How to have better grass rendering even for distance-For The Devs

[Draconus]

Hello everyone so being a game dev i decided to take a closer look into how the devs can massively improve the grass rendering in the game..

i will give examples below ideas for them to look into incorperating

 

Im currently been working with unreal 4 for past couple years know on my own game project so ill use unreal 4 dev experience for examples here

 

Devs should first looking into Speed Tree and most of the Speed Tree grass assets have multiple LODs for close,medium and long distance

The problem with having detailed grass every were is size of each grass mesh texture....this can eat gpu memory up if its not done correctly

 

Ive worked with Speed Tree alot so a procedural grass setup with multiple LODs with highest detailed LOD of grass being very very small in size... and can have detailed grass in distance which will show in gun sights...tanks can hide in it ect....

Speed Tree also has some very nice tree assets devs should look into alot of the models in the game are very low quality due to game engine being orginally for air combat with ground being seen at distance ...all of the trees foliage should be done with speed tree assets ...they are highly optimized assets i currently use Speed Tree myself...

 

Another thing id like to mention to devs is terrain texturing using Quixel Mega scans...i also have sub with them and use those assets for my unreal 4 work you can not beat the quality in Quixel mega scann stuff ......will make the game even more realistic looking ect

 

Know lastly is real time weather simulation there is company called Simul that designed a wonderful real time weather plugin complete with temp system hot/cold and ability for say snow in blizzard to build up on ground and models over time...thus creating deep snow player can wade through or drive through......great game that uses this Tru Sky plugin is Fade To Silence on Steam....devs should get in touch with Simul about integrating there Tru Sky technology into this engine  ...imagine flying into snow in plane and the wings start to ice up ,tanks in colder temps wont run like they would in warmer temps ect...true simulation weather included...i have 5 years experience working on simulators alone and R&D,designed and built a real time weather system even had real time lighting projection for another game engine that was physic based and powered by Havok....i would love chatting with the devs on some things with this wonderful gem

[inexus]

I reckon the graphics engine for IL2 is a legacy engine and not based on anything like Unreal/unity/...  

 

So yes there are definitively well recognised ways for speeding up vegetations out there that looks fantastic but whether it can be applied so easily here is a good question. 

 

I agree that today the grass rendering is very limited - and this is especially a shame when it comes to TC and you can see the grass/bushes stops so quickly and all you see is a murky rendered flat texture  

[Koenigstiger]

Hello Freaks,

 

I think there is little to complain about about the representation of the grass. What I think would be worthy of improvement is the representation of the buildings. They actually look like the "Potemkin villages" - like canvas facades or film sets. The representation in the game "Iron Front - Liberation 1944" is a lot better!

But there are some other shortcomings

- the trail of dust from the moving tanks on the Russian roads in dry conditions should be much larger
- the cannon smoke has unfortunately lost a lot of representation since the last update
- the negative directional angle of the Tiger I cannon is too small
- in my opinion, it could also be a bit of a "civilian life" such as people and farm animals - or smaller treks on the run
- Mines also posed a great danger to tanks - either open or concealed. These inhibited the advance or forced the tanks to take other routes

For me, however, there are only minor flaws that do not detract from the joy of this game.
I would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank the producers and those responsible, and I wish you continued good ideas and their implementation.

 

God luck

 

Guenther

 

[Draconus]

Hey guys so yes the engine is older from 2009 form what ive read ive actually been tearing through alot of the game files ,unpacked all the game textures

 

The engine has been updated to 64 bit and dx11 since those days

 

there is alot that can be done tweak wise in perticular for example all the effect stuff...ive managed to improve all of it 

 

 

Im going to do a post on the forums here a thread for modding which will cover all of this in detail...

 

On post above ive found stuff for grass rendering ect too so that could be pushed farther for the grass rendering distance without it glitching out with some work tweaks ect ive also improved the look of the quality of the grass as well

 

Ive also improved ssao,ssr(screen space reflections)forest quality which was set damn low on engine side and some other things without impacting performance

 

People have noticed the stuttering on some maps and the one bug in last update with tanks not quite on the ground ive looked at that as well...

I know what causes the stuttering and what happened with the tank floating nonsense which ill go into detail on my own thread on here for modding....

