Jump to content


Photo

Better volumetric cloud rendering


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#1 HDhdgamercore

HDhdgamercore
  • Member
  • Posts: 1

Posted 12 February 2017 - 03:56

I would like to see better volumetric cloud rendering with better light scattering in this simulator which would make it much more immersive. Check out this latest volumetric clouds from the unigine 2.4 engine:

youtube.com/watch?v=Slx9ISHOkyo

youtube.com/watch?v=tui5-x2i2zw

 


Edited by HDhdgamercore, 12 February 2017 - 04:17.

  • 2

#2 coconut

coconut
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1746
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 12 February 2017 - 08:10

That looks amazing! Would love to have that in the game.


  • 0

intel core i5 4690K @ 4.2Ghz, nvidia 980ti, Acer predator XB271HU 1440p 144Hz, Oculus Rift. Win10 Home

My missions | My server


#3 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 788

Posted 12 February 2017 - 08:57

That looks amazing! Would love to have that in the game.

If you support 777 over about 2 decades and let them have as many sales, then they would probably also come up with such.

 

But keep in mind, the Unreal engine cannot model maps efficiently required in the size required for a sim. Your player bubble is MUCH smaller than the already meagre 10 km radius we have in BoS.

 

As long as Intel is not making (or not willing o make) significant progress with its CPU's (so far like 10% speed increase per year, roughly speed doubling in a deacade!) as well as cutting PCI Express lanes such that there is no way of making the most of your storage as well as having full use of multi-GPU (even KabyLake-X only have 16 (!) lanes, equalling ONE powerful GPU) you can only increase eyecandy by improving your code, reducing overhead. This takes years. You have what you have, and at some point, the bucket is full.

 

Worse still, as Intel is the worlds lagrest GPU manufaturer (we have their turd tucked onto most CPUs they are selling), why should they give the competition an extra edge when it only costs them and adds compelxity to their products? Nah, let the enthusiasts take the bullet. Make easier money.


  • 0
Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

#4 coconut

coconut
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1746
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 12 February 2017 - 09:57

the Unreal engine

 

That's Unigine, which AFAIK has nothing to do with Unreal engine. Apparently they are targetting flight sims, among other uses: http://unigine.com/e...flight#a-header

 

Not surprisingly, they are Russians.


  • 0

intel core i5 4690K @ 4.2Ghz, nvidia 980ti, Acer predator XB271HU 1440p 144Hz, Oculus Rift. Win10 Home

My missions | My server


#5 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 788

Posted 12 February 2017 - 10:25

That's Unigine, which AFAIK has nothing to do with Unreal engine. Apparently they are targetting flight sims, among other uses: http://unigine.com/e...flight#a-header

Not surprisingly, they are Russians.

I thought of that one:
https://www.unrealen...unreal-engine-4

But there are several, like from Crytek.

But thanx for posting the link to unigine, it is not surprising that eventually also for flight sims the design of the "world renderer" should be decoupled from developing content.

Edited by ZachariasX, 12 February 2017 - 10:25.

  • 0
Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

#6 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1640

Posted 12 February 2017 - 11:32

Visibility 400km...nice tech! BTW I like our clouds, but they ofcurse need some development time like adding more variety, height and levels plus fixing gif like moving animation property. From my experience clouds have now biggest impact in FPS drops.
  • 0

#7 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 788

Posted 12 February 2017 - 13:32

Visibility 400km...nice tech! BTW I like our clouds, but they ofcurse need some development time like adding more variety, height and levels plus fixing gif like moving animation property. From my experience clouds have now biggest impact in FPS drops.

We don't have "clouds", we have "a bunch of cumuli". It looks nice though and it is good enough for a combat sim.


From my experience clouds have now biggest impact in FPS drops.

Clouds can be lots of textures. Lots of high bandwith VRAM helps here. So it depends on your card how much of an impact it has. In FSX/P3D, cloud textures can easily halve your FPS.


  • 0
Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

#8 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1640

Posted 12 February 2017 - 13:42

We don't have "clouds", we have "a bunch of cumuli". It looks nice though and it is good enough for a combat sim.

Clouds can be lots of textures. Lots of high bandwith VRAM helps here. So it depends on your card how much of an impact it has. In FSX/P3D, cloud textures can easily halve your FPS.


Not good enough clouds play significant role in combat environment I'm not speaking about duels :P

I have gtx 1070 plenty of vram but I see drops from 130fps to 90 same scene with out or without heavy clouds.
  • 0

#9 F/JG300_Gruber

F/JG300_Gruber
  • Member
  • Posts: 682

Posted 13 February 2017 - 18:02

Wow, that just kick arses  :o:

 

I would gladly pay the price of a premium BoX license just to have this implemented in the sim !


