X-Plane 11 and the "new" modeling of propwash/ slipstream effects...

[JG4_Sputnik]

I think they are indeed better. No worlds apart, but better. 

 

Can you explain why? (It really interests me).

 

I think the 109E is almost as good as the CloD 109E but all others are clear worse, meaning they look less "real" in terms of how convincing the surfaces look and how they interpret different materials. They obviously have a lot fewer textures than CloD's cockpits.

 

Furthermore, I think the CloD Spit cockpit is almost still as good as the recent DCS Spit cockpit which is a sensation in itself. It looks so real I still can't believe it was done several years ago.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Can we agree that it is possible but BoX has just a graphics engine that can't handle todays tech (standards) ?

 

If I see this DCS video, it's just a different ballpark "realism" wise.

BoS and also BoM maps were created with the old engine using dx9 (DCS with Dx9 looked way worse too). That was at a time where graphical details caused drops in performence and the more the game grew the more "optimisations" had to be done to keep it playable. Infact the horizon and many other issues that arised threwout the development were not present or at least not as much in the Alpha days (heck even RoF has a better horizon and longer view distances).

 

Now with the new engine these optimisations are not required anymore but devs still have had no time reworking them. Jason mentioned however that the Kuban map will take full benefit of Dx11 by not only being much bigger than the previous maps but also having better lod texture resolutions for terrain and other graphical improvements. He also mentioned the possebility that older maps will reccieve a slight overhaul to keep up in quality.

 

Not that this changes anything about the current state of the game but it gives a better perspective for the future.

Can you explain why? (It really interests me).

 

I think the 109E is almost as good as the CloD 109E but all others are clear worse, meaning they look less "real" in terms of how convincing the surfaces look and how they interpret different materials. They obviously have a lot fewer textures than CloD's cockpits.

 

Furthermore, I think the CloD Spit cockpit is almost still as good as the recent DCS Spit cockpit which is a sensation in itself. It looks so real I still can't believe it was done several years ago.

They're good considering how old this game is but most of the effects are baked into the textures making them very undynamic. In my opinion the combat sim with the best cockpits is RoF because it realitsicly models dynamic reflections from various materials like glass, metal, wood and lether.

Edited January 9, 2017 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Can you explain why? (It really interests me).

 

I think the CloD cockpits look like they are made out of one material, and just painted with different colours. They look very tarnished. Kinda like wood/cardboard, and then painted. Next to no dynamic feel, no special surfaces. Not too much 3D feel either.

In BoS the cockpits have way better lightning i think, and it feels more alive. Shimmering, reflections, distinguished different materials.

Don't get me wrong, there are no worlds in between, but i just think the BoS ones look more real.

 

DCS has by far the best i think, especially the modern Jets and the Helis. Huey, as simple as its cockpit looks, is just incredible down to the slightest detail. Like the dashboard wiggling around, and reacting to G-forces, and stuff like that. Makes it a lot less static. Mig21 cockpit is crazy as well, with it's various different lights you can control. 

 

I have really high hopes for Normandy. I just hope they do anything neccessary to liven the world (ground forces, AI aircraft etc). 

 

Don't have gaming-fit internet for 3 month now, mostly playing DCS in SP. It's kind of a shock going "back" to BoX, after habituating DCS's rendering and graphics quality. Feels really outdated now, something i have never felt the last 3 years when i was mostly flying BoS. I hope now with Dx11, they can pull something similar then DCS..doesn't have to be tomorrow

[ZachariasX]

I like the looks of the NTTR map in DCS very much. Actually, it is very easy to check out whether they have a flat map (that you tweak a bit to make it appear "bent" seen from high) or a map projected on a sphere.

 

In the case of a sphere, if you go higher, the horizon will be more and more BELOW where your nose is pointing. I should check that in DCS...

 

In the old sims, you always had the horizon going through the center of your gunsight, regardless whether you are at 1 m or at 10'000 m altitude. The blurr conveniently used as some fake athmosphere to hide gap between the limits of your map and the horizon makes this effect less prominent, sich as in the old IL2.

