Holy mother of world terrain graphics!

[Callsign.Vega]

Have you guys seen the terrain graphics in the "game" (not simulation) Hawx 2? I just downloaded the benchmark (free, link below) to see how my computer runs it on my 3x 30" screens.

 

I am absolutely blown away. The terrain looks like a photograph. It makes simulators like FSX, Rise of Flight and DCS series look like they are from the stone age.

 

The best part is the frames per second performance was astonishing! I was getting 90 FPS with 2x GTX 580's on 3x 30" screens with all in game settings maxed. With the same setup I get like 30 FPS in DCS:A-10C Beta 4 and terrain graphics are like 10x better in HawX 2. Granted, A-10C has a sweet cockpit but the terrain graphics leave much to be desired, especially once you take into account how low the performance is.

 

Now all we need is a flight sim to use Hawx 2 type terrain with a DCS cockpit with multi-thread support and we'd be golden. :D

 

I just had to make a post about Hawx 2 to say their programmers are simply stellar. To get such incredibly high terrain graphics at such a great performance level is nothing short of astonishing.

 

You just have to download the demo benchmark and take a look: http://download.guru3d.com/Tom-Clancy%E2%80%99s-H.A.W.X.-2-Benchmark-download-2633.html

 

 

 

[Pilotasso]

The terrain looks so good because in turn HAWX complexity goes back into the stone age as well. ;)

[MudRat02]

DCS has very good graphics for the complexity of the engine. Complex weather, flight mechanics, avionics .ect end up taxing your system quite a bit. I do like the HAWX graphics though, I've been known to play it very occasionally just for a bit of fun.

[Callsign.Vega]

The terrain looks so good because in turn HAWX complexity goes back into the stone age as well. ;)

 

Terrain complexity is different than flight model / aircraft systems / cockpit complexity. A perfect example is DCS-A10C maxing my SLI 580's and getting a measly 30 FPS and looking like this:

 

 

 

 

My GPU's aren't doing any flight model / aircraft systems / cockpit calculations. DCS's single CPU thread is doing all that. So why does my DCS game look so poorly compared to Hawx 2 when both games are using my GPU's 100%?

 

Then I can play at 90 FPS (3x faster than DCS and look like this):

 

 

 

 

DCS flight sims are amazing, but that doesn't preclude them from criticism to make them better. In regards to graphics and cpu multi-core support, ED is way behind the power curve. I could see low level of graphic quality but a fast speed as exceptable for a high fidelity flight sim. Although, DCS sims have a low level of graphical quality and a low level of performance.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Callsign.Vega

[Stretch]

OK Vega, you seem to be missing out on a few important facts here. Let me help.

 

Firstly, part of the reason you're seeing very low frame rates is because DCS: Warthog is not yet a finished product. Beta 4 introduces some optimizations but the work is not over yet. Frame rates will go upward as we near release.

 

Secondly, and this is very important ... you seem to be under the impression that graphics are handled entirely by the GPU, and flight dynamics entirely by the CPU. This is a simplistic and entirely untrue impression of how video games work.

 

Rendering realistic graphics and complex terrain requires both CPU and GPU cycles. All the GPU does is take a 3D representation of your view and turn it into pixels on the screen. In doing so it can add a bunch of really cool features like haze or motion blur or anisotropic filtering, but that's not the whole story. You need a CPU to generate that 3D representation in the first place.

 

GPUs do not process terrain meshes. GPUs do not populate the world with auto-gen buildings and trees. GPUs do not modify the A-10C model to correctly position the flaps, gear, speed brakes, ailerons, elevator, refueling door, lights, etc. CPUs do all of these things ... and they are a part of graphics rendering.

 

And let's talk about the level of terrain detail in these Hawx images. I'm guessing that the vast majority of your impression that Hawx has excellent graphics is the satellite imagery used to make the textures (whereas DCS: Warthog uses generic land tiles). Good news! The Nevada terrain also uses texture-mapped satellite images, so it's a fair bet that you'll be seeing more of that in future DCS releases.

