Graphics Effects

[Bucic]

Hehe ;) I know Im aiming high, and that's why I said that I dont expect to see it in the near future. Although it does look like Free Falcon already have some effects similar to what I posted.

 

[ig]http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i464/Drixation/Falcon/2010-11-19_235400.png[/img]

Yes, and they did it using DirectX 7!

[Geskes]

The FM is very strongly resembling of the real deal according to A-10 pilots

 

Is there an account of an actual pilot commenting on the FM? Just curious :)

[evilnate]

I like FF5.x explosion/smoke effects, but just like everything else it's subjective to people's opinions. I'm quite sure the explosion effects/eye candy is waaay down on the prriority list for ED, but it would be comforting to know it's on there.

 

On the other hand when there is a TON of stuff going on (war) I've already seen what happens to this engine. There was this one mission for DCSBS and it had all sorts af artillery and weapons being launched at once and it took my FPS down to it's knees. Once most of the explosions/ordinance was done the FPS came back to being smooth.

[element1108]

I like FF5.x explosion/smoke effects, but just like everything else it's subjective to people's opinions. I'm quite sure the explosion effects/eye candy is waaay down on the prriority list for ED, but it would be comforting to know it's on there.

 

On the other hand when there is a TON of stuff going on (war) I've already seen what happens to this engine. There was this one mission for DCSBS and it had all sorts af artillery and weapons being launched at once and it took my FPS down to it's knees. Once most of the explosions/ordinance was done the FPS came back to being smooth.

 

Not sure if it's the smoke effects killing the fps as opposed to the number of ballistics in the air and all the calculations being made for each individual one. Again I'm not saying this as fact, just a potential reason.

[Greb]

Lot of good post on this matter.

 

It's a balance I think. Lots of factors play into it. I mean I would love to see a lot of visual terrain and affects improved but at the cost of waiting years, (e.g. BOB SOW), starting from scratch in a different engine. I think ED made the right choice. When you don't have the pockets of EA, and a small market niche ,then you have to pick your battles. Think about it fellas. All the realism you are getting in this sim. TGP, Mav's, Flight Model, Nav systems, SAS Systems, HUD and all that incorporates. Just read the manual on CDU operation. You won't find anything like that in Black Op's. I know two different sims, but you are getting realism over Visual. The programming for all that to work and give you decent graphics....it must be mind boggling!

 

Am I tired of the Crim, Explosions, Smoke, Fire, etc? Hell yes but I understand why they did what they did. It would take years and tons of money to start over and then add the realism of whatever Aircraft that is being highlighted. Well you can imagine time frame and money.

 

All in all for us hardcore junkies its a masterpiece. It's a preview of whats to come in the next 3 to 5 years. If they can do this with the A10 then imagine what's next, Aircraft and Terrain. We have to support it though. If we don't buy what's on the table then it dries up. I for one am glad to be flying the Hog. It's a preview of what's next.

 

Now let's talk about what's next! Terrain fellas. No matter any way you look at it you have to move on to a more advanced engine. This one was good but it's tired and you have to move on to something that utilizes the advancement of current Hardware. I would get your Nellis map out and any small improvements you can. This theater and engine is worth another Aircraft, but I would in that time have a team or what not start moving you to the next engine. Preferably a current theater. I am in no way trying to tell you your business but it only makes sense. Don't fret ED, if you build it ....they will come!

 

All that being said and with only criticism from the heart I say the new A10C is a total masterpiece and I am in total awe! I say Gosh Damn the PUSHERMAN!

 

:thumbup: on the A10C!

Edited November 27, 2010 by Greb

[Trident]

I like FF5.x explosion/smoke effects, but just like everything else it's subjective to people's opinions.

 

FF5 does have some nice explosions which look very convincing in motion. Still pictures don't really do them justice, because you'll then notice how dated the technology behind them is (like most of Falcon's textures, they look like they were drawn in crayon on paper!). As far as how to animate the formation, development and dissipation of the fireball, smoke cloud and debris, ED could do worse than to emulate these though!

