Terrain Detail

I guess it's a matter of where you're coming from: if you're used to FPS ground detail like ArmA, of course the TKOH textures will seem very lacking. But when comparing to other flight sims, the ground textures are actually not bad at all. And if you look at the file size of the game (7.5 GB for "Seattle light" alone, yikes!), a lot of which would be ground textures, you'll see they can't reasonably increase the resolution much without making the game unfeasible for digital distribution.

I think the biggest immersion-killer are the blurry roads. As part of the ground texture, they just don't provide the detail which would be necessary. A road system like in Crysis, where the roads are separate textures that get layered on the ground (and hence, can have much higher resolution and detail) would work wonders for TKOH. The necessary meta-data for laying out the roads is probably even already in, seeing how the ambient traffic follows the (blurry) roads.

Of course, the game being not even a month from release, this is unfeasible by now. A pity!

Well, looking at the game "Rage" on steam says it's 25gb so that argument is not really vailid. Perhaps i'm spoiled with my 100mbit connection but still, you only download the game one time and with a new 2 TB disk costing something like 80 USD space isen't really an issue any more.

It's not just about file size. Quote from Dev:

There are data size limits we run into and had to make decisions about. The amount of pixel data necessary for a 60 by 60 km (let alone 120 by 120 km) texture quickly becomes unmanageable for: development (editing tools), distribution (amount of DVDs) and the streaming engine (internal memory).

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=2026915&postcount=21

How do I check my frame rate?

FRAPS for example

a quick video featuring the city terrain lighting at night :D

Csi0Fwjz3zI

Very cool. And grim.

Nice mission. I have to try this new waypoints yet, there are so many things to do in TKOH and time is limited :(.

I made texture test video. Bevare, It's really boring ;).

UXOayv93vhU

Watch it in full HD.

Source: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=2036016&postcount=92

---------- Post added at 10:51 ---------- Previous post was at 10:50 ----------

My response:

I can only see a difference between low and normal in terms of ground texture quality.

A few buildings get better ones with high/very high.

I still didn't get if the final release has better ground textures and these are due

to the pre release beta being ToH "lite", or if higher ground textures would be

just too big for the whole Seattle terrain in terms of RAM/VRAM usage.

If the later, it may be possible to have higher quality ground textures for smaller terrains.

The huge view distance most people are to use might play into this too.

---------- Post added at 10:52 ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 ----------

His response:

That's why I made this test, video. I want to figure out why somebody have so blurry textures. Maybe this is not good test, because it's static, altitude is not change rapidly. But I get "ugly" texture only when I set texture detail to very low.

---------- Post added at 10:53 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------

Follow up by BadWeather:

I haven't read the whole thread and I'm sorry if my conclusions from that comparison video and the fact that its "lite" terrain we got with the beta, are already discussed and pointed out to be wrong.

To me it is blatantly clear that higher resolution textures have not been included in the beta. Thats what "lite" terrain means to me. Lower quality version of the real thing. Not just a smaller area with buildings, but lower quality textures as well.

Oh and just a quickie about BoboCZ's comment on the pictures I posted. These were taken from a mission with some randomization made by BI not me. Its called pursuitBoat and apparently is one of the procedural missions included in the campaign. I posted info on how to get to try some of them in another thread. Not all are included and propapbly not all are finished. I dont know. Names of the ones included can be found in config viewer in the mission editor. cfgBase IIRC. They're there anyway and you can fly them. Just add procedural missions module or heliport module, a player character and if using the heliport module sync an empty chopper to the heliport module and save the mission as whatever mission it is you wish to try.

Thanks PvPscene, definitely better place to discuss about terrain ;).

I haven't read the whole thread and I'm sorry if my conclusions from that comparison video and the fact that its "lite" terrain we got with the beta, are already discussed and pointed out to be wrong.

To me it is blatantly clear that higher resolution textures have not been included in the beta. Thats what "lite" terrain means to me. Lower quality version of the real thing. Not just a smaller area with buildings, but lower quality textures as well.

I thought that term "lite terrain" mean we got about 1/3 of final terrain, but I will be happy if I'm wrong and we get better land texture.

I'm inclined to agree that it does downgrade the otherwise excellent simulation. Although I'm thoroughly enjoying it (with 3000VD :D) anyhow.

