Graphic improvement question.
-
Hi
Im new to the sim and play on VR. Love everything about the game except how the ground looks from the air perspective. Airfields are great, aircraft cockpit is fantastic graphically , just dislike the Minecrafty ground. Is there any plan to improve on that? Is that even possible?
-
Watch till the end…
-
I’m going to take up the topic of (why don’t they make falcon’s graphics more beautiful) and this topic is recurring in our wing and mainly among the new members and my opinion is that yes, it would be fantastic and now we already have confirmation that A new graphics engine is on the way and just around the corner, but is this aspect of visual quality really that important? Well, not really, in both civil and military air operations, crew members practically maintain high levels of flight (performance) and in the case of military aircraft at ground level to avoid detection (masking), in both conditions, either you are very far from the ground or you are at the height of a snake and nothing of the terrain details can be appreciated.
I would say that more than 80% of the flight is based with the head in the cockpit, so the graphics and visual quality is secondary, only the remaining 20% are for the taxiing, takeoff and landing stages and when we are in visual range to start a dogfight or ground attack. And in the case of a ground attack, if we use the TGP, we will still be tens of thousands of feet away delivering love from above.
And as a summary, the day they can sit in a real life simulator (RL) of those that are used to train commercial aviation crews, of those level D full motion or one grade 1 of military training, they will have an amazing and unpleasant surprise when they see in the graphical representation of the outside world in most cases, in order not to be absolute, the graphic quality is the same or even worse than that of BMS, because the objective of a simulator in RL is not to make it look Well, it is training the crews in procedures, emergencies and that is taken care of by avionics and flight modeling that is as realistic as possible, as falcon BMS has had for years and with each version it is getting better and better.
GREETINGS.
-
@VIPER-0 i dont agree completely. everything you said is true and correct, but some eye candy is something that can improve the game, because at the end of the day all simulators are games and only few people has real life cockpits or use the game as a real pilot. so for me improving something in the graphic is a very welcome one
-
@banano said in Graphic improvement question.:
@VIPER-0 i dont agree completely. everything you said is true and correct, but some eye candy is something that can improve the game, because at the end of the day all simulators are games and only few people has real life cockpits or use the game as a real pilot. so for me improving something in the graphic is a very welcome one
And there is another point of so many hours of debate and discussion in our wing. Is falcon a game or a simulator?? well it is…
Both at the same time it depends on whether you see the glass half empty or half full, in my particular case and what I tell you, my boys, the world of simulation has helped me so much in real life that even for those who will never be able to put their hands on it to a real aircraft they win by being methodical people and by the books, they win by being professionals in their actions and we are not talking about the typical person who uses airplane games for entertainment, we are talking about how the majority of the falcon community is here that has a life we would say FALCON LIVE (wake up, work, fly falcon and sleep) for those who have that falcon life ceases to be pure entertainment and begin to see the glass half full.
It’s just a matter of perspective.
and don’t worry falcon bms will be a complete change, I know it will, and in the graphic aspect it will leave us speechless. of that there is no doubt.
-
@banano I’m totally on your side, graphics will be a welcome one. When I started in BMS after some time in DCS, I miss the gorgeous airfields to take off from and to land at. It’s a nice way to start and end a mission.
I’m not too bothered by the terrain en-route as usually I’ll be too busy to admire the scenery anyway, but again, improvements there sure would be welcome. However, do I want scenery or better VR? scenery or other improvements? I guess at the end of the day it will be a question of priorities.
Will BMS have DCS-level scenery? Maybe, maybe not. But I’ve been flying BMS for a few years now and don’t really look back much at DCS except to faff around a bit, so I guess I’m not with BMS for the scenery.
-
I don’t want prettier graphics if it means any loss of performance. It just isn’t necessary.
-
GFX for sake of eye candy is just a small unimportant bit of luxury, however there are some aspects of better gfx that affect gameplay.
With current terrain engine it’s impossible to have realistic terrain shape/elevation, it’s too low resolution. Which makes flying low-level, using terrain masking less of the thing.
Lack of proper populated cities completely omits one of the most challenging scenarios which is urban warfare. In BMS you don’t really have to worry that much about collateral damage, nor you don’t worry about target view being obstructed by buildings when planning your bombing run.
