Terrain Detail

[_YoYo_ 10]

Here my settings: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/812/takeonh2011100223275846.jpg/

For me 40+ fps from vc over Seattle, near 50-60 over rest of map. Outside of copter 60+.

[metalcraze 290]

Can anyone make a comparison screenshot of this?

http://www.exmixer.com/ScreenShots/SeattleCityDay.jpg

It's from FSX, just curious about the difference in what BIS did

[zoog 18]

Here you go:

Edited October 5, 2011 by zoog

[maddogx 13]

I've just realized: isn't the terrain in the beta still lacking the "normal mapping" feature BIS talked about recently?

[BiggerBoat 10]

I have continued to fiddle with settings, and things are getting a bit better. I have some issues/suggestions:

* There is a green tint to the terrain textures. Even building shadows (I'm talking shadows hard stamped into the photo textures) are green. Were the satellite textures artificially recolored or run through some sort of filter? All-in-all, the landscape colors just feel a bit off and cartoonish. It's pretty easy to see the difference when comparing google earth to a piece of the map. Everything has a yellowish-green tinge in the TakeOn map.

* Turning down object distance really helps frame rates, but the pop-in is very noticeable. Is there any possibility of an alpha fade, perhaps combined with a bit of haze in the distance?

* There are a few 3d freeway interchanges, and these really help. I'd love to see a bit of this detail through downtown Seattle.

* The airports are a bit of a mess. I would have imagined that at least a few of the airports would have got artificial runways, taxiways, etc. overlaid on top of the photos in order to make them look less like a bad photo.

Looking across the water at the downtown skyline is sublime. I wish things looked as good from a few thousand feet, but I think there is hope here.

[metalcraze 290]

@zoog: thanks

Seems like Seattle for FSX got the terrain mask completely wrong and overall Take On certainly has more detail (obviously)

[bullet purveyor 85]

If I fly higher then 250-300 meters I get a blurry square under the helicopter when viewing with default FOV.

It moves along as i fly, so it is always blurry textures under the helicopter and clear (as clear as those bad textures get) further away.:confused:

Should it not be the other way around. Clearer near the player and lower quality further away?

Default FOV:

When I "zoom" in the blurry part get moved out to the sides:

[_YoYo_ 10]

Take textures: Very High and Memory: Default.

[BiggerBoat 10]

Agree with memory "Default". Any other setting plays havoc with texture blurriness on my system.

[LeftSkidLow 1]

Agree with memory "Default". Any other setting plays havoc with texture blurriness on my system.

Hmm this could explain why I'm getting very blurry buildings from not that far away. I'll have to try default.

[BiggerBoat 10]

Hmm this could explain why I'm getting very blurry buildings from not that far away. I'll have to try default.

Also don't forget post-processing. Anything beyond low, I believe, adds depth of field effects which makes the background blurry. It can be a nice effect, but I usually prefer sharper textures.

[eyetumor 10]

Disappointed and bohemia interactive are words that are rarely present in the same sentence for me. However, I have to agree here with everyone else that these textures look like my anus after finishing a diarrhea run to the crapper and not wiping. I mean I wasn’t expecting the ground textures to look as good as the arma II textures, but so far from what I’ve been able to see the texture work is extremely disappointing. Disappointing to the point where is a major distraction when playing the game. You can’t help but notice on a constant basis how low resolution and muddy the textures look. Is a huge immersion killer at least for me. I really do hope they can improve the textures before launch. If not, I must regrettably admit this will not be a purchase for me.

By the way...I'm refering to the ground textures primarily.

Edited October 5, 2011 by eyetumor

[kludger 10]

The Pre-Order Beta only has Seattle (Lite). That mostly means that about 25% of the environment has objects and the rest was removed. Of course in the full version the entire environment is covered by objects.

Excellent that is good to hear, looking forward to the final version.

[_YoYo_ 10]

Disappointed and bohemia interactive are words that are rarely present in the same sentence for me. However, I have to agree here with everyone else that these textures look like my anus after finishing a diarrhea run to the crapper and not wiping. I mean I wasn’t expecting the ground textures to look as good as the arma II textures, but so far from what I’ve been able to see the texture work is extremely disappointing. Disappointing to the point where is a major distraction when playing the game. You can’t help but notice on a constant basis how low resolution and muddy the textures look. Is a huge immersion killer at least for me. I really do hope they can improve the textures before launch. If not, I must regrettably admit this will not be a purchase for me.

Sure You have right for sentences like this. Not all people like ArmA, not all people will love the TKOH. Its a market. Dont like dont buy, simply. For sims and sims-game isnt first priority to have the best Graphics on the world. Dont forget. Still this is a beta too, dont forget about this too so dont wrote "Im disappinting" and empty words as those. Beta means = just give feadback for developers and show him possibility to grow the product. Textures of ground (urban textures) arent very well (acceptable level) but rurals are VERY ok. Perhaps some people who write here about bad resolutions never see phototextures in the simulator?

What do You think about this (my old shot)

or Aerosoft Germany:

And campare to TKOH textures. Sorry but perhaps You havent experiance with working on phototextures. TKOH represents nice level of this kind textures but photo never will look like 3d modeling objects. I wrote in one threat, perhaps its compromise for FPS too and try to become accustomed with different approach to phototextures. Take too Google earth as a human eyes (3d) and compare resolutions.

The best things of TKOH isnt here, they are in different place like missions, flight models, clickable virtual cocpit, open the world and many, many more.

