Graphic engine

[cichlidfan]

Why have you made two threads about your same wild desires, Demongornot? :S

 

Multi-threading.:P

[LostOblivion]

Hehe, that is actually funny.

[Demongornot]

Why have you made two threads about your same wild desires, Demongornot? :S

 

I have made one in wish list cause i wish a better graphic engine...

 

And the other to Simulation Research cause i have several idea and i will work soon to a non-conventional graphic engine capable to show real photorealistic graphic render with a minimal of power and in real time and the distance its not a problem with it, the limitation of my idea can be bad for FPS game but for simulation, strategy game, car, boat and other simulator its not a problem, the idea its really simple and based to actual technology and knowledge, nothing magic.

 

But now that i see so people who DON'T want to change things and want to still with actual...bad graphic engine for every flight software, simulation and game, i prefer with a good programmer make a demo and i don't will (like i wanted to do) give free my idea for people who finally don't want that, or just say that them don't want that and maybe after make a demo software people will see the potential of better graphic rending and like always after have say : "actual is great we don't need more" will want it, its how people work...

But its just a project for the moment, realist with maybe a great potential, i will see.

 

I why i have make two threads and now its useless and anyway the second will be delete. =)

[Haukka81]

^^^^^ LOL !! :megalol:

[LostOblivion]

Yes, of course, what kind of shaders are you going to use?

 

I am interested in knowing what your background is, Demongornot, seeing as how it would appear you are a senior programmer capable of creating a rendering engine that would put allmighty God himself to shame.

[topol-m]

 

I am interested in knowing what your background is, Demongornot, seeing as how it would appear you are a senior programmer capable of creating a rendering engine that would put allmighty God himself to shame.

 

Jesus? :shocking:

[sobek]

i prefer with a good programmer make a demo

 

Yes please, talk to any good programmer and take to heart what he will tell you. Maybe we can put an end to this, then.

 

This really is one of these free energy discussions.

Edited December 3, 2011 by sobek

[Demongornot]

I respect you people, respect me too, i never have insult you or make stupid joke about you.

 

And for information i have already talk about my idea with a good programmer, he have say to me its a very simple solution based on a minimal number of polygon and a simple and single HD texture by object with possibility to use real photography (photorealism render) without need Anticrénelage or Tesselation but with a good chance to work with a minimal of power BECAUSE its a simple idea and the rest of the power will be using for light, reflection, effect and other, i'm not stupid i have check if that can work before talk about.

 

Now admin please can you close and delete this thread, i don't have create it for see stupid joke and total disrespect close to insult !

[topol-m]

I'd be happy if something good comes out of your ideas and if it is so easy to realize. At the end of the day deeds are more important than words so if you manage to turn ides into reality it would be great. I myself know nothing about programming so I can't argue on what's easy to achieve and what's hard, there are definitely better looking sim terrains out there, but from what I've seen in the latest Nevada shots, it looks like a very big improvement of DCS' terrain engine, and I definitely want to see this type of terrain or even further improved one in DCS Fighter.

[sobek]

I'd be happy if something good comes out of your ideas and if it is so easy to realize.

 

Agreed. I remain sceptical, though.

[bluepilot76]

Some negative energy on this thread.

 

Go for it Demongornot!

[Demongornot]

In answer to Trident http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1374172&postcount=40

And to EtherealN http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1374277&postcount=42

 

First its not because the map its giant that we need to show it full and show basic ground geometry with texture "optimized for long range only" its not hard and not ask big computer, Flight Simulator or X Plane have the full earth scenery and not need to show it full, just the area where whe are...

Orbiter (space simulator) can with HD NASA's picture show every planet of the solar system but not need to show it in one time, just show the planet where we are...

Show far horizon texture who are finally not in high resolution and where the atmospheric effect decrease what we see, its not hard to do it...

 

5 level of texture its needed for simulation.

Far away horizon like 80km and more = Long range horizon texture

80 to 30Km = Long to medium range texture

30 Km to 6km = medium range texture (where every 3D object is finally "simulate" by texture with the SAME graphics render for avoid big difference during transition to ->)

6 km to 1km = low range texture (texture that we can see with 3D object, like forest ground under 3D tree (in a mix with 2D tree in the texture), road, grass and more)

And 1km and less = HD close texture where we see with nice transition at 100m from texture to 3D grass and HD actual ground in DCS airbase for example...

 

In DCS and every flight simulator we have the same problem, everything look small, we just have the impression to be a giant guy, we embody a camera with giant objective and not a little eyes with maximum 2cm of size (for the part with we can watch) and with this problem far away horizon in real life look like short range in DCS and other simulator, its why we need big computer power (if we forget the fact that its not optimized and maybe finally the opposite its done) cause for the same scenery we show more far away for 2 result = bad size/scale effect and more power needed...

I know that show long range scenery need a minimum of power, but with correct various 3D and texture level its finally really not a problem and the view range of 3D OBJECT not need like Arma 2 to be more than 10Km...

 

Little experience.

