DCS World 2.0 and New Maps Discussion Thread

[hog_driver111th]

To be specific: a lot of the brightness is an illusion: the roads are exactly the same brightness in the shadows as outside of it, because the shadow wasn't applied to them. Obviously: WIP. (And that's a relatively old picture, as well.)

 

Makes perfect sense. Thanks for the answer. I thought it was just a weird reflection which I have seen from my flying days.

[Demongornot]

@EtherealN

Yes i understand, but when i look every video of Aerofly FS or FSX with TileProxy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-g2g3g1kN8 or good payware and other good color and realistic aspect like that

or

i just wonder see the same in DCS

 

Ok i know for the Nevada i must wait to see how that will be, but actual Georgia color are not correct and that look not really good

Look this picture from Georgia http://www.geo.fr/var/geo/storage/images/voyages/guides-de-voyage/asie/georgie/107276-28-fre-FR/georgie_940x705.jpg

Its beautiful and i have never see color like that in DCS and that miss so bad :/

And after we can control the weather with HAARPS :D (just a joke, but technically we can)

I agree we can't control the cloud when we take a satellite picture, but we can without any problem correct the area with cloud shadows or just take several HIRES texture from forest without cloud shadows and delete texture with shadow for replace it by texture without shadow...

 

Simple example : http://www.clubaventure.fr/upload/georgie_01_cgtt.jpg

We can't to 3D model for every rock but we can just put texture with rock that not will take more performance than texture with single grass and for good color the result will be just fantastic AND realist, same thing for vegetation and other things...

And with the possibility to have good texture resolution at long range DCS just will look amazing.

And i prefer have problem of cloud shadows on the ground but with correct color and extremely realistic texture than actual of Georgia with anyways totally unrealistic and false texture...

[ALDEGA]

The point is: how to take a neutral photography of something ?

Reducing color saturation helps :D

[HiJack]

... Personally, I find this pretty awesome: http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=55488&d=1313780388

Totally agree!

 

(HJ)

[Newt]

@Newt are you crazy ? How can you say that ? the scenery are perfect, or maybe you think than game graphic are better than real life ? xD

 

Ah no, you misunderstood me. I meant that the flight models aren't up to DCS standards. I wasn't talking about the graphics.

[Demongornot]

Ah no, you misunderstood me. I meant that the flight models aren't up to DCS standards. I wasn't talking about the graphics.

 

Ho okey sorry.

But technically its not as the level of DCS but its still really nice (10 time better than X-Plane and 1000 time better than Flight Simulator) but its really advanced for weather cause its made over RC simulator and the precision that we need for made thermal wind and other complex weather who ca affect little weight aircraft require extremely realistic and advanced weather engine, technically the weather are better for AFFS than DCS but don't matter, its still nice for DCS too.

 

@EtherealN & HiJack Yes i agree too its nice, but its only a screenshot, i wait to see the final product, but yes every screenshots are nice !

But that not correct the problem for the Georgia :/

[Newt]

No news on this front for a while, eh?

 

Has anything been said about perhaps improved ATC AI with this map? I forget.

[WildFire]

ATC isnt based off the map, Its a whole separate system. They would have to reprogram the game files to change characteristics of the ATC. So improved ATC isnt even a possibility I dont think.

 

They would also have to add a bunch of triggers that run in the background of every mission to tell whether players crossed within different zones so ATC could use different radio calls. So that also is not map dependent, it would have to be done within the Lua's of the game.

[Cedaway]

I'm lost, I know that Nevada map is currently under developpement.

I know the rumors saying that there is a new graphic engine (EDGE) under developpement but does anyone knows:

1) What exactly is EDGE?

2) Is that engine compliant with existing terrains or do they need modification or re-building.

3) Will Nevada map be released under the new engine?

 

EDIT: sorry, forgot to google out before posting. Answer for question 3.

Still expecting an answer to #1 and 2.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Cedaway

[ALDEGA]

2) Is that engine compliant with existing terrains or do they need modification or re-building.

As far as I know it'll only work with the Nevada map, not the Black Sea map.

[Wichid]

EDGE is a new engine that uses bump mapping or pixel shaders etc to better mimic reality. So nevada should look better than Georgia/Russia.

[BrumTx]

EDGE is a new engine that uses bump mapping or pixel shaders etc to better mimic reality. So nevada should look better than Georgia/Russia.

 

It will be even better if they include the old viewer in Mission Explorer we had in Lockon where you could add static aircraft, and other stuff and position them properly instead of spending 20 minutes trying to get it right in DCS A-10c, BS-1, FC-2.

