Jump to content

Low res place holder models


Recommended Posts

DCS is getting bigger and bigger with the new module releases. Eventually storage space will not be sufficient at some point.

It would be good if we had a choice between low res-hi res models.

Let's say I don't own HB viggen module, why would i donwload whole 3d model? There are many modules are on the way. İt will certanly hurt our SSD's


Edited by ebabil
  • Confused 2

FC3 | UH-1H | Mi-8MTV2 | A-10C II | F/A-18C | Ka-50 | F-14A/B | F-16CAH-64

Persian Gulf | Nevada | Syria | NS-430 | Supercarrier // Wishlist: C-130 | UH-60 | F-4E

 

Youtube

Z390 / i5 9400F / RTX3070 / 32 GB Ram / 500 gb SSD and 1 tb HDD // CH Fighterstick - MS FFB2 - TM Warthog Throttle and Stick - CH Pro Pedals - Trackir 4 and 5

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3D models really aren't that much of a significant hit. 

  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2021 at 12:08 PM, Northstar98 said:

The 3D models really aren't that much of a significant hit. 

only a hit when they're hugely detailed. A good compromise would be moderately detailed exterior, with a 'black' canopy for those on potato PCs. Detailed enough to appreciate basically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tank50us said:

only a hit when they're hugely detailed. A good compromise would be moderately detailed exterior, with a 'black' canopy for those on potato PCs. Detailed enough to appreciate basically.

 

Even extremely detailed models are absolutely nothing in comparison to heavy hitters such as terrain. Textures are more of a heavy hitter size wise but 3D models themselves really are not.

 

To put it into perspective, my entire DCS installation is around 210GB (which is on a 1TB SSD, which has 450GB remaining). The entirity of the Bazar -> World -> Shapes folder (which contains the majority of the models included in the base DCS installation) is only 1.67GB - less than 0.8% of the base installation. The associated textures (there's a folder in Bazar and in Bazar -> World) and liveries folder are around 3.61GB (combined) and 8.34GB respectively.

 

The 3D models for stuff is typically tiny, the associated liveries and textures are much more of a heavy hitter by comparison. Even aircraft like the Tomcat - the entirety of its 3D model folder (CoreMods -> aircraft -> F14 -> Shapes) is only around 190MB, compare that to the liveries (~6GB) and the textures (~1.34GB) and the 3D model itself is next to nothing, the liveries are much more of a heavy hitter (and that's because they're 4K). 

 

If we look in CoreMods -> tech -> TechWeaponPack (which contains most of the newer, high resolution models, including the WWII assets pack), the shapes folder is only 440MB, the liveries is only 30MB and the textures are around 2.34GB. 

 

We can also look at the Supercarrier which has the most detailed ship in DCS - the entirety of its shapes folder is around 490MB (and that includes all the ships but the Kuznetsov, the weapons, the personnel, the vehicles etc), the textures folder is 1.43GB, the texturesArchive folder is 110MB and the liveries folder is around 11MB.

 

If you want to save space, reducing the quality of the 3D models themselves is going to save barely anything - even detailed models don't take up a significant amount of space. You're better off reducing the quality of the textures and liveries.

 

Obviously if the pool of high quality assets becomes a lot larger then more space will be used up, but saving space by reducing the quality of the 3D model does not seem like it'll be saving you much.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Even extremely detailed models are absolutely nothing in comparison to heavy hitters such as terrain. Textures are more of a heavy hitter size wise but 3D models themselves really are not.

 

To put it into perspective, my entire DCS installation is around 210GB (which is on a 1TB SSD, which has 450GB remaining). The entirity of the Bazar -> World -> Shapes folder (which contains the majority of the models included in the base DCS installation) is only 1.67GB - less than 0.8% of the base installation. The associated textures (there's a folder in Bazar and in Bazar -> World) and liveries folder are around 3.61GB (combined) and 8.34GB respectively.

 

The 3D models for stuff is typically tiny, the associated liveries and textures are much more of a heavy hitter by comparison. Even aircraft like the Tomcat - the entirety of its 3D model folder (CoreMods -> aircraft -> F14 -> Shapes) is only around 190MB, compare that to the liveries (~6GB) and the textures (~1.34GB) and the 3D model itself is next to nothing, the liveries are much more of a heavy hitter (and that's because they're 4K). 

 

If we look in CoreMods -> tech -> TechWeaponPack (which contains most of the newer, high resolution models, including the WWII assets pack), the shapes folder is only 440MB, the liveries is only 30MB and the textures are around 2.34GB. 

 

We can also look at the Supercarrier which has the most detailed ship in DCS - the entirety of its shapes folder is around 490MB (and that includes all the ships but the Kuznetsov, the weapons, the personnel, the vehicles etc), the textures folder is 1.43GB, the texturesArchive folder is 110MB and the liveries folder is around 11MB.

 

If you want to save space, reducing the quality of the 3D models themselves is going to save barely anything - even detailed models don't take up a significant amount of space. You're better off reducing the quality of the textures and liveries.

 

Obviously if the pool of high quality assets becomes a lot larger then more space will be used up, but saving space by reducing the quality of the 3D model does not seem like it'll be saving you much.

 

One has to wonder if it would be possible for DCS to have a 'low rez' download. The game itself is, for all intents and purposes, still the same. BUT, when for those on potato powered PCs, they could download this 'light' version that has textures reduced in size, and certain models (namely the ones ED made) have a lower poly count to match. Sure, for those people the game won't look very pretty, but, their lower-end GPUs and CPUs will be able to handle it, and their smaller drives will be able to store it. It is an option, and as far as the textures are concerned, the only work needed is just to rescale them down to something a potato PC can handle easier. Basically, it'll look good enough, but it won't play any differently.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

One has to wonder if it would be possible for DCS to have a 'low rez' download. The game itself is, for all intents and purposes, still the same. BUT, when for those on potato powered PCs, they could download this 'light' version that has textures reduced in size, and certain models (namely the ones ED made) have a lower poly count to match. Sure, for those people the game won't look very pretty, but, their lower-end GPUs and CPUs will be able to handle it, and their smaller drives will be able to store it. It is an option, and as far as the textures are concerned, the only work needed is just to rescale them down to something a potato PC can handle easier. Basically, it'll look good enough, but it won't play any differently.

 

Again, the 3D models are not the source of performance concerns and their size on their own is insignificantly small.

 

What is more of a heavy hitter is textures, and for me at least (with a mid-ish range laptop) it's map object density that is the primary source of performance concerns (due to my GPU bottleneck and low VRAM) - and large amounts of highly detailed objects in general - though shadows here are also a significant contributor.

 

3D models themselves though are insignificant.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Again, the 3D models are not the source of performance concerns and their size on their own is insignificantly small.

 

What is more of a heavy hitter is textures, and for me at least (with a mid-ish range laptop) it's map object density that is the primary source of performance concerns (due to my GPU bottleneck and low VRAM) - and large amounts of highly detailed objects in general - though shadows here are also a significant contributor.

 

3D models themselves though are insignificant.

I mentioned textures as well. Basically compressing them down to levels that lower end PCs can handle.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...