Effects.

[Gloomshadow]

I understand that this is a simulator, and I sincerely enjoy it. However, it would be interesting if someone would create better effects for round and bomb impacts. The current ones must be 15 years old.

[McDaniel]

:music_whistling: sorry... are you confusing this with Steel Beast Pro? :smartass:

[Crescendo]

Absolutely agree.

 

Some may dismiss this as minor and unnecessary "eye candy" that "you'll hardly ever see", but high-quality and varied graphical effects definitely increase immersion. Of course the most important thing is to have the aircraft and avionics modelled accurately, but when I see the exact same and boring explosion, smoke, and fire effects again and again, the battlefield becomes a sterile and lifeless shooting gallery. We've had the same effects for more than 10 years now, so I think this complaint is not unreasonable.

 

I want to see varied and unique explosions that actually look like the explosions you would expect in 2011, I want to see vehicles cooking off, I want to see free-form columns of smoke, I want to see dynamic lighting from particle effects such as tracers and rocket exhaust, I want to see new flare and missile effects. Some of these things may not be practical in the scope of the DCS engine and with the number of units involved (dynamic lighting from particle effects etc.), but I don't see any reason why the explosion effects couldn't be dramatically improved.

 

It would be great if the explosions could look something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kG4Pd3RBYs&feature=related

 

Of course in size and scope it's a totally different game and has a different effects engine, but I know my level of immersion would increase if the explosion and weapons effects looked half as good as that.

[Aries]

Wuuhuuuu!!! The GAU-8 really rocks in this video!!!

And the earth particles tossed arround on LGB impact... impressive...

[Frostiken]

Those explosions are awfully fiery :/

 

Still, better effects, yus plx

[Balu0]

please update the simple fire effect.

It looks really bad on the wings of my A-10.

 

okok if I'm already on fire I should not be sightseeing , but still :D

[Ghillied raptor]

Will it run less smoothly as a result? Sacrificing performance for visuals one might never see (or perhaps catch a brief glimpse of) is silly to me. Still, the visuals look incredible. Here's hoping it happens without any loss in performance. Otherwise I might actually have to replace the old Nvidia 230. Can you imagine they marketed the computer bundled with it as a gaming computer?

[Boberro]

Sometimes I think whole graphics of LO\DCS is too cartoonish. Effects are not terrible, but should have been updated sometime ago, they didn't significantly so give community tools to make it so :)

[Chazz_BMF]

It would be great if the explosions could look something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kG4Pd3RBYs&feature=related

 

Of course in size and scope it's a totally different game and has a different effects engine, but I know my level of immersion would increase if the explosion and weapons effects looked half as good as that.

 

Hmm one of my old videos showing an older version of WARFX

 

Look at the the grass and the mountains, look a little bit like DCS

 

Edited January 1, 2012 by Chazz_BMF
wrong link

[aaron886]

they didn't significantly so give community tools to make it so :)

 

That's what it comes down to. Some form of particle engine would be great, wouldn't it?

[Speed]

Yea, the current explosions are rather unrealistic. DCS needs a good algorithm for handling smoke and dust layers. Most real explosions are just brief flashes light followed by a HELL of a lot of dust, dirt, and debris. Right now, we get fireballs and no dust. At least, I noticed in DCS: BS2, bridges no longer burn like they were made out of fire-starter-logs after they die now.

 

ED is slowly improving everything, I hope that explosions will be revisited sooner rather than later. I think they probably will be, if ED has the technology in place to do so without reducing us to a slide show.

[Aries]

ED is slowly improving everything, I hope that explosions will be revisited sooner rather than later. I think they probably will be, if ED has the technology in place to do so without reducing us to a slide show.

 

Just remembered buying like 3 new generations of PC one after another just to get past the A-10 gun hit smoke stuttering in the first Lo-Mac... If that would happen again, then thank you but let's keep the things as they are now... :music_whistling:

[Speed]

Just remembered buying like 3 new generations of PC one after another just to get past the A-10 gun hit smoke stuttering in the first Lo-Mac... If that would happen again, then thank you but let's keep the things as they are now... :music_whistling:

 

I'm sorry, but I was too busy flying Falcon back then. I didn't become an ED convert till they started doing study sims ;)

 

Well, I guess I'm not sorry by the sounds of it :D

 

At this point in time, I highly doubt ED would implement something like that... though the current contrails, under certain lighting conditions, bring my computer to its KNEES.