  • 0

5ISaUYS.pngnwwkBNc.png


#10 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1640

Posted 13 February 2017 - 18:44

260x260 km maps with that amount of details plus 40 km visibility this is top notch tech. I wonder how fly dynamics would look like. But without war this is not my genre :)
  • 0

#11 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 788

Posted 13 February 2017 - 20:42

Looking ito it, as nice a it looks, for a real aircraft simulator it is not that great.

 

Unigine, same as Ureal or Crytek engine,  is depicting "flat world levels". They are pretty, but the are not the basis for playpens the size of what we have now in BoS. They are great for benchmarking, for visualizing construction etc. But for a true sim you need a renderer that can handle a globe based on the world geodetic system, consistent to what is used today in navigation and cartography.

 

Else, there will be never long distance flights and the flight endurance of a Bf-109G or Yak-3 perfecty acceptable for all purposes.

 

New game engines, such as unigine, show clearly what you can do when you use modern software interfaces as well as 64 bit software using systems with lots of memory. You can indeed load textures MUCH faster than it is done in ancient FSX. But that is about it. So, like in GTA, you have pretty gass and flowers, houses, all hand placed in a flat playpen. Great to shoot up each other, be it in a Yak or with a shotgun. But not great if you want to fly from East Anglia to Algeria. Flat eathers also have a rotten kind of navigation. If you look at the webpage of unigene, you can see what they do well. An environment for an aircraft simulator, that is like if they put it as "We can do that too! Look at the grass, look at the flowers!" Well, what about a great-circle?

 

What it also demonstrates is how much more you can deliver if you have a much larger market to draw money from to for investing in a "world renderer" than 777 has. This is why I said it is a burden if developement of the game engine is coupled to the game itself.

 

And again: pretty graphics have NOTHING to do with a "great flight model". In fact, Unigine has none of that at all. All you can do is move your camera in a world such as you can do in Google Earth. If you would require flight models, you had to tuck it on yourself.


  • 0
Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

#12 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Tester
  • Posts: 1640

Posted 13 February 2017 - 21:54

Real geospatial data....

yep just graphics i want hear something about flight model :-)

youtube.com/watch?v=VixkiuuFIlA


youtube.com/watch?v=ZMVz3oUCagw

Edited by 307_Tomcat, 13 February 2017 - 21:55.

  • 0

#13 =TBAS=Sshadow14

=TBAS=Sshadow14
  • Member
  • Posts: 1265
  • Location:Australia

Posted 05 March 2017 - 09:49

After looking into the configs a bigger problem is how much mission makers setup the clouds in the cloud config file or have access to it.

There is multiple entries all very similar Low Altitude clouds

Eg, of default entry (clouds for autumn storm)
[03_Heavy_08]
CloudConfig = "autumn\03_Heavy_08\sky.ini"
CloudLevel = 800
CloudHeight = 900
[end]


Eg, of what i would put in (mod in if need be)
[03_Heavy_08]
CloudConfig = "autumn\03_Heavy_08\sky.ini"
CloudLevel = 6000
CloudHeight = 15000 (Tho sadly game seems limited to 10,000m so storm clouds should tower 5-6,000m)
[end]


 


Edited by =R4T=Sshadow14, 05 March 2017 - 09:51.

  • 0

                 791JFcf.jpgANn0ipP.jpg                  
/CPU: FX8350@ 4.3ghz /GPU: GTX 1060 G1 Gaming /RAM: 16GB@1875mhz
 /JOYSTICK: Saitek X-55 Hotas /PEDALS: Logitech Driving Force EX


#14 LLv34_Temuri

LLv34_Temuri
  • Member
  • Posts: 442

Posted 20 March 2017 - 11:12

After looking into the configs a bigger problem is how much mission makers setup the clouds in the cloud config file or have access to it.

There is multiple entries all very similar Low Altitude clouds

Eg, of default entry (clouds for autumn storm)
[03_Heavy_08]
CloudConfig = "autumn\03_Heavy_08\sky.ini"
CloudLevel = 800
CloudHeight = 900
[end]


Eg, of what i would put in (mod in if need be)
[03_Heavy_08]
CloudConfig = "autumn\03_Heavy_08\sky.ini"
CloudLevel = 6000
CloudHeight = 15000 (Tho sadly game seems limited to 10,000m so storm clouds should tower 5-6,000m)
[end]


 

IIRC, there are limitations to the level and height values.


  • 0

32ux.jpg


#15 =TBAS=Sshadow14

=TBAS=Sshadow14
  • Member
  • Posts: 1265
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 March 2017 - 02:39

Yeah it dont matter...

