DCS WW2 - terrain

Some will disappear in a certain period of time.

What? They heal?

Soldiers with healing shovels presumably would clear runways and roads.

Soldiers with healing shovels presumably would clear runways and roads.

Damn I had a great reply involving healing bulldozers.

Soldiers with healing shovels presumably would clear runways and roads.

Then it should be a gradual process and certainly should not occur everywhere a crater might appear.

If only those trees were collidable...

I pledged with eyes wide shut; but still hope they'll solve this arcadish feature in EDGE.

Can't be unseen.

Then it should be a gradual process and certainly should not occur everywhere a crater might appear.

Almazi said "some will disappear". So maybe certain areas could be flagged as an area where a crater will be temporary while other areas would not. Or could be some other criteria - we'll find out in due course I guess.

If only those trees were collidable...

 

I pledged with eyes wide shut; but still hope they'll solve this arcadish feature in EDGE.

Can't be unseen.

RPS: Will hedge-hopping DCS WWII pilots need to worry about vegetation collisions?

 

Ilya: My long and painful experience with past projects forces me to add a warning here that all features are subject to change and so on and so forth. And, the answer is yes.

For a brand new terrain engine, I'm still a little confused as to why it still seems so archaic.

I mean, the new tools are great, but other than that, I really can't see much difference. The lighting (hopefully) will still get a nice upgrade, but even that is unknown.

The maps are still flat, something FSX and X-Plane terrain have no problem getting over. Does this also mean that the water is still one giant, flat plane underneath the land? That has caused plenty of visual problems in our current engine. The non-collidable trees.

Knowing that EDGE is the *NEW* terrain engine means these limitations will be around for a very long time.

Can't they just solve the problem by placing invisible buildings in the forests that are tailored in size to match them?

For a brand new terrain engine, I'm still a little confused as to why it still seems so archaic.

 

I mean, the new tools are great, but other than that, I really can't see much difference. The lighting (hopefully) will still get a nice upgrade, but even that is unknown.

The maps are still flat, something FSX and X-Plane terrain have no problem getting over. Does this also mean that the water is still one giant, flat plane underneath the land? That has caused plenty of visual problems in our current engine. The non-collidable trees.

 

Knowing that EDGE is the *NEW* terrain engine means these limitations will be around for a very long time.

What we have seen so far was mostly from within the modelling tools, the editor. And Luthier repeatedly stated that this is in no way representative for how it will actually look like in-game later.

And what do you mean with "flat"? Normandy is, well, flat. There are no mountains ...

Can't they just solve the problem by placing invisible buildings in the forests that are tailored in size to match them?

That won't solve anything. The problem is not that trees are not collidable - trees are objects as any other, like for example houses. It would probably cost zero efford to just turn on "tree_collidable = true" (or some such :o). But as Luthier explained in some thread already, the problem is the performance hit that the necessary collision detection algorithms would cause because of the immense number of objects (trees) that need to be taken into account.

And what do you mean with "flat"? Normandy is, well, flat. There are no mountains ...

This means making an orbiter or ICBM module for DCS is impossible, because you cannot orbit a flat plane. It also means that making a map that spans long distances would have stretching effects.

If EDGE does not change this then DCS World really isn't and cannot be a World.

I was very much surprised when I heard that EDGE doesn't consider the curvature of the Earth. Very odd for a flight simulation graphics engine. Simple example. In real life, when you're about 10km up and you see an aircraft at a distance of say 5 Nautical Miles and it looks to be at the same altitude as you are, you can be sure that you are higher (I'd say by about a 1000 feet). This is because the horizon drops of a few degrees due to the curvature of the Earth. How would this effect then be simulated?

MAC

I was very much surprised when I heard that EDGE doesn't consider the curvature of the Earth. Very odd for a flight simulation graphics engine. Simple example. In real life, when you're about 10km up and you see an aircraft at a distance of say 5 Nautical Miles and it looks to be at the same altitude as you are, you can be sure that you are higher (I'd say by about a 1000 feet). This is because the horizon drops of a few degrees due to the curvature of the Earth. How would this effect then be simulated?

 

MAC

Interesting question

I truly believe, that graphic engine is holding DCS back. We have good sound engine, great FM and then EDGE...

Referring to the curvature of Earth, not the terrain roughness. The black sea map is a flat plane with 3d coordinates mapped onto it, so you cannot actually circumnavigate the planet. (do polar circumnavigation, or you might follow your compass in a big circle). This means making an orbiter or ICBM module for DCS is impossible, because you cannot orbit a flat plane. It also means that making a map that spans long distances would have stretching effects.

If EDGE does not change this then DCS World really isn't and cannot be a World.

Exactly my concerns.

It's so odd to me that they "re-wrote" this terrain engine, something that's taken them years to do, only to have many of the same limitations the original engine had 10+ years ago.

But then again, what other choices do we have? I guess if you're in a niche market you have to be willing to put up with certain limitations.

I wish ED would get to the level of Chris Roberts type PR. Spend some time, use a *new* engine, and re-invent flight sims. The more they keep recycling their old code / technology the less people will be attracted.

/end rant

EDIT: Just saw Star Citizen has reached 20 Million. Two - Zero. I bet some of those people would be into a *modern* flight sim with bad a** graphics engine!

Exactly my concerns.

 

It's so odd to me that they "re-wrote" this terrain engine, something that's taken them years to do, only to have many of the same limitations the original engine had 10+ years ago.

 

But then again, what other choices do we have? I guess if you're in a niche market you have to be willing to put up with certain limitations.

 

I wish ED would get to the level of Chris Roberts type PR. Spend some time, use a *new* engine, and re-invent flight sims. The more they keep recycling their old code / technology the less people will be attracted.

 

/end rant

 

Agreed. I am beginning to get the feeling that, aside from being prettier, EDGE is going to be a bit of a let down.

No, actually SC has reached $20 738 635!!!

Will reach $21 M this week.

Exactly my concerns.

 

It's so odd to me that they "re-wrote" this terrain engine, something that's taken them years to do, only to have many of the same limitations the original engine had 10+ years ago.

I thoroughly agree with the sentiment, but I can understand ED's point of view. Most of their non-gaming products are helicopter simulators, or like the A-10C, avionics trainers. In those, the curvature of the earth is mostly irrelevant and a complication.

For the gaming market, I think they are missing a great opportunity. A true world model with pluggable scenery ala FSX, combined with their flight models? They could even compete in the civilian sim market.

Who knows, maybe in the future...

 

Who knows, maybe in the future...

EDGE was supposed to be the future :smartass:

EDGE was supposed to be the future :smartass:

When I was a kid, 2000 was the future. Then around 1995, the future started being 2010. These days, I'm not sure what the future even is, maybe 2030? Anyway, I've learned there is always another future hiding behind the future.

But none of them have flying cars:pilotfly:

Came here for the first time.

Find people complaining about the curvature of the earth not being modeled.

Yup sim fans.

Find people complaining about the curvature of the earth not being modeled.

It is kind of a bigger deal than first meets the eye.

Yup sim fans.

Damn straight. ;)