[Ghillied raptor]

That's very odd. If any of you are familiar with 'Mount and Blade', my computer can't run that without stuttering every so often but it runs DCS A-10 like a dream.

[Frostiken]

Wat?

 

Minecraft is more graphically demanding than Mount & Blade.

 

DWARF FORTRESS is more graphically demanding.

[Frogisis]

I agree, the pyrotechnics is the only area that's wanting. Especially when so much time is spent peering at grainy black & white camera feeds, it'd be nice to see some more dynamism in the kinds of things that happen on there - Even in the old Gulf War LGB clips you get all sorts of burn-in and "ripped from the headlines"-feeling streaks and other artifacts.

A few years ago there was a Red Dawn-inspired strategy game called "World in Conflict" that had a look that was a nicely done blend of realism and showmanship. The explosions were colossal fountains of dirt and didn't feel too "Hollywood", but were still made with an artists' eye and actually reminded me of the more photogenic examples you might see in a military documentary, and despite their shimmering 3D shockwaves and arcing tendrils of debris, they seemed to go very easy on system resources. I have no idea how they were implemented, but I'm sure someone here would be able to tell at a glance.

Since so much of air combat takes place at ranges where there isn't a lot to see, and simulations are a primarily visual medium, I don't think emphasizing the action you actually can see is out of the question, especially if - like a backstory between missions - it helps you feel just a little bit less like you're actually safe at home, staring at a glowing rectangle. I can understand why it's been put on the backburner since it is more "game"-y than things like the environment, let alone the aircraft itself, but what better reinforcement for successfully learning the sim than being able to make a big, crunchy explosion you can almost feel the heat from just by looking at it?

Edited November 11, 2011 by Frogisis

[B25Mitch]

I've been a bit of a lurker here but this topic has brought me out :)

 

First of all, great post Frogisis, those are my thoughts exactly!

 

I do 3D animation as a hobby, and I'm pretty experienced with particle effect(sprite-based) explosions - here's one I made last year:

 

The explosions in DCS are of the 'one size fits all' variety - there are I believe three different explosion effects, which are scalable via the 'volume' parameter in the ME, and are all used interchangeably in everything from small rocket impacts to FAB-1500's. Basically what that means is that the each explosion in a volley of 20 S-8 rockets uses as many particles as an enormous bomb blast - it's just not an efficient system.

 

Aries mentions the performance hit caused by GAU-8 rounds impacting in LOMAC - that's because they also used the same particle dense 'scalable' explosions, rather than a custom effect consisting of far fewer image sprites, which could have looked better anyway.

 

What I'm getting at is that it's not sufficient to use the same effects for all explosions - it looks bad AND runs slow. It's not a choice between visual quality and speed - if ED decides to overhaul the particle system, we should also be getting one that runs faster as well. Take a look at the simple-yet-beautiful explosion effects in Falcon BMS:

 

I'll finish up with a screenshot:

 

 

How much more visually appealing would this shot be if each of the thousand or so fuzzy sparks in the explosion were changed to a cloud of dust or dirt? You could even get by with half that number of particles, and still have a great looking effect.

 

Anyway, hope this is useful in some way or another!

 

Mitch

[Crescendo]

I've been a bit of a lurker here but this topic has brought me out :)

 

First of all, great post Frogisis, those are my thoughts exactly!

 

I do 3D animation as a hobby, and I'm pretty experienced with particle effect(sprite-based) explosions - here's one I made last year:

 

The explosions in DCS are of the 'one size fits all' variety - there are I believe three different explosion effects, which are scalable via the 'volume' parameter in the ME, and are all used interchangeably in everything from small rocket impacts to FAB-1500's. Basically what that means is that the each explosion in a volley of 20 S-8 rockets uses as many particles as an enormous bomb blast - it's just not an efficient system.

 

Aries mentions the performance hit caused by GAU-8 rounds impacting in LOMAC - that's because they also used the same particle dense 'scalable' explosions, rather than a custom effect consisting of far fewer image sprites, which could have looked better anyway.

 

What I'm getting at is that it's not sufficient to use the same effects for all explosions - it looks bad AND runs slow. It's not a choice between visual quality and speed - if ED decides to overhaul the particle system, we should also be getting one that runs faster as well. Take a look at the simple-yet-beautiful explosion effects in Falcon BMS:

 

I'll finish up with a screenshot:

 

How much more visually appealing would this shot be if each of the thousand or so fuzzy sparks in the explosion were changed to a cloud of dust or dirt? You could even get by with half that number of particles, and still have a great looking effect.

