Jump to content
LuseKofte

DCS news

Recommended Posts

IMHO, Tanks looking like a plastic models, not like real tanks. Il-2 series is way better and realistic.

Well someone who is good at makeing skins could fix that for sure so if thats the only thing thats wrong i don´t see any reason for complaints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting redicolous, are you guys looking for stuff to criticize? What is the point of that video? It do not have previous mentioned coat. I am perfectly OK with people not liking DCS, BOS and COD, but why do they interacting in a topic about a Sim they do not like. And I see people here doing it , that took great offence when it was done toward BOS .

 

Just a video of, afaik, the only Tiger that still is in operating condition, so don't get your knickers all in a bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you fly 1,5 you will see terreign floating also. There is a long way to perfection . 

There are in general a lot of bugs all around, but not really a immersion killer all together. Biggest problem I have is the wide spred time era and the ones fitting are less complex FC3 modules. I wish for a SU 25 that is as complex as a A 10 C. But well, like everything in combat flight simulators you just got to take what there is and hope for more

Edited by 216th_LuseKofte
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S!

 

 As LuseKofte said. Take the sims as they are and enjoy them. Today simulators are not the exact top sellers and I am glad we have some around. BoX-series has not been perfect from the start, far from it. But it has improved over time and I bet so will the DCS-series or any other game. And if you want best looking tank models..well..not in BoX or DCS ;) Not talking about internals here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ED could incorporate ground units from Normandy map into their DCS:Ground Forces DLC. Id like to do some Sherman vs Tiger engagements in bockage. 3D models look very nice and detailed  :)

Just for the CFS they are a bit overkill. Same goes for houses.Those 3D windows with frames are nice,but not nearly as necessary. You can compare some 3D models inside DCS. I mean old ones ported over from Flaming cliffs and new ones.Polycount difference is huge. As example there is an old model of soviet bus.Just a box with ugly lowres texture. And then there are some new trucks or armored vehicles with such level of detail perfecty usable for tank simulator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks gorgeous.

 

I can't wait to see that shiny Fortress rendered in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sold on the way the underside of the Spit is shaded. It makes the texture look strangely grainy and there's clearly some shading issues in the wheel well too.

 

But really, I'm nitpicking, it's bloody beautiful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still looking for my jaw:

 

SpitIX_InvasionStripes.jpg

 

Panther.jpg

 

B17-1.png

That's the kind of shiny metal I wish we had in BoX.

Edited by BorysVorobyov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the kind of shiny metal I wish we had in BoX.

I've made something not that far from it for the MiG, but as always it looks way different once it's rendered in-game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the kind of shiny metal I wish we had in BoX.

 

In order to get it you need to do one of 2 things.

Either the metal is actively reflecting it's environment, which means many hundreds of thousands of simulated photons bouncing around and the results being rendered in real time,

or you fake it with a static/fake reflection that never moves.

 

Quite simple to do with a 3D render within the 3D program like Max, Cinema, Modo etc, which is what you're looking at here - Max most likely. An HDRI map and global illumination,

not active, dynamic in-game reflections.

 

So option 1 would be extraordinarily expensive from a resource standpoint and currently impossible with our computers, option 2 always looks silly in-game. 

It would take my workstation several minutes to render that one still image.

 

Thus it's usually better to go with a weathered, more muted skin that wouldn't naturally be so reflective anyway - like the Spit you see there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

option 2 always looks silly in-game. 

 

Far from being an expert on the matter but in CloD it looks very good

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DCS cockpits also use static reflections which is a bit disappointing given they have very nice ways of rendering glass reflections. I'm sincerely hoping them to be updated in near future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Far from being an expert on the matter but in CloD it looks very good

...and to be fair my expertise is in the 3D program, not the game engines where rendering is quite a different animal. However actual, dynamic reflections of the environment will cost you. Reflecting just the sun - much less expensive. So a skillfully painted skin that 'suggests' reflection without being too specific/chrome-like will work best.

This is how I always approached skinning in the old sim.

The Spitfire above is a good example, and you see the global illumination and reflected light source doing their job.

 

 

Guys who tried to create shiny, polished skins...it always looked strange because the reflection was static as the aircraft moved in relation to the environment.

I don't know about the game engines, but even within the 3D programs that are designed to render these reflections, even a still image takes some time because

the computer actually simulates those photons bouncing around (the number of bounces being something you can adjust in the render settings)

 

I can only imagine that within a game engine, such reflections would be profoundly resource draining.

It is however an easy thing to accomplish as you're building the aircraft in Max or another program. Simply assign a material, adjust it's reflection amount in the proper channel, apply

an HDRI image to the sky and hit the render button.

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note, I have never bothered to download and fire up DCS (even though I own the Dora) but from the screens it appears like the engine is make use of

subdivision surfaces or some other smoothing algorithm. Lack of faceting, unlike the aircraft in BoS where you can clearly count the number of facets on say a 

cowling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking through the screens I can really say 777/1c could take some notes on the skins. In particular the reflectiveness. This is the amount of gloss that I've been unsuccessful in achieving for my skins. I'm hoping it's a limitation that can be fixed with DX11 coming.