Actually I *think* the ground textures of the light terrain are the actual ground textures we will get. I mean, DnA (project lead) confirmed that only 25% of the buildings are placed on the lite version. But at the same time there has been complete silence about the terrain textures afaik. And that's probably the most raised issue graphics wise. So why confirm the smaller issue (less buildings) while keeping silenced about the biggest issue (ground texture quality)?

There can be other reasons why it has not been addressed, but I suspect it's because this is what it's gonna be (or that they are still trying to tweak it and don't want to promise things they can't deliver). I don't think they keep quiet just to keep us in the dark and suddenly have much better textures on release.

I'm sure any company want's to state clearly to the public what the specific limitations are of a preview build (smaller landmass, less buildings etc). And at this moment there hasn't been any confirmation that the textures are 'light' version so I'll assume the opposite is true.

Looks great on a munually edited 28000 draw distance, if you can stomach the low FPS. ;)

Can you put same screens Liquidpinky? There is no way my rig can handle such settings... and i'd really love to see how it looks. Tnx!

I'd much prefer a smaller area with high res textures, but each to their own.

I'd much prefer a smaller area with high res textures, but each to their own.

You can manualy force it, causes some nice out of memory crashes after a brief stint in game though.

I properly play on 6500 View distance and 6200 object render distance though anyway to keep the FPS up a bit.

You can fine tune settings in the cfg and your profile in notepad to try and trickle some more frames your way with minimal perceived differences.

I'd much prefer a smaller area with high res textures, but each to their own.

You can enjoy any Arma map addon that you run with Take On ;) if you like to have much more detailed ground.

Ground detail is allways compromise with size of the map - total amount of ground shape points/vertices is fixed. Also painting the satelite map takes some time. The base satelite textures size on each Take On map is 61440x61440 pixels.

Take On is about flying most of the time. We started with same technology as Arma for ground textures mix. We have much larger map and we choose to use 4 types of "generic" ground surfaces everywhere, based on satelite images (mask). On top of this we added new shiny material to draw water (rivers) and we have brand new technology for night scenery ("emmisive" texture).

You can enjoy any Arma map addon that you run with Take On ;) if you like to have much more detailed ground..

I'd actually forgotten about that... :D

Will all the OA and A2 objects be in TOH then?

The base satelite textures size on each Take On map is 61440x61440 pixels

Mmm interesting, the terrain is 61440x61440 metres so the effective pixel size is 1m / pixel always good to know... :o

Can you put same screens Liquidpinky? There is no way my rig can handle such settings... and i'd really love to see how it looks. Tnx!

Here you go, some of these are at different distances and you can see the low detail on some before I have manually edited my player profile to up the details a bit.

They range from 40 to 25k, maybe even one of my hundred k trials in there too.

There will be no bullshit FPS figures either, you can quite clearly see them in the bottom right corner.

...

Why'd you use Bubblegum Pink? :butbut:

I dont know why some doesnt like this textures from TKOH. Here example phototextures from Take on and FSX (with good resolution on low flying).

Why'd you use Bubblegum Pink? :butbut:

Pretty much contrasts on every background, until someone makes a My Little Pony map.

You can enjoy any Arma map addon that you run with Take On ;) if you like to have much more detailed ground.

.

i do like a bit more detailed - arma2 OA set the benchmark for that.

really enjoy this game beta, but things like the train tracks not being visible in their textures is a bit to low res really. also i find it strange that there's sat map images for house, but then a 3d house that looks different are placed on top? wouldn't it be simpler to just have a generic grass texture with house and perhaps driveway on top? it'd certainly look a lot better and more cohesive.

some industrial parts of the city do look good (for example when playing the swat mission, on your way from start to briefing you overfly some pretty damn nice looking areas).

anyway - i look forward to the full release, going to be good to see how the over 75% does.

Scratch what I said that the base sat image is 1m x 1m I have been playing with the sliders and that provably is around 0.5m x 0.5m.

Its definitely impressive so far, I have landed my chopper on vista’s I have visited often and the view is almost matching reality 100% in terms of where things should be roughly, the views match its quite incredible! I would like to see it go the next level though like most people are saying, less blurry textures and clearer roads. I’d rather have a smaller area done than half of WA State. The preview Beta area is just fine for me if that was focused on and brought up, almost make a study sim of Seattle/Bellevue! Im sure maybe mods will do this too with even more specific buildings. FSX did a good enough job considering all that it does..but this is so specifically Seattle it BEGS for that higher attention to detail IMHO. Can’t wait to see/fly more!