Graphics Effects

[element1108]

Well if apache air assault or wings or prey don't have fancy graphics they would be empty shell games with hardly any longevity beyond what they already have. Flight sims with huge draw distances can't be compared to fps or racing games either, they have creative ways of hiding view distances.

 

There's also a difference creating a landless with roads etc the ground ai can react and understand, fsx has no ground ai and therefore any texture can be mapped in.

 

Regardless of the views or opinions of individuals this graphics debate will go on forever. Not everybody will be satisfied. The very title of this thread indicates a (no offense to author) lack of understanding behind the scenes in the games being compared.

[TwoLate]

ooops he said the dirty word DX11

[GGTharos]

There a lot of reasons for things being as they are.

 

One is time.

The other is complexity - DCS has to deliver a large world size, terrain that looks fairly good a 1' or 60000', supply a reasonably high rendering distance and other things.

 

All of this imposes technical limitations, and although ED always strives to improve EVERY part of the simulation, time is also a very real factor. There IS work being done to improve the graphical engine, but again it is subject to what can be done in a given amount of time.

 

Look at what has been done with A-10C: A new 3D model format, HDR, TSSAA, soft shadows. All of those are improvements to the graphics engine, and there will be more to come, but all in good time. ED does not have blockbuster budgets and infinite amount of time or resources to get all this done. Those of you who have the open beta and looked hard into differences between them can probably appreciate the amount of work that goes into doing things that appear to be 'easy changes'.

[Bucic]

Look at what has been done with A-10C: A new 3D model format, HDR, TSSAA, soft shadows. All of those are improvements to the graphics engine, and there will be more to come, but all in good time.

True. After years of stagnation this seems like a shock therapy for dawdlers like me ;)

[GGTharos]

*electrode shock therapy smiley here* :D

 

True. After years of stagnation this seems like a shock therapy for dawdlers like me ;)

[Bucic]

I think what I saw after A-10C beta release made me (and probably others too) much less forgiving when it comes to DCS BS g. engine flaws which, ironically, shows that there is a significant effort put into improving g.e. with considerable results.

 

To reply directly to the initial post - I prefer to have something average now (?)... but solid and with constant trend of improvements.

[revalence]

There a lot of reasons for things being as they are.

 

One is time.

The other is complexity - DCS has to deliver a large world size, terrain that looks fairly good a 1' or 60000', supply a reasonably high rendering distance and other things.

 

All of this imposes technical limitations, and although ED always strives to improve EVERY part of the simulation, time is also a very real factor. There IS work being done to improve the graphical engine, but again it is subject to what can be done in a given amount of time.

 

Look at what has been done with A-10C: A new 3D model format, HDR, TSSAA, soft shadows. All of those are improvements to the graphics engine, and there will be more to come, but all in good time. ED does not have blockbuster budgets and infinite amount of time or resources to get all this done. Those of you who have the open beta and looked hard into differences between them can probably appreciate the amount of work that goes into doing things that appear to be 'easy changes'.

 

Hey, GGTharos is quite correct. I'll try to put it this way. If a Russian PAK-FA were to be pitted against a F-16C Bl.52, its very obvious that the PAK-FA with stealth and AESA radar would win. However, replace the PAK-FA with a aircraft of the same generation of the F-16 (i.e. MiG-29 or Su-27)

I would have to say, the F-16 would dominate over the MiG-29. This is just in account of the other features that come into play (U.S training budget, maintanence, etc.) Both the aircraft are evenly matched and superbly built, but in the end, the F-16 would win because of its exstensive training for the pilots, first-rate maintanence, and other stuff.

 

This is just like DCS A-10C Warthog vs. HAWX or Apache: Air Assualt. Sure, DCS just isn't there at the level of graphical content, but you have to put into consideration: the number of ED producers and designers, the work hours they have, and of course, the popularity. If the whole world played Lock On like Black Ops or Halo: Reach, then it obvioiusly would expand ED. Then, after that, ED could grow enough to hire more and THEN, match HAWX and whatnot in graphics. But, still, there is even more factors into this. Think of all the features that DCS A-10C, BS, and FC2 hold over these arcadish, childish games: Mission Editor, Actually Realism, Physics model, and alot of flexibility into the game system.

So, the next time you find a game for XBOX 360 or PC and it has amazing graphics, check and play first before comparing with DCS: A-10C, because in my opinion, DCS is going to be the best game series ever, because ED has masterminds that have planned out well how the games that we play and cherish are developed, and heck, THEY ARE AWESOME. :D

 

Just my two cents,

-Andrew (Revalence)

Edited November 26, 2010 by revalence

[GGTharos]

Sorry Bucic, I kinda-sorta get where you're coming from, but you need to specify which quirks are breaking the deal for you. That's more helpful than speaking in general, or saying crap like 'graphics guys should have been fired'.

 

Again, I think the slow but definite progress in the graphics engine should be a hint that ED wishes to improve it, but it cannot do it in a time frame that would please everyone (ie. right now).

