Graphic engine

[Demongornot]

Hi all,

 

Like i have already say http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81293 , the graphic engine actually using for EVERY flight simulation are really bad for multiple reason, the worst (really bad for immersion cause that really have an important effect for visual flight) its the size effect, in EVERY flight simulator every object and terrain look small, the size impression make look like if we using RC model simulator, best exemple its here : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=213301Screen111108001508.jpg

Its supposed to be a BIG ship and that look like a small RC model ship, the problem its that the 3D model are good, really good with a lof of details, but that still make a bad size effect like that http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=192471Screen111108001501.jpg or like that http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=229628Screen111108001420.jpg in both of this screenshots i have try to make the biggest effect without be too close...

And compare with that (i don't talk about graphic but size effect) http://img.jeuxvideo.fr/photo/02078176-photo-arma-2.jpg for every VFR flight size effect in actual simulator CAN'T be use at realistic way...

 

Size effect its the first problem, second problem its the ground, ground complexity (terrain are flat and every mountain or relief its not rounded but its gross angle...The texture are horrible, we always see pixel of the ground, building are just a box with bad texture and bad size render, tree look like a paper tree with bad size effect too.

 

Light effect are not perfect too, same thing for general effect like smoke, explosion, weather and more.

Actual graphic engine have a BIG optimization problem, the worst example :

When we flying inside BIG frog and we DON'T see any ground, 3D object or effect except maybe some nice frog effect on the wing (bugged with eyefinity) we have low FPS...

 

And every problems i have say here its obtain with low FPS on the MOST POWERFUL actual graphic card...

My conclusion : Graphic engine using for aerial simulation have a problem and its bad !!!

I have hear a lot of response (look more like bad excuse for me) like : the size of the map and the visibility distance, ok but with maximum visibility distance setting, every simulator NOT reproduce real visibility distance and with the bad size effect its worst...

And anyways

I have already hear : the simulator need to calculate IA flight physic avionic and more, ok but its the CPU who calculate it and not the GPU and when we see how many IA are actually bad and really sucks ...

 

 

Anyways the problem can be solved by only two way :

 

REAL optimization of flight graphic engine cause actually a little part of full power of the graphic card (and all part of the computer too) are using and that still with low FPS and actually SLI and Crossfire don't work, for give to the simulator the possibility to show graphic like that : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8scXSG3hF3Y BUT in the FULL map and with correction of bad size effect, cause in this video its the most advanced graphic that i have ever see in simulation but when the camera its turning to the car, the truck and the copter, look how its unrealistic, that look small and immersion fail.

For me the bad size effect coming from the fact that simulator reproduce what a camera see and not what human eyes see

cause its not the same size effect, we are supposed to embody a pilot who see with eyes and not a camera and in DCS pilot body miss, mission information on the leg of the pilot its not eye candy cause if the simulator show mission objective briefing and other (like when we use escape in DCS) its important and that can improve immersion.

 

Or second possibility its the CHANGE graphic engine politic of flight simulation and try to turn to other possibility.

I have find a perfect graphic engine, its here : http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php

Its a space combat game, well why its perfect for me ?

Cause this graphic engine can show FULL PLANET, not only one time but a LOT of planet with different terrain (not the same using several time), possibility to show a lot of asteroid field like belt (asteroid ring) around several planet, at long range that look like a gas and when we coming close (like in real) we finally see that its a big asteroid field, the light effect and reflexion are perfect, physic are pretty nice, effect like smoke explosion and other are nice too, 3D model are nice, ground texture are nice and we DON'T see the pixel on the ground, its capable to show forest or BIG city with a lot of COMPLEX 3D building, ok that still with bad size effect but optimized for show only ONE planet, cause in 2 second the camera can, without lagging and in real time (not precalculate) coming from ground go to orbit and show full planet or show giant gas planet through the atmosphere or more, we can be able with the same graphic engine to obtain REALISTIC and almost photorealistic graphic engine capable to work without low fps on actual nice computer, example

http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php?option=com_zoom&Itemid=90&catid=4

And the guy don't use a supercomputer for obtain this result.