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Draconus

[johncage]

i was against tank crew from the beginning because issues like this nagged on me, and i see i was right. not the right engine for low level terrain sims. should have stuck to what the engine was designed for

[LachenKrieg]

2 hours ago, johncage said:

i was against tank crew from the beginning because issues like this nagged on me, and i see i was right. not the right engine for low level terrain sims. should have stuck to what the engine was designed for

Couldn't disagree more. While there are lots of issues that still need to be polished/worked out in this module, Tank Crew even in its present form is the best WWII tank simulator currently available. I have only recently picked it up and couldn't be more pleased with the progress already made.

 

Here is a video made I believe on the BOS map before the actual release of Tank Crew. So it is representative of the low level terrain you are concerned about. Even at this early stage on this low texture map, the action scenes are decent and entertaining to watch. The current optimized map included with Tank Crew steps this up considerably, as do the updated vehicles.

 

 

[MicroShket]

6 hours ago, LachenKrieg said:

I have only recently picked it up and couldn't be more pleased with the progress already made.

Well, if you prefer ugly terrain that is definitely your choice. Panzer models are great, but with current environment it's no more than virtual tank museum. ?

[LachenKrieg]

Two points, and I am wondering if you haven't missed both of them.

 

The point of the discussion in this thread I believe is not just about improving the look of the grass, it is about map optimization. In other words, improving the FPS with improved graphics effecrs regardless of whether you fly a plane or drive a tank. Everyone wins.

 

The second is the linked video above shows that even in the current environment, the sim is more then playable, entertaining to watch, and certainly enjoyable to play. If the devs want to improve Tank Crew, and I have to believe that they do, then there is a long list of things that need to/could be polished/reworked with the models themselves before even mentioning issues with the UI, or textures of a map.

 

Which goes back to the first point. If everyone had the same outlook characterized in your post above, then no one would have probably bought any of the IL2 series back when it first started. If you can appreciate what we have today as a flight sim, then you should be able to appreciate that was only made possible by the support the flight sim received in its early days.

[MicroShket]

Well, I understand your opinion and respect it, but I will not change my mind, as well as my friend, who bought TC in very early days of early access but didn't like what he has got then and now.

[SCG_Neun]

First off, thanks Draconus for sharing your expertise and gearing up to help make TC a better sim.  One thing I'd like to point out....and I've learned it the hard way, this is a very long journey as we see the addition of new features and improvements with this game.  For those of us that have actually purchased the game, or have had experience with the Dev's throughout the years, most of us have learned it takes a crap load of patience to see these sims unfold and evolve, but it does happen. 

 

I'm not new to simming, and many of my friends that share the IL2 Great Battles platform are not either, and I speak for them and myself when I say, we've enjoyed the doo doo out of this series and that includes Tank Crew.  Of course it's a matter of opinion and how much you desire a WWII tank sim and the willingness to saddle up with the Devs and ride this one out.  This is not a finished product and when the dust settles from this....I predict we are all going to be surprised.  In the end you can either "fish, or cut bait" or go searching for another sim that stands out in this era.

 

There is always going to be a balance to achieve in rendering ground terrain features within this series as the Devs balance air combat and ground terrain within the total concept of an all inclusive combined arms approach.  So it's never going to be perfect, but I challenge you to find another sim with a better air combat component flying above you as you move out to achieve your ground objectives in your tanks.  So it's not for everybody...nothing ever is....  

 

For me personally, I play with our SCG guys and we have our own server and battles that we look forward to so I don't have the single player complaints many of you do.  Just my two cents.....from a guy that's been here with IL2 from day one....

Edited July 5, 2020 by SCG_Neun

[352ndOscar]

Second SCG_Neun.  We have choices.  If you want the console graphics of W0T, then go for it.  If you want the simulation graphics provided with TC, then go for it.  If someone wants to take a shot at modding the TC graphics, then go for it.  Those that like it will use it.  Those that don’t, won’t.  Best of luck to Draconus - let’s see what comes of it.  He’s not the first to try and modify the grass textures and I’m fairly sure he won’t be the last.

