SJ_Butcher Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) I remember Jason said that we have the most advanced graphic engine for simulation environment, when they upgraded a lot of things that will come in v3.000, but DCS upgraded their engine too and it is amazing the level of detail they have, most of the problems we have in the sim they don't have it and I fell jealous of them... https://youtu.be/Iky8444unA0 This video shows you the amazing detail of ground, they can see far, they don't have that grey smoke we have in the game, antialiasong is perfect, you can still see the plane detail at long distance.. I hope this put pressing on 777 to retake the crown of the most advanced engine. Edited February 4, 2018 by SJ_Butcher
-TBC-AeroAce Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 Is it a joke that this vid is the worst quality ever?
SJ_Butcher Posted February 4, 2018 Author Posted February 4, 2018 Is it a joke that this vid is the worst quality ever? Maybe you should see the video at max quality or buy a pair of eyes 1
Rolling_Thunder Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 It all looks pretty on a monitor but BoS kills DCS when it comes to VR. I get huge FPS on a monitor but DCS in VR is unplayable. 1
SJ_Butcher Posted February 4, 2018 Author Posted February 4, 2018 It all looks pretty on a monitor but BoS kills DCS when it comes to VR. I get huge FPS on a monitor but DCS in VR is unplayable. VR is not important right now, how many people play on it? 1% the amount of effort and time won't worth it today 2
OrLoK Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 VR is not important right now, how many people play on it? 1% the amount of effort and time won't worth it today its vitally important to me 6
Uufflakke Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 Quote from someone who commented on this vid at YouTube: "Please not that almost all changes in 2.5 where for the Caucasus map not the Normandy map and for the most part 2.5 uses the graphics engine that was already used in 2.2." And what are we watching here: Normandy map.
DD_Arthur Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 Hardly the greatest advert for DCS. Now where are my eye drops.......? 1
OrLoK Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) oh, gys n gals, note that (for me) the vid defaults to a low res so bump up the quality settings to see a proper representation. Edited February 4, 2018 by OrLoK
Rolling_Thunder Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 VR is not important right now, how many people play on it? 1% the amount of effort and time won't worth it today You're probably right. 1% of folk play DCS in VR because the other 99% cant play it because it's unplayable. VR is important. 1c/777 have done an outstanding job with VR. To call a graphics engine that has poor VR the Most modern graphic simulator engine is misleading. 1
ShamrockOneFive Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) I'll admit I am thinking about doing an interesting side by side of DCS' new Caucasus map with IL-2: Battle of Kuban's Kuban map since there's a ton of overlap. Having flown both a fair bit (though not DCS 2.5) I'd say that there are pros and cons going back and forth. DCS has upped the ante with DCS World 2.5 but then IL-2: Battle of Kuban is about to arrive with 3.001 and a whole bunch of graphical features like the improved draw distances and things like raindrops on the canopy. I think that's going to even things out a fair bit visually. DCS finally got some good vegetation while IL-2 has had a very good implementation for years and they recently did some work on that (was that 2.012?). Rivalries aside I see things another way. The flight sim community has the benefit (and hopefully the pleasure) of there being two extremely exceptionally good and beautiful combat flight sims. They do different things, they have different pros and cons, and they have slightly differing philosophies but the simple fact is that we have great options you want to hop in an aircraft and fly across a landscape and probably blow something up. One thing is certain: IL-2 is not behind and in many ways it either leading or about to take the lead again. Edited February 4, 2018 by ShamrockOneFive 2
Pupo Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 (edited) Quote from someone who commented on this vid at YouTube: "Please not that almost all changes in 2.5 where for the Caucasus map not the Normandy map and for the most part 2.5 uses the graphics engine that was already used in 2.2." And what are we watching here: Normandy map. The uploader of this video has a before and after video in his channel. The changes are easely seen and really amazing. DCS may be winning on the graphical department (for now), but has a long way to go if it wants to be the best WW2-Sim in the block... Edited February 4, 2018 by Pupo
Jason_Williams Posted February 4, 2018 Posted February 4, 2018 First, I don’t believe I said that. Second, we draw our terrain out to 150km now in 3.001 that is probably what I was speaking of. We also tweaked our clouds and we’ve made our shadows much better. When we look at DCS we find all kinds of technical issues you may not notice, but they face the same challenges we do. Sometimes they are better at hiding certain limits and vice versa. Their engine has a different base look than ours especially the daytime lighting and contrast of their shadows. They also have a nice color palette for the sky, but I believe they use a different type of tech for their sky. Their 3D models have more detail, that’s nothing new, but they are a study sim and take much longer to make their models. Trying to be objective I will say that they do some things better and we do some things better, but we are not in a straight apples to apples product comparison per se. Would I like to have a dedicated graphics team? Of course, but we have a limited time and limited budget. We’ve done amazing things with just one main lead programmer. And this thread is not necessary so Im closing it. Jason 34
Recommended Posts