And before people who defending actual graphic engine told me "yeah but that work like that or like that and that do that and other bad excuse..."

I don't care how that work, the important its : that work.

And the result its pretty nice.

And i challenge you to find only one thing that actual flight simulation graphic engine do that this super graphic engine can't do...

Except size effect but its not optimized for human size.

Its not optimized for flight simulation, its BETTER than that cause its optimized for space simulation/travel and extremely high speed of camera.

 

For DCS if, like a lot of people ask, ED team just will make SDK every one who know using it and who want to do it (more than number of people of ED team i'm sure) can officially without asking money help ED, that want mean :

ED can have more time for work on the more important things, correct bug and problems, optimize graphic engine (or change it and using DX11) and more and every people of community can make the rest, new 3D model, effect, texture and more and we finally could have EVERYTHING that we ask since LONG time and that ED will never do cause considerate like eye candy or useless or cause they not have the time but that we anyways want and make better and more rich simulation, maybe the best ever.

And that can give better and big commercial argument cause fan made its always the best thing, and fan made + professional made/work can be extremely nice, think about it...

[Impact]

The infinity engine has the same problem of low resolution textures when you are upclose. Its better in DCS A10C though. You cant have ARMA2 detailed terrain with the viewing distance of DCS A10C with todays technology.

 

Also, I dont see that size problem you are talking about.

[Demongornot]

Not true, first, in DCS we see GIANT pixel on the ground, with infinity engine i don't see it, look every video and try to find only one where we see pixel of texture.

DCS engine its NOT better, its bad.

And that depending, in ARMA 2 or other modern 3D game we able to see interior of house, building and useless details (for air simulation) like almost hairs on the skin or like paper on ground and able to read what its write on it...

Of course we can't have it, but don't told me that for show more visibility range we just exchange that : http://www.1fotech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/battlefield-3.jpg

for that : http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=981410Screen111108184420.jpg

That was ridiculous...

And this difference its obtain with the same computer configuration, don't told me that is no problems...

Just bridle graphic render for save power and be able to show more surface okey, but obtain low FPS with most powerful computer configuration today for show this extremely bad at the limit of the possible of horror graphic compare to normal graphic engine, its not the same thing...

We can't obtain details of Arma 2 but we can have a GOOD compromise...

 

And of course you don't see it, you defending DCS graphic engine like if it is a good look graphic engine, you eyes are accustom to it that all, and a lot of people need realistic graphic render for immersion (maybe half of people and maybe more, its important to not ignore that) and immersion its the most important thing, that's why i can't really take pleasure when i try old flight simulator like Falcon or Janes and more...

But in my screenshots of the boat the size problem its really flagrant you just won't see it and you don't need good graphic for be happy, and i'm sure if ED change the graphic engine for correct thing with good graphic, you will be happy...

 

Its like FX on movie, remember how the first artificial effect are bad, and at the time of this movie for everyone that just look extremely realistic, and today its the same but with difference between some people can find simple graphic engine nice and other who need better, but at the final people who find simple graphic good are happy when the graphic change for be better and if a minority don't want to have good graphic rending they can use the simulator with minimum graphic setting...

Some people look starwars for the story and don't care about old FX ans other just will be bored when they will look the old movie.

Don't forget that several people find that minecraft or world of warcraft have a really nice graphic.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Demongornot

[Cedaway]

Wow, that's a loooong complain. But well, motivated. I 've only one question:

Who would abandon a proprietary engine (EDGE) to buy a licence to use another one wich is not optimized to the DCS sim? (And the correlation is that ED would lost MUCH money in the deal => Bankrupt => nothing else left than Modern Warfare x games => cry)

But, everyone has his own opinion and I respect your... But I don't agree.

[winz]

You can't compare modern FPS with a simulation. FPS use tons of cheap tricks to maximize FPS, including reduced FOV, smart placed object that limits visibility and pre-compiled draw-maps. You cannot use these tricks in a sim.