You can only run a single cloud preset file.
you can't run like a normal 4-5 layers at different types and thicknesses

maybe with mods on we can have normal weather


  • 0

                 791JFcf.jpgANn0ipP.jpg                  
/CPU: FX8350@ 4.3ghz /GPU: GTX 1060 G1 Gaming /RAM: 16GB@1875mhz
 /JOYSTICK: Saitek X-55 Hotas /PEDALS: Logitech Driving Force EX


#16 1./JG54_Uwe

1./JG54_Uwe
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1033
  • Location:Fresno, CA

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:01

I'd rather the haze be lifted from the horizon but I think the clouds look pretty good compared to other flight sims.
  • 0

jg54_logo.jpg

U.S. west coast squadron recruiting pilots for Fw-190, Bf-109 and JU-87

http://JG54.org


#17 =TBAS=Sshadow14

=TBAS=Sshadow14
  • Member
  • Posts: 1265
  • Location:Australia

Posted 21 March 2017 - 07:26

the haze is there because there is no actual horizon or curvature it hides the distance flatness


  • 0

                 791JFcf.jpgANn0ipP.jpg                  
/CPU: FX8350@ 4.3ghz /GPU: GTX 1060 G1 Gaming /RAM: 16GB@1875mhz
 /JOYSTICK: Saitek X-55 Hotas /PEDALS: Logitech Driving Force EX


#18 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 788

Posted 21 March 2017 - 15:32

it hides the distance flatness

 

 

This is:


  • 0
Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

#19 Ishtaru

Ishtaru
  • Founder
  • Posts: 296
  • Location:Terra

Posted 21 March 2017 - 15:46

The clouds are nice but it could give some players an adventage over others so better leave it how it is. :lol:

 

edit: Man look at those engines, look how far you can see, thats just awesome and compared to that BoS just looks like low quality, sry if it hurts but its true.

 

Like i said in another thread, everyone in the games market pushes for visual appeal with one exception, BoS, everyone trys to make there games look better, time to adapt. ;)


Edited by Ishtaru, 21 March 2017 - 15:53.

  • 0

Windows 7 64bit, Intel i5-3570k @4,3 Ghz, 16 Gig RAM, Palit GTX 980ti SuperJetstream, Samsung 128 Gig SSD, TrackIR5, TM Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind Pedals


#20 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 788

Posted 22 March 2017 - 10:09

The clouds are nice but it could give some players an adventage over others so better leave it how it is. :lol:

 

edit: Man look at those engines, look how far you can see, thats just awesome and compared to that BoS just looks like low quality, sry if it hurts but its true.

 

Like i said in another thread, everyone in the games market pushes for visual appeal with one exception, BoS, everyone trys to make there games look better, time to adapt. ;)

If the only thing you are doing is computing visuals, you have a lot more possibilities. Remember, these things come of CPU/GPU benchmarks.

 

Besides, if you not only restrict yourself to plain visuals, but also have a tiny map size, things get much easier to do. I want to see that engine rendering 500 million m2 of terrain with autogen and fitting the world geodetic system.

 

Let's see what it can do then.

 

Then let's see what it can do if you just allow 50% CPU overhead for your graphics.


  • 0
Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

#21 Ishtaru

Ishtaru
  • Founder
  • Posts: 296
  • Location:Terra

Posted 22 March 2017 - 13:21

You are right and i agree but this is not waht i mean.

 

My example would be first 1946 and then go through all the stuff after, CloD was graphic wise a quantum jump and after that came DCS, first not really an advance over CloD in the visuals but later it became better, it had the physiscs and FMs on there side and then came BoX, sure it looks good from a pure graphics standpoint and the FM/DM is good but the low visibility destroys all the beauty in my opinion.

 

This is what i mean when i say everyone goes for better graphics and of course graphics alone dont make good games but good graphics have a positive effect on things we like, immersion for example, it just feels odd flying high in BoX, if you could fly high enough you would see nothing on the ground or elsewhere because of the hazebubble surrounding you plane in a perfect sphere.

 

The idea of a cylinder is not so bad anymore that i first thought, for me it would be not enough but it would be better then what we have now, everything would be better then now, this is why im so stubborn which some people dont like and thats fully ok, i also dont like some people but i dont ignore them because of that, i am for sure are not alone with my thinking, i just whant to point out that there are people who dont like the current veiw restriction and be vocal about that.

 

Everything advances rapidly in technology, today we have more computingpower in our watches then the computers from the apollo program had back in the 60/70s, more viewrange would not hurt, some smart people pointed that out in this forum better than i could but the statement is true, more render distance for objects like planes would not hurt at all, ground objects would have a bigger impact for sure but thats nothing that gives someone a real adventage over someone with lower terrain viewrange.

 

Anyway thank you for your thaughts.


  • 0

Windows 7 64bit, Intel i5-3570k @4,3 Ghz, 16 Gig RAM, Palit GTX 980ti SuperJetstream, Samsung 128 Gig SSD, TrackIR5, TM Warthog HOTAS, MFG Crosswind Pedals


#22 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 788

Posted 26 March 2017 - 11:56

The idea of a cylinder is not so bad anymore that i first thought

 

If you're asking for a cylinder with the same horizontal and vertical dimensions as currently rendered, you're increasing your boubble volume by 50%. It would equal an increase of 14% radius if it was to remain a sphere.

