32 bit normal maps

[LucShep]

11 hours ago, Pikey said:

@twistking The reason was provided by a texture artist from Heatblur. Choosing not to believe that is a valid reason is fine. But I would ask everyone that doesnt beleive their reason is valid to consider why, not only ED, but most of the third party developers are doing the same with the textures. Have they all got group hallucinations? Why would something so unbelievable only be unbelievable for people who aren't creating modules for DCS?
For me,  I never tested how much the distortion is really apparent, others here claim its not a factor, so for me, its like choosing between several companies that have people working on this or someone that makes a counter claim. I pick the majority until I become able to do better for myself, but I realise that is an uneducated position. Still, I don't claim any of this, from either side, is unbelievable. Nothing is unbeleivable and that word keeps going around.

 

 

You said previously in this thread, the fellas you contacted at ED and 3rd parties devs about this subject responded that the textures are like they are, and quoting:

"This is not something I have to convince someone.  This is that obvious."

 

And you said yourself: "is unfortunately not true in this case, apparently you do have to convince Eagle Dynamics."

 

This is a bit surprising, if I'm honest, and I read that as bad news.  I really thought they would imediately understand the issue of having such big overkill textures like we have right now, which do cause more serious problems than the (unlikely to be noticed) artifacts they seem so afraid of, if going for optimized textures (as per industry standard).

 

So, it means we have a predominant (almost snobish?) attitude of a few 2D artists at ED and 3rd parties devs?

And so we are deprived of fixes for a gazillion of textures that could be down to 1/8 smaller with no prejudice for in-game image quality, and of all the benefits those optimized textures could provide (like the rest of the gaming industry has been doing for years!).  That's actually very curious. 

 

 

I'm going to make an analogy, and here's one for those same people at ED and 3rd parties who responded like that.... 

 

I'm an ex-sound designer, and I'd like to know if they understand why the .WAV sound samples in DCS are 16-bit 44.100Hz, which is the same standard the rest of the industry follows, for years and for good reason?

 

You see, 24-bit 96.000Hz and even 192.000Hz could be used instead for the game WAV sound samples, but then you'd probably need professional soundcards and headphones or studio monitors (and bigger disc space!), to understand those overkill specs and pick that quality and clarity, as from the source recordings.  

...What, we should not demand every user/customer, including the developers, each to have a professional top soundcard, heaphones or studio monitors?

...What do you mean those sound-files would also be too big for a game?? 

See what I did here? 

And then you put in-game textures in size, format and bit-depth that demand 8GB+ VRAM GPU at minimum, because those friggin artifacts from optimized textures (as per industry standard) which noone would notice, are far more fearful and important than the steep hardware requirements and in-game stuttering issues, right? ........ 

 what standards and what priorities, right?

Edited February 22, 2021 by LucShep

[YSIAD_RIP]

Great Topic and discussion.  I hope that with the up and coming DCS 2.7 Eagle Dynamics will take the opportunity to optimize as many of the unnecessarily large textures as possible.  This looks like an easy job for an intern or even a project for someone who needs a mental brake from doing their current job.

 

I hope this thread gets more bumps in the coming weeks.. 

 

Cheers. 

[Mad_Shell]

What is worrying me is that ED staff seems to totally ignore the few threads pointing out that issue...

[Pikey]

11 hours ago, Taz1004 said:

What you're saying is entire game industry other than ED are hallucinating.

If i'd said that, then i would have... said that. Learn the difference between infering and implying. You infered it, I did not imply it. Or say it.
Here's some game industry texture arttists crying out for unity to support 32bit textures https://forum.unity.com/threads/normal-map-artifacts.417741/
It's not as cut and dry as you keep saying.
I have no issues with the ED textures, in fact the Heatblur F-14 is the one that my gfx card consistently starts chugging at so I can't follow the end to end flow of what you call so obvious. Thats all i'm saying.... it's just not as simple as you keep making out else there would be absolutely no evidence to the contrary and there is a quality consideration that has been raised both online and by artists in working with the sim. Thats it. No personal bone. I suspect you hope there was because no one from the dev teams is answering you.
I also wish they would, because I still believe your message has lots of merit.