Settings page :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=862779Screen120117050929Copie.png

 

#1 Map view of Senaki airbase :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=313061Screen120117051346.jpg

 

#2 Senaki from air at 10000 feet :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=528299Screen120117051410.jpg

 

#3 Same camera position but look at Durgeria city :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=591273Screen120117051433.jpg

 

#4 Durgeria from air at 10000 feet :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=518447Screen120117051630.jpg

 

#5 Distance from Senaki to Durgeria with MAP view :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=248667Screen120117051710.jpg

 

#6 From Durgeria to Senaki :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=455718Screen120117051728.jpg

 

#7 View to ground from 30000 feet:

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=309286Screen120117051758.jpg

 

#8 Same position and look at forest :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=398295Screen120117051807.jpg

 

#9 Same position and look at sea :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=577672Screen120117051809.jpg

 

#10 Now the last at the same position look at horizon :

http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=350302Screen120117051812.jpg

 

Conclusion ?

First the size, scale and distance in DCS are totally false, that look exactly like that

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/uk-electronics/shops/canon/2011/aplus/miniature_lg.jpg

Its not a problem about we walk drive or other, its a problem due to low texture resolution made for be really far (and i will show after that its don't know anyways), poor scenery 3D object details and big camera object look like what a giant dinosaur or maybe a god see with giant eyes...

Its a tweak for try to compensate large scenery...

 

At 10000 feet that look like that in real life :

Another example

Compare with Screenshot #2 and #4, its just look like a little cutie RC model airport at 1000 feets

Compare both video (and any other of aircraft at 10000 or yourself with real aircraft if you can) with Screenshot #3

For the same altitude in real life that look like if we are really more at high altitude and the same city (Durgeria) will look really more far away...

And its really hard to see 3D object at this altitude, i talk about real life, the object can be in 3D or in 2D at 10000 feet (and at lower altitude too) its hard to make any difference...

Simulator must try to do the same thing, exception for big object, every tree, building, house, vehicle and other 3D object don't need to be show at more than 5Km, cause at more than 5Km correct texture can without problems give the same final render and take really less performance.

Look here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ Arma 2 can show 3D object with incredible density at 10Km, 30000 feet, 3 time more than DCS and for the same computer power need and not forget that its not optimized for aircraft, Arma 2 show interior of almost any house and really nice 3D tree with possibility to see tree bark and a lot of details that aircraft simulation don't need.

Look how everything in the ground look beautiful, realistic, attractive and immersive, and ok we see tree spawn but in DCS too and unlike to DCS its not look bad a long distance, finally who need to see what happen at 80Km and more ? and like Arma 2 but optimized for aircraft simulation (with your 80km and more that you want so much) we can do the same thing, texture for long range, optimized object render at 5km for speed for Mach 5 maximum (and not mach 20 and more like DCS, its useless) and we don't need this level of ground complexity.

About object spawn, why we see it spawn ? cause we see only ground texture above this object and the 3D object are not yet here, if for the same texture we including the picture (almost taking by screenshot) at the ground, when the 3D object will appear that will finally not will be visible or almost not.

 

Screenshot #6 show how finally for the same range for 3D object its look bad and with bad range effect due to poor optimization, we can easily check, screenshot #5 show 4,7 nm and that give us 8.7044 km, yeah we see 3D object at 8 poor Km and that give the effect that we look at 1Km or maybe at 10m in a small scenery reproduction.

Finally Screenshots #7 confirm the totally unrealistic range/level of details effect for 10km 30000 feet, look here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LAAzbf8mdc

That need to give biggest range effect, and finally for the same range effect we will have better graphisms render for finally a realistic range effect...

Look at screenshot #8, what happen ? we see a poor tentative to show "3D" tree who finally look really bad, like a poor pixel that we can't identified and only 2D texture ONLY will finally look better and will take less performances...

And at Screenshot #9 we see the most ugly part of the simulator, first the distance effect is totally false and the texture (with maximum graphisms settings) are just HORRIBLE and i wait for someone who will try to told me that its not horrible...

I prefer have a simulator with only 80Km of distance with nice graphisms render like Arma 2 than what i see in DCS just for adding a little more view distance who finally are useless with bad range estimation effect and where in real life with atmosphere effect its hard to see more...

Look at the screenshot #10 and try to told me the distance of the mountain...

You can't ? why ? a little estimation ?

Its just impossible cause view distance are totally false and unrealistic...

And look at this game

The view distance look pretty awesome, realistic (compare with video or take real plane) and graphisms are really better than DCS 1000Km² yes its not giant compare to DCS but that still pretty good and nothing stop creator for extend the map with LOW RESOLUTION texture for long range, no one will see the difference and with low resolution (i insist to this point) the game don't will need extreme computer for work cause its not the size but the resolution the most important thing for texture.

This game its not an aircraft simulation, the creator don't have see any benefit to create long range texture but its totally possible, like that :

And this new simulator miss close distance texture...But for Medium and Long range its just PERFECT and its not need extreme power for work and finally cause its only 2D texture and that 3D object are missing for medium range that just look PERFECT !

Look here

from 0:50 to 1:50 and try to told me that its not a correct view distance with correct size effect or that its better than my screenshots #9 and #10...

A mix between the long/medium range of Aerofly FS and the close range of Arma 2 its TOTALLY POSSIBLE and that just will give simulator who need a little more power than actual for EXTREMLY NICE graphics render.