 

Many of the other effects (flares, smoke from burning aircraft) in FF5 were very obviously inspired by their LOMAC counterparts however ;) Some of them actually improved on the originals, the flare smoke trails for example look better than ED's because they are more dense.

 

Now let's talk about what's next! Terrain fellas. No matter any way you look at it you have to move on to a more advanced engine. This one was good but it's tired and you have to move on to something that utilizes the advancement of current Hardware.

 

Terrain is actually the least of the problems of the DCS graphics engine, IMHO. The texturing is still second to none - with a high-res elevation model, collidable 3D trees (copy ROF faithfully in this respect and you can't go wrong ;) ) and dynamic terrain shadowing as seen in MSFS it will be fine. Of those, the terrain mesh should actually be mostly a question of art work rather than coding as such. After some fine tuning with respect to LODs and visible range the above would put DCS ahead of any current competitor.

[Boberro]

In FF5 explosions look like much more better than terrain. When something explodes it looks a bit weird, not cause explosion is bad - it looks weird cause terrain is crappy there :)

Quality "contrast" between terrain and explosion is huge.

[Greb]

FF5 does have some nice explosions which look very convincing in motion. Still pictures don't really do them justice, because you'll then notice how dated the technology behind them is (like most of Falcon's textures, they look like they were drawn in crayon on paper!). As far as how to animate the formation, development and dissipation of the fireball, smoke cloud and debris, ED could do worse than to emulate these though!

 

Many of the other effects (flares, smoke from burning aircraft) in FF5 were very obviously inspired by their LOMAC counterparts however ;) Some of them actually improved on the originals, the flare smoke trails for example look better than ED's because they are more dense.

 

 

Terrain is actually the least of the problems of the DCS graphics engine, IMHO. The texturing is still second to none - with a high-res elevation model, collidable 3D trees (copy ROF faithfully in this respect and you can't go wrong ;) ) and dynamic terrain shadowing as seen in MSFS it will be fine. Of those, the terrain mesh should actually be mostly a question of art work rather than coding as such. After some fine tuning with respect to LODs and visible range the above would put DCS ahead of any current competitor.

 

 

That's a good Point Trident!

 

I think it may be a time and money issue. I have know idea how large their team is and what not. It may have took all they had to give us the latest aircraft, plus they do military contracts so who knows how much they can devote to commercial products. There are slight improvements to the current build but its still that same foundation. NOT knocking it just it's easier to improve on an existing build, money and time wise.

[Trident]

I think it may be a time and money issue.

 

Absolutely, and it may be important to observe that art work isn't necessarily any less time consuming than re-writing code (so I wasn't suggesting that). For terrain elevation models, there's the additional issue of data-availability. The current mesh is probably the best available off the shelf for the region, improving it any further means editing it in some way.

 

Now, doing that by hand would be prohibitive for a map this size, so another solution with less human input needs to be found. Fortunately, such a solution exists: fractals. Google Outerra to get an idea of the potential offered by this technology. However, I'm not suggesting that ED implement the Outerra engine, just that they should use similar algorithms on the DCS elevation model (outside the sim environment) to increase its resolution without having to manually edit anything. Take the source data (DEM files, or whatever it actually is) which forms the basis for the DCS map, run it through a separate fractal tool and save the output mesh for use in the sim (with the current graphics engine).

 

BTW, to expand a bit more on the point about the FF5 effects, how explosions and smoke look in motion is almost as important as how realistic they look in terms of "style". To provide another example, the missile smoke trails in DCS look almost photorealistic on screenshots, but their "wobbling", bubbling motion is VERY unrealistic and distracting when you actually watch them in the sim. I'm not sure if that's a z-fighting issue or something but I find it very annoying.