[element1108]

Hawx also doesn't have seasons, dynamic lighting, large map sizes, any simulation elements at all.

[Boberro]

A-10 terrain is acceptable but everybody when see HAWX terrain can think it is like in real - DCS area looks like game, you see, you know you are in computer product. In HAWX flight you can feel sometimes almost like flying real plane when you see such photographic textures under you. Another matter is complexity of HAWX and DCS, but it is another thread to go ;]

 

Nevada doesn't look good so far for what I've seen. It is hard work to make good terrain but I say what I see - nothing fancy. Sorry.

 

Anyway , generally A-10C graphics is huge step from what we have in LO\BS, so nobody can say nothing is being done in that matter.

Edited December 31, 2010 by Boberro

[Kuky]

My nephew got PS3 few days ago and tonight he showed me Hawx2... maybe he didn't setup all the options to high (I haven't even tried to change anything) and and trying to "fly" that thing with controller is atterly crap and impossible (well to do anything resembling reastic flying anyway)... I wan't impressed at all, in fact few minutes later I let him continue to play... I just don't know why any flight simmer would want to play that... that was my impression

[Boberro]

Yes Kuky we all know HAWX is only low arcade but wouldn't you accept such terrain in DCS? I think you would :D

[asparagin]

DCS engine works (I'm no programming expert here) LOD spheres. Out of the huge DCS world, the first level gets rendered very high, the second level high, then medium, and so on.

 

The HAWX engine has to render a much smaller area (less data) but works also with LOD's.

 

Now comes my question:

 

Why is the overall area important? If you work with LOD's you would just have data transfer that would concern you.

[Pilotasso]

Terrain complexity is different than flight model / aircraft systems / cockpit complexity. A perfect example is DCS-A10C maxing my SLI 580's and getting a measly 30 FPS and looking like this:

 

 

 

 

My GPU's aren't doing any flight model / aircraft systems / cockpit calculations. DCS's single CPU thread is doing all that. So why does my DCS game look so poorly compared to Hawx 2 when both games are using my GPU's 100%?

 

Then I can play at 90 FPS (3x faster than DCS and look like this):

 

 

 

 

DCS flight sims are amazing, but that doesn't preclude them from criticism to make them better. In regards to graphics and cpu multi-core support, ED is way behind the power curve. I could see low level of graphic quality but a fast speed as exceptable for a high fidelity flight sim. Although, DCS sims have a low level of graphical quality and a low level of performance.

 

Was talking about CPU, loads, if the SIm is simple you can crank up the eye candy.

[SFJackBauer]

First, FSX can look as good as that if you are using photoreal terrain and enhanced terrain meshes:

 

 

But then where are the working road and rail networks, cities, forests, powerlines, bridges, tunnels etc. that actually are part of landscape also? You can't just paste those things over a photo and get away with it, you will have issues of seams, alignment, shadows, clouds, time-of-day when photo was taken etc. Thats why you have both camps for FSX: companies doing high resolution photo-terrain, with the drawback of not having much detailed terrain features (good for mountain areas), and companies doing proceduraly-generated terrain (e.g. using FSX tiling feature) where you can use your own textures with roads, cities, trees aligned to them (check GEX, OrbX).

 

Obviously I'm talking about creating scenery for a large chunk of terrain. I don't know how big are HAWX "worlds", but I bet they are much smaller than even DCS Caucasus, which by itself is much smaller than FSX "entire globe".

 

ALSO, HAWX developers do pretty graphics because thats the only thing they can do. If they had to add the flight model, AI, visibility range, ground units and weapons modeling etc that DCS have, they would have 5 years of development ahead to get to DCS level.

[DayGlow]

How does hawxs look from under 5000agl?

[Steel Jaw]

Easy to have nice grafix when the cpu cycles aren't being "wasted" on realism.

[topol-m]

Realism is realism but I guess we all agree that LO/DCS terrain is getting old. I saw the terrain (including villages) in Wings of prey and was very impressed. I don`t know when the next DCS is going to be released but it will be great if the terrain is improved.

