DCS World 2.0 and New Maps Discussion Thread

[cichlidfan]

I'm really glad to see that the testers are currently testing a build WITH the new IG. Granted it's still WIP and there is a lot to be done, just knowing that they have a build with it makes me think it's getting much closer than I thought.

 

I did not see anything in Mustang's post to indicate what is contained in the builds he is testing.

[Scarecrow]

Well if it's anything to go by i'm testing the builds on my Core2Duo E7500 setup and i can get by just fine.

 

Response to Artman_NL's wondering about EDGE hardware requirements.

 

I did not see anything in Mustang's post to indicate what is contained in the builds he is testing.

[npole]

I bought Take on Helicopters the other day as it was 90% on steam. I thought "ok this isn't going to be as good as DCS Huey in terms of flight modelling but it'll be a visual feast."

 

The Arma2 engine has been used alot in bashing DCS worlds visuals.

 

But TOH looks very similar to DCS after you've toned down the visuals to get reasonable frame rates and the map is tiny compared to what we have in DCS.

I'm glad I was born in the seventies and can remember when graphics used to be 2 or maybe 3 colours on screen.

 

Yuppo, these was the same critics we were doing to ArmA (OF) and then to Arma2 for years... but none of us really cared much honestly, everyone was attracted by the simulation aspect of it, but finally we had a major step in ArmA3 and actually the current engine (whenever it's not "perfect") offers a visual impact on pair with this years. This is what I would love to see in DCS... one day. :)

 

PS: the map of DCS is huge, but i was criticizing the model textures, the lighting and the coloring that aren't influenced much by map size. We couldn't have detailed terrain for obvious reason, and i believe that everyone understand this.

[TAW_Blaze]

Most of the plane models are quite good to be honest, and the one's that aren't are mostly that way due to lack of resources (both in money and human). Buildings can be quite numerous especially on a bigger map like we have in DCS so having better models for them will cause loss in peformance for sure (unless you drastically reduce visibility range, which then again makes no sense sort of).

[npole]

Precisely, which is why I am still wondering what exactly it is you are comparing DCS to when you find it lacking in some or other respect. Opinions should always be corroborated by substantive fact if one's intention is to improve the product.

 

Should i post a picture of a real airplane or other "more real" video games, to let you spot the differences or what? I'm sure you have an idea of what's the real life, or what's a better gfx engine without me to give "examples". :)

[npole]

You may have a point, but do you actually think that telling the devs that their engine doesn't look real enables them to make it better? :huh:

 

In fact i'm not telling it to the devs.. i'm commenting those people that claims that those shots looks "real"... are you telling me that those persons knows perfectly that those shots are "average" but they are trying to praise and incite the developer with not genuine comments? :)

[ENO]

This is just senseless trolling ^

 

 

Go pick fly sh1t out of pepper in some other game forum. The shots are a work in progress and they look great. 'Nuff said.

[Tone71]

Is this why ED stopped the updates? It took 3 or 4 pages before people started to criticise and speculate, and the last 4 pages have been worthless arguements... :surrender:

[Hellfire257]

No, I think he's got a point, but it's just human nature.

 

Take a WIP shot of a 3D model for example that is simply a tube with a few basic shapes attached; people will say it looks amazing. The upshot is people just don't call it how they see it if they're emotionally invested in it.

[VincentLaw]

Is this why ED stopped the updates?

This is why I didn't point out the spot where you could see through the mesh.... oops.

[159th_Viper]

I'm sure you have an idea of what's the real life, or what's a better gfx engine without me to give "examples". :)

 

Damn right I'm sure and I'll tell you:

 

There are none!

 

That's right, none at all that does what DCS does and looks as good as the current engine, never mind the current map with new IG.

 

You should really have known this already had you done your homework properly.

[ENO]

No, I think he's got a point, but it's just human nature.

 

Take a WIP shot of a 3D model for example that is simply a tube with a few basic shapes attached; people will say it looks amazing. The upshot is people just don't call it how they see it if they're emotionally invested in it.

 

 

I'm sorry- but just because a person thinks something looks good it doesn't mean they are emotionally connected to it. It can, actually, look good.

 

It's amazing that people need to justify their support of the work going on amidst all the nitpicking.

 

We can't even say "wow... that missile on the wingtip looks awesome!" without being told afterwards "well, your opinion isn't really valid because you're clearly a fanboi having an emotional affair with ED's work."

 

Give me a break.

[Exorcet]

No, I think he's got a point, but it's just human nature.

 

Take a WIP shot of a 3D model for example that is simply a tube with a few basic shapes attached; people will say it looks amazing. The upshot is people just don't call it how they see it if they're emotionally invested in it.

Or it could just be that it's a matter of opinion. The old engine looks pretty good. This one is a fairly big improvement. It's also the best rendering possible in DCS (or will be on release). I don't want to play a movie, I want to fly a flight sim. Investing in graphics while losing sight of the flight sim bit would make the whole thing pointless.

[KaspeR32]

I did not see anything in Mustang's post to indicate what is contained in the builds he is testing.

 

What else does this mean to you? Just curious.

 

 

I'm wondering about the system specs for a rig when "EDGE" will come out. Will an i5 processor still be sufficient?