Also the draw distance is pathetic when compared to dcs.

[Togg]

Or second possibility its the CHANGE graphic engine politic of flight simulation and try to turn to other possibility.

I have find a perfect graphic engine, its here : http://www.infinity-universe.com/Infinity/index.php

Its a space combat game, well why its perfect for me ?

Cause this graphic engine can show FULL PLANET, not only one time but a LOT of planet with different terrain ...,

It is a procedural engine (have a look on the FAQ) by default you don't have resolution limit on texture because they are generated by a formula and you can create a lot of different worlds like a landscape generator. This is different from the DCS engine (I suppose).
Edited November 28, 2011 by Togg

[sobek]

they are generated by a formula and you can create a lot of different worlds like a landscape generator. This is different from the DCS engine (I suppose).

 

Yes, but this eats resources too. Procedural engines are not the swiss army knife of 3d engines that some would like to make you believe.

[159th_Falcon]

some people............

 

STBY for next post.

[Demongornot]

@Cedeway & Winz : Yeah but no i have never say to buy other graphic license, Infinity Universe its just an example for distance of view (full planet) and FPS its for show what we loose just for more distance (and its not true, just more distance can't make loose all of this power)

I just talk about principally make the graphic engine able to CORRECTLY use actual graphic card without give low FPS with only 20% using of computer power or stupid missing optimization like calculate the water under the ground or low FPS inside big cloud or frog, optimized graphic engine for the MAXIMUM speed of AIRCRAFT and not a camera, a simulator must be optimized for INTERNAL view, external its optional (and anyway that will still working)

 

@Togg & Sobek : like i have say : I don't care how that work, the important its : that work.

and i never say ED must use THIS engine its just an example.

 

@Falcon : what you want mean ?

[sobek]

I don't care how that work, the important its : that work.

 

Show me. I want to see it being used effectively in a game.

 

Edit: This feels like one of these free energy discussions.

Edited November 28, 2011 by sobek

[Demongornot]

Show me. I want to see it being used effectively in a game.

 

Edit: This feels like one of these free energy discussions.

 

Sorry can you reformulate both, my English is not perfect i don't have understand.

[159th_Falcon]

This;

OMG!! Look at this, so freeking bad, you can't even see 1 mile ahead.

And then that awfull HUD and empty cockpit, no details whatsoever. Really, these people have no idea how to make a proper model of something;

 

And then the indicators, as if an helicopter is ever going to pull 40G tssss what a morons. And then those cars, they look so tiny, so unrealistic.

 

No then DCS THAT'S an awesome and realistic game.

 

Look at that cockpit, all the buttons and switches, just like real. And they work to, how awesome!!!. Ohhh and look at those gauges and the HUD just like in real life.

And then that awesome view, even at low altitude it seems never ending. BF3 devs really could learn something from the crew that made this. There maps are pathetically small.You can RUN across them in under 10 minutes.

And then this, how realistic everything is and to scale, this aircraft carrier dwarves a SIXTY FEET helicopter. So awesomely real, its unbelievable.

No then those tiny wee carriers in BF3 they look like small dinky toys.

 

And then those clouds and the sky, so real, infact BF3 doesn't even have a sky, just some kind of weird mist.

 

And then the menu's of both ARMA2 and BF3 to setup your game, there just pathetic. Especially BF3, and it only supports a single controller, can't even use both rudder pedals and HOTAS at the same time.

Heck, i cant even do some basic setups like inverting axis. So lame, those Defs over at BF3 really are cheap ass bastards.

 

Now lets stop comparing cessna's whit SU-33's and appreciate each game for what it gives us shall we?

Theres a reason DEVS of a game make certain compromises where they do.

Having an 700x700km map in ARMA/BF3 is pointless thus they make it smaller whit more eye candy.

Having more eye candy in a flight simulator is pointless if that means you can't fly higher then 500 meters and no furter then a mile or two.

 

~S~

And if DCS is really that bad, please by all means go play BF3, whatever makes you happy.

