Jump to content


Photo

Better volumetric cloud rendering


  • Please log in to reply
11 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.

  • 1

#2 coconut

coconut
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1471

Posted 12 February 2017 - 08:10

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


  • 0

intel core i5 4690K @ 3.5Ghz, nvidia 980ti. Win10 Home

A poll on triple-screen setups: http://forum.il2stur...-screen-setups/ (please participate even if you have one/two screens)


#3 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 436

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.

1oIJ5hv_zpsgii92uwd.jpgYak1b_zpsr0h3cnxx.png


#4 coconut

coconut
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1471

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 @ 3.5Ghz, nvidia 980ti. Win10 Home

A poll on triple-screen setups: http://forum.il2stur...-screen-setups/ (please participate even if you have one/two screens)


#5 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Founder
  • Posts: 436

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.

1oIJ5hv_zpsgii92uwd.jpgYak1b_zpsr0h3cnxx.png


#6 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1120

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: 436

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.

1oIJ5hv_zpsgii92uwd.jpgYak1b_zpsr0h3cnxx.png


#8 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1120

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: 602

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

#10 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1120

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: 436

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.

1oIJ5hv_zpsgii92uwd.jpgYak1b_zpsr0h3cnxx.png


#12 307_Tomcat

307_Tomcat
  • Founder
  • Posts: 1120

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users