is there any plan to implement pbr in to the engine?

[NoelGallagher]

pbr(Physically based rendering)

 

i heard dcs uses one so why not il-2

i always got some itch feeling about how lighting looks and works with the 3dobject in the sim

the texture looks superb and the details of the surface of object is pure art 

but this lighting thing keep bugging me 

the game looks superb but it still looks like a game

a bit cartoonish maybe?

i have no problem with the current look of the game 

but i just found the room for improvement 

so don't get me wrong it's not complain

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

Agreed. Dcs looks way better, especially in terms of lightning and effects while it used to look way worse. It runs like crap though and is not a complete ww2 package like il-2 unfortunately.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

IMO PBR is overrated. Never mind the fact that the whole acronym basically means nothing as almost every modern rendering technique is based on real-life lighting physics.

 

With traditional rendering methods, it's perfectly possible to achieve realistic results. Take for instance the aircraft in the following post and tell me they don't look good:

 

That being said, I do agree the terrain and tree shaders could do with an upgrade. Especially the nearly complete absence of any specular layer is obvious, and extremely apparent on the no-mans land of the Arras map.

Edited June 29, 2021 by AEthelraedUnraed

[NoelGallagher]

4 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

IMO PBR is overrated. Never mind the fact that the whole acronym basically means nothing as almost every modern rendering technique is based on real-life lighting physics.

 

With traditional rendering methods, it's perfectly possible to achieve realistic results. Take for instance the aircraft in the following post and tell me they don't look good:

 

That being said, I do agree the terrain and tree shaders could do with an upgrade. Especially the nearly complete absence of any specular layer is obvious, and extremely apparent on the no-mans land of the Arras map.

yes they looks superb on it;'s own 

but as we all know the flight sim is getting better and better in terms of realistic looking 

dcs and micosoft flight sim has a photorealsitic looking sometimes it's indistinguishable from real life photos 

if i put it this in a exmaple 

unreal engine4 vs amra2 and 3

the recent games which uses unreal engine 4 which has better shader and rendering technology and all the lastest graphic features looks good on it's own

but there's something about how amra2 and 3 looks 

it might have bad tex quality and outdated shader

but it looks more realistic 

i think it's due to with how the lighting works in the game 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

4 hours ago, NoelGallagher said:

unreal engine4 vs amra2 and 3

All three engines (I suppose you mean Arma, which isn't an engine but rather a game?) are able to render certain scenes with high amounts of realism. Unreal 4 (5 is already more or less out by the way) perhaps with a bit more realism than the others. However, all are designed for ground-level FPS games, basically. They're optimised for optimal render quality, with just a "few" objects visible at a time (most are obscured). That's quite the inverse from a flight sim, which needs to render objects up to tens of kilometres away, but can do that with slightly less quality because each object will only cover a few pixels at most anyhow.

 

Also, the usually relatively small size of FPS levels makes it possible to employ certain optimisations. One famous example is CoD2. Back in the days rendering techniques were nowhere near the point where they could render reflections within their framerate quotum. However, they cheated by simply making an upside-down low-poly 3d copy of certain parts of their levels, which would show through all "reflective" water parts. Which were in fact translucent, or perhaps even cutout. Same visuals, much less complexity. If your levels are relatively small, you're able to do these things. But if you've got a huge map like in IL2, it's simply impossible.

 

5 hours ago, NoelGallagher said:

i think it's due to with how the lighting works in the game 

The lighting itself has little effect. I believe there's a certain maximum number of lights that are rendered, as there is in every game, but I don't think increasing it will improve much.

 

As we say in Dutch (we're known for our colourful proverbs after all): "je hebt de klok horen luiden maar weet niet waar de klepel hangt". Freely translated: "you heard the church bell ring, but don't know yet where the clapper hangs". Meaning, you're absolutely right (IMHO) that IL2 could do with a shader upgrade, but you don't know very well how it can actually be improved. You've identified a problem, but the solutions you suggest aren't very good ones, honestly.

[NoelGallagher]

14 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

All three engines (I suppose you mean Arma, which isn't an engine but rather a game?) are able to render certain scenes with high amounts of realism. Unreal 4 (5 is already more or less out by the way) perhaps with a bit more realism than the others. However, all are designed for ground-level FPS games, basically. They're optimised for optimal render quality, with just a "few" objects visible at a time (most are obscured). That's quite the inverse from a flight sim, which needs to render objects up to tens of kilometres away, but can do that with slightly less quality because each object will only cover a few pixels at most anyhow.

 

Also, the usually relatively small size of FPS levels makes it possible to employ certain optimisations. One famous example is CoD2. Back in the days rendering techniques were nowhere near the point where they could render reflections within their framerate quotum. However, they cheated by simply making an upside-down low-poly 3d copy of certain parts of their levels, which would show through all "reflective" water parts. Which were in fact translucent, or perhaps even cutout. Same visuals, much less complexity. If your levels are relatively small, you're able to do these things. But if you've got a huge map like in IL2, it's simply impossible.

 

The lighting itself has little effect. I believe there's a certain maximum number of lights that are rendered, as there is in every game, but I don't think increasing it will improve much.

 

As we say in Dutch (we're known for our colourful proverbs after all): "je hebt de klok horen luiden maar weet niet waar de klepel hangt". Freely translated: "you heard the church bell ring, but don't know yet where the clapper hangs". Meaning, you're absolutely right (IMHO) that IL2 could do with a shader upgrade, but you don't know very well how it can actually be improved. You've identified a problem, but the solutions you suggest aren't very good ones, honestly.

yeah i have no knowledge over how this game's engine work 

so i coun't give any solution