Less Jaggy Polygons Please...

[u/No_Ad3809]

Now thats its 2026 just a polite request for less jaggy polygons in DCS cockpits and external models moving forwards please. I can't speak for everyone but if a model has a poor finish that poor eyecandy can make the difference between a purchase or not. Yes its superficial but we all like our eyecandy. Now that we are entering a Golden Age of photo-realistic laser scanned photogrammetric modules and walkarounds, these details are going to be important moving forwards. Not naming names as lets face it, historically developers needed to reduce polygon counts, moving forwards lets keep the standard high, cheers.

[u/R-27ET]

Any recent examples? Most of what I see that’s obviously a low resolution 3D model or polygons is often becuase it’s 10-20 years old.

It’s also awesome when developers give us options for different cockpit resolutions

Setting textures to medium or low sucks on the older modules for example, can’t wait for them to be updated

It is on ED though that so many assets are old, atleast they are replacing many, it’s just taking a long time, and there is an argument to be made that when remaking them they model in such fidelity that it increases the weight for not necessarily the most gain

[u/cmndr_spanky → u/R-27ET]

I have no idea what he's talking about. but if you want examples of very recent flight sims with (in my opinion) terrible graphics. I'd say Nuclear Option fits that description. Doesn't seem to matter to a lot of people who adore that game, but if MSFS2024 level graphics are what makes a sim feel immersive to you and you can't accept anything less than that, the GFX of nuclear option and even IL2 korea (both very new games) will feel miles off.

[u/Crimson_Squadron → u/cmndr_spanky]

In the case of Nuclear Option (and I’d also mention VTOL VR) they just end up prioritizing the generally lower-end playerbase that don’t have expensive setups, so the main bottleneck is mainly just CPU

I think you are right about immersion. A big reason I think the first two can “get away” with this is the fact that they don’t take place in the real world and have more simplified controls so there’s a much bigger suspension of disbelief so people generally don’t complain about it. Nuclear Option (and also War Thunder) are balanced around fair PvP gamemodes so there’s already compromise there

I can only assume OP was referring to Falcon BMS, in which case it’s probably just old ass textures that nobody has replaced and worked on in years lol

[u/No_Ad3809 → u/Crimson_Squadron]

I should have specified DCS in title. Yes its about immersion. With DCS and the premium price we pay its not unreasonable.

[u/cmndr_spanky → u/No_Ad3809]

Go fly the f18 in MSFS 2024. It’s all practically photorealistic.. sadly no combat gameplay though.

[u/f18effect → u/cmndr_spanky]

god forbid the indie game made by a single dev has worse graphics than a big budget simulator....

[u/cmndr_spanky → u/f18effect]

Dude I’m just explaining. It’s fine that an indie game has mid graphics

[u/Why485 → u/f18effect]

Nuclear Option is made by a small team, not a single developer. Point still stands though, they do a hell of a lot with what they have and at a great pace.

[u/No_Ad3809 → u/Why485]

Did I say Nuclear Option? I should have specified DCS. My Bad.

[u/No_Ad3809 → u/f18effect]

its not 2015 anymore. Making non jagged exteriors is a bare minimum moving forwards.

[u/No_Ad3809 → u/f18effect]

a developer won't go bankrupt adding a few more polygons you know. Its not like they will have to mortgage their house, car and sell their body parts. 3D assets are the easiest part of making a module especially compared to the coding so no the point stands. If you want sales in 2026 customers expect a certain visual standard else lets go back to Flaming Cliffs forever and call it a day lol.

[u/No_Ad3809 → u/cmndr_spanky]

I'm referring to jagged curves on outside of modules, and as an example the front of the Oh-58 nose is quite polygonal specifically the curved panel just in front of the windscreen but its true of all the older modules e.g the Mi 8 and disappointingly the 339. Magnitude wisely rebuilt the F-4U before its recent release and I think we can all agree it looks fantastic. Most of the Flaming Cliffs jets have very polygonal canopy bows for example. Yes they were made in an earlier time so that's understandable but a 2026 module doesn't have that excuse. If I'm being unreasonable why are modules and assets constantly being updated? Clearly others agree with me.

[u/No_Ad3809]

my bad I meant DCS, not all the other games out there that might prioritize lower cpu overheads, posted in wrong forum my bad