[Agg]

I actually think that the DCS-series is starting to look quite good, I would however love to see some more variety in the scenery. Every singe town and city in DCS looks the same, as do the ground textures, but still, its getting there, Warthog is a huge improvement over BS.

 

And as said before, I know that the ED team has a lot on their hands, and that there simply isnt enough time to add everything that we would like to see, this could easily be added by the community, if they just released the tools.

[Bushmanni]

This has been debated in many threads already. Fancy and ultra detailed terrain is traded for huge map area and very long visible range. I bet you can't see a big mountain 50km away in HAWX and then fly there. DCS uses available polygons and GPU power for different things that are more important for a simulation.

[Callsign.Vega]

OK Vega, you seem to be missing out on a few important facts here. Let me help.

 

Firstly, part of the reason you're seeing very low frame rates is because DCS: Warthog is not yet a finished product. Beta 4 introduces some optimizations but the work is not over yet. Frame rates will go upward as we near release.

 

Secondly, and this is very important ... you seem to be under the impression that graphics are handled entirely by the GPU, and flight dynamics entirely by the CPU. This is a simplistic and entirely untrue impression of how video games work.

 

Rendering realistic graphics and complex terrain requires both CPU and GPU cycles. All the GPU does is take a 3D representation of your view and turn it into pixels on the screen. In doing so it can add a bunch of really cool features like haze or motion blur or anisotropic filtering, but that's not the whole story. You need a CPU to generate that 3D representation in the first place.

 

GPUs do not process terrain meshes. GPUs do not populate the world with auto-gen buildings and trees. GPUs do not modify the A-10C model to correctly position the flaps, gear, speed brakes, ailerons, elevator, refueling door, lights, etc. CPUs do all of these things ... and they are a part of graphics rendering.

 

And let's talk about the level of terrain detail in these Hawx images. I'm guessing that the vast majority of your impression that Hawx has excellent graphics is the satellite imagery used to make the textures (whereas DCS: Warthog uses generic land tiles). Good news! The Nevada terrain also uses texture-mapped satellite images, so it's a fair bet that you'll be seeing more of that in future DCS releases.

 

Late beta's are virtually the release product. If you think that DCS:A-10C's performance is going to skyrocket from Beta 4 to release you are kidding yourself.

 

I am well aware of all the points you made about graphics and GPU/CPU usage. My point was GPU's don't do any processing for flight model / aircraft systems / AI etc. Those are all done by the CPU. Why are my 2x GTX 580's maxed 100% usage to squeeze out 30 FPS in A-10C that has rudimentary world graphics at best. DCS cockpits are stellar but you honestly cannot say anything outside the cockpit looks great.

 

A-10 terrain is acceptable but everybody when see HAWX terrain can think it is like in real - DCS area looks like game, you see, you know you are in computer product. In HAWX flight you can feel sometimes almost like flying real plane when you see such photographic textures under you. Another matter is complexity of HAWX and DCS, but it is another thread to go ;]

 

Nevada doesn't look good so far for what I've seen. It is hard work to make good terrain but I say what I see - nothing fancy. Sorry.

 

Anyway , generally A-10C graphics is huge step from what we have in LO\BS, so nobody can say nothing is being done in that matter.

 

Exactly my point, DCS world looks like its computer generated. Everything is green / low polygon count. That would be acceptable if the performance was good. But the performance isn't good.

 

My nephew got PS3 few days ago and tonight he showed me Hawx2... maybe he didn't setup all the options to high (I haven't even tried to change anything) and and trying to "fly" that thing with controller is atterly crap and impossible (well to do anything resembling reastic flying anyway)... I wan't impressed at all, in fact few minutes later I let him continue to play... I just don't know why any flight simmer would want to play that... that was my impression

 

You can't compare PS3 720P graphics versus high end computer graphics. Not even in the same ball-park.