 

Anyway, hope this is useful in some way or another!

 

Mitch

 

Great post and a very helpful explanation of the technical reasons why the current system is lacking, how it could be improved, and why a new system with better effects may even improve performance.

 

You're right I think, one of the reasons why DCS looks so plain right now is because the current system simply reuses the same explosions effects again and again in different scenarios -- and they're not all that good to begin with!

 

Nice video by the way, maybe ED should contract out the particle effects to you. :thumbup:

[LostOblivion]

Will it run less smoothly as a result? Sacrificing performance for visuals one might never see (or perhaps catch a brief glimpse of) is silly to me. Still, the visuals look incredible. Here's hoping it happens without any loss in performance. Otherwise I might actually have to replace the old Nvidia 230. Can you imagine they marketed the computer bundled with it as a gaming computer?

 

That is where LOD levels come in. Explosions the user is unlikely to see is not rendered, or rendered with minimal effects when far away/not zoomed in/not watching in TGP/shkval. :)

 

On the topic of explosions, B25Mitch's video, which is by the way awesome in its glory!, is most likely not rendered in real time, which is what you need for any game. So an implementation of this in the game would have to include a lot of heuristics to reduce processing and thus it has to do a lot to do with optimizing. Plain said: these kinds of explosions/effects in a game are still a few years away.

 

There is no doubt the explosions in ED's games need an overhaul, like many things, but I am sure they will come around to doing it at some point. Seeing as how they are now on steam and everything, I'm sure their market has picked up for them to increase productivity also, adding to their previous genius, of course. ;)

Edited November 11, 2011 by LostOblivion

[Frogisis]

That is a mighty fine airstrike animation.

And whoa, Falcon 4.0, lookit you! You've done quite well for yourself, I see. I will have to call up my dad and see if he can mail me my old discs, because daaaaaang. I may have said some unkind things about your appearance back when we were all in high school but you have blossomed into a swan, my dear.

 

I finished a massive work project and just want to hole up for a little bit under blankets and sip tea, so I've been going on a sim binge the last few days or so, and did...something that somehow caused all the old mods for IL-2 Sturmovik that I'd given up on to activate and turn it into something entirely new, with effects that are much more believable and exciting - Just switching the fire sprite from "drawing of fire" to "canary-yellow blob" ironically makes it far more lifelike and pleasing to look at.

I bring this up because just a change in the designer's eye and a rethinking from scratch of the elements they've already got can turn simple sprites into so many different things. Like how if you ever play the original Mario around someone clued into this kind of thing, they can't resist pointing out how the bushes and the clouds are the same sprite, just color swapped, and it looks as good as anything. Or like if you go to the impressionist wing of an art gallery and step up to a painting that from far away seems filled with tiny people, up close they'll often just be two or three jagged brush strokes that from far away nevertheless give the impression (!) of a head and torso and legs.

My point is that surely we're clever enough in the mean time to do something with these stock explosions, if clearly so many of us want more bang from them, in every sense of the word. I only have the vaguest notion of how 3D graphics are rendered on the nuts-and-bolts level, but surely there's some .lua or something in the bowels of "bin" or "Bazar" that can be modified and some assets that can be swapped in to paint a more satisfying image of destruction with the brushes the sim has at its disposal.

I've seen mods for the smoke, and for the framerate of the explosions, but nothing for the explosions themselves. Are they completely inaccessible, compiled inside some .dll somewhere, or do they have aspects open to tinkering?

[Trident]

IMHO the biggest problem with the effects in ED's sims apart from performance is how they look in motion and that they're so horribly inconsistent. Technically most are pretty advanced and back when LOMAC was released it set a number of trends that have been followed widely (and often improved upon), such as the randomly coiling flare smoke-trails which BMS has perfected recently (no more daisy-chain effect at speed). OTOH, as you say there is a one-size-fits-all approach in some respects (explosions) while bizarrely other effects are needlessly duplicated - there are two effects for burning ground objects, two dust trail effects (one of which doubles as aircraft tire-smoke, of all things) and for a long time there were two kinds of water. I mean, a burning tank is a burning tank, H2O is H2O and dust is dust (NOT tire smoke!) regardless of whether it was an aircraft or a ground vehicle that kicked it up - I think you can also make a case that it is unnecessary to have separate effects for flare and missile smoke.

