Graphics Effects

[GGTharos]

A simulator also simulates the most important visual environment of air combat. Graphics are important, and this is why ED is improving the graphics engine.

 

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

[leafer]

Dynamic lighting in the cockpit would be nice.

[celticcoho]

A simulator also simulates the most important visual environment of air combat. Graphics are important, and this is why ED is improving the graphics engine.

Many of US here have great 8. 9 or $10,000 Dollar Gaming PC's, But the Sim is for a larger market, I respect that. Currently the Beta is maxing out everyone! So before you want more, Let's see what is given. Have fun with it, YES Frustrated to with it, TEST IT was what all were supposed to do for now. Learn it, fly it, Report it, Ask for more only after it is Final release....Personally, It Is Amazing!!! The only Sim which even comes close to Reality and Yes it test my hardware TOO!!! Deep Breath All...Wait for it..:pilotfly:

[BoneDust]

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. It is not eye candy either. Real life effects are not eye candy. I love the avionics work too, but I don't fly around with my head stuck in the pit; particularily when flying the A10, which is a ground pounder and requires a bit more visual flying.

 

There's nothing wrong with wanting it all, or trying to improve small things in what is shaping up to be an awesome sim. :)

[celticcoho]

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. It is not eye candy either. Real life effects are not eye candy. I love the avionics work too, but I don't fly around with my head stuck in the pit; particularily when flying the A10, which is a ground pounder and requires a bit more visual flying.

 

There's nothing wrong with wanting it all, or trying to improve small things in what is shaping up to be an awesome sim. :)

I agree!!! But it is a Beta...I am sure all will feel that their money is well spent!!!!I just think too many expect perfection from the Beta...Not riding the full route of the Beta....Cheers, Jim

[Grimes]

Fire

Smoke

Clouds

Suck since 1.0

 

I agree. Honestly its the stuff that you can look back through FC2>Black Shark > FC1.12> Lockon 1.0 and then realize that little if anything has changed with it over all that time.

 

Fire and Smoke, always the same height, always the same intensity, always blowing in the same direction based on wind. There is no "life" to the fire its just a constant stream of flames.

 

Fine we are getting a new weather system, at least its a new system to simulate wind. We don't know if that means it will be cloudy at one end of the map and nice on another, nor if the conditions are right that its foggy in the mourning and clears up as it gets warmer. Hell, will the ambient temperature even change over time?

 

The only other thing I dislike is its becoming more and more apparent where the "old" map is. All of the new airbases are getting a nice quality treatment of the ILS lights, new textures, and just nice little details. Guduata is the only old base from the Lockon days to get a make-over.

[Asp]

DCS A-10C:

Finally - a sim that is a quantum leap ahead of F4AF, in regards to functionality/complexity/graphics.

 

opinion = the FM physics are very well modeled. I didnt say representative of a real A-10, but a strong likeness to real flight physics.

 

Systems function/capibility Outstanding!

 

Cant wait to see the finished and optomized version. Take your time and do it right - and Thanks!

[GGTharos]

The FM is very strongly resembling of the real deal according to A-10 pilots. Yep, there are likely some differences - a sim has limitations - but it behaves like an A-10 would behave in most cases.

[sam777777]

I don't really care about the terrain, that is hard to model and would take alot of time + it doesn't detract from the realism too much but the explosions... When i sped 2 hours setting up for a perfect run with some mk82 death from above... i want something to go BOOM!!! it really draws me out of the immersion... which is all i play this game for.

[Bucic]

The FM is very strongly resembling of the real deal according to A-10 pilots. Yep, there are likely some differences - a sim has limitations - but it behaves like an A-10 would behave in most cases.

In your face 'excusers' :D :thumbup:

[S3NTRY11]

lingering dirt/dust being kicked up by rounds would be nice too while we're on the subject. Perhaps variable dependant upon terrain (ok maybe that is REALLY wishful thinking...)