Imagine to see the same render at short distance than Arma 2 (in every video and in the video with the A10) and just by extension with texture create and optimized for that the long range visual rending of Aerofly FS with optimization like not calculate full scenery + full dense fog like simulator do, just a big filter for simulate fog + close distance 3D "smoke" effect, optimized for maximum mach 5 and not unlimited and other optimization.

 

I'm sorry but with good optimization and little downgrade of useless 3D details its totally possible to have the last thing i have described...

[winz]

I prefer have a simulator with only 80Km of distance with nice graphisms render like Arma 2 than what i see in DCS just for adding a little more view distance who finally are useless with bad range estimation effect and where in real life with atmosphere effect its hard to see more...

Have you tried Arma 2 with 80km draw distance? :) Btw, you have a very strange definition of 'little more'. Just proves you know nothing about the technical stuff that's behind the things you're talking about.

 

One of the reasons you need huge draw distance on terrain in DCS and other flight sims is because you fly high, with smaller draw distance the air would appear hazy all the time. You can easily try this yourself by tweaking the DCS cfg files.

 

Arma 2 looks terrible up-high and the amount of fog is just unbearable.

 

And every 'performance boost' you mention is already implemented in DCS. Object are not drawn at full view distance, objects use various LODs, the terrain uses various LODs depending on distance, the same for textures and terrain complexity. It's just the flat terrain that's eating all the FPS. Try to fly over the ocen, near the coast and over land..notice the huge FPS difference?

 

Also, don't compare FSX to DCS, because scene preparation is about the only thing the CPU has to handle in FSX. The flight model is terrible, the AI is non-existing, it has no real avionics modeling, no ballistics, no damage modelling, ground troops pathfinding etc... Once you plug in some addons like PDMGs 737 your FPS will suffer heavily just because of the added flight and avionics model. And you're still missing tons of things DCS has to do.

 

Look how everything in the ground look beautiful, realistic, attractive and immersive, and ok we see tree spawn but in DCS too and unlike to DCS its not look bad a long distance, finally who need to see what happen at 80Km and more ?

I want! I want to see smokes rising to the skies from the battlefield I'm approaching. I think that with the increase of HW power we should move forward, not backwards.

 

The main hog in the DCS graphical engine for me is the stuff beeing carried from the lomac days. Lot's of the things DCS does can certainly be done better and more efficient with the newer apis. But as a SW developer I assure there is no magical wand that will replace these parts of engine with newer, modern counter parts. It's usually a painfull and tedious job, as all parts of engine are interconnected and replacing one part can break another.

But ED is moving forward, slowly but steady..and I can see alot of the under-the-hood improvemets done to the engine since Black Shark 1.0.

BTW, this also a 'problem' of the Arma series, you can still see things in the engine that comes from the Operation Flashpoint days (i.e. the horrible physics)...there's just no way around it, the technologies evolve so fast, that you would need to rewrite almost the whole engine for each product you release, and that's just not possible.

Edited January 17, 2012 by winz

[sobek]

Conclusion ?

First the size, scale and distance in DCS are totally false, that look exactly like that

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/02/uk-electronics/shops/canon/2011/aplus/miniature_lg.jpg

Its not a problem about we walk drive or other, its a problem due to low texture resolution made for be really far (and i will show after that its don't know anyways), poor scenery 3D object details and big camera object look like what a giant dinosaur or maybe a god see with giant eyes...

Its a tweak for try to compensate large scenery...

 

I don't know what effect you are talking about in DCS, but it can't have anything to do with what you showed in that picture. The perceived sense of miniturization comes from the extreme unacuity that was added digitally to a real picture as an aftereffect.

It causes the brain to assume that distances are such as to cause the acuity effects.

 

In DCS, everything in view has perfect acuity (which is not perfectly realistic, but since the sim doesn't know where your eyes are pointed to, everything has to be in focus), so i do not understand how these would be related.

[EtherealN]

First its not because the map its giant that we need to show it full and show basic ground geometry with texture "optimized for long range only" its not hard and not ask big computer, Flight Simulator or X Plane have the full earth scenery and not need to show it full, just the area where whe are...

 

Same applies to your shooters like Arma etcetera. ;)

And they also LOD the terrain and textures, just like DCS, they just do it closer to the camera because they use a much shorter draw distance.

 

However, as has been stated to you several times already: MSFS and X-Plane get away with streaming only the terrain data for your current position because they are civilian simulators. There is no need to have terrain loaded where the player isn't because there actually is nothing happening where the player isn't. In DCS, there very well might be things anywhere and everywhere at the same time.

 

If there is a land battle going on 300km away from the player, the player will not be able to see it. But the simulator will still need to have the terrain mesh for that, because there are things over there fighting! (A possible "solution" to this is a bubble-style system like Falcon 4, but this introduces several fidelity questions since it will pretty much guarantee that some battles will be won or lost simply depending on where the player is, since it will change which level of abstraction is applied by the bubble.)

 

Orbiter (space simulator) can with HD NASA's picture show every planet of the solar system but not need to show it in one time, just show the planet where we are...

 

See above.

 

5 level of texture its needed for simulation.

Far away horizon like 80km and more = Long range horizon texture

80 to 30Km = Long to medium range texture

30 Km to 6km = medium range texture (where every 3D object is finally "simulate" by texture with the SAME graphics render for avoid big difference during transition to ->)

6 km to 1km = low range texture (texture that we can see with 3D object, like forest ground under 3D tree (in a mix with 2D tree in the texture), road, grass and more)

And 1km and less = HD close texture where we see with nice transition at 100m from texture to 3D grass and HD actual ground in DCS airbase for example...

