Falconeers: The few the Proud.
-
I have to say the DCS terrain looks nice. I hope we can get something similar eventually in BMS, but again, no rush. Take your time folks, I’m pretty certain you have your priorities straight (as opposed to the ED crowd :))
All the best,
Uwe
The DCS terrain is nice indeed but IMHO it:
1. A bit too low res at some areas (Again at least judging from screenshots I saw, I don’t have DCS installed)
2. A bit too “monotonic” at some areas due to the lack of photorealThat said, their 3D objects population is very impressive and kinda make up for some of the cons.
Anyway, I think the coming terrain will be “different” than DCS, I doubt we will do such micro-management of all kinds of objectives placement as they do for their (tiny?) theaters. BMS will support the usual 64 seg and also the 128 seg theaters (With some restrictions compared to 64 but good enough).
-
The DCS terrain is nice indeed but IMHO it:
1. A bit too low res at some areas (Again at least judging from screenshots I saw, I don’t have DCS installed)
2. A bit too “monotonic” at some areas due to the lack of photorealThat said, their 3D objects population is very impressive and kinda make up for some of the cons.
Anyway, I think the coming terrain will be “different” than DCS, I doubt we will do such micro-management of all kinds of objectives placement as they do for their (tiny?) theaters. BMS will support the usual 64 seg and also the 128 seg theaters (With some restrictions compared to 64 but good enough).
I think BMS scenery is quite good… only change in terrain I wish is elevation model…
-
I think BMS scenery is quite good…
To a level, I agree. However, the main problem with current texturing is the lack of variety, too much repetition of same tiles eventually will be noticed.
-
To a level, I agree. However, the main problem with current texturing is the lack of variety, too much repetition of same tiles eventually will be noticed.
I hope that will be changed some day… personally I have no knowledge of computer things… but is it possible to overlay sat images in the scenery?? like a layer of overlapped sat images above the current tiles…
-
The DCS terrain is nice indeed but IMHO it:
1. A bit too low res at some areas (Again at least judging from screenshots I saw, I don’t have DCS installed)
2. A bit too “monotonic” at some areas due to the lack of photorealThat said, their 3D objects population is very impressive and kinda make up for some of the cons.
Anyway, I think the coming terrain will be “different” than DCS, I doubt we will do such micro-management of all kinds of objectives placement as they do for their (tiny?) theaters. BMS will support the usual 64 seg and also the 128 seg theaters (With some restrictions compared to 64 but good enough).
I know lots of DCS simmers complain about BMS terrain when they first see it, but it’s not that much better. The meshes are actually pretty similar resolution and there are parts of Nevada that are pretty bland and not just because it’s desert. I think the main jarring BMS thing is the tile system. Flying down low, you notice the tiles that are supposed to be 3d objects aren’t and up high you see the repetition. I’ve been meaning to try AiTiles because it does sound interesting.
Yes 3d objects do make DCS villages/small towns come alive, as does the cars, trucks, and trains. I feel the the trees are actually a push, although I do keep them turned down in DCS . I need to pay more attention to BMS shadows.
Airports in BMS to me somehow are more real and usable with signage, buildings, and markings even though some of the tiles are noticably pixelated at times. Still, when I got back in the BMS, for whatever reason, the large airports have a better feel than DCS jumped out at me the first few times taxiing around again.
-
I hope that will be changed some day… personally I have no knowledge of computer things… but is it possible to overlay sat images in the scenery?? like a layer of overlapped sat images above the current tiles…
Yes, and it won’t be an overlay…
I know lots of DCS simmers complain about BMS terrain when they first see it, but it’s not that much better. The meshes are actually pretty similar resolution and there are parts of Nevada that are pretty bland and not just because it’s desert. I think the main jarring BMS thing is the tile system. Flying down low, you notice the tiles that are supposed to be 3d objects aren’t and up high you see the repetition. I’ve been meaning to try AiTiles because it does sound interesting.
Yes 3d objects do make DCS villages/small towns come alive, as does the cars, trucks, and trains. I feel the the trees are actually a push, although I do keep them turned down in DCS . I need to pay more attention to BMS shadows.
Airports in BMS to me somehow are more real and usable with signage, buildings, and markings even though some of the tiles are noticably pixelated at times. Still, when I got back in the BMS, for whatever reason, the large airports have a better feel than DCS jumped out at me the first few times taxiing around again.
Agree on everything. I don’t think the DCS mesh is THAT low res, I’ve heard it’s selective and use resolutions of ~30 to ~250m. Also it does makes sense to be selective as it adds-up with the fact that it’s made of separate meshes of 10x10KM.
-
Agree on everything. I don’t think the DCS mesh is THAT low res, I’ve heard it’s selective and use resolutions of ~30 to ~250m. Also it does makes sense to be selective as it adds-up with the fact that it’s made of separate meshes of 10x10KM.
That’s a good point, the mesh does get noticably better in areas like the Caucasus mountains and some of those valleys are fun to fly through because of it. I don’t know if Nevada in real life is has weathered of mountains or in DCS but it seems they used the less detailed mesh for the areas of the range. The textures there are kinda underwhelming IMO and seems like they were like “it’s a desert, we don’t have to have that much detail.” The only places that impress me in DCS NTTR is Las Vegas and the Black Canyon/Hoover dam/Lake Mead.
