[FC] PLEASE Do Something About No Man's Land; Actual Trenches, Craters, and Active Troops

[artao]

I really do not understand why no man's land is just all flat textures. It's REALLY immersion killing. Those trenches are just black ugly zipper lines regardless of altitude. The craters appear to have baked-in lighting and don't even have basic bump mapping.
GOOD LORD!!! Surely the game engine is fully capable of this -- it appears to be elsewhere -- and as someone knowledgable about 3D graphics and software I know it's not particularly hard. Even simple normal maps would be better. Displacement maps if the game engine is capable of using them. Ideally just put in the geometry; create a few "crater" sculpting brushes and go to town. Not asking for perfect, just existing.

Seriously, why do we not already have these. I know No Man's Land was desolate, but it still had active troops on the ground. In IL-2 it feels like everyone just went home while artillery just kept pounding nothing, with an occasional machine gunner still there, also shooting at nothing. Not even decals where artillery and bombs hit, they just explode and ...... Nothing. No ground marking at all. No Man's Land looks dry, possibly even dusty. It doesn't look muddy and wet.  Where's the wrecked tanks? Where's the dead troops half in water in deep craters?
No troops. No tanks. No charges .... Where's the war? Seriously.
Very nice detail outside No Man's Land tho. Showing that the detail could seriously be amped-up IN No Man's Land.

It really really kills immersion, especially in ground support missions. Details outside No Man's Land is nice and all, but that's not where the war is really happening, and this IS a war game after all. If there's no war effort to support, why are we up there flying and fighting?

I'm very very surprised this hasn't (that I found) been discussed heavily already. I can't be the only one disappointed with this; even a bit irritated. IL-2 nails realism in so many other ways, this lack of No Man's Land realism really jumps out like a blight.

Pretty please, rectify this. To the ever-present "Should they work for free?" comments. They don't. And regardless this already should have been in there; I expected it when I bought it and was quite put out when it wasn't there. ESPECIALLY when I saw those ugly black zipper-line "trenches." They look like stand-in textures, alpha release level. VERY much screams of someone being like, "Screw it, I'm sick of working on this. This is good enough."

But no. No it's not. Very much not "good enough." Especially in contrast to the rest of the game. It makes it feel unfinished. Given how much attention was paid elsewhere, it’s baffling that No Man’s Land ended up looking like this. A surprising oversight for a team that clearly knows how to do detail well. It deserves better.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

I believe third party team make a map  - Urga media. They are solid, they made nice and detailed DCS maps ,  it looks like they didn't get any task to make FC NML looks better than what was made in 2009 for ROF. 

BTW Someone did a better looking NML as a mod couple years ago, I don't remember if that was made for small map (Arras) or for bigger one.

[artao]

2 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

I believe third party team make a map  - Urga media. They are solid, they made nice and detailed DCS maps ,  it looks like they didn't get any task to make FC NML looks better than what was made in 2009 for ROF. 

BTW Someone did a better looking NML as a mod couple years ago, I don't remember if that was made for small map (Arras) or for bigger one.

I thought I remembered a mod that made it look a bit "wetter," but in a rather "plastic-y" way. As I recall I wasn't a huge fan, but I don' think I had VR at the time either. I'll have to look for it in mods, cuz I don't have it in my IL-2 downloads.

I do also have the mod IL-2 Enhanced V2 installed, and I'm not sure if that adresses anything in Flying Circus maps; but seeing how I've been noticing the issue, I'm thinking no. Or if the No Man's Land mod is compatible. Only one way to find out I reckon.

[Zooropa_Fly]

It's not great, but it has been moaned about plenty, all the way back to RoF days.

One of the issues is there's no subterranean layer, i.e. depth below ground is 'painted on'.

 

I think the main reason for lack of soldiers and general activity, is down to game resources.

Most of the CPU and Graphics workload is devoted to the flying side of the game - it is a flight sim after all.

You could make your own quick mission and start to fill out NML, but you'll come to a point where the game starts to slow down.

Some of us don't have the most up to date computing power, so I think the devs traditionally design their offline content to be playable on computer tech a couple of generations behind the currrent standard.

 

Anyway, good luck with the mod !

 

 

[czech693]

There were some mods for the cities on the Arras map.  And, The Great War Mod Pack v8 had some NML colors modified.

[artao]

Regarding activity on the ground, "Where's the war?"
I should add that I'm playing career mode. I haven't done much campaigns or single missions.