 

And keep in mind that other parts of the simulator are also improving. Nothing is sitting still. Even if things that you really wish were improved are not, things are still getting improved.

 

Ka-50 had improvements over LO/FC1 and A-10C improves on Ka-50. Quirks are quirks. Perfect software is difficult to get. As far as combat flight sims go I consider DCS to have some of the best graphics in the business.

[Agg]

I was a bit disappointed by the graphics in beta 1 as well, but now I think it's really starting to look great. There are still things that could be better, and there probably always will be, but Id say that we're starting to see the start of something awesome.

[Boberro]

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.

[wildone_106]

I got no complaints about where A10 is now and if it didn't change I'd still be happy. But there's ALWAYS room for improvement I think, in general the whole outside world feels very 'sterile' it doesn't FEEL like there's much atmosphere out there or around the plane? A good example of that would be the last Ace Combat game, they did an amazing job of atmospherics effects, whisps of cloud/missle streams and used it well to hide the fact their terrain is so shitty and small compared to a sim like this. But it went a long way to give that feeling of atmosphere that is for the most part completely missing here..again Im happy with things as they are..but if I could have a wish granted it would be that.

[GGTharos]

How much FPS are you willing to trade for all that smoke? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it too.

[Bucic]

GGTharos,

 

IMO this topic was intended to be about general opinions rather than technical specifics. Plus I would be going OT if I continue the discussion about pre-Warthog graphics. We all know that every experienced FC2/BS player can name at least two major graphics related issues. On top of that I have nothing bad to say about Warthog graphics and the sentence from my previous post was not a sarcasm - I really am surprised by the g. engine improvements. Bad explosions are not the Warthog engine's fault, just like the awful Mi-8 model in Black Shark is not its engine fault. Those elements haven't simply been updated, that's all. Or - some elements don't keep up with the engine development. Same thing.

 

However I think all will agree that if the current explosions get to the final product they will simply be sub par to the rest of the Warthog's graphics.

 

Edit:

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.

So true. I've spent hours and hours on testing the shkval transparency issue trying to figure out the meaning of parameters instead of doing the actual work. Same with the sky colors (I'm on it now and I can't crack it...) and trees. Such "sticking out" elements are easy to identify.

 

Take the following scenario into consideration:

Year 2005. A guy who can program shaders spent 3 hours explaining/documenting the meaning of some parameters behind sky colors and looks. Do you think that ED wouldn't get much more workhours back from few of the community members working on it for 5 years, even just 2 hours a month each of them?

 

I hope this will change after ED cools off after Warthog release. A radical sweep of obsolete config entries would be nice too.

 

 

Anyway, after some good results with the transparency testing I'm off to some of my first sky color trials. I hope neither of these tests will be needed in Warthog and the (we all hope) Black Shark updated with Hog's graph. engine ;)

Edited November 26, 2010 by Bucic

[SFJackBauer]

How much FPS are you willing to trade for all that smoke? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it too.

 

I agree fully with you here. Even after optimization, the FPS "budget" the developers will have will be not that much big.

 

Now I don't see why people complain about explosions, they seem fine to me. Problem is people get spoiled by arcade games in which the complexity is several orders of magnitude lower than the sims ED is making. I hardly see any Falconeer complaining about A-10C graphics for example...

 

Also getting a fluid graphics experience (no stuttering, high and constant FPS), even if a not-so-good-looking engine to me seems more advantageous and immersive than a pretty game that runs like a slide show. Unfortunately currently in DCS to attain this means turning off buildings, civ traffic etc. I can only hope that optimizations take place for us to be able to enjoy what is ALREADY in sim, I would not dare to ask for more.

[BoneDust]

I get what the original poster is saying. The explosions are weak and unrealistic because they dissapate too fast, but I attributed that to the sim being a beta. Fire and smoke is not bad but could be randomized some to have hot smoke cool smoke; ie black, grey, or white smoke. The mav flash is too white and the shock wave needs to have the alpha reduced, but again I'm assuming optimization hasn't occured.

 

Either way, this is an awesome sim!!! :)

[Trident]

Speaking strictly in terms of graphics, what DCS needs IMHO is a much higher elevation mesh resolution, the terrain shadowing from MSFS, the trees from ROF and some improved effects. As for the latter, ED might be closer to a good solution than you think, I still have some pre-release screenshots of LOMAC with explosions which are far better than what we have now. Not perfect (no flying debris), but easily competitive with any sim out there today with some updating. Combine this with the flame effects from ROF and it would blow the competition away.

 

Still, after all these years, no other sim - NOTHING - comes close to this kind of terrain texturing:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=938194&postcount=1649

 

The DCS engine is still competitive, just needs some polish to keep it up to date.

 

I get what the original poster is saying. The explosions are weak and unrealistic because they dissapate too fast, but I attributed that to the sim being a beta. Fire and smoke is not bad but could be randomized some to have hot smoke cool smoke; ie black, grey, or white smoke. The mav flash is too white and the shock wave needs to have the alpha reduced, but again I'm assuming optimization hasn't occured.