-
Eventually unless you are M$ and have quite infinite resources to supply/stream photoreal in real time, you will probably have to pick your way of texturing the land. There are 2 main options:
- Medium/practical quality photoreal on the account of HD space - Looks quite good and natural from high/medium altitude but feels a bit low res when flying low
- Procedural texuring - High res but mostly boring and monotonic (Yea it’s all desert so just go a head and paint it with different types of brown ) - Also may be expensive to blend and render in real time.
Eventually all sims I know (DCS included) are using some mix between both. The only question is how exactly, because there are many kinds of options and ideas.
-
This post is deleted! -
VR is “imminent”? I can’t even finish a couple missions in a row in 4.35.1 without CTDs, who CARES about VR??? 4.35.2 please!
Which VR headset do you use?
-
I would also say that in my impression from DCS videos the terrain is mostly bland. What makes DCS pretty is everything but the terrain, ie. the details of objects and the sheer number of objects, the atmosphere (clouds, bad weather etc), the cockpits, the ocean modelling and so on.
For largely flat real-world terrain one could get away with larger textures/tiles, while for hilly or mountaineous terrain with a lot of gradient changes you need finer mesh to provide the slopes and hills that the real-life environment has.
-
For largely flat real-world terrain one could get away with larger textures/tiles, while for hilly or mountaineous terrain with a lot of gradient changes you need finer mesh to provide the slopes and hills that the real-life environment has.
True!
Initially I thought the main challenge to make nice terrain was the mesh… but later I found that mesh is just the tip of the iceberg
-
I would also say that in my impression from DCS videos the terrain is mostly bland. What makes DCS pretty is everything but the terrain… the atmosphere (clouds, bad weather etc), the cockpits…
I think those are good impressions. The weather is one thing that has relatively frustrated for me in DCS. I always felt it was less configurable than BMS, with the clouds being pretty weak in their implementation, especially when you get up close to the cumulus clouds. Granted that is something they are fixing in 2.7, but I’m one of those rare people that refuse to mess with their open betas. I also would say BMS still has some advantages in the cockpit realm, for instance if you are trying to simulate a brand new jet, DCS has an advantage in weathered used cockpits. I also like the BMS implementation of kneeboards better.
-
That’s a good point, the mesh does get noticably better in areas like the Caucasus mountains and some of those valleys are fun to fly through because of it. I don’t know if Nevada in real life is has weathered of mountains or in DCS but it seems they used the less detailed mesh for the areas of the range. The textures there are kinda underwhelming IMO and seems like they were like “it’s a desert, we don’t have to have that much detail.” The only places that impress me in DCS NTTR is Las Vegas and the Black Canyon/Hoover dam/Lake Mead.
For 60€ DCS Nevada map is a shame.
Very poor map, and …
… pay attention to the inflatable terrain:
Purchasing this map was a huge mistake from me. (Same about the F-16 BTW, but I bought it for some other reasons and I knew what I was buying and did not expected much more to be honest even considering and knowing that it is an EA, and still is … same level since the initial release).
-
This terrain reminds me of the cloak that appears exactly like a rock while Frodo and Sam are hiding.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lotrmemes/comments/ay6vzb/i_doubt_even_these_cloaks_will_hide_us_in_there/
(Plastic, maybe?)
-
Personally I don’t find the DCS scenery any more impressive than BMS, possibly the opposite! At 20,000ft, it’s all about being an impressionist painter rather than detail. BMS does this better, especially clouds (especially in the new Israel theatre with the clouds mod enabled). DCS clouds are simpsons clouds - cartoony.
If I want scenery, I’ll fly the MB339 in MS Scenery Simulator and enjoy some VFR round areas I know well (I’ve managed to find a few interesting local places I didn’t know existed via MSFS!)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If I want scenery, I’ll fly the MB339 in MS Scenery Simulator and enjoy some VFR round areas I know well (I’ve managed to find a few interesting local places I didn’t know existed via MSFS!)
Hehe, exactly what I do.
-
For 60€ DCS Nevada map is a shame.
Very poor map, and …
… pay attention to the inflatable terrain:
Purchasing this map was a huge mistake from me. (Same about the F-16 BTW, but I bought it for some other reasons and I knew what I was buying and did not expected much more to be honest even considering and knowing that it is an EA, and still is … same level since the initial release).
I never understood that inflation (you posted it long time ago somewhere IIRC). I can understand the wish to save triangles by altering tessellation factors, but that close??? Come on this just looks wrong!
You know 2 months ago I noticed that our mesh had some “noticeable changes” when I was relatively close and I said “WTF this wasn’t like that before”, just to find out that I had some bad calculation somewhere due to some other change (LOS). It was especially noticeable at rough terrain areas like Dead sea hills. But even then it wasn’t looking as bad as this DCS Nevada mesh… I mean this is weird, I think it’s a bug and they should fix it probably.
-
I’ve been to Nevada, been in a helo in the Grand Canyon, thankfully nothing inflated in front of us… and that terrain looks like something out of a Mighty Mouse cartoon…
-
may I present to you another inflatable terrain.