 

ps, in case you were going to say something about there being no pilot in the cockpit and how unrealistic that may be;

A, you can enable it

B, its out by default so you can see important instruments and flick necessary switches.

[VMFA117_Poko]

I would play simulators even if they were still without textures - just pure shaded vector graphic in it. DCS environment is more I could ever expect.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Poko24

[topol-m]

I just saw there are two threads on this so here:

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81293

[Geskes]

I was typing a response in the other thread but they closed the door on me! :P

 

There are so many threads like this on revolutionary fantasy engines but they all forget that the sim developers also want the best engine. The difference is that they DO know the constraints they are working with and we DON'T. How can you say DCS graphics are sooo bad? Ever looked at some of the models? They are downright the best you can get anywhere in any simulator available. So much detail.

 

These threads always sound like ED has no clue on how to improve the engine and then some suggestions are made that usually are totally unrealistic.

 

I always wonder what you guys are trying to achieve with discussions like this. Seriously, not trying to offend anyone, but what is the purpose? Please let me know.

 

It is nice to fantasize about the future of flight sims, of course, what simmer doesn't want the ultimate realistic experience. As it stands now, DCS is the ultimate experience of hardcore modern combat simming and it is only getting better and better. EDGE, DCS Fighter, Flying Legend, Combined Arms.

 

Hardcore sims have always had worse graphics then mainstream games and for good reason. Better graphics means less fidelity, you cannot give that up for some eye candy if you claim to make hardcore sims. Graphics are not the main selling point of hardcore sims. We want realism, flight models, weapons, dynamic weather, AI, avionics, damage modeling, huge maps for hour long missions etc. The scope of the engine is entirely different for a hardcore sim. Eye candy, at least to me, is only a bonus.

 

PS, did you guys check any nevada shots yet? ;)

[GGTharos]

Eye candy is not just a bonus. Flight is a very visual thing, and, if you're spending most/all of your time on niftyness inside the cockpit and not looking outside ... you're doing it wrong :)

[EtherealN]

True, but this is (IMO) more a question of how it's done rather than which graphics magic is being employed. The terrain and graphics engines have a job of conveying information to the player, and of course the requirements for what information is worth spending time on and what isn't vary depending on what you are doing.

 

But yeah... attempting contact flying in some of the things we see suggested might be nice with it's detail, but unfortunately it would come at costs that would make it a bit too claustrophobic. Always nice to dream though and constantly look for things that can be improved. :)

[Demongornot]

@Geskes Yes its exactly what i have say, for many people its only eye candy but for many other people its important for realism and for immersion and its really important, and if even we can have better graphic you will be happy too...

 

And what you think about thing i have already say in another thread : what about stupid AI who can't avoid a stupid collision between two BIG plane coming slowly at collision course or make totally unrealistic ground strike procedure by strike, turning like a Boeing 747 with extremely long and quiet turn and do it again, a real A10C can make 3 strike pass by minute in DCS its more than 1 minute ("speed is life" its not only a simple expression without any sens, in dogfight its true and for military destroy more faster than possible target its too really important and can really change a lot of things in combat and simulation MUST be realistic) for only one target with bad choose of weapons with boring and unrealistic trajectory (and in real dangerous to flying quietly like that in combat situation) who can't correctly do AA refueling without every time collide with tanker on who can't land on carrier without make bug and deck collision, or when we strike at us just move 10 m away and wait to be killed, did you want to see improvement (just a simple question) ?