[LachenKrieg]

5 hours ago, MicroShket said:

Well, I understand your opinion and respect it, but I will not change my mind, as well as my friend, who bought TC in very early days of early access but didn't like what he has got then and now.

I appreciate your respect and I can assure you have mine. If you have no interest in TC because you have no interest in armored battles, then I certainly have no reason or interest in attempting to change your mind. If you have interest, but don't see the value at this point in time, then again I have little interest in trying to change your mind other then offering the argument that even at its current price, TC still represents reasonable value because it is so far ahead of anything else out there as far as WWII goes. 

 

Have you had a look at DCS and its combined arms with WWII asset pack? While its current iteration struggles with having a vehicle follow a way-point, TC allows you to give direction to an entire platoon of tanks. While the control of this is a little clunky at the moment, I hope the Devs put some serious thought into this as I believe it is one of the most underrated and underdeveloped features of TC.

 

I won't even get into the arcade shooters. The player (_FLAPS_)RogoRogo summed it up so well in another thread here, I just had to quote it:

"WoT (and WT) are round-based Arcade Arena Shooter Games with their own dynamic and ever shifting rules, metas, pacing, .. and while one of them may "look" like a tank game (the other one barely pretends), none of them even remotely have anything to do with "Tank Sim" or Tank gameplay at all... (and one of them even replaces the players very own mk1 eyeball by purchase based mechanics)."

 

I played the shooters and bought the DCS modules, now that's what I call disappointment.

[MicroShket]

I played all games you mentioned above except DCS CA (I have it, but lack of singleplayer campaigns for this module is terrible). 

The problem is that by now there isn't any good contemporary tank simulator. Steel Fury: Kharkov 1942 was very good tanksim, but it is outdated by now. 

War Thunder's so called simulator battles in 2017 were good and provided a lot of fun. As it was just tank shooter, much more complicated than WoT at the same time.

Tank Crew is not real tank simulator as well. It is just tank shooter with complicated (but controversial) damage model. No soil simulation, no tank warfare simulation (but I know that developers work on it). This tank module is limited by aircraft component, because 777 must integrate tanks in aircraft map - even on Prokhorovka's detailed part ground mesh is not excellent. Ugly environment when you have only rough ground texture and thick trees what nullifies the possibilities of ambush. In memoirs everyone notes the difficulty of AT-guns detection. And what here? I can see guns from few kilometers. ?

And I am very sure that without rejection of air component there will be no progress with very important part of tank gameplay. But joint battles is the "feature". 

[SCG_Neun]

We did a work around on the visibility of AT guns using a trigger which simulates the AT guns coming out of basically no where and offering close range fire.  So it's still the guns you don't see that end up killing you.  I am talking about hidden guns that when triggered appear behind cover and not popping up in the middle of a field.  It simulates the guns coming into action and very accurately complements the Russians excellent concealment skills.   

 

The poor placement of some AT guns in the open is a defect of the mission maker if you are seeing them at a few kilometers, but I admit it does happen and sometimes the lighting and the lack of forest vegetation is a bummer.  But if a mission maker takes some care in placing his AT guns they can still be fairly well concealed using some terrain features.  Corner of a house or barn, haystack.....slope of a hill, trees..bushes....etc.  Throw in a rocket attack as your trying to scan for guns and some AI tanks coming out of the forest and you might not see those AT guns all together.

 

I think the single player component of TC is the hardest thing to implement right now to the level most SP desire.   When people mention WOT or War Thunder they are specifically speaking about online and under the right server, I think TC beats them all.  

[SCG_judgedeath3]

On 7/5/2020 at 10:44 PM, MicroShket said:

War Thunder's so called simulator battles in 2017 were good and provided a lot of fun. As it was just tank shooter, much more complicated than WoT at the same time.

Tank Crew is not real tank simulator as well. It is just tank shooter with complicated (but controversial) damage model. No soil simulation, no tank warfare simulation (but I know that developers work on it)

Ehm what?
Warthunder is arcadish in comparison to what we have in Tank crew although its sparse in other sectors where warthunder is better, mostly graphics.
We do have tank warfare as we can give orders to whole platoons of tanks or single tanks in single player and quite realistic missions that is getting better as the developers improve on the AI and limits, and then you have the community made missions, plenty for a single player to enjoy.