 

And you pretty much defined the way it works in DCS already. ;)

 

In DCS and every flight simulator we have the same problem, everything look small, we just have the impression to be a giant guy, we embody a camera with giant objective and not a little eyes with maximum 2cm of size (for the part with we can watch) and with this problem far away horizon in real life look like short range in DCS and other simulator

 

Here I don't understand your point at all. The only thing I really "feel" when flying DCS, compared to when I'm up there IRL, is that when I'm flying DCS I have completely lost all my peripheral vision. (Well, to be precise, I do of course still have my peripheral vision, but one side of it has the forum on it, and the other side has four red Zalman mans.) The size of the "eyes" does not matter at all here.

 

Further, this all depends a lot on which screen you use. If you use a 17incher with a 1080p resoluition, yeah, things will be small. That's what happens. If you use a 32incher with the same resolution, not so much of a problem anymore. The problem with "solving" that "problem" (which I don't agree is a problem at the moment, but just for the sake of argument) is that you fix it for some users, and break it for other users.

 

, its why we need big computer power (if we forget the fact that its not optimized and maybe finally the opposite its done) cause for the same scenery we show more far away for 2 result = bad size/scale effect and more power needed...

I know that show long range scenery need a minimum of power, but with correct various 3D and texture level its finally really not a problem and the view range of 3D OBJECT not need like Arma 2 to be more than 10Km...

 

Why are you talking optimizations when the proposal is all about textures?

Here's the thing for you: if this could be achieved through doing some magic with textures - go ahead and do it. Right now. All you need to do this is things you already have; swap out the textures, and go to town on the LUA and do it. I'm not even joking, by your description there is no need for programmer involvement here, you can do it with a mod.

 

Conclusion ?

First the size, scale and distance in DCS are totally false, that look exactly like that

[...]

Its not a problem about we walk drive or other, its a problem due to low texture resolution made for be really far (and i will show after that its don't know anyways), poor scenery 3D object details and big camera object look like what a giant dinosaur or maybe a god see with giant eyes...

Its a tweak for try to compensate large scenery...

 

I don't understand what you are saying again, nor what you were trying to show with those photos. How scale and distance is in any way relevant to textures I have no clue as well.

 

At 10000 feet that look like that in real life :

 

I know what the world looks like from altitude. I don't need youtube to show me that, I get to fly it myself. ;)

 

Also, the lens used in that camera is totally not what you'd get with the human eye. (Once again, stop thinking that random photos and videos on the internet are evidence of anything).

 

Compare both video (and any other of aircraft at 10000 or yourself with real aircraft if you can) with Screenshot #3

 

Did so. I find that DCS does a pretty good job.

 

For the same altitude in real life that look like if we are really more at high altitude and the same city (Durgeria) will look really more far away...

 

I disagree. I make roughly the same errors in judgement when blinding AGL in the simulator as I do IRL (which is that I approximate roughly 20% lower than I actually am).

 

And its really hard to see 3D object at this altitude, i talk about real life, the object can be in 3D or in 2D at 10000 feet (and at lower altitude too) its hard to make any difference...

 

Please don't make the mistake of using random youtube videos to gauge the ability to judge depth from the air. ;)

But yes, you can get away with using simpler 3D shapes for some things and normal-mapping for other things. What I don't understand is that you think this is news to DCS? It already does this.

 

Look here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ Arma 2 can show 3D object with incredible density at 10Km, 30000 feet, 3 time more than DCS and for the same computer power need and not forget that its not optimized for aircraft, Arma 2 show interior of almost any house and really nice 3D tree with possibility to see tree bark and a lot of details that aircraft simulation don't need.

 

Once again, you are not listening. First of all, ARMA does the same LODing everyone else does. And as you can see as well, 10 km is still WAY too short. It still looks terrible and the view distance would be a direct impediment to real flying because you wouldn't be able to see what you need to see. (Also, 10km view distance at 30k feet would mean that no ground is drawn at all... :P )

 

As for showing interiors of houses, well, he wasn't inside no houses flying, so that is not relevant. Not being "optimised for aircraft" is also not relevant - I noticed it wasn't, because ARMA2 has a worthless flight model, tiny terrain, and a draw distance that is so short any pretense of realistic flying goes out the window. Might as well say Just Cause 2 has awesome draw distance for all relevance it has.

 

Look how everything in the ground look beautiful, realistic, attractive and immersive, and ok we see tree spawn but in DCS too and unlike to DCS its not look bad a long distance

 

I had to underscore and bold that thing because it's actually funny:

Yes, things far away look worse in DCS than they do in Arma. Because in ARMA they aren't displayed at all! Did you even see that claustrophobic wall of solid haze that was flowing around in Arma 2? And that's the maximum? And you are using this as a good example?

 

finally who need to see what happen at 80Km and more ?

 

I don't need to see details of what is happening (though this can be useful for larger scenarios), but I definitely like being able to see what's there at all. For my SA, I need to be able to see that, especially if I am a fighter pilot engaged in combat - because then I need to keep my head outside of my cockpit, and far-away-terrain becomes my navigation and direction-finding aids. Throw in limitations like in Arma and you make this impossible.