 

 

@ all And anyways like Fifou265 have say in my other thread, what about Outerra ? (i knew it but i have forget since long time)

Its the PERFECT example of NICE graphic for BIG (more than DCS) visibility range 3D model can be really detailed and complex (can make same cockpit than actual, not need better or maybe chance color cause that look a little plastic compare to real), its really adapted for simulation (air and space) tree are not bad and ground texture its close to perfect we have the impression of see 3D grass and the texture still in 2D and that NOT eat power like DCS cause with dual core cpu and old graphic car (recommended 8800GT and using for the video 460GTX) we apparently be able to obtain same graphic of every video of this graphic engine that we find on internet and with little tweak (like limited altitude or optimized for work below space edge of space cause until ED what to add cruise ballistic missile its useless) and graphic rending optimized for the maximum speed of the fastest object of the simulator (when we see in video that the camera can pass from low atmosphere to middle orbit in little seconds and travel at extreme speed over orbital speed (more than mach 20 its sure but i don't know how exactly and simulation for only one aircraft must be optimized for internal camera before think about external) we can be able with the same (and i insist i don't talk about ED buy this engine but make the same or closest with actual technology and knowledge and DX11) graphic engine we can be able to have the same thing but with better tree (maybe something between actual and what we see on Grandsurf's video), little 3D grass, nice building don't look like a box but without excessive 3D details and several 3D object like truck on airport, civil traffic, radar and more.

[GGTharos]

I'm going to tell you once again:

 

Outerra, INfinity, or /any/ other engine is useless for DCS. Full stop.

 

As for upgrading the engine - did you notice they're already doing that?

[Geskes]

Eye candy is not just a bonus. Flight is a very visual thing, and, if you're spending most/all of your time on niftyness inside the cockpit and not looking outside ... you're doing it wrong :)

 

Of course, I mean it in the sense that I would not like sacrificing on the elements that make a hardcore sim to get better graphics.. Better graphics of course add to realism and a lot to immersion, but it is only one element.

[EtherealN]

To be honest, I'd like to point out one thing that is sometimes overlooked:

 

There is such a thing as "pretty graphics", and another thing known as "good graphics". These two can usually exist in the same graphics engine, but as far as simulators go it's the "good graphics " that is the most important - that is, graphics that do the job of giving information to the pilot in a correct way. Realistic view ranges, properly identifiable terrain features etcetera etcetera is more important than having the prettiest possible effects.

 

This is something that is often overlooked when people look at a graphics engine out there - they see the prettiness of it but don't consider how capable that specific engine is of giving the DCS world the proper "good" graphics that are required for a combat simulation and flight simulator. And that's even before we start considering whether it's even possible or practical to migrate code into the DCS products.

 

People need to remember the examples of projects like Rage when they consider what happens when you throw out too much of your stuff - or an even better example could be Duke Nukem Forever. The latter kept switching engines and delayed to the point of killing it's company because of it - and this is in spite of the engines in question actually being "finished" engines that were licensed from 3rd parties. Making big swaps is a HUGE risk, and my personal opinion is that ED is doing the right thing in instead working with it's own in-house technology and steadily expanding and improving on that.

[genbrien]

anyway most people dont have what it take to have a flight sim with Crysis's 3d engine:huh:(me included:music_whistling:)

I say, when new console will be out(in 1-3 years) than new games will take advantage of new hardware available(still old compare to PC though...:cry::doh:)

THAN people will change their 5 years old P4/C2D 3gb ram and 512mb GPU.

 

So I dont think we'll see major improvement before at least 5 years

[Depth]

Basically the current engine works. It may not look like Battlefield 3 but if it did, it wouldn't be playable. Even the short-distance-higher-quality rendering distance would devastate any hardware on the market today.

 

Personally I think A10C looks amazing. Especially compared to other flight sims. Of course the graphics is lacking when compared to top of the range FPS games but you have to consider the rendering distance. Starting a 50x50km map in say Battlefield 3, would cripple any server or client connected as the draw distance alone is simply massive. FPS graphics IS NOT flight sim graphics. You cannot fire away top modern DX 11 graphics and render a 200 kilometres in diameter of terrain at the same time, not on the hardware we have today. Even with your highly coveted Arma 2 engine.

[Demongornot]

You can told me everything you want but i just see an evidence :

With the MOST POWERFULL computer configuration today we still lagging, low FPS that was horrible, kill every immersion and give headache, and the result ? not the same but really less render than other graphic engine like Outerra, Outerra who need a GTX460 for MAXIMUM setting about what i have see and DON'T lag, if only DCS engine will correctly work with actual graphic card...But that lag and for bad result...