Also, yesterday I fiddled a bunch with graphics settings. I increased shadows to high and turned on SSAO and HDR. Now I can see units on the ground much much better. So there's that. Still, they're there, but not active. Just standing around. No battle is going on except in the sky.
I realize everything was mud-colored down there and hard to see in general. Getting shadows betterer has really helped with spotting them tho. Before there was zero distinguishment between units and the ground. And, along with other changes I made, I also get higher FPS now. 😄

And the craters still look awful, and the trenches just inexcusably bad.

[ST_Catchov]

It's not the best but when I'm up there with "Sexy Sadie" (my own personal DH2) knocking down 7 or so Fokkers and a gaggle of Albatri, I'm not looking at NML. No, I'm fist pumping as another victim goes down in flames. It's only sometimes, if I've just winged a Bosche, I'll zoom down to ensure the bounder doesn't squirrel out of it like a coward. After playing with him for a bit, I'll end his cowardly miserable existence. You should have been a stout fellow I shout! Yes, it's at these times, when I'm low, that I do see the huge NML zippers. Disappointing, but when one has numerous kill claims to submit, quickly forgotten.

[artao]

1 hour ago, ST_Catchov said:

It's not the best but when I'm up there with "Sexy Sadie" (my own personal DH2) knocking down 7 or so Fokkers and a gaggle of Albatri, I'm not looking at NML. No, I'm fist pumping as another victim goes down in flames. It's only sometimes, if I've just winged a Bosche, I'll zoom down to ensure the bounder doesn't squirrel out of it like a coward. After playing with him for a bit, I'll end his cowardly miserable existence. You should have been a stout fellow I shout! Yes, it's at these times, when I'm low, that I do see the huge NML zippers. Disappointing, but when one has numerous kill claims to submit, quickly forgotten.

When you're doing ground support missions tho, below 500 ft or bombing from low altitude or strafing ground troops? You notice.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Flaying below 500 ft and lower strafing, bombing troops in trenches was a job. Small arms were used at that alt to try shot down those kites.

[ACG_Bussard]

Oh yes, the design of the No Mans Land... A constant source of inadequacies and letdowns. Your topic was lively discussed after the release of FC Vol. 2 around the turn of the year 2022/2023.

 

In fact, when FC II was announced by the end of 2020, a better quality and nicer things were strived for. The official side argued later that the points you rightly mention could not be realized with the available map tech.  imo the introduction of the 4 additional season variations improved the situation to the extent that you don't have to look always at the awful summer map.

 

If you starting to get fed up I have tried a workaround that might work for you too:  Just flip your kite and fly on your back when crossing the NML, then you can improve your flying skills and can count the clouds. 😁

 

P.S. Other than that I really like FC I-IV very much!  

Edited March 30 by ACG_Bussard
wording

[Cynic_Al]

On 3/23/2025 at 10:41 PM, artao said:

I know No Man's Land was desolate, but it still had active troops on the ground

If troops were periodically to go on the offensive, they'd have to be depicted being slaughtered by machine gun fire, which would limit the game's rating.

Suppose you were to land on or near NML, how would you would expect nearby troops to interact with you;, pass through you like ghosts. or lead you into the nearest captain's dugout for a cup of cappucino? 

It's all possible, but the line must be drawn somewhere.

[BMA_Hellbender]

On 3/23/2025 at 11:41 PM, artao said:

I really do not understand why no man's land is just all flat textures. It's REALLY immersion killing. Those trenches are just black ugly zipper lines regardless of altitude. The craters appear to have baked-in lighting and don't even have basic bump mapping.
GOOD LORD!!! Surely the game engine is fully capable of this -- it appears to be elsewhere -- and as someone knowledgable about 3D graphics and software I know it's not particularly hard. Even simple normal maps would be better. Displacement maps if the game engine is capable of using them. Ideally just put in the geometry; create a few "crater" sculpting brushes and go to town. Not asking for perfect, just existing.

Seriously, why do we not already have these. I know No Man's Land was desolate, but it still had active troops on the ground. In IL-2 it feels like everyone just went home while artillery just kept pounding nothing, with an occasional machine gunner still there, also shooting at nothing. Not even decals where artillery and bombs hit, they just explode and ...... Nothing. No ground marking at all. No Man's Land looks dry, possibly even dusty. It doesn't look muddy and wet.  Where's the wrecked tanks? Where's the dead troops half in water in deep craters?
No troops. No tanks. No charges .... Where's the war? Seriously.
Very nice detail outside No Man's Land tho. Showing that the detail could seriously be amped-up IN No Man's Land.

