Jump to content

Is it technically possible to make base textures better?


Gierasimov

Recommended Posts

Show me a better combat sim map ;)....

 

And no photo realistic looks like shit on a combat sim, you need 3d objects not juts photos on the floor.... The 1 thing I really could not stand about Falcon was the "photo realistic" terrain... anything below 1000 feet was rubbish...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In that regard Baco, the Caucasus map is much better, with nicer greens blending.

I never said I wanted photos as textures as I think alike about it.

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a better combat sim map ;)....

 

And no photo realistic looks like shit on a combat sim, you need 3d objects not juts photos on the floor.... The 1 thing I really could not stand about Falcon was the "photo realistic" terrain... anything below 1000 feet was rubbish...

 

ED stated several times that their ambition is not doing better or same than other combat sims, but their ambition is to model real life.

 

This line of thinking of course reflects on customers ambitions, and that's fair to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More like asking for technical EDGE insight. I would not call Bandar Abbas or Khasab outside of detailed area. That's not the point anyway.
IIRC those two cities were added almost at the end of development as an extra, weren't they? I can't remember now were those cities are in the map TBH so I won't claim they are exactly at the edges of the map (detailed area of course, not whole map) or not right now but something of that may come as flashes to my memory.

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ED stated several times that their ambition is not doing better or same than other combat sims, but their ambition is to model real life.

 

This line of thinking of course reflects on customers ambitions, and that's fair to me.

 

Oh I see.

Well customers can be as ambitious as they want, but then you have to come back to reality or hire a custom designer to build you a sim on your own Cray computer ;)

 

So to answer the P.O.s question: yes for 60 bucks this is the best you can get.

Is it technically possible to do better, Well i guess so...

Financially posible? not for the average consumer product client ;).

 

p.s. You most definitely can not simulate reality in a personal Computer running on Windows. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm not the one who expressed this ambition. Because I perfectly know that reality, in a 2019 software, HAS to be approximated with some trade-offs. Something can be simulated, other things just must be mocked as convincing as modern tech can get (especially visual ones).

 

I'm not going further here, there's a whole other topic about this and references on other game engines and sims.

 

Out :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is simply wrong

 

IIRC those two cities were added almost at the end of development as an extra, weren't they? I can't remember now were those cities are in the map TBH so I won't claim they are exactly at the edges of the map (detailed area of course, not whole map) or not right now but something of that may come as flashes to my memory.

 

S!

 

Nope. Bandar Abbas is marketed as detailed city on the product page. Khasab was there since day one and both are located in the focus of the map which, again by the product page, is the Strait of Hormuz.

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is basically due to the satellite textures used as a base layer with "game textures" layered over it for cities and then not spending a lot of time perfecting the texture or tiling. It wouldn't shock me if there is a level of automation in the initial creation of paths and choosing city tiles that resulted in this. There is only a finite number of city tiles that can be oriented or cropped however the designer wishes, thus there is no technical limitation. The only limitation is time spent on a map/area before moving onto another area or whole separate map.

 

 

Just to illustrate the difference Caucuses and Normandy on the other hand are basically 100% game textures with the satellite textures on Caucuses being limited to non-populated areas of the map only visible at higher altitudes but blend into game textures the lower you are. See the screenshot. Kerch airport is clearly seen on satellite textures, but the main point is the west side of the strait isn't part of the game map and uses satellite imagery, while the east side is all game textures.

 

I certainly consider it to be a bug, especially in the larger areas that have the discombobulated look that is prevalent in the boonies of Iran. Just be aware that the terrain team is likely working on the next map and/or helping with Syria. I simply don't know how much time is spent on maintenance of older maps aside for AI bug fixes related to the map.

Screen_190910_174923.thumb.jpg.503f6c527515ca7f4b9c612b572db9b8.jpg

The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world.

Current Projects:  Grayflag ServerScripting Wiki

Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread)

 SLMOD, Wiki wishlist, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Grimes.

These are valid and interesting points.

All effort went to the new (updated) Caucasus, which is free for all to enjoy, and poorly optimised texture layers were used for a paid product.

As said, it looks like Syria (Middle East project) is much better in this regard, hopefully new ED maps will be more like Caucasus and less like PG too. I understand resources needed vs. time/effort, maybe that's why ED is not willing to talk about their maps... not ready to show...

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just used the Caucasus to show the "satellite vs game" texture differences. Didn't necessarily try to state which had more time and effort put into it. For the updated Caucuses most of the building locations, design of textures, fields, etc didn't change much. Instead if was a better mesh, fixing terrain issues, and some additions of roads/bridges that saw where most of the work went into. Anyway I attached a screenshot from PG that shows both in action. There is the village area clearly with 3d objects and pretty clear border of the textures but you can also kinda see what looks like the town baked into the actual satellite texture. Perhaps a similar location on Caucasus would look better simply because instead of a satellite view it just has a generic nature textures as the base layer of the map giving a more logical texture transition.