[Pikey]

12 hours ago, LucShep said:

 

 

You said previously in this thread, the fellas you contacted at ED and 3rd parties devs about this subject responded that the textures are like they are, and quoting:

"This is not something I have to convince someone.  This is that obvious."

 

And you said yourself: "is unfortunately not true in this case, apparently you do have to convince Eagle Dynamics."

 

This is a bit surprising, if I'm honest, and I read that as bad news.  I really thought they would imediately understand the issue of having such big overkill textures like we have right now, which do cause more serious problems than the (unlikely to be noticed) artifacts they seem so afraid of, if going for optimized textures (as per industry standard).

 

So, it means we have a predominant (almost snobish?) attitude of a few 2D artists at ED and 3rd parties devs?

And so we are deprived of fixes for a gazillion of textures that could be down to 1/8 smaller with no prejudice for in-game image quality, and of all the benefits those optimized textures could provide (like the rest of the gaming industry has been doing for years!).  That's actually very curious. 

 

 

I'm going to make an analogy, and here's one for those same people at ED and 3rd parties who responded like that.... 

 

I'm an ex-sound designer, and I'd like to know if they understand why the .WAV sound samples in DCS are 16-bit 44.100Hz, which is the same standard the rest of the industry follows, for years and for good reason?

 

You see, 24-bit 96.000Hz and even 192.000Hz could be used instead for the game WAV sound samples, but then you'd probably need professional soundcards and headphones or studio monitors (and bigger disc space!), to understand those overkill specs and pick that quality and clarity, as from the source recordings.  

...What, we should not demand every user/customer, including the developers, each to have a professional top soundcard, heaphones or studio monitors?

...What do you mean those sound-files would also be too big for a game?? 

See what I did here? 

And then you put in-game textures in size, format and bit-depth that demand 8GB+ VRAM GPU at minimum, because those friggin artifacts from optimized textures (as per industry standard) which noone would notice, are far more fearful and important than the steep hardware requirements and in-game stuttering issues, right? ........ 

 what standards and what priorities, right?

 

There's some fantastic brandishing of "industry standard" as a term, yet it's never been referenced in this post. It would carry more weight to have that here, can one of you experts find it perhaps?
 

[Fri13]

On 1/19/2021 at 8:13 PM, Taz1004 said:

 

But even if that is true, perhaps 16 bit.  Not 32 bit.  That article clearly shows there's no difference whatsoever between 16 and 32 bit in quality EVEN ON GLOSSY METALLIC SURFACES.  And if this was by design, why not all the normal maps?

 

I don't have to convince Eagle Dynamics.  Eagle Dynamics has to convince their customers why they're wasting valuable resources if this in fact is the conscious decision.

 

 

I can understand 32 bit maps for a skybox or such, but those are lighting effects more, that just so that the challenging color with different shades can blend nicely.

But I don't get the 32 bit argument for the cockpit at all. Not for the ground texture or trees, vehicles etc.

 

Even in a canopy real-time reflections (that we don't have, as You explain) the 32 bit is just overkill.

 

Like using your tree mod as example

 

 

If the LOW version is 4 times smaller in required space,... Why not?

 

If user needs to start looking a texture quality far closer than they ever do when they fly, and require to have a comparison side by side, it is already a failed argument that one can find a difference as the test scenario is already unrealistic.

If user would be flying with helicopter at low altitude like 20 meters and they would be "Gee.... How ugly trees!", then it would be valid argument, if 50% of the users would notice such a difference.

 

 

 

[twistking]

18 minutes ago, Pikey said:

There's some fantastic brandishing of "industry standard" as a term, yet it's never been referenced in this post. It would carry more weight to have that here, can one of you experts find it perhaps?
 

 

i don't think there is something like the almanac of "game industry standard formats and good practices". but just glance over the numbers: the normal maps for the a-10c cockpit are 600mb in size. that is just normal maps, not diffus, not rough, not metal, but just normal maps. you can get a whole videogame within 600mb. obviously standards and "good practices" change a lot in an industry with such constant progress, but you need no special knowledge to understand that this here is excessive. it's just excessive!

nobody would care about 600mb of normal maps for a single cockpit alone, if the game would not clog up the vram with it, no one would care if high vram cards were cheap.