[213]

Just FYI: being based on "real photography" does not mean anything is "photorealistic". In fact, the term "photorealistic" is just a marketing buzzword. In fact, while I'm not an expert in this, I'd strongly suspect that actual photographs are one of the worse things you can start off with when it comes to getting the colors right in a game, and the reason is simple: the simulator will need to display that terrain at other times and atmospheric conditions than when you took the photograph, and you cannot control the lighting conditions when working from satellite imagery aside from selecting images that have similar conditions.

 

The wizards who actually work on that stuff probably have some tricks they employ to fix this, but as far as colors go my point really is that you can take the "real" colors, or indeed an actual terrain photograph, put it inside a simulator - and have it look like crap. Same thing as when you take a photo for a magazine and then have to adjust color balances in PS to make it look good in print.

 

 

That right there is exactly what you are asking for (though in a 1998 iteration, so lower-res of course), and the colors certainly doesn't look "right" or "photorealistic" to me. What is gained through the photos is a departure from the (until then) so common grids of repetition for terrain - but actual color fidelity isn't the big deal. (Though of course the advertisements did tout this as well...)

 

photorealistic is more of a technical term for artists. i don't recall any marketers of sim or games who use it to describe their assets. and photorealism doesn't denote photo based texture, it denotes detail level and accuracy, or in the case of 2d work, color and lighting.

[Teriander]

photorealistic is more of a technical term for artists. i don't recall any marketers of sim or games who use it to describe their assets. and photorealism doesn't denote photo based texture, it denotes detail level and accuracy, or in the case of 2d work, color and lighting.

 

213 is correct. Photoreal only means that the rendered output looks like a photograph. That's basically what the end goal for an artist is. The more photoreal their images look without having to use actual photographs, the more professional they are.

[636_Castle]

i don't recall any marketers of sim or games who use it to describe their assets.

 

 

 

:)

[Impact]

 

 

:)

 

:doh:

They never heard about Arma 2.

 

It is like you would be telling bible thumpers from hundreds of years ago that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth.

[636_Castle]

:doh:

They never heard about Arma 2.

 

It is like you would be telling bible thumpers from hundreds of years ago that the universe doesn't revolve around the earth.

 

Indeed, they hadn't, considering that game was released years before ArmA II.

[skeemo]

@EtherealN

Yes i understand, but when i look every video of Aerofly FS or FSX with TileProxy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-g2g3g1kN8 or good payware and other good color and realistic aspect like that

or

i just wonder see the same in DCS

 

Umm you do realize that shadows on satellite images are static, dont you ? ;)

 

Look, in the paris overfly video you posted, they placed a 3D model of the Eiffel tower on the satelite image. Nice, ok. But the shadow of it is part of the image, so it will just look ridicoulus when the game's sun is coming from the wrong direction.

Same with the Dolomites scenery. Yeah this might be nice textures, but also the shadows on the moutain slopes are static and only apply to one (1) time of the day. So when the sun goes around, the shadows will just be the same, even if those slopes are in direct sunlight.

The only solution for this would be not to simulate changes of TOD.

 

THAT - for me - is the biggest drawback of using satellite images for scenery rendering. It looks fine at a glance, but it has too many drawbacks.

[Impact]

Indeed, they hadn't, considering that game was released years before ArmA II.

 

Well, then Arma 1. Which came out 2006.

[Lane]

213 is correct. Photoreal only means that the rendered output looks like a photograph. That's basically what the end goal for an artist is. The more photoreal their images look without having to use actual photographs, the more professional they are.

 

 

Agree. Well the term photorealistic is coming from late eighties, when the innovation of graphism was imagined as photorealistic ( basically, you cant make the difference between a photo, or a movie with what you seen in 3d).. The term is something purely general... the result should look close to reality. as an image should reflect the reality.

 

this is what we can call: photorealist ( anyway on the chair, but the backside is too blurry ( note the image is extremely reduced in precision, the inital was a 4K )

Edited February 4, 2012 by Lane

[Phantom88]

I would really L-O-V-E a update for the Nevada WIP.

THX:thumbup:

[armrha]

I would really L-O-V-E a update for the Nevada WIP.

THX:thumbup:

 

Same. Hopefully we're getting it soon...

[Wags]

Sorry, there are no updates at this time. We hope to have some updates in May.

[kylania]

Wow, May. That's like an unimaginably long time from now. :)

[Cedaway]

No update until may? OK. Thanks for the info.

Maybe the announcement of the release? (Just trolling, don't shoot I surrender)