[sobek]

DCS A-10C:

quantum leap

 

Oh god, now even the oxford dictionary is using it wrong :doh::D

 

High school physics in your face, oxford dictionary :music_whistling:

[Bushmanni]

Good smoke and dust effects have some gameplay functionality also. I have witnessed a real artillery barrage and it looked very much like the MW2 explosions when shooting with AC-130 except that it lingered around about 3mins instead of 10secs. Dirt was kicked up about 100m in the air and it took the said 3min to rain down. Immediately after the barrage was over there was about 30sec of actual sand raining down from sky which was really thick. Survivors of such a barrage would be literally in the dark for the duration of the sand rain and covered by it afterwards. After that the dust slowly fell to the ground and smoke faded away. It was about 1 min. after you could see the targets again. The smoke and dust from a barrage will block laser range finder and you can actually get a range measurement from the smoke. I could live with smoke and fire effects done with less particles but having more persistence, size and effect on gameplay. Bonus would be if they looked something like in MW2 or even more realistic.

[Bucic]

Good smoke and dust effects have some gameplay functionality also. I have witnessed a real artillery barrage and it looked very much like the MW2 explosions when shooting with AC-130 except that it lingered around about 3mins instead of 10secs. Dirt was kicked up about 100m in the air and it took the said 3min to rain down. Immediately after the barrage was over there was about 30sec of actual sand raining down from sky which was really thick. Survivors of such a barrage would be literally in the dark for the duration of the sand rain and covered by it afterwards. After that the dust slowly fell to the ground and smoke faded away. It was about 1 min. after you could see the targets again. The smoke and dust from a barrage will block laser range finder and you can actually get a range measurement from the smoke. I could live with smoke and fire effects done with less particles but having more persistence, size and effect on gameplay. Bonus would be if they looked something like in MW2 or even more realistic.

:thumbup: for RL reference but what's MW2? :)

 

An example of ongoing improvements:

[jctrnacty]

Well i think its just a question of time before we get realistic explosions and smoke and better graphics. This game is evolving and with every module we get something improved and better.

 

Now is priority finishing a-10, then we get a nevada terrain and later i think we get patches with updates in other aspects of game-

 

Its exact that when ED finishes fm and cockpit and editor and MP then they will concentrate on graphics. But you cant get everything at once.

[Grimes]

:thumbup: for RL reference but what's MW2? :)

 

Mechwarrior 2. :smilewink:

 

 

Sadly he probably means Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. or CODMW2.:cry:

[Bucic]

Mechwarrior 2. :smilewink:

 

 

Sadly he probably means Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. or CODMW2.:cry:

Everyone who new that are not real HARDCORE!

 

BTW, good effects for simulators are not necessarily based on eye candy/the latest shaders but rather on good understanding of the explosion physics (physics is all and in many branches you wouldn't think of) and the ability to do side by side comparison - RL vs in-game -> What's missing? What's different? Which missing elements stick out the most? -> How do I implement the elements which lack of stick out the most in the most GPU/CPU effective manner?

 

Take a look here for example. All ArmA 1 effects are based on puffs you could hardly call particles:

Armored vehicle explosion

 

And a real tank explosion after ATGM hit

Edited November 27, 2010 by Bucic

[Agg]

Id love to see smoke like this, and not just the small smoke columns that we get now... But I guess we're quite a bit away from seeing effects like this.

 

[Bucic]

Id love to see smoke like this, and not just the small smoke columns that we get now... But I guess we're quite a bit away from seeing effects like this.

 

 

Are those burning tanks?

[Agg]

Probably not, but there are other things than tanks that catch fire in Warthog ;)

[Insanatrix]

Are those burning tanks?

 

 

Looks like burning tires or something made of rubber or oil.

[Bucic]

I'm asking because we're trying to express what we would like to see in graphics and then BANG! a guy pops up and he makes all our requests pale and modest :D

[blaha]

Bucic, thanks for the real ATGM footage. Good to remember what we're shooting for (realism) instead of "explosions that look awesome"

[Divinity10]

Bucic, thanks for the real ATGM footage. Good to remember what we're shooting for (realism) instead of "explosions that look awesome"

 

You'd be surprised how often the two go hand in hand.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLYAa4LxAY&feature=related

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7zKPfmSKj0&feature=related

Edited November 27, 2010 by Divinity10

[Agg]

I'm asking because we're trying to express what we would like to see in graphics and then BANG! a guy pops up and he makes all our requests pale and modest :D

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.