 

you have 32bit normals on models for ground units, that have no siginificant detail in them. also they are not glossy at all (so no banding even for the eagle eyed). it's just throwing away performance and with current gpu pricing it's throwing away customers money by forcing them to buy overpriced high end gpus...

Edited February 22, 2021 by twistking

[LucShep]

3 hours ago, Pikey said:

There's some fantastic brandishing of "industry standard" as a term, yet it's never been referenced in this post. It would carry more weight to have that here, can one of you experts find it perhaps?
 

I'm not sure you're making fun or being serious?

 

It's not about "fantastic brandishing".  It's about having common sense, about efficiency and making the most out of the resources -  that is "industry standards"!

Something that most professional game developers, be it as studio or individual, always follow. Or at least everyone did back in my time in the field.

If this is not something you ever heard about, be it the term or the motives/reasons, then I'm afraid to say it but I can't help you...

 

In regards to the DCS "overkill" textures (which they are), if we consider a ratio or balance of "image quality settings VS performance settings", the former is exaggerated, at the cost of the latter. It's clearly and unreasonably unbalanced (I'd say to the extreme) and inefficient, unlike anything I've ever seen in any other game, simulation or otherwise.

 

I said this in another thread, and I'll say it again...

 

These following textures "choices" are seen everywhere in DCS, also across every module and map, and I find it really questionable (to say the least), for example:

• 4K and 8K size on Bump/Normal maps and Specular maps, when 2K and even 1K size would've been the most correct; 
• Texture formats at DXT5 for textures with no transparencies (no alpha-channel), when DXT1 would've been the most correct;
• Usage of 32 bit-depth, even on Bump/Normal maps, when 8 bit-depth would've been the most correct;
• 4K size for Diffuse + Specular + Bump/Normal map textures on objects that'll rarely, if ever, be at very close view (missiles, vehicles, boats, huge etc), when 2K size for Diffuse and 1K for Specular + Bump/Normal maps would've been the most correct;

None of that makes any sense, it's absolutely insane once you realise how that easily overloads in the game. 

It's no wonder then, that even 8GB GPUs choke with video memory maxxed out in DCS even at 1080P screen resolution - there's a huge waste of resources right there.

 

The "new" hardware requirements announcement by ED just exacerbates a problem that is not new - lack of optimization.

It's disappointing, if not insulting, to read about the newer brute-force hardware requirements (now minimum it's 8GB VRAM GPU, in this current world scenario!) instead of them correcting this older practice/problem with textures, which would improve DCS's VRAM, RAM and Disc usage/swap and, most likely, make for lower GPU requirements!

 

So, this is my appeal to ED and 3rd parties. Please do something about it, or ignore it at your own peril.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of textures that could be down to 1/4 and even 1/8 of current size, with no noticeable image quality degradation when in-game.

Not only would it allow for a substancial decrease of installation size in disc and its usage, faster loading times, and lower downloads size/time, but especially a huge decrease of VRAM usage - resulting in much faster flow of texture streaming, instantly solving many of the current in-game stuttering issues (and less users complaining on forums!).

Just this single correction/optimization on itself would very likely allow a decrease of hardware (GPU) requirements, making 6GB GPUs (for example, GTX1660, GTX980Ti, RX5600, etc) to imediately become perfectly usable in this aspect.
 

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by LucShep

[zildac]

This makes complete sense to me, and surely ED must understand the benefits in optimising these textures. Would this post not be better placed in "Bugs" as it seems most odd that there is no comment from a member of ED as to why it's the way it is currently, or more fittingly what is going to be done about it?

Edited February 22, 2021 by zildac

[MAXsenna]

 
Which 3rd party module?  I haven't checked all 3rd party modules but I've seen none in F14 or Syria.  Tell me which and I'll check them out on next free trial.
 
Or perhaps have that Heatblur texture artist actually chime in here for productive discussion?
 
What you're saying is entire game industry other than ED are hallucinating.

The technical details get a little over my head, but I can grasp the concept. So I wonder if you've had a look at the free A-4E-C module, to see how they do it. And I'd bet they be willing to tell you why they do it their way. And I'd bet they'd be most welcome to any suggestions too.