[Lixma 06]

To provide another example, the missile smoke trails in DCS look almost photorealistic on screenshots, but their "wobbling", bubbling motion is VERY unrealistic and distracting when you actually watch them in the sim. I'm not sure if that's a z-fighting issue or something but I find it very annoying.

The Maverick smoke trails in FF.5 look great. And as far as I can tell they're just a repetitive bitmap.

[Boberro]

Missile trails in LO\DCS are IMHO bad... in Falcon better, agree.

[Bucic]

Missile trails in LO\DCS are IMHO bad... in Falcon better, agree.

Plus the 'toilet paper bug' :D

[ronht]

Every things Amazing - Nobody's Happy

 

This video fits this thread perfectly

 

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=JP#/watch?xl=xl_blazer&v=8r1CZTLk-Gk

[Boberro]

Plus the 'toilet paper bug' :D

 

Yeah but it can be fortunetely easily fixed uffff....

 

Missiles in LO don't fly as seen example on YuTube videos. In LO they fly ideally through curve line. In Falcon it is better solved but not all :)

[Tracer2k]

Give community tools or say how do you create explosions\effects and people would try to make better :)

 

Then ED wouldn't be under fire.

 

I am familiar with particle systems in max and i could try to make a mod for the explosions, but i have absolutely no clue how to input the particles to the engine from 3ds max, not sure if that is even possible.

 

and i dont know much about optimizing stuff like that, but i'd be willing to give it a try.

 

 

Also, why is it that so many people seem to get angry from topics that concern graphics and say something like "this is a flight sim, if you want eye candy, go play this and that" Simulators simulate real world, right? i dont see anything wrong if people want realism in graphics too.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Tracer2k

[Bucic]

I am familiar with particle systems in max and i could try to make a mod for the explosions, but i have absolutely no clue how to input the particles to the engine from 3ds max, not sure if that is even possible.

 

and i dont know much about optimizing stuff like that, but i'd be willing to give it a try.

Check out the Eagle Wiki (link at the top part of the forum screen). Also you can contact the guy who made the smoke trail mode (good one!) - 3GO SkieRider

[wildone_106]

I agree Im sick of seeing Crimea-ish terrain no matter what you call it..it still looks the same..if I was to be perfectly honest. It wouldnt stop me buying their sims so they get my money either way..but thats what I WISH.

 

Lot of good post on this matter.

 

It's a balance I think. Lots of factors play into it. I mean I would love to see a lot of visual terrain and affects improved but at the cost of waiting years, (e.g. BOB SOW), starting from scratch in a different engine. I think ED made the right choice. When you don't have the pockets of EA, and a small market niche ,then you have to pick your battles. Think about it fellas. All the realism you are getting in this sim. TGP, Mav's, Flight Model, Nav systems, SAS Systems, HUD and all that incorporates. Just read the manual on CDU operation. You won't find anything like that in Black Op's. I know two different sims, but you are getting realism over Visual. The programming for all that to work and give you decent graphics....it must be mind boggling!

 

Am I tired of the Crim, Explosions, Smoke, Fire, etc? Hell yes but I understand why they did what they did. It would take years and tons of money to start over and then add the realism of whatever Aircraft that is being highlighted. Well you can imagine time frame and money.

 

All in all for us hardcore junkies its a masterpiece. It's a preview of whats to come in the next 3 to 5 years. If they can do this with the A10 then imagine what's next, Aircraft and Terrain. We have to support it though. If we don't buy what's on the table then it dries up. I for one am glad to be flying the Hog. It's a preview of what's next.

 

Now let's talk about what's next! Terrain fellas. No matter any way you look at it you have to move on to a more advanced engine. This one was good but it's tired and you have to move on to something that utilizes the advancement of current Hardware. I would get your Nellis map out and any small improvements you can. This theater and engine is worth another Aircraft, but I would in that time have a team or what not start moving you to the next engine. Preferably a current theater. I am in no way trying to tell you your business but it only makes sense. Don't fret ED, if you build it ....they will come!