 

 

Overall I think the way ED are building maps works great for densely packed cities, but not so much for the edges of towns and the boonies. That said PG is pretty bad about repeating textures and city blocks. See the last 2 screenshots. On NTTR there is a pretty identifiable apartment block, but the blocks are only occasionally right next to each other and when that is the case they are usually rotated or have city streets cut into the block making the repeat a little less obvious. PG on the other hand, I was to lazy to highlight every single instance of the same buildings repeating, but it should be easy to spot.

 

Syria's quality remains to be seen. Gotta remember that before it is released ED control what is shown in promotional materials, as such they will try to choose better looking areas. That said I'm fairly certain Syria has been used in some F-16 promo shots and it still exhibits tell tail issues I look for when reporting terrain bugs.

Screen_190911_025605.thumb.jpg.77e8adbe692429b2c85d573ecf8a3df2.jpg

pg_repeating.thumb.jpg.5b32fb0c85be8f66032b3c19d1b760e0.jpg

nttr_same_block.thumb.jpg.26a31f08f3dda1fbaae4cebe2574dd5d.jpg

The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world.

Current Projects:  Grayflag ServerScripting Wiki

Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread)

 SLMOD, Wiki wishlist, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Bandar Abbas is marketed as detailed city on the product page. Khasab was there since day one and both are located in the focus of the map which, again by the product page, is the Strait of Hormuz.
Roger :thumbup: .

 

All effort went to the new (updated) Caucasus, which is free for all to enjoy, and poorly optimised texture layers were used for a paid product.
Mate, that's quite unfair.

 

That said PG is pretty bad about repeating textures and city blocks.
I think desert textures aren't helping there, it's way more difficult to hide that repetition.

 

PG on the other hand, I was to lazy to highlight every single instance of the same buildings repeating, but it should be easy to spot.
Just the one you posted is indeed the same texture, though part of it and rotated in a way they look different.

 

S!


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Show me a better combat sim map ;)....

 

And no photo realistic looks like shit on a combat sim, you need 3d objects not juts photos on the floor.... The 1 thing I really could not stand about Falcon was the "photo realistic" terrain... anything below 1000 feet was rubbish...

 

First of all, photo real does not have be flat. Textures are just textures. Then you've got the overlays on top of it with all the buildings, trees, etc.

 

Anyway, wanna see a better map ? Have a look at Cliffs of Dover Blitz Edition. It's an improved, updated version of a game released in 2011. The update itself came in Dec 2017 according to Steam. It happens to include parts of Normandy so I ventured there to compare it to the Normandy map in DCS. I haven't touched DCS Normandy ever since.

 

You look at it and it's just authentic. I haven't seen any ridiculous texture blending that makes you realize something is wrong like the ones shown in this thread. Cities look like cities, the road layout is more accurate, etc. If they can sell the whole game including the map, lots of planes, missions and campaigns for $10 on Steam (though apparently it's more in other countries, have a look at your Steam) then don't tell me ED can't do any better for $50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, photo real does not have be flat. Textures are just textures. Then you've got the overlays on top of it with all the buildings, trees, etc.

 

Anyway, wanna see a better map ? Have a look at Cliffs of Dover Blitz Edition. It's an improved, updated version of a game released in 2011. The update itself came in Dec 2017 according to Steam. It happens to include parts of Normandy so I ventured there to compare it to the Normandy map in DCS. I haven't touched DCS Normandy ever since.

 

You look at it and it's just authentic. I haven't seen any ridiculous texture blending that makes you realize something is wrong like the ones shown in this thread. Cities look like cities, the road layout is more accurate, etc. If they can sell the whole game including the map, lots of planes, missions and campaigns for $10 on Steam (though apparently it's more in other countries, have a look at your Steam) then don't tell me ED can't do any better for $50.

 

Yeap, beautiful map!

Too bad they had to scratch the whole engine because it just didn´t RUN... (another venture I supported with my wallet and left me hanging LOL)

 

And now we have Battle series, While COD has been discarded ;) No Photo realistic tiles there.. Gorgeous maps tho, but much less populated and fewer polys, and buildings... not to mention smaller...

 

P.S. By the way I Payed Cliffs of Dover over 70 bucks back in the day.....so the 10 dollars argument is rubish, its a discarded game with so many bugs that they had to discard the whole engine... and yes some of us Il-2 boys payed 60 or 70 bucks for it....


Edited by Baco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still I believe Grimes Has a good point. But then again ED doesn´t do only maps, so how much time can you pay people to fiddle with a product that sells for only 60 bucks if not on sale....