 

 

Well if it's anything to go by i'm testing the builds on my Core2Duo E7500 setup and i can get by just fine.

 

All I meant was I think it's closer than I thought considering testers have a working build of a new rendering engine (whether finished or not) in their builds, which to me, is progress.

[npole]

This is just senseless trolling ^

 

Stop offending: call me a troll won't sure help your cause.

 

And to reply to the other (luckily they are only few): fan boys, i'm not criticizing what the devs are doing + i know perfectly what WIP means + you don't even reading what i wrote: you just spot someone (me) not saying awesome things about your "pet", and you don't even open your eyes to fully read what I wrote into those messages (i see people commenting the 3D models and the terrain, while I only talked about the lighting, the coloring and the cockpit and aircraft textures?).

 

I am not criticizing the devs, i'm commenting those ones that are claiming that those shots looks "real", and I explained why those shots looks average - Again: i'm not saying i don't like them > i am saying that they are FAR from the perfection you're claiming in certain posts.

 

It's not that i'm going to stop playing it because it doesn't look "perfect", I only hope that it will improve in the future (that should be the hopes of ANY of you.. unless your brain brain operates in a not conventional way).

[Dudester22]

No, I think he's got a point.

 

I think when you take a look at the map we have at present then these pics look even more amazing to others. I think that is what he is trying to get at. No they don't look real, but the do look very nice.

Edited March 15, 2014 by Dudester22

[npole]

I think when you take a look at the map we have at present, then these pics look even more amazing to others. I think that is what he is trying to get at. No they don't look real, but the do look very nice.

 

Exactly.. you don't need to do magic to have nice screens with the current engine, and yes they looks very nice, but (again; i'm sure everyone is bored to hear it again) they aren't perfect nor near to be considered "real", and i said why (most of them can be improved technically, not having enough resources [understandably] is another matter...).

 

I'm personally looking at DX11 not to have a much improved gfx (i'm convinced that the improvement will be minimal in the end), but to have (if possible) a better performance (DX11 cards used in a more efficient way), and all the other features they promised and linked to EDGE (first of all: the dedicate server).

 

I'm not all about the gfx .. as my gfx is acceptable already for a flight sim of this type, one of my screens (contrast enhanced / but jpg compressed):

 

[Dudester22]

All I meant was I think it's closer than I thought considering testers have a working build of a new rendering engine (whether finished or not) in their builds, which to me, is progress.

 

Yep it has be closer.

[blackbelter]

Stop offending: call me a troll won't sure help your cause.

 

And to reply to the other (luckily they are only few): fan boys, i'm not criticizing what the devs are doing + i know perfectly what WIP means + you don't even reading what i wrote: you just spot someone (me) not saying awesome things about your "pet", and you don't even open your eyes to fully read what I wrote into those messages (i see people commenting the 3D models and the terrain, while I only talked about the lighting, the coloring and the cockpit and aircraft textures?).

 

I am not criticizing the devs, i'm commenting those ones that are claiming that those shots looks "real", and I explained why those shots looks average - Again: i'm not saying i don't like them > i am saying that they are FAR from the perfection you're claiming in certain posts.

 

It's not that i'm going to stop playing it because it doesn't look "perfect", I only hope that it will improve in the future (that should be the hopes of ANY of you.. unless your brain brain operates in a not conventional way).

 

People can claim something to be perfect/real when they intuitively feel that the thing is perfect/real. No point imposing your opinion on others, especially when your opinion is based on comparisons between apples and oranges. Speculating on others (such as calling them fanboys) when their opinions are different from yours is just... too much, too far...

 

To me, the new pictures are simply awesome, or, loosely speaking, 'perfect'. They look much closer to videos of the views of real world pilots that I've watched than the current engine. The only thing I am concerned with is the hardware requirement for a smooth gameplay.

Edited March 15, 2014 by blackbelter

[npole]

People can claim something to be perfect when they intuitively feel that the thing is perfect.

 

You're confusing "personal taste" with "objectivity".

Distinguish what's "real" from what looks obviously a video game is just a matter of having a couple of eyes.

It doesn't mean that it's not "good" (nor that it isn't "good enough"), it just means that it could be improved eventually (hence my "critics")... and I hope it will.

[Wolf Rider]

producers, developers - you've done a lovely job :thumbup:

[Mizzy]

He didn't use it in one post.

 

Seriously people, your addiction to reading coffee grounds is boardering rediculous.

 

EDGE, new IG, it's all the same.

 

Hahaha...getting edgy ....lol

 

Mizzy

PS when can I have this edgy thing or is it years away ?

[Nate--IRL--]

Hahaha...getting edgy ....lol

 

Mizzy

PS when can I have this edgy thing or is it years away ?

 

At least 5 years.

 

EDIT:- I'd better add that the above is intended to be humorous, before anybody has an aneurysm.

 

Nate

Edited March 15, 2014 by Nate--IRL--

[Beaver McFanny]

At least 5 years.

 

Nate

 

:no_sad::no_sad::no_sad::no_sad::no_sad::no_sad:

[Wolf Rider]

At least 5 years.

 

EDIT:- I'd better add that the above is intended to be humorous, before anybody has an aneurysm.

 

Nate

 

 

or two weeks :)