In multiplayer we have different kind of servers, more arcadish ones and some who simulate moving frontlines depending on how well one side play, but for most realistic immersion and use of military tactics I recommend SCG sunday missions where we do semi realistic historical missions where we use tank tactics.

Okay pros and cons with warthunder:
Plus:
Lots of tanks to unlock from ww2 to modern time.
Good graphics
Lots of players
easy to play.
free to play, you dont have to pay for it.
Terrain and houses and ground is affected by the tanks when driving.

Minus:
-Tanks can drive offterrain just as good as they do on roads, almost no speed loss, and the mud effects and driving in mud or soft terrain barely slows the tanks mainly to keep the gameplay fun for the none realistic seeking players.
-None working machine guns and modules on the tanks
-Super quick repairs
-All tanks have the same sights when historically they didnt

- only exteriour models of the tanks, you cant open hatches or simulate the crew inside.
- small maps and one dont have to use the range finding that much, and the game tells the distance....
- In simulator the commander is in some tanks located at the wrong place in the tank.
- immersion breaking as half of the matchup uses prototype tanks that probably never saw action or was used as main tnak for a whole division.
- Tiger tank dont get to fight the right type of tanks, the front armour is a joke.
- AP rounds dont bounce when hitting the ground at the right angle, they explode all the time.
- random matches and no team work at all or option to play tanks in a simulator setting, as matches are 30 minutes long max and in reality one need often to drive for hours.

- Warthunder encourage one to drive with as little ammo as possible due to ammoracking, when in reality tankers would load the tank to the full with ammo.

- no single player missions
- no infantery or anti tank guns or any other targets/enemies to engage than other tank players.

- same engine sound for most german tanks, compared to the ferdinand engine sound the warthunder one seem to lack electrical engines....

- You control the tank as a radio controlled tank, others cant play as gunner, or any of the crew members.
- no interiour of the tanks, once you seen the tank you seen it all.


Tank crew:
Plus:
-Full interiour and most of the things inside are moduled and you can open the hatches and have to learn all things inside to use the tank fully.
- the tanks has different sights
- realistic offroad speeds and handling, not perfect but far better than what we have in warthunder.
- can damage the engines and overheat them etc, gotta keep a track of engine temperature by beeing the driver, no hud here.
- repairs take long time and in the past you couldnt even repair some or took way longer, which I wish we could still have, if it takes 1 hour or more in reality to repair a track I gladly do the same in the game.
- fuel gauge, you have fuel in this game and can run out of it.
- Ammo is easy to use up and one usually take all ammo one can get.
- trees are something to watch out for, unlike warthunders paper weight trees that flies away and disappears when hit by the tank. IF you do cut down a tree here it stays on the ground.
- AP rounds bounces when hit at right angle.
- He shells dont have tracers like in reality in ww2.
- more realistic line up of tanks, no prototypes.
- tiger do get to face the right type of enemy tanks, no postwar stuff here.
- maps based on reality and not inspired by reality as warthunder do, here you have to drive for hours in worst case to get to the front.
- when playing on the realistic servers one can have very realistic and immersive ww2 battles with others, SCG missions as example.
- hard to master and play, each crew member needs to be used and one have to learn all places and key commands to get the most out of the tank.
- way more stuff in the tanks that can get damaged, hell if one traverse a slope or ridge the turret traverse will get slower or immobile due to weight.
- Developers are working on improving on the games flaws and is already more military realistic than warthunder.

- You can have other players playing roles as gunner, radio operator, commander in the same tank, making you have to work together.