 

Try that in google earth. You can see there very well how the horizon "sinks" with altitude, as it draws VERY far and fakes no athmosphere whatsoever.

 

This altitude effect is even less prominent when you are in a 10 km bubble. At 10 km altitude, you can only see a spot exactly below you, but no other scerery. Just the blurr. The old IL2 was exremely poor in that department. I feel there has been progress. Mind you, doubling bubble diameter increases stuff to be drawn by the cube. Computing power is limited, so you have to cut some corners.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

 

 

Actually, it is very easy to check out whether they have a flat map (that you tweak a bit to make it appear "bent" seen from high) or a map projected on a sphere.

As for myself, i couldn't care less to be honest. As long as it looks realistic, i don't care how this was achieved. I just hope for the same quality in the other Sims (Clod, BoX). CloD already has way better rendering that BoS, but still miles away from the new DCS

[[DBS]El_Marta]

Infact the horizon and many other issues that arised threwout the development were not present or at least not as much in the Alpha days (heck even RoF has a better horizon and longer view distances).

 

 

 

I hope the horizon and distant rendering will be improved. To me it is more important than running 4k skins.

[JG4_Sputnik]

BoS and also BoM maps were created with the old engine using dx9 (DCS with Dx9 looked way worse too). That was at a time where graphical details caused drops in performence and the more the game grew the more "optimisations" had to be done to keep it playable. Infact the horizon and many other issues that arised threwout the development were not present or at least not as much in the Alpha days (heck even RoF has a better horizon and longer view distances).

 

Now with the new engine these optimisations are not required anymore but devs still have had no time reworking them. Jason mentioned however that the Kuban map will take full benefit of Dx11 by not only being much bigger than the previous maps but also having better lod texture resolutions for terrain and other graphical improvements. He also mentioned the possebility that older maps will reccieve a slight overhaul to keep up in quality.

 

Not that this changes anything about the current state of the game but it gives a better perspective for the future.

They're good considering how old this game is but most of the effects are baked into the textures making them very undynamic. In my opinion the combat sim with the best cockpits is RoF because it realitsicly models dynamic reflections from various materials like glass, metal, wood and lether.

 

 

I think the CloD cockpits look like they are made out of one material, and just painted with different colours. They look very tarnished. Kinda like wood/cardboard, and then painted. Next to no dynamic feel, no special surfaces. Not too much 3D feel either.

In BoS the cockpits have way better lightning i think, and it feels more alive. Shimmering, reflections, distinguished different materials.

Don't get me wrong, there are no worlds in between, but i just think the BoS ones look more real.

 

DCS has by far the best i think, especially the modern Jets and the Helis. Huey, as simple as its cockpit looks, is just incredible down to the slightest detail. Like the dashboard wiggling around, and reacting to G-forces, and stuff like that. Makes it a lot less static. Mig21 cockpit is crazy as well, with it's various different lights you can control. 

 

I have really high hopes for Normandy. I just hope they do anything neccessary to liven the world (ground forces, AI aircraft etc). 

 

Don't have gaming-fit internet for 3 month now, mostly playing DCS in SP. It's kind of a shock going "back" to BoX, after habituating DCS's rendering and graphics quality. Feels really outdated now, something i have never felt the last 3 years when i was mostly flying BoS. I hope now with Dx11, they can pull something similar then DCS..doesn't have to be tomorrow

 

Thanks for the explanation. It's funny that I almost completely fell the other way... But well. The "baked in" textures I see, that one is really not that great, I've noticed it right away when I've fired up CloD the other day for the first time in like 2 years again. 

But the  BoS cockpits give me a "less detailed" feeling and therefore I kinda not quite have the immersion I have in CloD or DCS.

 

 

 

I hope the horizon and distant rendering will be improved. To me it is more important than running 4k skins.