 

Either way, this is an awesome sim!!! :)

 

Yes, the blast wave is exaggerated and has been for some time. Too large, not transparent enough - it should be a lot more subtle.

[Thisdale]

 

Still, after all these years, no other sim - NOTHING - comes close to this kind of terrain texturing:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=938194&postcount=1649

 

 

I disagre.

 

http://edtruthan.com/tileproxy/tutorial/

[Boberro]

I do not know it is in game (A-10) or not as I am used to play in ultra low settings, but I'd like to see street lamps, bilboards, railway power lines, low voltage power lines between cities and villages. Animals like cows, horses, sheep and so on... to alive cities and villager areas. Generally much more rich urban\fauna & flora environment It is obvious it has much lower priority than pure physics and avionics modelling... but community would do many things I think. Only what are needed are tools\tutorials\"know how" knowledge.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Boberro

[Thisdale]

 

Look at what has been done with A-10C: A new 3D model format, HDR, TSSAA, soft shadows. All of those are improvements to the graphics engine, and there will be more to come, but all in good time.

 

All good with HDR and TSSAA, but that's when you look at your plane from the exterior with the shiny sun on the hull. Being a flight sim and all, shouldn't more energy be put onto things you will look "at" while you play? Aka Targets? Buildings? vehicles? Terrain? Explosions? catch my drift?

 

 

This is the kind of things i'd like to see:

 

http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/1866551.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FDD0049236E489133B10F34EE9D587A839D73BDB44E060DBBBE30A760B0D811297

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2c/US_Navy_030402-N-5362A-009_A_U.S._Army_soldier_stands_guard_duty_near_a_burning_oil_well_in_the_Rumaylah_Oil_Fields_in_Southern_Iraq.jpg/220px-US_Navy_030402-N-5362A-009_A_U.S._Army_soldier_stands_guard_duty_near_a_burning_oil_well_in_the_Rumaylah_Oil_Fields_in_Southern_Iraq.jpg

 

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkrJnJuWkw8p_Zdr5XJLqI8inX31H7VhZLfZl6iqlRNKckHugd

 

 

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSqxn9e_8osxXXkEVh3SgG9FkiwjnHfvC8l-4RSifhVeV0RLZ9Scg

 

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS0G3VwqAwiPw6vRcbG4CLQQ61vTvuc1zg0VlpPkzIxRQLqjELvKg

 

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSQKI6iz4HjcvjfU5iRzA5gG8t4dui_i1ksZs--xeEvMqmCk8VZ

 

and speaking of terrain... i'll post some of those again.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAgcAVJ9MJE&feature=related

 

 

 

 

And just to finish... those were all from 2008-2009... from an engine that's 4 years old...

 

cheers,

[Trident]

I disagre.

 

http://edtruthan.com/tileproxy/tutorial/

 

And I stand by what I said. Unedited photo terrain texture sets can have numerous problems with incorrect geo-referencing, poor compatibility with ground objects and lighting conditions (meaning they will only look good at the right time of simulated day).

 

Some examples from the site you linked:

 

 

Flat cruiseships?

 

 

Wonky shadowing.

 

 

If you placed autogen objects on these textures it would likely look more than a little weird.

 

Overall, ED's approach to texturing is still unmatched.

[Agg]

I do not know it is in game (A-10) or not as I am used to play in ultra low settings, but I'd like to see street lamps, bilboards, railway power lines, low voltage power lines between cities and villages. Animals like cows, horses, sheep and so on... to alive cities and villager areas. Generally much more rich urban\fauna & flora environment It is obvious it has much lower priority than pure physics and avionics modelling... but community would do many things I think. Only what are needed are tools\tutorials\"know how" knowledge.

Alot of what you are mentioning is already in the game, but I do agree that things like animals would really add to the immersion of actually flying around in a living, breathing world. And this is something the community could do, if given the tools of course...

[Speedfreak]

Sturm of War: Battle of Britain

Trailer: http://www.gamestar.de/spiele/storm-of-war-battle-of-britain/news/storm_of_war_battle_of_britain,46106,2319516.html

The terrain is really beautiful.

[Gloomshadow]

This is a simulator which simulates the systems of the a-10 ... if you want eye candy go play call of duty.

[blaha]

Some of you asking for "better" explosions may be asking for explosions that look like the movies, and like less realistic games, which may not look at all like a real weapon employment. I'm not saying that DCS' explosions are right on, but be careful what you're expecting to see. Your expectations could be unrealistic.

 

Animals did wonders for ArmA2's immersion. When I see a rabbit running around in the middle of my mission, it feels real.

[mvsgas]

So if they waist more time giving more eye candy, how many user can actually enjoy it, see or even benefit from it? I know my little computer can barely handle the sim as it is, you ad more eye candy, I would have to turn all the effect off to be able to play. Same way I had to with ArmA, ArmA2 and FSX. Not everyone can afford top of the line system.

Edited November 27, 2010 by mvsgas