Its nice for ED that you defending the graphic engine but don't forget yourself the fact, today its simply impossible to make cockpit for example cause try to make 360 or just 180° screen with DCS graphic engine just will kill every computer, and do full replica of a cockpit for use it with only one little screen its just bad and useless, and use flexible screen at the place of canopy and see 180° of graphic without need a NASA computer, THAT can be nice..

I'm using Eyefinity and its horrible for startup, on flight its correct but on airport that lag so many, i have bad FPS like 10/15 with a HD6970 graphic card (one of the most powerful actually), for what we see its just extremely bad, and if even in a single screen we can be able to use maximum graphic setting without "lagging close to the death with only 50% of GPU power using" or something like that...

 

The fact is : that lag for nothing...

The problem its with maximum graphic setting if even we can have it, the graphic engine still look bad compare to other like Outerra where we have NO PIXEL on the ground and where we can flight without lag and for NORMAL computer cause actually we almost need supercomputer for DCS graphic engine and without any SLI/Crossfire support its worst...

And Outerra can do everything DCS Graphic engine do, but better, DCS graphic engine its NOT optimized, its hard to think it when we see how many power it need and stupid things like calculate water under ground, why the water need to be calculate over ALL the map area ? That just stupid, and if only that was the single mistake...

But problem +problem + problem "and more and more" give a problematic result...

DCS Graphic engine using DX9 but we actually are with DX11, that just have...several year of delay...

If computer exist since 2000 year and ED have begin to create the first software 5 year after, they could still with the same graphic engine since 1995 years ?

new "game" new graphic engine, its lot of time what every one do, but actually the graphic engine don't have changing since LOMAC and maybe before that, just..."optimized"...

Don't told me that we can't have better cause its not true, we really can have and Outerra its the best example about that cause it actually do better and we can have better than Outerra in reality cause Outerra its optimized for SPACE simulation, showing full planet from orbit and space simulation need more sacrifice and more power than aircraft simulator...

 

but like always people who don't want to ear the problem about graphic engine just will take a single little part of what i have wrote, the most easy thing to "kill" and forgot the rest...

Edited November 29, 2011 by Demongornot

[EtherealN]

With the MOST POWERFULL computer configuration today we still lagging, low FPS that was horrible, kill every immersion and give headache

 

Strange, my computer is relatively cheap, and it works fine. I have the occassional HDD stutter, but that's pretty much it.

 

and the result ? not the same but really less render than other graphic engine like Outerra, Outerra who need a GTX460 for MAXIMUM setting about what i have see and DON'T lag, if only DCS engine will correctly work with actual graphic card...But that lag and for bad result...

 

Apples and Oranges, it's lovely... ;)

I can max out Chuck Yeager's Air Combat on my phone, so obviously anything that comes afterwards is crappy? Outerra does things that DCS doesn't do, and DCS does things that Outerra doesn't do - like for example simulate an aircraft and several weapon systems in excruciating detail, with a terrain engine that is built specifically for that purpose.

 

That's the point you're not quite getting - there's a major difference between an engine that is fine for displaying terrain, and an engine that needs to do that AND work with AI, work with you, work with pathfinding, work with radio simulation, LOS, etcetera etcetera etcetera. You need to realize that you are comparing apples to oranges and it just does not work.

 

Its nice for ED that you defending the graphic engine but don't forget yourself the fact, today its simply impossible to make cockpit for example cause try to make 360 or just 180° screen with DCS graphic engine just will kill every computer

 

Why would you need to render 360 degrees? Actually, you only need to render what you are looking at, and you can easily use a buffer program to move the displayed picture across a circular projection surface. The solutions to this type of problems are way easier than the effort and money required to build a cockpit. ;)

 

and do full replica of a cockpit for use it with only one little screen its just bad and useless,

 

Strangely enough, a LOT of people disagree with you since they are doing exactly that and are enjoying it quite nicely. ;)

 

I'm using Eyefinity and its horrible for startup, on flight its correct but on airport that lag so many, i have bad FPS like 10/15 with a HD6970 graphic card (one of the most powerful actually), for what we see its just extremely bad, and if even in a single screen we can be able to use maximum graphic setting without "lagging close to the death with only 50% of GPU power using" or something like that...