 

Also you can't count the polys on their models. BoX models still have angular panels. Look at the wings from an edge on view or a closeup of a spinner. Does DCS use million-poly models or do they have something that smooths this over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd buy that Spitty, but first I gotta buy BoK. I wonder how it will fly, normally they started sales with some video and I hoped to see it in flight.  

The Spit on DCS should fly as expect. No nerf, and no automation or tweek to make it or not competitive 

Edited by ATAG_dB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what they said before about 109 K-4 and 190 and how many jets ? They release planes and then tweak flight models for years, I know there is always something to improve, but amount of problems with 109 for example made it hardly fun to play against them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Spit on DCS should fly as expect it. No nerf, and no automation or tweek to make it or not competitive 

 

Maybe I am not following, but are you suggesting a Spit elsewhere will be intentionally nerfed (never liked that term..) 

 

or be otherwise tweaked or 'automated' to make it non historic/competitive

 

or is this a reference to Spitfire in older sims/games 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well DCS forté is system fidelity and like Hiromachi says they will stive to have it as close as it can be, on fm's and on systems, for the DM that is a different issue the are aged and laughable, that also is being transform with damage model expert programer brought in from CloD team. Yes Dakpilot some other sim used a more GAME aproach into their FM, DM or concept of their gameplay. Although we are seing important step in the good direction lately

 

Some aircraft fly or react in a weird way, it can be during the handling or the energy retention, it's frustrating at time but I acept that this is a game and it provides me pleasure and I never actually flew them in real live, so I prefer to be cautious on my judgement. But when the Stit come it will be a different story I will now have a clear picture of what category BOS is.

 

 

 

o7

Edited by ATAG_dB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so just another variation on the "popular" theory that BoS Dev's 'nerf' planes on purpose  :rolleyes: and all FM's should be compared to current DCS as 'benchmark'

 

:)

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reflectivity doesn't involve the skin

The alpha channel is exactly what is used to adjust the gloss and reflections in BoX. Look at the default skins. You can see reflection of the fuselage or tail markings in the wing surface. This is because they use a very shiny alpha. My matt skins do not have these reflections because I use a different level of grey in my alpha. 

Edited by BorysVorobyov

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then you're talking static/faked reflection. A real reflection is dynamic and involves reflectivity settings in the engine/materials. :)

 

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying look at the default skin in PS, or in game?

 

I know how I utilize the alpha channel in the 3D program, and it's not for reflections. However that doesn't mean the game engine works the same, and I haven't had time to skin for this sim yet, clarify if you can.

Edited by Gambit21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes in game. The static/faked reflection can be seen in the attempt at a bare metal skin for the Macchi (it's also one of the default skins). What I am talking about are the wet looking reflections when you view a wing surface from a shallow angle. I haven't checked to see if it reflects the "world" but it definitely reflects the rest of the plane and isn't static. 

 

All in all it's why I am hoping the move to DX11 will allow for something more realistic. The only thing that doesn't look photo realistic in the DCS shots is the disc of the spinning propeller. I have to give it to them for that. They may only release one plane every few years or so but they look magnificent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh - the wet look, yes I get it.

I think that's result of trying to achieve a metallic look (which is inappropriate for a painted AC anyway) through channels not optimized to achieve this effect. There is a fresnel problem there for one thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's what they said before about 109 K-4 and 190 and how many jets ? They release planes and then tweak flight models for years, I know there is always something to improve, but amount of problems with 109 for example made it hardly fun to play against them. 

Both are finished now, and they at least call their FMs "beta" as long as they are not finished..

In BoS it's more "everything is alright" at release, and two years later - after partly a lot of FM changes for several aircraft - the FMs are still flawed...i don't know which one is better 

 

 

 

Maybe I am not following, but are you suggesting a Spit elsewhere will be intentionally nerfed

The way the engine limits work in BoS are definitely nerfing the P40, and they will also nerf the Spitfire.. they nerf most German planes as well, but amazingly almost no Russian aircraft. Intentionally? You decide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both are finished now, and they at least call their FMs "beta" as long as they are not finished..

In BoS it's more "everything is alright" at release, and two years later - after partly a lot of FM changes for several aircraft - the FMs are still flawed...i don't know which one is better 

 

 

The way the engine limits work in BoS are definitely nerfing the P40, and they will also nerf the Spitfire.. they nerf most German planes as well, but amazingly almost no Russian aircraft. Intentionally? You decide

Oh for goodness sake are you still banging that drum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so just another variation on the "popular" theory 

Not at all Dak it's just an observation, you even see it in a certain extend not done by the dev but by the community.  For example In popular servers they limit the big bomb or bombers. You surely ask yourself why, perhaps you're in agreement with it. Probably most of us are. Why? Because it's a game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...for pre-purchase.

I thought the kickstarter backers were going to get alpha access to the ww2 modules. It looks like they have to wait until the beta release of the spitfire along with everyone else. Another part of the rewards taken from them. They were well and truly shafted by ED. Everybody else is getting the modules at the same time and with a pre purchase discount. It would be funny if it wasn't such a kick in the face for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×