Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
phant

DCS:BS - Some WIP sneak peaks from ED

Recommended Posts

Some WIP sneak peaks from ED

 

Developing the ground detail:

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=26970&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1240928427 attachment.php?attachmentid=26971&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1240928493 attachment.php?attachmentid=26972&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1240928546 attachment.php?attachmentid=26973&stc=1&thumb=1&d=1240928601

 

...The shots were posted by SuperVasya (ED 3D artist) on the Russian forum. They are not technically official, but just a preview of one of the graphical improvements to the engine ED is working on. This is planned for the A-10. All is work in progress and subject to change.

 

To clarify, these are early work in progress shots and have not been tuned. We sometimes like to give you all an early look at things in development. We hope that including this increased ground detail will give a better sense of altitude when operating at very low levels.

Source: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=40984

 

Bye

Phant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These shots look very impressive, but I really have to say, unless this type of detail is available from fairly long distances, i.e several hundred metres, what is the point.

 

DCS is not a first person shooter and most times in the A-10 or even the KA50 you are going to be too far away to even notice. IMHO, they would be much better spending their time vastly improving the ground textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I guess the idea is so that you can see it when you ARE close enough. Frankly, most flight sims fare poorly at low level detail aside from around airbases for obvious reasons. As long as it doesn't eat performance by rendering it when you can't see it I'm fine with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I guess the idea is so that you can see it when you ARE close enough. Frankly, most flight sims fare poorly at low level detail aside from around airbases for obvious reasons. As long as it doesn't eat performance by rendering it when you can't see it I'm fine with it.

 

I agree on those points , I guess my concern is that 'waste' of development time on things that the gamer isn't going to see most of the time.

 

Analogy: Spending 6 months of development time on making the end game screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually the issue is the guys doing this apparent "nonessential" work aren't the ones working on other "important" areas anyway. So they use their time to make sparkly "wow" things to help impress.

Analogy: your new house is behind schedule because of problems with getting the plumbing done so you yell at the electricians because, after all, they're also building the house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "eye candy" factor has never been debated. Impressive by any measure, truly. However, the "eye candy" factor aside, if the same resources that were spent on fine details of ground vehicles was spent on things like: stability in MP mode, de-confusing the left handed nature of the Mission Editor, finding ANY other less invasive Copy Protection other than the StarForce (virus) I just may consider the possibility of purchasing another ED product. Some of their decision making processes have been and continue to be questionable in nature, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, look at BS for what it gives you - a helo sim. What you call eye candy is nothing more than essential below 2000 ft. This isn't BS set in a bare desert environment. I think you might be looking at all this from a fixed wing bias where anything below 2k ft would be just eyecandy. I think they got it pretty close from all the images I've seen.Another thing is that eyecandy is created after all the major code is in place. The asset artists are not sitting around waiting for the programmers to do their thing. They are hired on after.

 

What I agree on is that the DRM is a poor choice. Even if Starforce was now working correctly, it has a black eye and ED should have looked elsewhere. How many lost sales due to SF? As for MP, unless you can have CoOp missions, its going to be nothing more than slow dogfighting IMHO.

 

I'd pick this up in an instant if there was no SF, CoOP and had a more open architecture. The button clicking near future conflicts do nothing for me. I want a helo sim based in the Vietnam era or in the 80's Fulda Gap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, the First Aid Dressing on the troop and the lifting/towing shackles? Necessary? Do they flop around when the vehicles start and stop? Merely eye dressing and certainly NOT necessary, IMO. I suppose as long as it doesn't take away CPU/GPU cycles or adversly affecr frame rates or stability then.......whatever. However, as long as it has StarForce it won't ever see any of my money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree on those points , I guess my concern is that 'waste' of development time on things that the gamer isn't going to see most of the time.

 

Analogy: Spending 6 months of development time on making the end game screen.

 

Unless they plan on allowing modding which could take the ground warfare aspect to a different level. Personally I'm happy to see them paying attention to detail. I cant stand some sims with low poly level textures to objects such as a nicely textured building sitting on an over pixelized rendering of ground terrain that looks more like blobs of green, brown and black or vehicles that look like paper cutouts with no AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, look at BS for what it gives you - a helo sim. What you call eye candy is nothing more than essential below 2000 ft. This isn't BS set in a bare desert environment. I think you might be looking at all this from a fixed wing bias where anything below 2k ft would be just eyecandy. I think they got it pretty close from all the images I've seen.Another thing is that eyecandy is created after all the major code is in place. The asset artists are not sitting around waiting for the programmers to do their thing. They are hired on after.

 

What I agree on is that the DRM is a poor choice. Even if Starforce was now working correctly, it has a black eye and ED should have looked elsewhere. How many lost sales due to SF? As for MP, unless you can have CoOp missions, its going to be nothing more than slow dogfighting IMHO.

 

I'd pick this up in an instant if there was no SF, CoOP and had a more open architecture. The button clicking near future conflicts do nothing for me. I want a helo sim based in the Vietnam era or in the 80's Fulda Gap.

 

 

Right on! Give me the Nam or a Cold War.

 

I'm working on that....just give me time. Lots left to do so forgive the missing attachment points on the M21 or other details, textures that are still in progress.

post-76995-0-37407800-1333206144.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..