 

There's the thing though - your idea of "for what we see" is, as has been shown in your posts, completely polluted by not actually understanding what it is you are seeing. You are trying to run comparisons to other games and engines that have different graphical features and completely disregard anything and everything that actually explains the discrepancy - something I and others have repeatedly pointed out to you. ;)

 

The problem its with maximum graphic setting if even we can have it, the graphic engine still look bad compare to other like Outerra where we have NO PIXEL on the ground and where we can flight without lag and for NORMAL computer cause actually we almost need supercomputer for DCS graphic engine and without any SLI/Crossfire support its worst...

 

Again, strangely my computer does just fine, including busy combat missions, in 1080p and graphics maxed out (and I even use a hacked high.lua to further increase draw distances and also have some graphics mods and new higher-polygon buildings and so on in there). And that's on a 560Ti and with the 2600K running at stock speed.

 

Also, as I said: apples and oranges. You'll have a case when you can operate a DCS level A-10C in Outerra. Until then, your comparison shows only your lack of understanding in the subject.

 

And Outerra can do everything DCS Graphic engine do, but better, DCS graphic engine its NOT optimized, its hard to think it when we see how many power it need and stupid things like calculate water under ground

 

Actually, water under the ground is an EXTREMELY common phenomenon, and is commonly used in a LOT of games with huge development budgets. At least the DCS engine doesn't go into full tesselation mode on that underground water, like Crysis does...

 

why the water need to be calculate over ALL the map area ? That just stupid, and if only that was the single mistake...

 

Again, you are just showing that you don't understand how it works.

Having the uniform water surface is actually something that saves a lot of resources, which is the reason DCS and other games use that "trick" - it enormously reduces the polygon count of terrain, which can then be spent loading "actual" terrain into memory. (Though, as mentioned, for some reason Crysis decided to tesselate a measure that was done to save polygons, which is... peculiar... almost as peculiar as their decision to ultra-tesselate flat concrete blocks...)

 

But problem +problem + problem "and more and more" give a problematic result...

DCS Graphic engine using DX9 but we actually are with DX11, that just have...several year of delay...

 

Everything depends on what you want to use the features of a given rendering path for. There is nothing distinctly magical about DX-whatever. But as you might remember there's this thing called "EDGE" being worked on, showcased with Nevada, so you might have possibly noticed that ED is actually working on new stuff.

 

If computer exist since 2000 year and ED have begin to create the first software 5 year after, they could still with the same graphic engine since 1995 years ?

new "game" new graphic engine, its lot of time what every one do, but actually the graphic engine don't have changing since LOMAC and maybe before that, just..."optimized"...

 

Here I'm not actually sure what you are trying to say, which I realize is a language barrier you are having, but... If you are saying the graphics engine hasn't changed since LOMAC then you are 100% patently wrong, and you need to actually check things out before you say things that are false.

 

PROTIP: LOMAC was Dx8... ;)

 

Don't told me that we can't have better cause its not true, we really can have and Outerra its the best example about that cause it actually do better and we can have better than Outerra in reality cause Outerra its optimized for SPACE simulation, showing full planet from orbit and space simulation need more sacrifice and more power than aircraft simulator...

 

Actually, you have been repeatedly told that new stuff is being done, there's a lot of developer updates on it including screenshots and feature hints, yet you want to transplant something made for something else?

 

To be quite honest, I question whether you even read what people tell you. ;)

 

but like always people who don't want to ear the problem about graphic engine just will take a single little part of what i have wrote, the most easy thing to "kill" and forgot the rest...

 

There, I quote-fested your entire post. You're welcome. ;)

Now go back and see how often you did exactly what you accuse others for. :)

Edited November 29, 2011 by EtherealN