 

Yes Kuky we all know HAWX is only low arcade but wouldn't you accept such terrain in DCS? I think you would :D

 

:D

[Callsign.Vega]

First, FSX can look as good as that if you are using photoreal terrain and enhanced terrain meshes:

 

 

But then where are the working road and rail networks, cities, forests, powerlines, bridges, tunnels etc. that actually are part of landscape also? You can't just paste those things over a photo and get away with it, you will have issues of seams, alignment, shadows, clouds, time-of-day when photo was taken etc. Thats why you have both camps for FSX: companies doing high resolution photo-terrain, with the drawback of not having much detailed terrain features (good for mountain areas), and companies doing proceduraly-generated terrain (e.g. using FSX tiling feature) where you can use your own textures with roads, cities, trees aligned to them (check GEX, OrbX).

 

Obviously I'm talking about creating scenery for a large chunk of terrain. I don't know how big are HAWX "worlds", but I bet they are much smaller than even DCS Caucasus, which by itself is much smaller than FSX "entire globe".

 

ALSO, HAWX developers do pretty graphics because thats the only thing they can do. If they had to add the flight model, AI, visibility range, ground units and weapons modeling etc that DCS have, they would have 5 years of development ahead to get to DCS level.

 

Sure, FSX can look great with all those add ons. On a top of the line computer with a decent resolution, I doubt that guy who took that screen shot was getting over 10 FPS. BTW: Hawx 2 has plenty of terrain features.

 

 

Easy to have nice grafix when the cpu cycles aren't being "wasted" on realism.

 

You see, Hawx 2 is multi-threaded so it uses your multiple CPU cores more efficiently. Why do you think PS3 ports run so well on the PC? If you want to talk about wasted cpu cycles, what about those 3+ cpu cores DCS doesn't even use at all?

 

Realism is realism but I guess we all agree that LO/DCS terrain is getting old. I saw the terrain (including villages) in Wings of prey and was very impressed. I don`t know when the next DCS is going to be released but it will be great if the terrain is improved.

 

This has been debated in many threads already. Fancy and ultra detailed terrain is traded for huge map area and very long visible range. I bet you can't see a big mountain 50km away in HAWX and then fly there. DCS uses available polygons and GPU power for different things that are more important for a simulation.

 

I can see just as far in Hawx 2 as in DCS. In the real world unless your in antartica or something because of the haze you generally can't see beyond 20KM, let alone 50.

 

 

 

My point of this thread was to have you guys check out the really cool terrain graphics in the free Hawx 2 benchmark, not to turn this into a DCS can never do anything wrong thread.

 

Once you see photo realistic terrain using multiple cpu cores running at high resolution at 100+ FPS, you see the future. I love playing the DCS series. But that doesn't mean they don't have any catching up to do in the multi-cpu core / world graphics department. I just give props to the designers of Hawx 2. It looks ridiculously good and runs incredibly fast. How often do you see that in the gaming market?

Edited January 1, 2011 by Callsign.Vega

[Kuky]

Here's what I think... ED are firstly developing a simulator product for the military and we all know they don't care at all for fancy graphics... and as "by product" we get DCS module for the public most likely with some clasified stuff taken out as ED don't have apoval to model certain things for the public.

 

So if ED would want to raise the bar into creating highly populated and very realistic looking terrain they would be working on this only for the public release of the DCS and that is not as lucrative as getting money from the military contract and then modified version for the public release of the same simulator.

 

In the end I still think DCS terrain is not that bad at all... I can live with it easy... I would love to see it more improved but I don't expect any miracles. DCS A-10C has added lot of pure graphical improvements and I especially like how new bases are populated, the runway and taxiway textures... they do look very nice and quite realistic... then they've added signs on the airbases, lighting... and night time flying has improved a lot also... we are getting there slowly.

