More tree areas

[PrintF]

Hey everyone,

 

seeing the simulation on the ground brings me to one big wish I would have :)

 

I definetly see too few forest areas. Combined with the fact that these areas are passable at full speed without any difficuilty does not allow real life tactics.

 

We would need way more forest areas and the would need to be more complex in form as they are now. I understand that they have been planned like this to work for an aircraft simulation instead for a ground warfare sim. But for such a sim you need a more complex terrain to be able to do advanced tactics isntead of just using the terrain hightmap.

 

Cities, roads, forests and water areas are natural movement inhibiting areas in tactics and should be simulated as good as possible.

 

Cities are there and work well.

Water areas as well.

Roads and bridges also.

 

There are to few and not fully working forest areas.

 

 

What do you guys think?

[159th_Falcon]

That we don't have enough computing power in our modern day desktops for that.

[Demongornot]

Aerofly FS and Outerra can do it, both show extreme dense tree area...

Aerofly FS can show 2D tree and 3D tree too, both are really realistic.

http://simhq.com/forum/files/usergals/2011/12/full-585-24696-aerofly_fs_2011_12_28_23_48_05_44.jpg

 

I talk since long time of the fact that over medium range its IMPOSSIBLE to make any difference between 2D and 3D object and calculate 3D object its just an useless loose of power, and 3D tree in ANY simulator (FSX, X Plane, DCS and other) look bad at long range cause of pixelisation effect of the 3D object and with a simple texture we don't have this problem...

 

If Aerofly FS can show more tree, DCS can do it too, its simple as that, the ONLY problem of Aerofly FS its that the creators avec forgot to create two level of texture, actually we see the medium in every screenshots/video but it count to many pixels for be using at long range, its one of the multiple optimization that i always talk about and that people told me its impossible (and its funny cause a lot of game and other 3D software to it...But its impossible, fail logic), and a close range with high resolution miss sadly in Aerofly FS..

 

The problems with sims like DCS or FSX its that the texture have a nice resolution for the ground level but the texture itself are completely don't adapted for this altitude, we see strange brown thins, suppose to be earth ? dust ? plants ? i have NEVER find what its supposed to be cause its look unrealistic, a BIG improvement of texture with integrated tree will be perfect, DCS will take less power and the visual effect will be finally better than what we get with 3D tree who are numberless and who look bad at long range where it must don't be calculate and just exchange with a texture who have the same tree directly integrated...

 

Two solution : take satellite picture, but ED Team don't want it...

 

 

The other solution its to create extremely high detailed 3D terrain with extreme texture and 3D detail and NOT in real time to convert the 3D scenery into several texture for :

_Close/direct range where no 3D object are drawn on it except little details like little things/details on the ground, this close range are cover by 3D grass with earth under...Something like a 500m area max around the aircraft.

At the end of the close/direct range :

_Low range where every little details like grass, rock, scenery details are completely not calculated in 3D and replace by texture only, but tree and building still in 3D between close/direct range and 3Km.

After the low range :

_Medium range, details are study for have correct resolution over 3 or 2,85Km if possible, this area are completely out of tree, only 2D tree are visible (at 3Km and more we CAN'T turn so fast for see the tweak who using, mainly if it use a DYNAMIC texture and not a standard static who keep show the same thing when we turn around) but this tree are not integrated into the texture, its a 2D tree design for the illusion when we fly low and for relief over us, every 3D details will be completely replace by the texture at this distance, little construction like static vehicle, small house and other little object are in 2D with dynamic texture (a texture who change depending from which direction we look it).

After Medium range :

_High range, who begin just at the end of the Medium range texture, like 10 Km, this area its empty of EVERY 3D object, everything are ONLY in the texture EXCEPT giant things like antenna, building and other thing who are only a 2D dynamic, at this range its stupid to calculate 3D object, even a SR-71 blackbird can't fly so fast in a huge amount of G for see the difference between static and dynamic object, so 3D object are useless, 2D dynamic are the best.

After High Range :

_Infinite, its not really infinite, its begin at the edge of the end of the High Range, somewhere like 50 Km, its a low resolution texture but who still the SAME texture than High Range texture, only the resolution change, this texture are optimized for cover giant area without take big power cause of high resolution for a far texture, the resolution are study for still perfectly clear, if we delete other texture, this Infinite range texture at close range will look like the first MFS (Microsoft Flight Simulator) who have a texture but over the range where its supposed to be it look perfectly realistic and without any low pixel effect.