 

we can do the same thing, texture for long range, optimized object render at 5km for speed for Mach 5 maximum (and not mach 20 and more like DCS, its useless) and we don't need this level of ground complexity.

 

All of that is already being done. And by being done I mean: it's in your simulator, right now. If you don't like it, change it. You have all the lua files you need for this. Go ahead. There's not even any programming skill required, all you have to do is find the variables and change the values. In the time you've spent writing and taking screenshots you could have implemented this already!

 

About object spawn, why we see it spawn ? cause we see only ground texture above this object and the 3D object are not yet here, if for the same texture we including the picture (almost taking by screenshot) at the ground, when the 3D object will appear that will finally not will be visible or almost not.

 

I unfortunately don't understand what you are saying.

 

Screenshot #6 show how finally for the same range for 3D object its look bad and with bad range effect due to poor optimization, we can easily check, screenshot #5 show 4,7 nm and that give us 8.7044 km, yeah we see 3D object at 8 poor Km and that give the effect that we look at 1Km or maybe at 10m in a small scenery reproduction.

 

So change it. Takes ~30 seconds. GO!

 

Finally Screenshots #7 confirm the totally unrealistic range/level of details effect for 10km 30000 feet, look here :

 

Unrealistic how?

But sure, go ahead, change it. Release your mod and convince people of the merit of your argument through actually doing it. There is literally nothing except yourself stopping you. Eagle Dynamics will even host your files through the File Exchange service! ;)

 

That need to give biggest range effect, and finally for the same range effect we will have better graphisms render for finally a realistic range effect...

 

Sorry, once again I don't understand what you are saying.

 

Look at screenshot #8, what happen ? we see a poor tentative to show "3D" tree who finally look really bad, like a poor pixel that we can't identified and only 2D texture ONLY will finally look better and will take less performances...

 

Actually, I have no problem at all identifying that, and having this as the identifiable 3D object that it is assists in visual cueing of speed to the human visual cortex. And they don't eat much power, they are extremely simple anyhow. (They're actually 2D objects, pretty much sprites, just placed in 3D space. ;) )

 

And at Screenshot #9 we see the most ugly part of the simulator, first the distance effect is totally false and the texture (with maximum graphisms settings) are just HORRIBLE and i wait for someone who will try to told me that its not horrible...

 

Change it then. Go ahead.

Seriously, your suggestion to something being "false" is to go on youtube and flickr, and then propose simply dumping those view ranges at all? Here's a fun fact for you: I've navigated IRL through visually IDing a building on 80+km distance. (A set of smoke stacks at a semi-local pulp mill, and a set of harbor cranes in the other direction.) The same can be done with terrain, of course. The problem is that it is not possible to have the detail level we have IRL all the way out there, but we can keep the terrain geometry. Which DCS does!

 

Now, if you don't like the specific textures or LOD levels - change them!

 

I prefer have a simulator with only 80Km of distance with nice graphisms render like Arma 2

 

You will not get 80km with Arma2 level graphics on a current computer. Simple as that. Your various graphical tricks sound nice, but you miss out on the fact that they are already being used! Yes, interestingly enough the people who work with this for a living does know a bit about what can be done and how it's done, but they also live in a reality where they need to accomodate old systems to a certain extent, as well as make margin accomodations for other things that can eat resources.

 

than what i see in DCS just for adding a little more view distance who finally are useless with bad range estimation effect and where in real life with atmosphere effect its hard to see more...

 

You're saying this as a real-life pilot, right? Because myself, as someone who does fly IRL, is scratching my head. ;)

[EtherealN]

Look at the screenshot #10 and try to told me the distance of the mountain...

You can't ? why ? a little estimation ?

 

I don't need to tell the distance, I just need to be able to see it. (But ~100km.)

The thing is this - imagine I'm in a furball, right? I'm being chased by some nasty mig and he's on my 6 like a flee and I throw myself around with constant hard maneuvers. How do I keep eyeball on both him and still know where I am?

...through the simple fact that I know "mountains to the north and south, plains to the east, sea to the west". Cut that short and suddenly I'd have to either resort to looking at compass or a situational display to figure out where the heck I am and where I'm going - which I don't have time to do because someone is trying to kill me!

 

 

And look at this game

The view distance look pretty awesome, realistic (compare with video or take real plane) and graphisms are really better than DCS 1000Km² yes its not giant compare to DCS but that still pretty good and nothing stop creator for extend the map with LOW RESOLUTION texture for long range, no one will see the difference and with low resolution (i insist to this point) the game don't will need extreme computer for work cause its not the size but the resolution the most important thing for texture.

 

I knew this was coming up, so well... I don't need the video, since I have a copy of the game (and actually know one of the developers who made it, former coworker of mine). But yes, it's a tiny world, and in my opinion you can see in that video that it actually shows very little detail.

 

I like the fact that you know so much about exactly what they can do with their graphics engine though. :P

 

This game its not an aircraft simulation, the creator don't have see any benefit to create long range texture but its totally possible, like that :

 

Once again, if all you want is a texture, implement it. Don't sit there drooling over silly 3rd person shooters (though I admit, JC2 is fun, if a bit repetitive), just make it happen. You can do it with Notepad right now.