Anyway, I thank you all and appreciate you're efforts to make DCS better in your different areas of expertise!
Cheers!

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Pikey]

1 hour ago, LucShep said:

I'm not sure you're making fun or being serious?

 

It's not about "fantastic brandishing".  It's about having common sense, about efficiency and making the most out of the resources -  that is "industry standards"!

Something that most professional game developers, be it as studio or individual, always follow. Or at least everyone did back in my time in the field.

If this is not something you ever heard about, be it the term or the motives/reasons, then I'm afraid to say it but I can't help you...

 

In regards to the DCS "overkill" textures (which they are), if we consider a ratio or balance of "image quality settings VS performance settings", the former is exaggerated, at the cost of the latter. It's clearly and unreasonably unbalanced (I'd say to the extreme) and inefficient, unlike anything I've ever seen in any other game, simulation or otherwise.

 

I said this in another thread, and I'll say it again...

 

These following textures "choices" are seen everywhere in DCS, also across every module and map, and I find it really questionable (to say the least), for example:

• 4K and 8K size on Bump/Normal maps and Specular maps, when 2K and even 1K size would've been the most correct; 
• Texture formats at DXT5 for textures with no transparencies (no alpha-channel), when DXT1 would've been the most correct;
• Usage of 32 bit-depth, even on Bump/Normal maps, when 8 bit-depth would've been the most correct;
• 4K size for Diffuse + Specular + Bump/Normal map textures on objects that'll rarely, if ever, be at very close view (missiles, vehicles, boats, huge etc), when 2K size for Diffuse and 1K for Specular + Bump/Normal maps would've been the most correct;

None of that makes any sense, it's absolutely insane once you realise how that easily overloads in the game. 

It's no wonder then, that even 8GB GPUs choke with video memory maxxed out in DCS at 1080P screen resolution - there's a huge waste of resources right there.

 

The "new" hardware requirements announcement by ED just exacerbates a problem that is not new - lack of optimization.

We read about "8GB VRAM GPU or higher will now be minimum requirement", when instead there should read "We fixed/corrected/optimized these textures VRAM issue".

 

It's disappointing, if not insulting, to read about the newer brute-force hardware requirements (now minimum it's 8GB VRAM GPU, in this current world scenario!) instead of correcting this older practice/problem with textures, which would improve DCS's VRAM, RAM and Disc usage/swap and, most likely, make for lower GPU requirements!

 

There are hundreds, if not thousands of textures that could be down to 1/4 and even 1/8 of current size, with no noticeable image quality degradation when in-game.

Not only would it allow for a substancial decrease of installation size in disc and its usage, faster loading times, and lower downloads size/time, but especially a huge decrease of VRAM usage - resulting in much faster flow of texture streaming, instantly solving many of the current in-game stuttering issues (and less users complaining on forums!).

Just this single correction/optimization on itself would very likely allow a decrease of hardware (GPU) requirements, making 6GB GPUs (for example, GTX1660, GTX980Ti, RX5600, etc) to imediately become perfectly usable in this aspect.
Do something about it or ignore it at your own peril.

 

 

For a minute there I thought you were talking to me!

[LucShep]

25 minutes ago, Pikey said:

For a minute there I thought you were talking to me!

Well, I meant in case anyone from ED and 3rd parties read it, that is.  Afterall it seems we have to convince them about what should be obvious to them too!

Edited February 22, 2021 by LucShep

[Fri13]

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

It's disappointing, if not insulting, to read about the newer brute-force hardware requirements (now minimum it's 8GB VRAM GPU, in this current world scenario!) instead of correcting this older practice/problem with textures, which would improve DCS's VRAM, RAM and Disc usage/swap and, most likely, make for lower GPU requirements!

 

The Nividia 1080Ti was a monster card when it appeared because its 11 GB VRAM (sorry, don't know what was AMD equivalent so talking just about Nvidia). When the 2000 series card was announced I was personally disappointed by seeing all others to get 8 GB VRAM than the top 2080Ti one that got 11 GB of VRAM. Like even the 2080 Super was locked to 8 GB VRAM, and 2060 and 2070 were to 6 GB. I did purchase the Ti and S models and tested both and returned the Ti model as it was not worth the extra 500 € for about 5-8% performance it offered across various few most demanding games (DCS included).