 

All this level of texture will NOT create any visible transition (except from bug) cause it use a SINGLE basic texture, only object who are calculate in 2D/3D are not in the texture at the same range, same thing for the transition between 3D to 2D to texture only, it will be IMPOSSIBLE to see cause its use the SAME texture, the non real time render use the 3D object and the highly detailed scenery for generate different level of texture.

 

 

And in fact we can make it capable to create automatic scenery, DCS use real world scenery, so, we can find a lot of correct map of road, elevation, area (who can give information like where is water, river, lac, meadows, pasture, city and a lot of other details who will, with a nice software, automatically generate a highly detailed terrain with real life data, and the time to create this software will be the same than the creation of the map, maybe generate map will take less time.

 

Result ?

Scenery perfectly adapted to simulation world cause it handle extreme high range, visually perfect (every game/software who prefer using texture rather than 3D object where its useless look a lot of time better and take a lot of time less power, only the HDD size have an impact, and two pack, one for standard resolution and another with extreme resolution for big computer and big HDD size can be created), "easy" to create map who are really close the real world, FAST to create a map, a lot of scenery and maybe the full earth can be done with extreme visual realism, texture who REALLY look like something who exist and not with completely false color and a lot of power saving...

Its like the highly detailed ground vehicle, its nice, but its useless to show highly detailed vehicle when we fly 15000 feets over them, it just take more power than needed, any flight SIMULATOR must be optimized for COCKPIT view first and after maybe optimize it for external view, cause a simulator must act like real life and in the real live we can't throw our eyes outside the aircraft and keep it back...

 

 

Anyways i have write this long thing for nothing cause never until quantic computer coming we will have nice scenery with realistic color and correct resolution/power consummation...

With the solution i have describe we can have scenary who REALLY look like this :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Yosemite-tuolumne_meadows_1.jpeg

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/17/77/d1/hiking-in-may-kandersteg.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/50/Moon_over_Tuolumne_Meadows_2004-09-05.jpg

 

But we actually have this : http://www.papyjacky.fr/S-extra_fichiers/image004.jpg this http://www.flight-simulator-world.org/images/flight-simulator/Corsair_8.jpg and this : http://gameload.ru/wallpapers/microsoft_flight_simulator.jpg (from FSX)

When other simulator (and graphic engine who handle too many view range for simulation world) look like this : http://www.simviation.com/phpupload/uploads/1324660036.jpg or like this : http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/305648aeroflyFSpittss2bsuisse0120111221203653.jpg (Aerofly FS) or like this : http://www.outerra.com/shots/k208.jpg like this http://hphotos-snc4.fbcdn.net/132256_146975548686734_146954542022168_273651_2693258_o.jpg or like this : http://www.picshelf.com/images/arma/outerra_from_orbit.gif (Outerra)

 

And where other game look like this : http://www.pcgameshardware.com/screenshots/original/2009/04/Raining-Fire-Cryengine-2-06.jpg like this : http://www6.incrysis.com/screenshots/crysis_tod_art_2ptnfno.jpg like this :http://lostmoya.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/crysis-screenshot-3.jpg (with tweaks a huge rage can be show) or even like this : http://luchaire.gamersoasis.net/Skyrim/Skyrim142.jpg

 

But the funniest part its when people try to argument and say that they don't know what visual problem i talk about when i compare this : http://www.flight-simulator-world.org/images/flight-simulator/Persianfury1.jpg or this http://www.piksu.fi/games/keskipalsta/FSX/Pictures/2007-6-6_9-43-6-46.JPG with this : http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/40332/cow_pasture_tr.jpg and this : http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/168855466_4471a16cb5.jpg and this : http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sD01Cbqoqb0/TDROZUqDi_I/AAAAAAAAAbY/yfHJQGg5H80/s1600/nature_photography_wallpaper_cloven_forest_photography.jpg

 

And people try to told me that they don't see the EXTREME REALISM of things like this : http://duuro.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Real_or_Crysis_by_Timo2141.jpg capable to show GIANT area full of detail and extreme detail at close range WITHOUT take 100 of my computer unlike EVERY simulator (except Outerra and Aerofly FS) who lag and show visual low resolution and fidelity to real world, if even we can get low graphism and don't see low FPS ammount for less than 80% to EVERY piece of hardware (any CPU core, GPU, RAM, HDD) i don't will say something, but actually that lag and don't really use the computer, or sometime stock at 100% for nothing (look at the sky for example)...