 

Look here

from 0:50 to 1:50 and try to told me that its not a correct view distance with correct size effect or that its better than my screenshots #9 and #10...

 

It actually looks like it's a bit on the close side. It is also the wrong type of terrain to show what you want it to show, but look at 1:50 exactly (where you cut off) and study the mountains to the upper left of the frame. They fade out too early. So yes, I'll tell you that it's not "correct view distance".

 

Here you go:

 

I'm sorry but with good optimization and little downgrade of useless 3D details its totally possible to have the last thing i have described...

 

So do it. You can shut off the "useless 3D details" yourself with Notepad, you can replace any textures you like, you can change texture and object LODs to whatever you want. Go go go! ;)

[Demongornot]

@winz

I talk about create a mix between Arma 2 capable to show 10Km 3D object with incredible nice details level without any low resolution texture or other bad pixel effect (like my screenshot show how DCS do it) and mix it with Aerofly FS how can show beautiful graphisms rending at medium and long range.

Arma 2 can show 10 Km object and i have show proof that its useless and 5Km enough, and ok...He can't show 80km but Aerofly FS can without any problem show from 5Km to more than DCS with incredibly more beautiful than DCS.

 

Arma can show 10Km 3D object and more for pure scenery, just decrease it to 5 km and same thing for useless details like extremely modeling ground relief or interior of house/building.

Aerofly FS finally beat DCS for view distance, and ok...for really close its a bad texture but for medium and long range its perfect, we can see beautiful graphics rending at 100m over the ground, just decrease the resolution for see at 5km minimum and keep the possibility to show extreme long range.

Mix between both are TOTALLY POSSIBLE and it finally don't need more computer than actual DCS or Arma at 10 km like in the video cause with what i have describe we use more beautiful part of both but keep in mind the fact to tweak everything for can mix both without finally need 2 time more power than DCS.

 

So yes we can have nice 3D and texture of Arma 2 and nice medium long range and far horizon beauty of Aerofly FS.

That for shot range http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ

and that for the rest

Show 3D object more than 5km show problems like appear like a bad pixel impossible to identified and will too suck more power for finally result really bad compare to beauty of good texture with good resolution.

Its why i talk about Arma rending with 80km and more view range, i don't talk about Arma alone, but about Arma + Aerofly FS, or in fact just to mix the level of details of both, not to mix two graphic engine (anyway possible) but to so what both graphics engine do, and only big 3D object like big building, antenna and other will need to be show at more than 5Km, for the rest the transition from 2D texture to 3D object its not really possible to see if the texture at 5km and more integrate texture with ground above the 3D object AND the 3D object "drawn" in the texture at more than 5km

The result will be perfectly adapted to simulation aircraft and finally will be so beautiful that we can play it at FPS like, perfect for Combined Arms possibility with Commander and the JTAC embody, imagine the possibility to see ground target in the same environment than Arma 2 with fidelity of DCS...

 

And told my what 'performance boost' you talk about exactly that we see in DCS and how its work cause for this bad graphic rending i still lag with my good computer and if with this bad graphics that will don't lag, that can be "acceptable" but i see lag for bad graphics rending and i know that we can have without lag wonderful graphic rending...

 

And graphics engine its DEFINITELY NOT a physic engine or a AI script, graphic engine DON'T do avionic, basic and advanced physic, aircraft flight model, radar simulation and anything else, its why people have adding soaring possibility with dynamic and thermal ascendance to FSX who can't do it in original version (the mission with the glider its totally scripted) or its why the VRS Superbug its totally nice cause its don't use FSX physic but its still use FSX graphics engine for rending, same thing for PDMG and FSX its not created for have two flight physic...

We can use any graphic engine with DCS without loose simulation fidelity...

 

 

@Sobek

You don't see ?

Compare that http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6/arma22010050221134009.jpg

with that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Russian_Battle_Cruiser_Pyotr_Velikiy.gif (Arma 2 vs Real life)

 

And compare that http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=213301Screen111108001508.jpg

with that http://www.amodelworld.co.uk/images/hood.jpg

 

I'm sorry but DCS look more like RC model than real life...

I'm sure you use simulator since long time, and every aircraft simulator do the same thing finally, its why you don't see, but everyone who don't use simulator, new user and several like me who know since LOMAC but not more can see what i talk about...

Same thing for 30000 feet who look like if we have giant eyes or if we are at only 1000 feet...

 

The size and distance its everything but not accurate, its impossible to know any distance unlike other video game or video, object look small and altitude/distance look bad and its one of the multiple cause of the big power requirement....

Please don't told me that in the screenshot of the boat you don't see a size problem...

 

Edit : Wow EtherealN its a really long post you have write, i will answer you i promise but not now and i'll back latter and i prefer take time for read (my English is not perfect)

Edited January 17, 2012 by Demongornot

[EtherealN]

No need to respond to it, just go implement your desires. That's the overarching point; what you are asking for in effects is already being used, and what you want changed regarding LODs and textures are things you can change yourself right now with only normal Notepad. :)

 

EDIT: I'll respond to this though:

I'm sure you use simulator since long time, and every aircraft simulator do the same thing finally, its why you don't see, but everyone who don't use simulator, new user and several like me who know since LOMAC but not more can see what i talk about...