 

I don´t know, everything is perfectible, but I believe some times we are looking the gifted horse in the mouth....


Edited by Baco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then again ED doesn´t do only maps, so how much time can you pay people to fiddle with a product that sells for only 60 bucks if not on sale....

ED maps team does only that.

 

 

Let's look again at first image here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4027381&postcount=7

 

 

It's a failure. Either don't put any texture there or make it right if you do. No point in defending it.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeap, beautiful map!

Too bad they had to scratch the whole engine because it just didn´t RUN... (another venture I supported with my wallet and left me hanging LOL)

 

And now we have Battle series, While COD has been discarded ;) No Photo realistic tiles there.. Gorgeous maps tho, but much less populated and fewer polys, and buildings... not to mention smaller...

 

P.S. By the way I Payed Cliffs of Dover over 70 bucks back in the day.....so the 10 dollars argument is rubish, its a discarded game with so many bugs that they had to discard the whole engine... and yes some of us Il-2 boys payed 60 or 70 bucks for it....

 

I don't what did or didn't run and how much it was back in the day.

 

What I do know is that right now I'm flying over a very detailed and realistic map of southern England, northern France and Belgium I got for $10 that is bigger and better in every single way than the $50 joke of a map ED calls Normandy. I don't see the point in defending a shitty product honestly. It's not like we're this or that sim's supporters. We're paying customers. Unrealistic expectations is one thing. Decent texture blending in a map they sell for $50 is a must and I'm glad I saw these shots cause I was going to buy PG.

 

Edit: I think I made it clear in my original post I was talking about the Blitz Edition of CoD. Never played the original one and so don't care what it was like back then. Now it looks and runs good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, let's keep it simple and discuss DCS only. There are rules as you may know.

 

I hope that this statement is something that ED considers important --

 

With the advancements in our terrain technology and the ability to create much more detailed low-altitude environments, the HIND will be a joy to fly.

 

Source: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3735501&postcount=177 [DCS Mi-24P Hind]

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope that this statement is something that ED considers important --

 

Source: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3735501&postcount=177 [DCS Mi-24P Hind]

 

They probably think the current iteration fits that definition, and frankly I'd agree with that thought. Go to F11 freeview and take screenshots from low altitude to ground level. It'll look pretty damn decent and comparable to moderately old FPS games, which is insane considering this is a flight sim. However that doesn't mean there aren't issues with tiling, improvements to be made be made, or there are problem areas.

 

Unfortunately there will always be a point when work transitions from one map to another and the only hope for fixing issues like this is whenever the team decides to go back and update an existing map or make sure it gets fixed while they are actively working on it.

The right man in the wrong place makes all the difference in the world.

Current Projects:  Grayflag ServerScripting Wiki

Useful Links: Mission Scripting Tools MIST-(GitHub) MIST-(Thread)

 SLMOD, Wiki wishlist, Mission Editing Wiki!, Mission Building Forum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, better ground fidelity is on the top of my wishlist, even before better weather and clouds.

 

 

And i feel the problem is less with the effort invested into blending of ground textures, but a lack of engine tech. If we look at the handful of current space games that have been in development over the last 6-7 years, all invested heavily into procedural generation of planetary ground surface tech. And without such a procedural tech that creates uneven, rough, high fidelty ground surfaces that through various blending techniques fit to the overall real-world sattelite images.

 

 

Caucasus 2.5 is very nice and a great improvment over the 1.5, and although the ground mesh is much improved, it still is very much on the level of early 2000ish fps games. The texures ain't bad, but it is still flat squares with a bit of grass popped on top of it in places.

 

 

And the aforementioned space games are a good proof of concept that these high fidelity ground surfaces neither need tons and tons of disk realestate, nor that you need a monste pc with hundreds of GBs of memory. Its a question of the underlying core engine in being able to display that hugh and detailed maps, and of crouse of the map dev. kit technology.

 

 

ED mentioned plans for a full sperical globe map in the future. At the latest then, then we definetely need this procedural ground tech.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS is not only flight sim though. Just remember that people who own CA or even rotor heads are really close to the ground. For you, it could be not an issue at all and I respect that.

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite honestly,...the "it is a flight sim point" might have been valid aslong as there was no proof that it can be done. Man, i wish EDs non module tech devs would post 2-3 times a year in detail what they are working for the overall sim. Right now, we have no clue whether anything akin to improved ground surfaces in even remotely plannend or in the works.


Edited by sc_neo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DCS is not only flight sim though.
Yeah, I know CA stuff is there even though I personally don't use it quite often. Still, IMO for a flight sim where you either flight 50000ft high in your fighter jet or run in a humvee through open fields it's not that bad you have some "2000ish FPS graphics" at ground level. For a flight sim. Where you fly. :dunno:

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...