 

Anyways i sad to see no REAL changes, i hope ED Team will be the first to change thing, Nevada map its a nice begin.

 

Anyways, yes, we can get more tree...

[maturin]

I was surprised to see that where LOMAC had many areas of trees (outside detailed town zones), DCS just goes for the dark green textured look.

[PrintF]

That we don't have enough computing power in our modern day desktops for that.

 

Actually we do as in a simulation you are not displaying full content over an infinite distance. It's all about simplification of geometry with distance. It's complex but doable. And the user is able to play it on an average PC these days.

 

 

@Demongornot: I hear you and I agree with you :) Well, I will be pleased with more dense vegetation areas. I don't need an Outerra-like engine which actually has it's own very special set of problems ;) I am glad to have found DCS for doing ground tactics and I will be happy if we get forests and vegetation that actually does block sight and movement to a certain extend.

[Tango]

I think you're wanting OFP/ArmA style forests in a flight sim. I agree, it would be great to have that detail, but at the expense of what? As it is, the trees in DCS are not even solid.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

[Kuky]

maybe in 10-20 years

[Cali]

I think you're wanting OFP/ArmA style forests in a flight sim. I agree, it would be great to have that detail, but at the expense of what? As it is, the trees in DCS are not even solid.

 

Best regards,

Tango.

 

Arma's trees aren't perfect either. Hop in a jet and see what happens with the trees and the view. Go up a few hundred meters and you can't see anything. Another thing I have notice that I could be hiding by a bush and a guy 300-400 meters away will be able to see me as if the bush is see-through.

[Ripcord]

I would guess that it is less about computing power and method of rendering at various levels, distances, etc than it is about simply having limited resources. We want so many things -- new terrain, different theatres, more ships, more units, more/better AI, more features,.... basically just more..., all this is understandable, with each new module the possibilities just seem so much greater. So ED has to prioritize, and focus on the things that they can release and get out the door and charge for.

 

Maybe this will improve when Nevada comes out and we get that new EDGE terrain engine? Not that there are helluva lot of trees in Nevada.....

[maturin]

Arma's trees aren't perfect either.

ArmA's trees fade out to LoD pretty fast, which would be just fine and dandy in DCS. Also, once they stop rendering entirely (at like 4000m), the ground texture at that distance mimics the appearance of heavy forest, which is something DCS doesn't do so well.

 

Another thing I have notice that I could be hiding by a bush and a guy 300-400 meters away will be able to see me as if the bush is see-through.

The AI doesn't see through bushes in ArmA, and the LoD at distance tends to hide your from human eyes better than the detailed model up close.

 

But I don't think anyone wants infantry simulator detail; that wouldn't be reasonable. It's just that LOMAC had more trees than DCS.

[zzzspace]

It's just that LOMAC had more trees than DCS.

 

Nah. One thing I noticed when first getting DCS A-10C was how much better the trees looked, and how many more types there were. If I remember correctly LOMAC had just one type of fairly spindly generic 'tree' (of different sizes) in the forested areas, and no tree shadowing.

 

As I understand it the tree distribution placement in DCS was based on sat images of where the open cleared spaces actually are, and where tree-stands actually exist. There's a lot of agricultural land on the coastal plains and areas above the timber line, and more open farmland behind that. So where would these new forests go?

 

At most I think you could increase the density of isolated stands of trees in cleared areas, and on farms and the less cleared areas north of the mountains. Plus instead of going from sharp-edge forested areas directly into grasses and flowers, what's maybe needed is to blend this change with random clumps and areas of lower bushes and shrubs, and also to sprinkle these around the periphery of cleared fields and roads, etc.

 

Where there are 'rain-shadows' (like the downwind side of mountain ranges, near coastal zones) you just don't get forests growing behind the mountains, because all the excess moisture has fallen on the mountains. So you do get open grasslands and pasture instead.