 

Like I said, I am a pilot IRL (though not glamorous like a fighter jock), and so are many others on this forum (including several that actually fly military combat jets), and I don't understand what you are talking about. ;)

Edited January 17, 2012 by EtherealN

[winz]

Arma 2 can show 10 Km object and i have show proof that its useless and 5Km enough, and ok...He can't show 80km but Aerofly FS can without any problem show from 5Km to more than DCS with incredibly more beautiful than DCS.

There is a huge difference between showing 10km in detail as Arma does, and showing 10km in detail + 100+km without such detail. And you cannot render 10km in huge detail and then cut it to low detail, that transition has to be smooth.

Also the amount of detail in Arma is missleading, most vilages consist of one street and few building... Even Chernarus biggest city, chernogorsk, is small compared to real villages/cities we got in dcs.

Go figure why Zargabad in OA has it's own 'island' and is not part of the Takistan map ;)

Can you imagine Arma handling Tbilisi in that detail? I certainly can't.

 

 

Mix between both are TOTALLY POSSIBLE and it finally don't need more computer than actual DCS or Arma at 10 km like in the video cause with what i have describe we use more beautiful part of both but keep in mind the fact to tweak everything for can mix both without finally need 2 time more power than DCS.

And you base this opinion on what? Just because product A can do this, and product B can do that ? Well, that doesn't mean that a product C can do both.

 

And graphics engine its DEFINITELY NOT a physic engine or a AI script, graphic engine DON'T do avionic, basic and advanced physic, aircraft flight model, radar simulation and anything else,

Graphical engine shares computer resource. If the graphical engine requires 80% of CPU power for scene preparation (newsflash...you need cpu to prepare the scene you want to render on the GPU), then you only got 20% left for the rest. And that is not enough for any serious simulation of anything.

DCS needs CPU for tons of things, not just for scene preparation...and some of them are CPU intesive (flight model, AI, pathfinding)... Sure, it would be great if DCS had full multi-core support, but that's just one the things that require serious engine overhaul and cannot be done overnight/week/month(s)

[Togg]

DCS needs CPU for tons of things, not just for scene preparation...and some of them are CPU intesive (flight model, AI, pathfinding)

It's also for scene preparation but at an earlier stage. The graphic engine displays the results of physic calculations, IA movements, flight model equation solution...
Edited January 17, 2012 by Togg

[sobek]

@Sobek

You don't see ?

Compare that http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6/arma22010050221134009.jpg

with that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Russian_Battle_Cruiser_Pyotr_Velikiy.gif (Arma 2 vs Real life)

 

And compare that http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=213301Screen111108001508.jpg

with that http://www.amodelworld.co.uk/images/hood.jpg

 

I'm sorry but DCS look more like RC model than real life...

I'm sure you use simulator since long time, and every aircraft simulator do the same thing finally, its why you don't see, but everyone who don't use simulator, new user and several like me who know since LOMAC but not more can see what i talk about...

Same thing for 30000 feet who look like if we have giant eyes or if we are at only 1000 feet...

 

The size and distance its everything but not accurate, its impossible to know any distance unlike other video game or video, object look small and altitude/distance look bad and its one of the multiple cause of the big power requirement....

Please don't told me that in the screenshot of the boat you don't see a size problem...

 

No, actually i don't see what you are on about. How do you want to be able to judge size if there is no reference? This is a RL problem as well.

 

And frankly, your picture comparisons are so biased, it's not even funny. You take a picture of a ship from first person perspective on the ground, then compare it to one from the air in DCS. Naturally the ship in DCS will look like a toy, that's what it looks like from the air.

 

Never had the impression IRL that you can reach out and just grab the moon? Guess what, in the absence of a reference, the human sight is fooled in RL too regarding size and distance. :doh:

 

As much fun as this was (NOT!), i am really getting tired of you bringing the same opinions over and over without listening to the arguments that people present you. To top it off, frankly speaking, your attitude is insulting towards the devs (although probably not intended). By constantly trying to point out how easy it would be to 'fix' and 'optimize' this engine, you are essentially implying that the devs do not possess the wit to implement improvements into their engine that even a layman as yourself is able to contrive. You seem to have some genuine interest in improving this sim, so i encourage you to learn more about computer science, but in the meantime, this thread does not accomplish anything.

 

I'm outta here, lest i develop a peptic ulcer. :)

 

PS: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to winz again.

 

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to EtherealN again.

 

Sorry guys, but i guess you need to restrict yourselves some more on the quality of your posts. :D

[Schnarre Aggro]

@winz

I talk about create a mix between Arma 2 capable to show 10Km 3D object with incredible nice details level without any low resolution texture or other bad pixel effect (like my screenshot show how DCS do it) and mix it with Aerofly FS how can show beautiful graphisms rending at medium and long range.

Arma 2 can show 10 Km object and i have show proof that its useless and 5Km enough, and ok...He can't show 80km but Aerofly FS can without any problem show from 5Km to more than DCS with incredibly more beautiful than DCS.

 

Arma can show 10Km 3D object and more for pure scenery, just decrease it to 5 km and same thing for useless details like extremely modeling ground relief or interior of house/building.

Aerofly FS finally beat DCS for view distance, and ok...for really close its a bad texture but for medium and long range its perfect, we can see beautiful graphics rending at 100m over the ground, just decrease the resolution for see at 5km minimum and keep the possibility to show extreme long range.