It really really kills immersion, especially in ground support missions. Details outside No Man's Land is nice and all, but that's not where the war is really happening, and this IS a war game after all. If there's no war effort to support, why are we up there flying and fighting?

I'm very very surprised this hasn't (that I found) been discussed heavily already. I can't be the only one disappointed with this; even a bit irritated. IL-2 nails realism in so many other ways, this lack of No Man's Land realism really jumps out like a blight.

Pretty please, rectify this. To the ever-present "Should they work for free?" comments. They don't. And regardless this already should have been in there; I expected it when I bought it and was quite put out when it wasn't there. ESPECIALLY when I saw those ugly black zipper-line "trenches." They look like stand-in textures, alpha release level. VERY much screams of someone being like, "Screw it, I'm sick of working on this. This is good enough."

But no. No it's not. Very much not "good enough." Especially in contrast to the rest of the game. It makes it feel unfinished. Given how much attention was paid elsewhere, it’s baffling that No Man’s Land ended up looking like this. A surprising oversight for a team that clearly knows how to do detail well. It deserves better.

 

Crater bump mapping would be nice and has been requested many times.

 

The issue arises when you try to land on them or otherwise interact with them, what exactly would you expect to happen? They won't be actual terrain and you'd likely pass through them.

 

I'd rather the devs focus their final efforts with FC on fixing the FMs of the Albatros D.Va, Pfalz D.III and other Central machines with a similar wing profile rather than doing these cosmetic changes (Jonsson 60-61).

 

Jonsson, Anders F. WW1 Aircraft Performance. 2023.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

On 3/30/2025 at 10:48 PM, Cynic_Al said:

would limit the game's rating.

Is this significant, if yes to what: selling copies ??  

[artao]

1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Is this significant, if yes to what: selling copies ??  

It's ironic how we "play war" but OH NOES if the game actually shows the bloody gore of it. Can't have that. Or gas. We sanitize war so we can make entertainment out of it, which is a bit sick really. But here we are eh.

[Dutch2]

Think the divided line here is VR vs monitor users.
For VR users the whole No man land is hilarious bad made as they see only fuzzy looking 2D ink spots and lines.  While for monitor users it’s at an acceptable level and I can imagine still have no clue what those complainers are talking about. 
 

 

[Zooropa_Fly]

It's been a topic of discussion long before VR came out.

Don't know how bad it looks in VR, but it's certainly not great on a monitor either. 

[artao]

I do play in VR and haven't really done any comparison to playing on a monitor. Enabling SSAO and HDR has helped a lot tho. Still just flat craters and black zipper-line trenches. Those  really are The Two Big Ones for me; it just looks ... unfinished; particularly the trenches.

[JGr2/J5_Baeumer]

NML is suprisingly dynamic looking, within its limitations.  Just look at the optical illusions created by setting sun etc.   Regardless, its just a band aid but a pretty good one.   The graphic loads of a highly texturized no mans land in a game where 'most' of the flying is looking for black specs in the sky seems hardly worth it.  It would create much less capacity for mission design features that everyones expects and enjoy.  It would also dramatically decrease the number of rigs capable of running it without forced compromises on graphic texture of clouds etc.

Finally, everyone who has flown this (with few exceptions) would much rather prioritize any attention on the sim by the developer to fixing a few key flight models which are the true limitation of an otherwise wonderful game. 

Priorities.

 

Edited April 3 by JGr2/J5_Baeumer

[Dutch2]

2 hours ago, JGr2/J5_Baeumer said:

NML is suprisingly dynamic looking, within its limitations.  Just look at the optical illusions created by setting sun etc.   Regardless, its just a band aid but a pretty good one.   The graphic loads of a highly texturized no mans land in a game where 'most' of the flying is looking for black specs in the sky seems hardly worth it.  It would create much less capacity for mission design features that everyones expects and enjoy.  It would also dramatically decrease the number of rigs capable of running it without forced compromises on graphic texture of clouds etc.

Finally, everyone who has flown this (with few exceptions) would much rather prioritize any attention on the sim by the developer to fixing a few key flight models which are the true limitation of an otherwise wonderful game. 

Priorities people.

 

What VR head set do you have? 