 

Why two representations of the same thing? Especially when they are so dramatically different aesthetically, it's almost as though the person responsible for the effects changed jobs and left ED with a half-finished implementation that someone else (who had a very different style) had to complete. As you say, ground explosions dissipate too quickly, there is too little debris following nice parabolic trajectories and the perfectly cylindrical fire effect isn't particularly convincing either.

 

Your example screenshot is actually one of the better effects IMHO, although it should be used for CBUs and - in a reduced version - for gun impacts (where it would be just about perfect) rather than rockets.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Trident

[Aries]

Take a look at the simple-yet-beautiful explosion effects in Falcon BMS:

 

OMG, what a beauty... I will really have to finally join our clan's BMS squadron also... :pilotfly:

[213]

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1319/rocketimpacts.jpg

 

this explosion doesn't look too bad. what ruins it is the out of focus sparks. it's really large and it's blurry.

[Boberro]

BMS' explosions are much better however it can be clearly seen they repeat too often (animation of smoke).

[Frogisis]

I've been looking at YouTube footage taken by troops in Afghanistan and Iraq of these various weapons' effects seen from the ground, and they're definitely massive and spectacular enough that the soldiers' extreme excitement isn't just due to their now being safer. If the real deal can inspire that kind of reaction and violently shake the camera from over a mile away, I don't think upping both the scale and the flashiness of the effects is unwarranted at all.

Of course, the after effects shouldn't be forgotten either, and I once saw an interesting method where in addition to a nice, large crater "terrain decal", there was a ring of sprites of dust "jets" and particles projected up and outward that would then fall to the ground and become flattened into terrain decals of debris where they hit, creating a nice spray of dirt and dust outward from the center. It'd be a much more convincing image than dropping a 2000lb JDAM on a runway only to leave a neat arrangement of burning wrecks on a still-pristine tarmac. If intact vehicles can be swapped out for a "wreck" mesh, though, I wonder if a crater rim could be similarly added. Or maybe several "blobs" of material generated at a specific radius from the center so that they'd appropriately fit the terrain? And if something is hit with enough force, skip the wreck mesh and just scatter some twisted chunks around (Does that happen? Presumably some vehicles hit by some weapons would just be completely blown away but I don't know). I just wanted to see that runway properly excavated, and maybe some of those big, wandering, ground level "thunderheads" of dust you sometimes see in footage of battlefields.

 

Another thing that might be interesting is the reactions and "value" of the civilian traffic. I once targeted a Zeus that was part of a column on a road and then locked my Maverick onto the tiny white dot I thought corresponded to it, only to see the missile obliterate a random truck that just happened to be weaving through the column. "Ohhh, sorry dude. But what were you doing in there?" I don't know about you guys but I probably wouldn't try to pass a bunch of tanks on the road no matter how slow they were going if I'd been hearing distant explosions for the past hour and jets overhead. They're just decorative of course, and right now they seem to just wander basic fixed paths, but it might be interesting if there were some kind of trigger or threshold of violence that would cause most civilians to try to evacuate (maybe there is and I just haven't noticed, that guy could've been rushing into danger to rescue his daughter or something), with some very basic behaviors like heading away from smoke columns, not going in the same direction as fighting units, etc. There could even be a radius where some units might stop or even seek out a high point, representing the percentage of people who would still try to watch a battle go down, and maybe even a tiny, occasional percentage who try to be heroes for whatever reason ("Muffins is back there, we can't just abandon her!") or are reporters, I guess, and rush toward the action to get in your way for an extra layer of friendly fire challenge. I think a lot of "personality" could be added to the world with just a few simple, processor-friendly rules that shouldn't be any more taxing than having them follow the fixed paths they already do (since they'll go around things they clearly get some autonomy already and aren't just beads on an invisible string), and which could add some wrinkles and replayability with emergent events like friendly units suddenly encountering and having to go around a small traffic jam as people try to flee the area, or in the same vein as the ground clutter maybe some little sprites of people if you fly over a populated area, etc (I've always wanted to see fleeing pedestrians in a combat sim). Thankfully I've never been trapped in a war zone so I don't know how most people behave and if it would be visible from the air, but news footage always seems to show how people can be caught up in it and not just hide - even dashing across the street during a break in shooting - and the legions of doleful babushka or burqa-clad grandmothers interviewed in front of peeling walls make it clear these places definitely aren't empty.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Frogisis