 

The devs give us little chioce to play with the rendering distances of the world / aircraft / ground objects. If they did, they open the same can of worms as it exists in FSX / P3D / etc when everyone wants to move the sliders to the right and they end up with a stutter fest. While with a proper flight sim, this might be acceptable as people can make the best of what they have, putting the bar that high to make a good combat game is probably not so helpful. The devs have to come up with 3 or so balanced packeges of settings that make the game run well on most of their clients rigs.

 

Assuming CPU/GPU overhead scales about proportionally to the size of the player bubble, you're asking for 50% more render time which comes at the expense of something. Currently, if we fly at 10'000 m altitude, we cannot level bomb, because we see only what is directly under us, leaving the bombsight "empty".

 

Then again, what was the common altitude that was used by the Luftwaffe to do so? Question is, dies the game allow you to reproduce the missuions that were flown back then? I guess it mostly does.

 

What I would think would be better if there were different classes of objects to be rendered at different radii from the player. Big ground objects fartehr, contrails farther, as soon as there are no contrails, you can let them enter player's vision at maybe less athe 6 km. But once detected they stay visible until you pan away your sight, losing sight of them as a compromise not to keep many planes in an ever expanding player bubble.

 

In general, I think we have a good compromise here. We get good FPS permitting even VR. Good enough to chase each other around.

 

A real perspective from an aircraft looks very different, here an example from Prepar3d v3.4. On an i7 at 4.4 GHz and a GF1080 i manage ~45 FPS to render this:

Spoiler

You can see, from 10'000 m over LAX I can see in topdays weather for about as far as Santa Barbara. Half a BoX map. 50 km render distance of ground objects.

 

Largely removing the athmosphere (clear skies) it looks like this:

Spoiler

I can see as far as Vandenberg AFB, 220 km away, almost a BoX map in each direction. 50 km draw radius for ground objects as well.

 

What is also painfully eveident, drawing the small combat playpen cancels out proper perspective on the globe, hidden in the haze. The higher you go, you should see the horizon getting lower under your nose. See here:

 

1'000 m

Spoiler

At 1'000 m the horzion is centered in your sights.

 

6'000 m

Spoiler

At 6'000 m, the horizon is already below your sights.

 

12'000 m

Spoiler

At 12'000 m, the horizon is below the hood.

 

Also note the curvature of the earth. Sunset and sunrise will appear as a shadow front across the globe.

 

The entire approach on how the world is rendered in BoX is a compromise to make "the world as we use it" pretty enough. But you discard a lot of aspects as they are not relevant to gameplay.

 

Personally, I think what is an issue is that ground objects need to be rendered farther out. Not only for level bombings sake, but also for improved dead reckoning.

 

The "more real world", as depicted above just doesn't allow headroom for including CPU overhead for DM and AI. At least not with the hardware and software tech that we have right now.

 

As for planes, most people spot planes IRL only once you're already colliding with them. If there are experienced pilots in here that can routinely spot aircraft over 6+ km, that's awesome, but highly unusual. Spoting an aircraft with your eyes is not thesame sport as tracing it. I doubt most people can spot routinely >5 km. . Spoting at distance requires you to rain your eyes to have their resting focus at infinite. That's not us desk jockeys.


  • 1
Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.

#23 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 788

Posted 26 March 2017 - 16:19

Just checking the other flat earther, DCS:

 

It's nice how they tried to emulate the perspective of the horizon getting lower with increasing cruise altitude:

 

At 3000 ft:

Spoiler

All is where it belongs, Vegas in your sights.

 

At 18'000 ft:

Spoiler

The horizon just sank below the sights, as in P3D.

 

At 36'000 ft:

Spoiler

The horizon also below the nose of the aircraft. Same as P3D.

 

Where things get weird is the curvature of the planet:

Spoiler

It is a slightly plausible effect at normal FoV, but as soon as you widen the FoV, you can see it is more like a triangle. The horizon goes up in an seemingly straigt line towards the view center, decending in an almost straight line again. P3D and Google Earth give you a rather different picture.

 

Then again, given it's purpose I think it is not an unelegant solution. FPS are way higher than P3D/FSX and you can even do VR with it. It's cheating too, but it renders the most obvious things correctly. It has a slightly bigger playpen than BoX, just enaough for the supersonic planes that inhabit it. BoX needs less safety margins as planes are much slower.

 

In short, there is a long way to go the get everything "realistically right", but comparing with Sublogic's "JET", oy, progress... And it's not over. As longa s our kids will be buying these sims as well at least.

 


  • 0
Felix qui potuit rerum cognocscere causas.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users