 

But considering that in previous generation, 3-6 GB was a normal, where now they made 6-8 GB as normal.

And now the 3000 series offers that over 8 GB capability where even lowest 3060 starts with 8 GB, and we now have whipping 24 GB VRAM option available to buy.

That is crazy! One can have more VRAM than RAM at most normal configuration (16 GB).

 

2 hours ago, LucShep said:

There are hundreds, if not thousands of textures that could be down to 1/4 and even 1/8 of current size, with no noticeable image quality degradation when in-game.

 

I would love to try a DCS version where such (lets say "minimization" instead optimization) version could be tested. That how big difference it would be to download sizes, storage space and then performance.

 

If we could cut the VRAM recommended/VR requirement from 8 GB to 6 GB, it would be crazy change. I know already that it would be huge performance increase across the board with the current interface, like when in mission editor you go to select unit weapon loadout and you can have a 1-2 second freeze as that small tiny 3D window loads the unit and apply textures on it. Opening a weapon list and browsing it is 1 second per category (Bombs, Rockets, Missiles etc).

Jumping from unit to unit in the game, from second to few second freezes when the unit and textures are loaded.

Starting in the cockpit and it can be seconds when the cockpit textures are loaded. One of the worst offenders is the AV-(B Harrier that can sometimes take a 5-7 seconds before cockpit is loaded and you are staring a HUD and displays floating in air. But Hornet and Viper are not so much better either.

 

None of such high quality textures makes sense in a flight simulator. I can only see two situations where it makes sense, when one looks closely a own aircraft 3D model as external camera, and when one commands own ground unit in external camera. And that not even in default close-in zoom value but max zoom in value. Literally rivet counting or looking the ground crew brush marks on their new paint.

 

I have come to think that we need better DCS World installers. Offer the few various quality download packages so one can download less and get lower textures. Then if installing multiple different texture versions, get them in settings as option to be used after restart.

Let those who want full quality to enjoy from their hardware choking.

 

 

[Taz1004]

5 hours ago, Pikey said:

Here's some game industry texture arttists crying out for unity to support 32bit textures https://forum.unity.com/threads/normal-map-artifacts.417741/
It's not as cut and dry as you keep saying.

 

You're not even understanding how the normal map is used in that link and how they're used in DCS.  In that example, normal map is used to refine reflection of large surface.  Which exactly is same example I showed in the link I posted which you never seemed to have read or understand.

Here is that link once again for your reference.  It's really the shortest, most easy to understand explanation.

https://polycount.com/discussion/148303/of-bit-depths-banding-and-normal-maps

 

In DCS, normal maps are used for bevels, cut lines, and rivets.  I said before and I say once again, no surface in DCS is such reflective.

 

It IS cut and dry.  It can't be any more dry than this.

 

Quote

If i'd said that, then i would have... said that. Learn the difference between infering and implying.

I think you should relax more 

 

And please.  I still would like to see 3rd party module that has 32 bit normals.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Taz1004

[Taz1004]

4 hours ago, Pikey said:

There's some fantastic brandishing of "industry standard" as a term

 

I never actually used the term "industry standard".  I just said it is not "practiced" in game industry.  Are you looking for us to provide you with a rule somewhere?

 

Look at the link YOU provided.  One of the most popular game engine Unity doesn't even support it.  I haven't used Unity for 2 years but even until 2018, Unity didn't support 32 bit normal maps.

 

Also the link I provided said... once again.

Quote

What about in game? 16 and 32 bit file formats are simply not supported (or at least not commonly used due to texture memory constraints) by most game engines. So, at the end of the day you most likely need to output a 8 bit file.

 

Also.  That link you provided.  It's comparing Maya with Unity.  It's comparing Professional 3D render program versus a game engine.

Edited February 22, 2021 by Taz1004

[Glide]

Technically, @Taz1004 is correct.  However, artists like to start with 32bit so they can go smaller if they need to.  They also run 24 core E5's with max everything, so they may not see the same urgency about performance. 