 

All that being said and with only criticism from the heart I say the new A10C is a total masterpiece and I am in total awe! I say Gosh Damn the PUSHERMAN!

 

:thumbup: on the A10C!

[Tracer2k]

Check out the Eagle Wiki (link at the top part of the forum screen). Also you can contact the guy who made the smoke trail mode (good one!) - 3GO SkieRider

 

thanks bud, but those seem to be at least to my knowledge texture and transparency map mods.. not really particle mods. a particle mod would alter the way how the explosions "act"

 

in it's current state the explosions, and especially the dust/smoke from explosions seem to have pretty big particles, that's why they act so strange.

 

increasing the particle amount and reducing their size would have a performance impact for sure, but still i would be willing to give it a try and see how big impact :)

Edited November 29, 2010 by Tracer2k

[BoneDust]

All good comments here. I think caution does have to be used with effects because they can really kills fps. Give these folks time to finish the sim and I'm sure we'll have a good balance for everyone to enjoy. :)

[Bucic]

Tracer2k, you've just got yourself your own personal stalker, check your PM! :D

[Fish]

Like for all art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Edited November 30, 2010 by Fish

[Lixma 06]

Night-time looks much better without HDR.

[104th_Cobra]

Of course I would like to see a terrain mesh and textures with more resolution and detail. More terrain features and references will make target search from altitude more easy.

 

But like Trident said, that depends of data availability and processing.

 

In US, high resolution digital terrain data and aerial photography images are available for all of the country. That isn’t true for the rest of the world. And that isn’t enough for a final product.

 

In Caucasus, the public available data that I know the existence are SRTM DTMs with three-arc-second (about 80-90 meters) resolution and Landsat TM satellite images, with 15 meters resolution for panchromatic images and 30 meters for multi-spectral images (convertible to 15 meters resolution by sharpening) . ED is using SRTM data for the elevation mesh.

 

A standard Landsat TM WRS scene covers a land area approximately 185 kilomenters (across-track) by 180 kilometers (along-track). Like Trident said, their use presupposes atmospheric correction (easy), topographic normalization with correction for slope and aspect (difficult) and equalization between images. This is not the harshest work.

 

The nightmare, like Trident said, is to register (make congruent) the vectorial database (roads, railroads, cities, forests) with this images.

 

The model that ED is using is a vectorial one: assigning textures to vectorial objects. I'm not a programmer but I think that this is the better way to manage LODs. And I don't know if a hybrid model (vectorial-raster) is possible.

 

Who played F-15 Strike Eagle II, EF2000 or even ADF/TAW, knows that we are light years distance from that.

 

Someone talked about Storm of War. One friend which is addicted to that game told me that they are doing a 1:1 scale model of SE of England and NW of France, using aerial photography from that time. That must had taken an enormous amount of time.

 

The ED designers certainly know all this. They have a difficult negotiation between quality, time and cost. But for what we are seeing on DCS A-10C they are on the right way. Keep the good work.

[Tracer2k]

 

Who played F-15 Strike Eagle II, EF2000 or even ADF/TAW, knows that we are light years distance from that.

 

Someone talked about Storm of War. One friend which is addicted to that game told me that they are doing a 1:1 scale model of SE of England and NW of France, using aerial photography from that time. That must had taken an enormous amount of time.

 

The ED designers certainly know all this. They have a difficult negotiation between quality, time and cost. But for what we are seeing on DCS A-10C they are on the right way. Keep the good work.

 

Oh god F-15 Strike Eagle II brings back alot of memories! i remember playing it when i was five or six years old! i loved the game! :)

[Apples]

It is not a lot of work to modify the explosions or randomize the smoke or change the shockwave. Tell me what files to look at and I'll do it.

 

Been a while that anyone posted in this thread. I would also like to know what files to look at.