Mix between both are TOTALLY POSSIBLE and it finally don't need more computer than actual DCS or Arma at 10 km like in the video cause with what i have describe we use more beautiful part of both but keep in mind the fact to tweak everything for can mix both without finally need 2 time more power than DCS.

 

So yes we can have nice 3D and texture of Arma 2 and nice medium long range and far horizon beauty of Aerofly FS.

That for shot range http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apVq20stxZQ

and that for the rest

Show 3D object more than 5km show problems like appear like a bad pixel impossible to identified and will too suck more power for finally result really bad compare to beauty of good texture with good resolution.

Its why i talk about Arma rending with 80km and more view range, i don't talk about Arma alone, but about Arma + Aerofly FS, or in fact just to mix the level of details of both, not to mix two graphic engine (anyway possible) but to so what both graphics engine do, and only big 3D object like big building, antenna and other will need to be show at more than 5Km, for the rest the transition from 2D texture to 3D object its not really possible to see if the texture at 5km and more integrate texture with ground above the 3D object AND the 3D object "drawn" in the texture at more than 5km

The result will be perfectly adapted to simulation aircraft and finally will be so beautiful that we can play it at FPS like, perfect for Combined Arms possibility with Commander and the JTAC embody, imagine the possibility to see ground target in the same environment than Arma 2 with fidelity of DCS...

 

And told my what 'performance boost' you talk about exactly that we see in DCS and how its work cause for this bad graphic rending i still lag with my good computer and if with this bad graphics that will don't lag, that can be "acceptable" but i see lag for bad graphics rending and i know that we can have without lag wonderful graphic rending...

 

And graphics engine its DEFINITELY NOT a physic engine or a AI script, graphic engine DON'T do avionic, basic and advanced physic, aircraft flight model, radar simulation and anything else, its why people have adding soaring possibility with dynamic and thermal ascendance to FSX who can't do it in original version (the mission with the glider its totally scripted) or its why the VRS Superbug its totally nice cause its don't use FSX physic but its still use FSX graphics engine for rending, same thing for PDMG and FSX its not created for have two flight physic...

We can use any graphic engine with DCS without loose simulation fidelity...

 

 

@Sobek

You don't see ?

Compare that http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/6/arma22010050221134009.jpg

with that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Russian_Battle_Cruiser_Pyotr_Velikiy.gif (Arma 2 vs Real life)

 

And compare that http://www.hostingpics.net/viewer.php?id=213301Screen111108001508.jpg

with that http://www.amodelworld.co.uk/images/hood.jpg

 

I'm sorry but DCS look more like RC model than real life...

I'm sure you use simulator since long time, and every aircraft simulator do the same thing finally, its why you don't see, but everyone who don't use simulator, new user and several like me who know since LOMAC but not more can see what i talk about...

Same thing for 30000 feet who look like if we have giant eyes or if we are at only 1000 feet...

 

The size and distance its everything but not accurate, its impossible to know any distance unlike other video game or video, object look small and altitude/distance look bad and its one of the multiple cause of the big power requirement....

Please don't told me that in the screenshot of the boat you don't see a size problem...

 

Edit : Wow EtherealN its a really long post you have write, i will answer you i promise but not now and i'll back latter and i prefer take time for read (my English is not perfect)

 

why u just dont try to tweak ur game ... im sry but with that little viewdistance like u play .... i would be ashamed to play screenshots ;-)

 

search the forum for tweaking mods ... i see houses and woods from 20k feet ... i have visual on objets and buildings in TGP of about 40nm

without tgp about 20nm....

 

i think with ur machine it should be possible to fly with such options with 20-25 fps ... so go ahead and find out ... before complaining that much WITHOUT doing something PRODUCTIVE .... or go ahead and fly A10 in Arma 2 .... me for myself always look away when I see the ugly 3d models in Arma2

 

just my 2cent

im out of this thread

[EtherealN]

Never had the impression IRL that you can reach out and just grab the moon? Guess what, in the absence of a reference, the human sight is fooled in RL too regarding size and distance. :doh:

 

With UFO reports as a result. :D

Fav case was trained pilots (Air Force I think it was) thinking they're seeing a UFO fly at stupid speed near the horizon, when it was actually just a tuft of grass gliding through the air 20-30 meters away... (Which they realized when it came in front of some trees.) Another case was apollo astronauts seeing big UFO's which, after a while, turns out to just be a minute piece of fairing from a separated booster rocket. Human brains are rediculously bad at judging distance IRL, that's simple fact.

 

Aside from that: word. :)

[RobbySpike]

Yeah most of the stuff works in a pipeline like way - Many processes which depend on each other. Thats one of the reasons, multi core support is hard to implement.

 

(edit)

forgot to quote :p

[sobek]

Human brains are rediculously bad at judging distance IRL, that's simple fact.

 

How should they? Our eyes would need to be several meters apart to be able to judge great distances accurately (see old warship bridges with their triangulation equipment), but i guess i don't have to mention what that would mean for eye-hand-coordination, let alone short distance seeing.

 

Given the restrictions and compromises that are imposed upon it, i would even go so far as to say out brain does a remarkably good job at judging distances (but of course, especially under bad lighting, there can be some severe outlyers). :)