[flohofwoe]

Just my 2c: hardware texture compression algorithms are optimized for color textures and usually introduce block artefacts when used on normal maps which are especially visible in specular highlights. This quality tradeoff might explain why DCS is using those expensive 32-bit uncompressed texture formats, those don't suffer from compression artefacts.

 

*However* there are long-established tricks to encode normal map data into compressed texture formats with minimal quality loss, but those require to fix pixel shaders so that they decode back into 3-component normal data again.

 

For a historical background see for instance: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/130906/texture_compression_techniques_and_.php

 

TBH it's a bit baffling that DCS World doesn't use one of those normal map compression techniques. You're paying with a hardly perceptible quality decrease but gain a lot of video card memory and texture sampling performance (because smaller textures also means better use of the texture unit caches).

Edited February 22, 2021 by flohofwoe

[Taz1004]

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Even in a canopy real-time reflections (that we don't have, as You explain) the 32 bit is just overkill.

 

You bring up a good point.  Canopy glass would be a surface where 32 bit normal map "MAY" be used to refine it's fake reflection.  But canopy glass in A10C-II doesn't have 32 bit normal map.

 

If the reason Pikey (and an unknown texture artist from Heatblur) is giving the actual reason and this is all done on purpose, shouldn't the canopy glass have 32 bit normal map?

Edited February 22, 2021 by Taz1004

[LucShep]

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

But considering that in previous generation, 3-6 GB was a normal, where now they made 6-8 GB as normal.

And now the 3000 series offers that over 8 GB capability where even lowest 3060 starts with 8 GB, and we now have whipping 24 GB VRAM option available to buy.

That is crazy! 

 

 

Yeah, true. But that's on a "normal" global scenario, not the one we currently live in.
None of such GPUs are available, all globally out of stock.
You may see a few on Ebay, being sold by scalpers and oportunistic sellers, at ludicrous, prohibitive prices (over double MSRP!!) but that isn't really a solution for most users.

 

Which also means the userbase here, for which I suspect there's a very large chunk using GPUs with 6GB or less, are stuck on whatever they have right now.
.....it makes the matter of VRAM and optimization even more worthy of attention. 

 

 

5 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I would love to try a DCS version where such (lets say "minimization" instead optimization) version could be tested. That how big difference it would be to download sizes, storage space and then performance.

 

If we could cut the VRAM recommended/VR requirement from 8 GB to 6 GB, it would be crazy change. I know already that it would be huge performance increase across the board with the current interface, like when in mission editor you go to select unit weapon loadout and you can have a 1-2 second freeze as that small tiny 3D window loads the unit and apply textures on it. Opening a weapon list and browsing it is 1 second per category (Bombs, Rockets, Missiles etc).

Jumping from unit to unit in the game, from second to few second freezes when the unit and textures are loaded.

Starting in the cockpit and it can be seconds when the cockpit textures are loaded. One of the worst offenders is the AV-(B Harrier that can sometimes take a 5-7 seconds before cockpit is loaded and you are staring a HUD and displays floating in air. But Hornet and Viper are not so much better either.

 

None of such high quality textures makes sense in a flight simulator. I can only see two situations where it makes sense, when one looks closely a own aircraft 3D model as external camera, and when one commands own ground unit in external camera. And that not even in default close-in zoom value but max zoom in value. Literally rivet counting or looking the ground crew brush marks on their new paint.

Well, months ago I did start that "optimization" of textures for my own personal use, but I only went so far (done only part of it).
Unfortunately I do not have the time, nor patience, to go through all of it. Too many files, it's a lot of work for one person doing it manually. And I don't even have all the content (few modules, two maps).

For a team, or if using good batch conversion, it'd be easy though.

It must be ED and 3rd parties to do it -  it's too much trouble, messing with files that belong to them only.

 

As for practical results of such partial optimization on my end, for my installation, I've seen about 1.4 GB less VRAM consumption on average (usually ~6500MB instead of ~7900MB), smooth framerate with far less stuttering, and a little smaller installation size (which does make sense).