Minus:
-Graphics are worse, terrain and grass and trees etc looks worse than warthunder. (for me graphics dont matter but to some it does)
- no terrain formation from the tanks weight.
- damage model that has a lot to improve but from the release to now its a huge difference. Warthunder is also unrealistic in its damage model but at the moment better.
- not everything in the tanks are modelled but being worked at.
- AI and line of sight issues.
- indestructible items.
-invisible trees
- lack of servers and players to find active matches around the clock.
- Expensive game
- not that many tanks(to some number of tanks are more important than to master 1-2 tanks fully)
- scares away players who thinks its like warthunder and easy to play
- not a finished game, many flaws that makes some players not finding it worth getting.
- lack of infantery and objects, although its being worked on now
-  buggy game at places
- driver isnt playable when multicrewing
- command controls are a bit funky


I can go on but tank crew is far more realistic and more a simulator than warthunder is, as most players call warthunder: semi simulator game.
But well two different kind of games and if one find tank crew to do the same as warthunder then its likely you arent the simulator type of player but more normal gamer who find warthunder just as good if not better as warthunder do outclass tank crew in several sectors.
Play whatever game you find more enjoyable, if that is warthunder then fine, or if its tank crew then fine.
but dont say they play the same

[Goosevich]

Another major con of WT is a predatory buisness model. Game is designed to frustrate the f*ck out of you, so you have to throw money at the problem, which combined with  apalling prices = just forget about this PoS.

[MicroShket]

8 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

Ehm what?

Just read my message once again. 

If orders to a very simple AI, tank shooter and attack of such targets are tank warfare for you - ok, no questions. 

8 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

But well two different kind of games and if one find tank crew to do the same as warthunder then its likely you arent the simulator type of player but more normal gamer who find warthunder just as good if not better as warthunder do outclass tank crew in several sectors.

Maybe you should read post previous to my message. You see words, but can't correctly understand the whole text. Because I can't explain why you talking to me about War Thunder. I don't compare WT and TC. I said that WT is not positioning itself as tanksim, and that's ok. TC is opposite in self-positioning, but it's not tanksim yet at all. 

Edited July 7, 2020 by MicroShket

[MicroShket]

8 hours ago, SCG_judgedeath3 said:

if that is warthunder then fine

Yeah... I mentioned Steel Fury as tanksim standard, but you noticed only War Thunder. 

[LachenKrieg]

5 hours ago, MicroShket said:

Just read my message once again. 

If orders to a very simple AI, tank shooter and attack of such targets are tank warfare for you - ok, no questions. 

Maybe you should read post previous to my message. You see words, but can't correctly understand the whole text. Because I can't explain why you talking to me about War Thunder. I don't compare WT and TC. I said that WT is not positioning itself as tanksim, and that's ok. TC is opposite in self-positioning, but it's not tanksim yet at all. 

I would add that TC is a major step forward in simulating WWII armored warfare for the following reasons:

 

-Highly detailed models (interior/exterior) that include working crew positions for everyone except the loader. Although there is still room for model improvement, and I am hoping that a number of things will be either polished/reworked, or are still a WIP, the current models are unparalleled in simulating the actual WWII machines.

 

-The attention to detail given to the physics model for the power plants of the in game vehicles is also unparalleled by any other attempt made to date IMO. After watching several current day videos of an actual Tiger I tank in motion, I am thoroughly impressed with how accurate the Devs working on this sim have been able to recreate it. From the whine of the transmission as it shifts gears, to the jolts of torque and the roar coming from its 700 hp engine, the simulation is both visually and audibly immersive from an engine/transmission standpoint.

 

-The ability to multi-crew a tank is a major step in the right direction to capture the experience of what it must have been like to command one. And this is taken even one step further by adding the ability to also command the other tanks in your platoon. Again, while there is still lots of room for improvement here, the ability to experience commanding a tank in battle is note worthy.

 

-The detail given to the physics model for the main gun sights of WWII tanks is also very decent.

 

-The detail given to the physics model for gun fire plume including exhaust gas from the extractor fan on top of the turret is very decent... and, and, and...

 

In the end, all of the visual and audible cues of the simulation help build a more immersive experience, but we shouldn't forget the tactics used by each player, which are needed to complete the experience. If I compare what it is like driving a Tiger I around in both WT and TC, I would say hands down TC has recreated my expectations of that experience to a much higher degree. I have a much better sense that I am driving a 50 ton machine in TC then I do in WT. And that should be the goal of simulation. Being able to imitate physical characteristics (mass/power) using only visual and audible cues fits my definition of a successful simulation. Current issues with AI/other players aside, its up to me to use it accurately.

 

[352ndOscar]

We do disservice to Draconus.  This conversation has drifted way off the subject of the OP.