[Cynic_Al]

On 4/1/2025 at 3:01 PM, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

s this significant, if yes to what: selling copies ??  

 

I imagine it must be a consideration for most game vendors; others may not need to care. I suppose they could offer a dual rating system, configurable at registration, but we don't need that here.

[artao]

On 4/2/2025 at 12:50 PM, Dutch2 said:

What VR head set do you have? 

I've got a Vive Cosmos.

[Dutch2]

On 4/5/2025 at 9:50 PM, artao said:

I've got a Vive Cosmos.

Thanks but would like to know @JGr2/J5_Baeumer  VR headset, or if he is using monitor only.  I suspect he is a monitor user only and as pointed out earlier that is the case here, only the VR users with the 3D view are noticing this fuzzy 2D sheet that suggests to be nomans land. 
But looking at the games history, like leaving Forward Rendered and the absence of VRSS, DLAA/DLSS and other optimizations for VR, we all know the whole VR is not at any “to do list” from 1C/Ugra. 

Edited April 14 by Dutch2

[Davesax1965]

It's not just the graphical hit which would slow the game down. 

It's also the hit for controlling the troops which populate the game. Firstly, yes, there's a hit in introducing troops. You have to occupy RAM with textures for the figures, collision boxes, animations..... then you have to write code to control and monitor them. It's really a whole separate game being incorporated into Flying Circus. Line of sight. Hit probability. Movement mapping. The amount of code is huge, and yes, it could all probably be incorporated - at a cost. 

More troops, more code to process. Slower game. Now, imagine you're doing it at platoon level. Everyone says "There's only a few troops ! We want battalion level, this isn't realistic. Where are the flamethrowers, trench mortars, gas attacks, hand to had combat, signal flares." etc etc. Without major programming this becomes something which won't satisfy anyone, there will always be complaints. Especially when there IS battalion level action and the game slows to a crawl. 

Then you'll get "There aren't enough vehicles and men behind the lines." Inevitable. Plus. Do it for WW1 and the WW2 players will want it as well. Troops would really make sense for the tankers here. But. Aviators ? I honestly don't think so. 

No man's land was, on most days, generally empty. The risk to aviators was doing ground support or flying within rifle or machine gun range of massed troops, as several aces found to their cost. Troop action doesn't generally affect aviators, so whilst having a more active and dynamic battlefield would be nice.... it's just wallpaper.  

Edited April 13 by Davesax1965

[Dr1falcon500]

There's mods for RoF NML that include bump mapping and better trenches. Usually you don't fly low enough to notice or spend time gazing at the ground instead of checking the sky for enemy kites.

[artao]

With further research ....... I didn't realize just how old the engine is.
Still, the craters should be doable, and just ..... better textures for the trenches even would go a long way. Model some trenches and do some overhead renders and use those as the textures, with bump or normal mapping for more dynamic lighting appearance.

[ST_Catchov]

It's all about using one's imagination as a valiant, sometimes reckless, chick magnet WW1 ace. Looking at you Nungesser. Or Errol in Hollywood. Leading by the chin. If one squints hard enough NML doesn't look too bad. But it pays not to dwell too long as one might find imperfections. Reality is a poor substitute for imagination.

[Davesax1965]

Look at it like this. Start up a mission. Press the F5 button to see all ground units. 

Do you really believe that the total number of ground units on both sides totalled a few trucks, perhaps a tank, some mobile AAA guns and a staff car or two ? Well, "no, it's not realistic", and that includes ground troops as well. 

Open up the editor, make your own mission: add hundreds of lorries, a dozen or so tanks, AAA everywhere.... watch the game slow to a crawl, and that's without dozens or hundreds or thousands of troops. Now, you could, if some of these ground units were introduced, interact with them and shoot them up. If you have a system powerful enough to cope with the resulting slideshow refresh rate. 

Ahemmmm. It's an air combat game, not a "shoot up trucks" game. No game, with the limits of modern technology, is going to accurately model any war scenario a hundred percent accurately. 

[Dutch2]

3 hours ago, Davesax1965 said:

Look at it like this. Start up a mission. Press the F5 button to see all ground units. 

Do you really believe that the total number of ground units on both sides totalled a few trucks, perhaps a tank, some mobile AAA guns and a staff car or two ? Well, "no, it's not realistic", and that includes ground troops as well. 