Edited October 5, 2011 by _YoYo_

[JIMJAM 10]

I bought a few phototexure addons for FSX and never liked any of em. Looks cheap imo. Drop a pic on the ground and scatter some 3d objects. Being a heli sim I would not have minded if the highest altitude you could go would be 3 grand agl. Ive seen some other games that do this and it allows them to really pile on the textures and detail and concentrate on the 99% of the view you are going to be in. Low and slow. So far this sim visually reminds me of a cross betreen x plane and fs9.

BTW-How the he** do you get a external view? I can get out but I want to see other views. Somebody wanna remind me how?

Edited October 5, 2011 by JIMJAM

[twisted 128]

got TKOH working last night. 1st impression of the Seattle map is that damn hell this is big. 75% of buildings. etc had been removed for the beta, but it is a large map.

very ambitious. if you BIS guys can finish the map off to a similar quality and style as OA terrain, with all the final buildings and stuff it's going to be an adventure discovering all the place.

reaching near OA level is key as quality of terrain and immersion is a big differentiation in this genre where low quality map phototextures are the norm. OA wasn't about phototextures making up the map - it was so much more than that as you used actual objects and textures to made up the map. hope TKOH can get close.

Edited October 5, 2011 by twisted

[bullet purveyor 85]

BTW-How the he** do you get a external view? I can get out but I want to see other views. Somebody wanna remind me how?

Just push Num lock enter key, then dubbel tap/hold left-alt to use freelook.

[zentaos 10]

I think the beta actually looks pretty damn good. BIS have done a great job and picked good compromises. I dont have the greatest system and I can run with decent settings and no stutters. I keep my resolution low at 1280 but it still looks very convincing.

Most smart pilots don't fly much below 1000 ft anyway. That would be an uncomfortable amount of time in the dead man's curve.

Q8200(quad core) @ 2.33GHz, 6GB ram, ATI 4650 1GB DDR3

I haven't run fraps to check my FPS yet and I don't really care what they are, I just know it flies smooth. Besides, I care more about how it flies than how it looks.

[OMAC 254]

I can see the lines on tennis courts, and the lines and numbers on football fields; obviously very high-res imagery was used for the ground, either air photos or <1m/pixel satellite imagery (like IKONOS/Quickbird). The imagery was most likely degraded a bit (smoothed and resampled) before inclusion as a texture. I fail to see how BIS could have done better with this. And how did they model and place all those buildings, bridges, and highway overpasses? Awesome.

Edited November 24, 2011 by OMAC

[.kju 3244]

Make sure to put AF on max. It helps at least up to a certain distance to get best quality for textures.

[OMAC 254]

Ok, I'll try that, but I'm having to compromise on such things to get my fps a little higher. Isn't texture quality the most important? Thanks for the suggestion!

[bobocz 10]

Just my thought about terrain details. First I set up object detail, shadows, texture to Normal and was very conservative with view distance. And I wasn't quite satisfied with ground texture. But later I encouraged and set up object detail and shadows to very high, texture to High and now these object nicely cover far texture and looks quite fantastic. I recommend to anyone with strong processor to set up object details to very high, it looks better when far object are not slowly vanishing.

TKOH is beast for processor, but I'm satisfied with I5 2500K (recommend this CPU) and its very easy overclockable (my @4,5GHz).

I've just realized: isn't the terrain in the beta still lacking the "normal mapping" feature BIS talked about recently?

I wonder if setting postprocess effect to High or Very High do this normal mapping, but this setting quite kill my frame rate so I don't test it yet. Maybe my graphic card is weak for this setting I have Nvidia 560TI. Anyone is able to use postprocess set to High/Very High?

To problem with blurry texture. Quote from Betseda about present Rage's problem with texture. They also use huge textures.

The higher the resolution at which the game renders and the higher the anti-aliasing setting, the more texture data is needed to texture the environment. If you do not have a high end CPU you may momentarily see blurrier textures and texture popping when the view changes quickly.

Probably it can be problem with "weak" CPU, just my 2 cents.

[kludger 10]

Remember this is a photextures - so never it looks like modeled 3d objects. In FTX scenery (for FSX) in most of them - 3D models + sometimes phototextures. But if You take for example Real Germany of Aerosoft, VFR France ect here is better with bigger resolutions. Try to put HIGH level or VERY HIGH of textures + Default memory.

I wrote about all settings here (after many hours of testing of settings) and influance for FPS : http://92.60.132.84/~apacz/smf/index.php/topic,13924.msg260878.html#new (but its in Polish so try to use Internet translator). Im very happy with FPS. 40 or more in missions from virtual cocpit. On external 60+.

Thanks for providing those settings YoYo.

Turning PIP and PostProcessing off and turning up the Texture to High and Object Detail to High has fixed up my blurries, now I am getting 30-40 fps.

I still want to tweak the detail/popup distance but very playable now, pretty happy with the video now on my i7-920@4.1ghz ATI5870, I fraps'ed a sample here with settings shown at the end:

kkyDx8zYD7g

Looking forward to the final release version and the full autogen 3d objects for the whole map.

Edited October 6, 2011 by kludger

[BiggerBoat 10]

I have posted some screenshots that I think represent what TakeOn can offer when "it all comes together" over here on AVSIM.

I'm still trying to find a happy medium with settings. Free flight performance is good, but the missions have moments of jittery frame rate that make it hard to maneuver (as if it wasn't enough of a challenge already!).

I wish I could go in and run some color filters on the terrain to try to reduce that yellow-green tint. I've harped on it about 10 times in this thread, but it just hurts my eyeballs (especially with the distance terrain).

[.kju 3244]

In OA you can apply color corrections via modules or scripting. Maybe ToH has also a few modules for it?