 

+1 

 

Oh and by the way, it has been a while since I was part of a discussion where CloD, DCS and BoS are getting mentioned over and over again without the usual "disses", "fanboyism" and people who feel offended from simple opinsions or statements considering one of those sims. I think in this part of the forum are not that many other people which makes this discussion somehow much more enjoyable...

Great job guys  

[Guest deleted@50488]

Yes, this thread has been very helpful for me. It's good to see users of the three sims ( I use only DCS and IL.2 BoX, but tried CloD and liked it, and will probably return to it when the new cooperation between Team Fusion and 1C/777 gives birth to their first release :-)

 

All of these sims are simply great, and I, as a pilot IRL for many years, and a devoted flight simulator enthusiast, can't find more pleasure in any other flightsims than I do in DCS and IL.2 BoX !

 

Thank you all for all of the comments in this thread too, which actually started about XP11, but somehow has added precious info about the other sims . I am always learning, and I intend to continue like so

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

I hope the horizon and distant rendering will be improved. To me it is more important than running 4k skins.

 

Agreed.

[Dutchvdm]

Agreed.

 

I was wondering about this for a couple of days.. Everyone is jumping on the 4K skins, but how many people are using that resolution? 1080P is for many still the preferred resolution. Or i'm i missing something? 

 

All in all i would chose environment detail over highres textures. Just look at a game like GTA5 (For PC offcourse). Even for 2016 for me it still the most beautiful openworld games to date. Although it has some very nasty lowres textures for buildings and cars. The world itself looks amazing.

 

Grt M  

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Everyone is jumping on the 4K skins, but how many people are using that resolution? 1080P is for many still the preferred resolution.

4k does not referr to your native screen resolution but the size of the texture file. 4k means 4096x4096 pixels per texture which in return means higher pixel density for aircraft skins. Hence why little details can be modeled sharper and look less pixelated.

 

Also, in which way is this related to the terrain renderer/textures? Why is one automaticly worse than the other?

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

Also, in which way is this related to the terrain renderer/textures? Why is one automaticly worse than the other?

 

No offense at all but why are you asking us? We don't develop for 777.

[Dutchvdm]

4k does not referr to your native screen resolution but the size of the texture file. 4k means 4096x4096 pixels per texture which in return means higher pixel density for aircraft skins. Hence why little details can be modeled sharper and look less pixelated.

 

Also, in which way is this related to the terrain renderer/textures? Why is one automaticly worse than the other?

 

That explains. So even on lower resolution someone will benefit from high texture resolutions. 

 

Grt M

[Dakpilot]

That explains. So even on lower resolution someone will benefit from high texture resolutions. 

 

Grt M

 

Yes, when in cockpit looking at your wing or whatever you will see more details and less pixelation which to me gives more immersion, after all you spend all/most of the time looking out the windows with the skin visible constantly, notwithstanding the overall improvement externally

 

it is like looking at a 2 megapixel camera image compared to an 8MP one, you can still look at the better detail even from a +12MP camera on your 1080P screen

 

From experiments with available 4K skins in 8 vs 8 I have seen no performance hit (and did not with old IL-2 Res mod either)

 

This higher res has been made available by DX11 skins are made by community, and templates when done from scratch are not much different in time, so this whole benefit of higher res skins does not really have any downside or much extra dev time/resource

 

It is not a matter of prefer longer view distance over 4096 X 4096 skins, it is a bit of a different concept, there is also possibility of better res texture for landscape, with higher image quality, again a separate thing to view distance

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Nice nice

When its out ill be getting the full Academic(commercial) Addition of this right away.

Xplane 10 is a flight sim thats purely unique FSX is just a game (granted i love them both and over 3,500 hours flying in FSX Virtual Airlines but it does not compare)

Xplanes usability i mean out of the box you can spread the game to run over 128 Computers(if wanted) and upto like 16 monitors
It supports as many controllers as you can fit in your pc

Edited January 12, 2017 by =r4t=Sshadow14