Edited August 7, 2012 by zzzspace

[Cali]

ArmA's trees fade out to LoD pretty fast, which would be just fine and dandy in DCS. Also, once they stop rendering entirely (at like 4000m), the ground texture at that distance mimics the appearance of heavy forest, which is something DCS doesn't do so well.

 

 

The AI doesn't see through bushes in ArmA, and the LoD at distance tends to hide your from human eyes better than the detailed model up close.

 

But I don't think anyone wants infantry simulator detail; that wouldn't be reasonable. It's just that LOMAC had more trees than DCS.

 

They might not see through trees, that's still not confirmed, but they know exactly where you are after a shot. Even if you are a sniper and 300-400 meters away. They can see you clearly without a scope. I need my slienced sniper rifle!

[maturin]

50% of Georgia is forest, and there are woodland areas on the coast and in the center of the country (nothing in the Surami range is above the treeline). I only see trees in the detailed village areas, with bare textures connecting them. But maybe it's because of my graphics settings.

 

 

They might not see through trees, that's still not confirmed, but they know exactly where you are after a shot. Even if you are a sniper and 300-400 meters away. They can see you clearly without a scope. I need my slienced sniper rifle!

 

 

You're talking to the manic ArmA AI tester.

 

Once you alert the AI, their eyes get incredibly good, but they have to have line of sight. And it almost always takes two shots at 300m because the first alerts them, then they look in the direction of the sound and see you. If you stay completely behind a bush, you can fire entire clips of ammo and they won't know your exact location. And that is very, very confirmed.

[Cali]

I'll have to test that out for myself, but you are right about them having very good eyesight.

[Weta43]

I was surprised to see that where LOMAC had many areas of trees (outside detailed town zones), DCS just goes for the dark green textured look.

Maybe check your graphic settings :

[Kuky]

I think trees in DCS are just fine... it could have bit more density in actual forest area but it's not too bad as it is... you can increase the slider to 15km distance and even more by simply editing 1 lua file to give you more distance in the slider so as long as you have really beefy PC you can have more trees... most people will struggle with max distance right now, I keep mine at 13km distance and forests look pretty decent for me.

[Corrigan]

'More trees' is very, very far down the desired change log for my part. :)

[Rhinox]

Some +/- 10 years ago I was playing a heli-sim (I think it was "Gunship 2000" but I'm not sure at all) with literally thousands of trees, with heli/tree collision simulated. You could hide hovering above meadow in the middle of forest surrounded by trees, but you could not fly "through" trees. If you tried you'd hear nice cracking sound, just before you went down.

 

If this was possible ~10 years ago, why not now, wenn we have PC's with 1e6 times more cpu/gpu-power and 1e3 times more ram? Moreover, from close distance those trees had better shape than what we have in DCS:BS now. Hell, I'm gonna look for old cd's, maybe I'll find it...

[G00dnight]

If you stay completely behind a bush you cant see them so its pointless firing at all.

I have been killed many times at long distance by ai that can zero in on a single shot from a long distance with an ak on iron sights and i can only just hit him with a as50.

[G00dnight]

back on topic yes I would like more trees for KA to hide in, I also remember GUNSHIP! but the graphics then were slightly easier, Ie the trees were like 2 flat images in a cross. effective then but with the comps now it would look very bad.

[maturin]

Maybe check your graphic settings :

Yeah, I fixed it. I was confused by the bizarre state of affairs where only the High setting allows the engine to draw basic features like trees.

 

I'll reiterate that the land textures for forest should be made darker to imitate trees out past their short draw distance.

 

If you stay completely behind a bush you cant see them so its pointless firing at all.

Depends on the bush. Up close any leafy object has holes in it that can't be seen through from range. And the lower areas near the roots are often thinner. But why do you expect being able to fire from invisibility? This isn't an over-the-shoulder cover-based shooter, to give you that handicap. If he can get shot, so can you. The point was that the AI only sees you if he has line of sight and is looking in your direction. There are ways to break contact and hide.

 

I have been killed many times at long distance by ai that can zero in on a single shot from a long distance with an ak on iron sights and i can only just hit him with a as50.

Not unless you're really bad with the AS50, because the vanilla AI is incredibly reluctant to shoot at anything more than 300m away (a completely reasonable shot to make with iron sights). Anyways, you realize how easy it is to turn down AI accuracy, right?

Edited August 11, 2012 by maturin