Also even there’s trees autogen I haven’t seen proper forest spanning for miles. All the targets are nicely exposed on flat terrain. Having proper tree coverage in many situations will make spotting ground units much more challenging. It may happen you’ll overfly unnoticed enemy battalion hidden in the woods and be welcomed by surprise SAM launch/AAA fire. That’ d be quite important part of the experience for theaters like Panama,Vietnam, Balkans and like.
Even such small things like sunlight direction affecting MFD glare or HUD visibility, NVGg focus on infinity or HUD/MFDs/instruments brightness affecting your ability to see things outside of the pit in the night will make a difference in your flying .So IMHO visual side of the sim plays its important role in general sim experience.
-
I think given that you will have your head inside the cockpit 90% of the time anyway - that’s where you will find all the information your need to complete your mission and stay alive better scenery should come a poor second to accurate jet functionality - that’s where they joy of this sim is to be found IMHO.
A large part of the Dev team is devoted to creating jet function reality and long may it remain so.
Ironman
-
@Zeus_ said in Graphic improvement question.:
Watch till the end…
Guys, every time I watch these “trailers” I am amazed. This sim should and could be sold with a very hefty price.
Seeing today’s PS5 games getting in the 130’s of € and more, and comparing the quality of these expensive releases to the quality of F4 BMS…
Man I know this is kind of forbidden topic and all, but sometimes just thank you to devs doesn’t seem quite on par with what we’re getting in this sim!
It is an amazing project and I am looking forward to the road ahead, as well as amazed at the work already done!
-
Dont get me wrong. I am absolutley amazed by this game and have hard times now in getting back to DCS. ATC, campaign, proper working systems etc.
Im only wondering why te shape of the coastline is square’y not curved.
My worries are now also with the future improvement of the graphics and how will it hit the performance.
If I would have to choose graphics over performance I would choose performance now.
This game is the biggest hidden gem in the gaming industry. If it is even a game. Big thanks for that! -
@Bunialsky
Square minecraft/civ1-like terrain is an effect of tile-based terrain, theater makers can do some tricks to hide it to some extend, but it becomes apparent at altitude.WRT performance, I can’t say for sure, but from what I talked with I-Hawk RTX 3060/RX 5700XT class GPU should be enough for non-VR 1080/1440p.
GTX 1070/RX 5600XT should be able to achieve playable fps. All of the above cards are in 100-200$ range now.
On CPU side anything from current generations should do. -
@Xeno Solid points there and with the exception of the terrain resolution, we can probably have the same graphics level, just more populated cities and thicker forest coverage.
@Bunialsky hidden gem? I don’t think so. But it is for a very niche market, that is why it’s not very popular IMHO. DCS fans who say graphics is an issue is a fair point, but they are missing out massively. It’s like going to a fancy restaurant and paying £100 for ok food but really posh ambiance and ignoring the corner joint coz it looks dark and the furniture is old not realising the food is amazing and will blow your socks off and costs less than £10!
-
@Atlas
I’m not talking about terrain textures res, but about mesh resolution. It’s about 1km IIRC. That means RL elevation is sampled each 1km, everything in between is interpolation between given two points being 1km apart. -
@Xeno yeah, that’s how I understood it.
@Xeno said in Graphic improvement question.:
With current terrain engine it’s impossible to have realistic terrain shape/elevation, it’s too low resolution.
terrain mesh resolution, not actual graphics on the terrain resolution
-
@Atlas said in Graphic improvement question.:
@Xeno Solid points there and with the exception of the terrain resolution, we can probably have the same graphics level, just more populated cities and thicker forest coverage.
I’m sorry, I have hard time following you. AFAIK 4.38 is supposed to bring hi-res terrain with new texturing system (no more tiles). Higher city population is planned, but unknown if it gonna make into next release. There was no hint about more trees coverage, but it would be welcome for reasons stated above.
-
@Xeno I’m saying you have good points and we don’t even have to “improve” the terrain mesh or the eye candy, though doing so would be great. Even with the current terrain mesh and graphics level, if they can somehow make cities and forests more dense, that would go a long way in terms of addressing your points re: collateral damage, target building obstruction, covering ground units, etc.
-
@Atlas
Ok now I do get it, sorry for me being dumb -
@Xeno Haha, no worries! I may not have explained it properly myself. Either way, I’m all excited for the next updates for BMS!
-