 

Now since ED have working 64bit code I hope next big thing will be to multithread the code and then they can increase visibility of buildings etc as CPU will have more cores to use. The envirinment area if the simulator counts a lot for the flight simmer as we like to enjoy the scenery as much as pushing buttons to work the systems and blow s**t up... but the military are not concerned about that and they want the mission to be done asplanned and pilots don't go into combat thinking how nice the sunset looks but think about the job they have to do... so this is the main reason why I think ED are not making photo realistic terrain and again there are techincal limitations as to how much stuff average Joe's PC's can handle :)

[element1108]

QUOTE=Callsign.Vega;1068618]Late beta's are virtually the release product. If you think that DCS:A-10C's performance is going to skyrocket from Beta 4 to release you are kidding yourself.

 

:D

 

 

We aren't really sure what level beta we're in, it may be 4 of 9, it may be 4 of 6...I don't think anybody is fooling themselves when thinking the beta version is still a WIP and the end product will have improved performance. (The developers have said so themselves).

 

Comparing an arcade air action game to a beta (I don't care what version) high fidelity simulation is pointless. If you don't understand what ED does and prop up the HAWX 2 developers than there's no point debating because you obviously don't fully understand what ED does in it's sims.

 

The photo of the A-10C taking off has mountains in the background that are probably 40-50 kms away. The HAWX 2 mountain shot has another peak that's probably 5 km's away and it's already fading into the weak draw distance. The F-35 model looks like a cheap CG model next to the photo realistic terrain as well.

 

Multithreading has been discussed and apparently it's being looked into...but until then we'll have to deal with it, DCS won't look like HAWX 2 the same way HAWX 2 will NEVER play like DCS (by that I mean become a pc study simulation).

 

Wouldn't comparing Rise of Flight and DCS be more of a suitable comparison?

Edited January 1, 2011 by element1108

[Boberro]

DCS wastes new eeer maybe not new cause multithreading isn't new today anyway it wastes using it. Adding full support for GPU & CPU multithreading would solve many problems with FPS issues and by then better graphics could be used.

There is big problem unfortunately - creating multithread application is huge work and takes a lot of time - this is one of reasons why so low amount of games support full multi threading. However I think the risk is worth the gamble at all.

 

Those screens of cities amazed me - this is how I imagine cities - all details. Of course at lower alt details can be worse, but it is still amazing.

Edited January 1, 2011 by Boberro

[Grimes]

Simply put they aren't the same game and ED doesn't have the same resources as Ubisoft Romania does. That said the priorities of the art teams between each respective development studio do seem to be different. Aside from the new terrain area, the overall terrain mesh looks to have changed little. There are still area's where you can literally count the polys. I am rather thankful ED have been trying to spruce up the models that fill the game world. All of the additions to airbases, the new road bridges, rail bridges, light poles in cities, and the occasional new city building are all a welcome sight. Right now I thin ED's priority is that of getting rid of all the old models from the game before moving on to brand new art assets and advanced terrain. Hopefully the inclusion of normal mapping into the engine will bring some extra life into the mountains and other area's when they do implement more detailed terrain.

[DayGlow]

When I tried the HAWXS demo the terrain did look amazing at altitude, but as soon as you get close to the ground you really feel the drawback of satellite textures. It looks far worse than DCS.

[SFJackBauer]

To the OP and all others who think "Why DCS can't have top notch graphics" or "why DCS can't have multi-threading" or something along these lines.

 

The things being discussed here are, in fact, subject of study for a large number of computer scientists. Do the people who use words like "offloading to GPU" or "multithreading" actually do understand what those words mean, or ever picked some book on the subject or even fired up a development environment and tried do a prototype of these concepts?

 

Because it all sounds like ED "dont want to do" or "do not have resources to do", when actually lots of things are in fact technical barriers that need to be overcomed. And these barriers are not solved by adding workforce... its the "adding mothers doesn't make the baby come earlier" problem.

 

Again - HAWX is pretty because a number of factors:

 

- Low terrain complexity

- Small worlds

- Unsophisticated AI / flight dynamics / weapons modeling

 

Even with the largest bugdet of the world (Microsoft?) you can't have everything at once. Perhaps all those developers are wrong and the general public is right...

 

So what you would trade-off for that graphical fidelity in DCS? Either that or wait a couple of years until the Moore's Law give a "brute force" solution.