Open up the editor, make your own mission: add hundreds of lorries, a dozen or so tanks, AAA everywhere.... watch the game slow to a crawl, and that's without dozens or hundreds or thousands of troops. Now, you could, if some of these ground units were introduced, interact with them and shoot them up. If you have a system powerful enough to cope with the resulting slideshow refresh rate. 

Ahemmmm. It's an air combat game, not a "shoot up trucks" game. No game, with the limits of modern technology, is going to accurately model any war scenario a hundred percent accurately. 

For PCVR use the flat and fuzzy looking craters and trenches are more important then moving objects, the whole flat sheet needs more 3D. But VR is not something that Ugra has his focus at and I can not blame them as VR is a small niche. 

But if in this case my CPU can not cope to the lorries/trains/millions of troops, I do what I always do, when my PC can not handle it: upgrade my hardware. But I only do this hardware improvements if the game is worth it.  Right now I moved to an 5070ti but only because another game (racesim) is worth to spend cash to this upgrade. 
btw 1C video 5y ago, with a lot of moving objects so it is possible, 😏 I suppose. 

https://youtu.be/3cgh2PsDP38

Edited April 19 by Dutch2

[artao]

On 4/19/2025 at 3:58 AM, Davesax1965 said:

Look at it like this. Start up a mission. Press the F5 button to see all ground units. 

Do you really believe that the total number of ground units on both sides totalled a few trucks, perhaps a tank, some mobile AAA guns and a staff car or two ? Well, "no, it's not realistic", and that includes ground troops as well. 

Open up the editor, make your own mission: add hundreds of lorries, a dozen or so tanks, AAA everywhere.... watch the game slow to a crawl, and that's without dozens or hundreds or thousands of troops. Now, you could, if some of these ground units were introduced, interact with them and shoot them up. If you have a system powerful enough to cope with the resulting slideshow refresh rate. 

Ahemmmm. It's an air combat game, not a "shoot up trucks" game. No game, with the limits of modern technology, is going to accurately model any war scenario a hundred percent accurately. 

Ground attack is 100% part of air combat. Protecting ground attack planes is also.

Regarding comments about "I'm looking up for other planes, not at the ground." ...
They come from below you as well. If you're not looking down you're missing half the airspace. I personally LOVE attacking from below. And in escort or ground support missions you spend a good deal of time either fairly low or looking down for aircraft attacking your ground attack buddies.
I understand the game isn't capable of mass troops. Okay. That's a shame. Stil, they could do better than a bunch of static objects scattered about.
Anyhow, my beef is really with the trenches and craters. And THOSE are totally fixable. Not asking for dynamic craters either, just that the ones that are simply textures right now actually be geometry. AND a lot of them should have water in them. Basically a whole bunch of little round ponds all over the place, some with water some not.

Edited April 22 by artao
grammatical typo

[Davesax1965]

On 22/04/2025 at 18:00, artao said:

Ground attack is 100% part of air combat. Protecting ground attack planes is also.

Regarding comments about "I'm looking up for other planes, not at the ground." ...
They come from below you as well. If you're not looking down you're missing half the airspace. I personally LOVE attacking from below. And in escort or ground support missions you spend a good deal of time either fairly low or looking down for aircraft attacking your ground attack buddies.
I understand the game isn't capable of mass troops. Okay. That's a shame. Stil, they could do better than a bunch of static objects scattered about.
Anyhow, my beef is really with the trenches and craters. And THOSE are totally fixable. Not asking for dynamic craters either, just that the ones that are simply textures right now actually be geometry. AND a lot of them should have water in them. Basically a whole bunch of little round ponds all over the place, some with water some not.

Yep, I didn't mention craters and trenches in the post you quoted. 😉
Fixable, yes. I'd honestly rather have some other features added instead, to be honest. The dev team only have so much time. 
 

[Davesax1965]

Thinking about it, I'm not sure if it's actually technically feasible to add depth to craters and trenches.  

There are a huge number of craters on the map, WW1, duh. There are also a huge amount of trenches. These are all just overlaid with a texture.

To actually decrease the height - Z axis - of all these features is a massive job. and, just because they exist in bitmap form, the underlying geometry of the map may not be at the resolution to do this. In fact, I can almost guarantee it won't be. It would certainly entail a huge processor hit. 

[LukeFF]

Unfortunately, this sorta thing is only going to be revised/updated at this point with the new series coming. Wish I could tell you all something different, but I can't. 🙁