I wish others could also see and understand, in practice (in-game), how big of a deal this can be. Unfortunately, I can only offer words...  *shrugs*

 

I'd say that, 99% sure, if all these "overkill" textures are fixed/corrected/optimized, and for all of DCS's content (all the base content, modules and maps), it's quite possible to see +2GB decrease in VRAM in-game usage, all across the board, and make for noticeable difference (better in-game performance, slighty smaller installation). 

Which means that, yes, it's likely that lower requirements on GPUs (6GB instead of 8GB like now for minimum recommended) would be possible.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by LucShep

[Taz1004]

8 minutes ago, LucShep said:

I'd say that, 99% sure, if all these "overkill" textures are fixed/corrected/optimized, and for all of DCS's content (all the base content, modules and maps), it's quite possible to see +2GB decrease in VRAM in-game usage, all across the board, and make for noticeable difference (better performance). 

 

I agree but also want to mention that VRAM optimization is not just performance optimization for lower end systems.  Framebuffer for example also uses VRAM.  MSAA, Screen space reflections, and hopefully, Ambient occlusion.

[LucShep]

6 hours ago, Taz1004 said:

 

I agree but also want to mention that VRAM optimization is not just performance optimization for lower end systems.  Framebuffer for example also uses VRAM.  MSAA, Screen space reflections, and hopefully, Ambient occlusion.

 

Yep, exactly!

 

Oh, and those reading my babbling here, please don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this "textures optimization" solution is a magic bullet for lower end hardware - it is not.

But it'd enable a very noticeable improvement for smoother in-game performance for very capable GPUs like -not only but for example- GTX1660Super, GTX980Ti, RX5600 (etc) which do perform as good as a GTX1070 but are currently severely limited (stutter fest?) by their 6GB VRAM ceiling (even more problematic with modules like SC, F14, Syria and The Channel maps, etc).

Issues caused by VRAM usage hit on these 6GB GPUs would be minimized with such textures optimizations, and so perceptions about true GPU requirements could change. 

VR users, requiring very large screen(s) resolutions (and usually noticing 11GB+ VRAM usage), would also see benefits with their higher-end GPUs.  Win-Win scenario.

Edited February 23, 2021 by LucShep

[Pikey]

I asked a community manager to ask to have a developer look again at the thread. ED are on a long weekend right now. We are aware that a reason provided was due to artefacts and you cna see the example in the link I posted. Whilst one set of people might say that unit not supporting 32bit is a good argument for not needing it, another set of people might say the post indicates a desire to have for better appearance. And the question revolves around the percieved performance vs the percieved quality(or specific issue since there doesnt seem to be many downsides)

[Taz1004]

4 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

The technical details get a little over my head, but I can grasp the concept. So I wonder if you've had a look at the free A-4E-C module, to see how they do it. And I'd bet they be willing to tell you why they do it their way. And I'd bet they'd be most welcome to any suggestions too.

 

Thanks, I just looked through A4E-C textures.  No 32bit.  They actually used some in 4 bit to save resources.

[BIGNEWY]

I have asked the team, but can not promise a reply at this stage. If I hear something I will pass it on. 

 

thanks

[LucShep]

42 minutes ago, Pikey said:

I asked a community manager to ask to have a developer look again at the thread. ED are on a long weekend right now. We are aware that a reason provided was due to artefacts and you cna see the example in the link I posted. Whilst one set of people might say that unit not supporting 32bit is a good argument for not needing it, another set of people might say the post indicates a desire to have for better appearance. And the question revolves around the percieved performance vs the percieved quality(or specific issue since there doesnt seem to be many downsides)

 

38 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

I have asked the team, but can not promise a reply at this stage. If I hear something I will pass it on. 

 

thanks

 

 

Thank you Pikey and BigNewy! 

 

I do understand that side of the argument, especially the artists defending their work, but there's a higher reason in all of this and it's worth trying.

If that kind of desired minute detail requires such sacrifice of performance, then it's not worth it. The compromise, in favor of better use of resources, must be adopted.

My take on this is that it's for the benefit of the collective.

Perhaps make a separate DLC with those overkill textures if so inclined, for the single digit percentage(?) of users who are unworried about the noticeable VRAM hit and appreciate such kind of (really) minute details.

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by LucShep