than a seat in the back of a cattle car... :thumbup: