E6 graphics

[ZMax]

I will start off by saying how disappointed I am with the E6. I hear it all the time about how great it is and how it's the "standard" in the industry. Perhaps my expectations were too high. The price of $4500-5000 to add the E6 on to any simulator is way too much. For $1000 or $1500, it would be a great addition to my library of courses. I will go as far as to say that if Red Chain's new engine is better than their current engine, it will blow away the E6.

Now, don't get me wrong. The E6 is good and has some nice touches. Bubba22 has already mentioned some such as the water. Water in the E6 looks very good and is a little bit better than Red Chain. The ripples, flow effects, and it's translucency are cool to look at and some of these effects are not even in Red Chain.

Here's an example.
e6coghill1water.jpgProTeecoghillwater.jpg

The biggest disappointment I have with the E6 is that it appears to be rendering in a very low resolution. I'm not an expert in computer graphics so I might not be using the right terminology. From what I can see the textures are too big. Jaggies can be seen around bunkers and cart paths. Changing the resolution to full HD at 1920X1080 did nothing to the jaggies and other textures. A 1080p HD projector would be useless for an E6 simulator only setup.

Unlike Red Chain, the E6 has no graphics settings. No detail, no anti-aliasing, and no draw distance settings. It feels like the software was written for low end computers and graphics cards. I tried to upload a screen shot showing jaggies on a cart path but this website will reduce the image size which tends to smooth out the jaggies.

Bunkers look much better in Red Chain than in E6. Most bunkers in E6 have a 2 dimensional look. They lack depth and the feel of being in a bunker. Some are just plain unrealistic.

e6coghillbunker1.jpgProTeebunker1green.jpg

Here's one that looks poor IMO. Very plain looking.
e6bunker1.jpg

[ZMax]

Now, here's one that looks good. The bunker in front of this green has some detail and some depth. The bunker behind the green might look ok after being uploaded to this site, but I can assure you that the actual image shows it's outline as jaggies.

e6bunker2.jpg

[ZMax]

The rough has more texture in Red Chain than in E6.

ProTeerough.jpge6golfrough.jpg

[ZMax]

Here's shot of Grey Wolf. Looks good when it's a small screen shot on a web page, but it's really not that impressive on a high resolution monitor or the big screen.

e6greywolf.jpg

[ZMax]

What the E6 lacks in resolution, it makes up for in course detail. This Chateau Whistler green has a lot of nice rocks, trees, and flowers, but a very plain looking bunker.

e6wistlerbunker.jpg

More screen shots to come...

[CPA]

You talking to yourself ZMAX?

Glad I didn't spend all my $ on E6.

[rdh]

Thanks ZMax. This review is just what my bank account needed...I'll hang tight to see how red chain's new engine looks. I appreciate that your review focused on how E6 isn't that impressive on a large projection screen, as the small screenshots still look pretty great (especially Grey Wolf). I agree the terrain looks almost 2D with a lack of depth in the bunkers though, and I've always thought a lot of the surface areas look too "crisp" without blends between fairways and rough, etc. The water does look fantastic though - particularly coastlines like Pebble Beach with waves coming into shore, which red chain is lacking.

Anyway, great review ZMax - you did a great job of backing up what you've said with screenshot examples.

[ZMax]

You talking to yourself ZMAX?

Glad I didn't spend all my $ on E6.

It's easier to make separate posts when uploading screenshots and I can always edit them an add 4 more screen shots per post.

[bubba22]

Nice review Z. just as I said in that its ok. I personally play Protee more than E6. I totally agree about the bunkers. They remind me of the bunkers in the original p3pro courses. Not good at all. The water is nice though.

[bubba22]

You talking to yourself ZMAX?

Glad I didn't spend all my $ on E6.

By the way Z, I am listening .

[goatbarn]

Seems like the renderings they have (flyovers) are just that, renderings. At high resolution and with extra effects added. That's kind of depressing. I expected it to look as good/better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab55F1_44oA

[ZMax]

Thanks rdh. There are a handful of courses that contain lots of detail in the scenery and somewhat better bunkers, but a handful out of 80 doesn't cut it. But the engine itself only renders in a very low, maybe 1024X768, resolution. I'll post more screen shots later today. These screen shots look good because I had to reduce the image size down to 800X450 so that the website wouldn't alter them further. It's like watching a 25" 480i tube TV from 20ft away. When blown up on a 10-14' wide screen, the flaws stand out. I'm afraid those screen shots at Trugolf might have been altered somewhat. They appear smoother than what I'm seeing.

Red chain graphics scales well up to 1920X1080. So, these reduced resolution screen captures don't do them justice. I run ProteePlay at 1920X1080 with maximum detail and draw distance. Not all Red Chain courses are top notch quality obviously. A few are flat looking and lack scenery detail. But when you combine high resolution with great detail, you have beautiful courses such as the one in Georgia and some of the newer courses that were recently released.

[ZMax]

By the way Z, I am listening .

Thanks bubba22.

[ZMax]

Seems like the renderings they have (flyovers) are just that, renderings. At high resolution and with extra effects added. That's kind of depressing. I expected it to look as good/better than this

You are seeing the amount of detail they put in on some of their nicer courses.

Another thing I will add is the ability to zoom around in Red Chain. You can't do that in E6, not in the same way.

[psace]

I think you have put alot of our wallets to rest, for the time being, Zmax. Thanks a pile of dough!

[cbear2]

My opinion on the e6 is that the flyovers are way more detailed than the screenshots I was a little disappointed when I first setup my system. The graphics are not terrible but those flyover shots just blew me away when I was shopping for a sim. In some of the other threads we discussed forgiveness of the e6 software and it sure makes me wish that Protee or GGS would make a version that could be integrated into my Trugolf sim the way E6 has done for others. That way I could test side by side the graphics and accuracy the way others have been able to. Also its just nice to mix it up a bit.

[psace]

I wonder if we are seeing the same thing with the 3ddesigngolf.

I suppose graphics will not look as nice on the big screen as on the screenshots.

[goatbarn]

I feel like in 2012 we shouldn't be having conversations that the most expensive golf simulation software doesn't look real enough! Come on developers! There must not be any money for a really talented graphics design team in a golf simulation software company. Oh well.

[rdh]

You hit the nail on the head goatbarn. I made that comment a while ago in another thread...that I can't believe we're up to 2012 and we don't have near-photorealistic rendered images for our golf simulators (with full 3D modeling and moving cameras, etc.). Hopefully that is red chain's goal with their new engine - there is definitely an opportunity for SOME company to bring out software that takes things (finally) to a level of near-realism and become the standard software for the simulator market. I know that's what we're all waiting anxiously for...

Could be red chain, could be TruGolf, could be the GPS Golf folks...heck, even SimWay could be working on a next-gen graphics engine. It'll be interesting to see what comes out in 2012/2013 (I hate saying 2013 as I don't like waiting that long!).

[ZMax]

Yeah, wasn't it about a year ago, we were talking about how amazing Augusta looked on Tiger Woods 2012? Here's an example of how low resolution graphics affects details out in the distant. This par 3 has a variety of nice plants but you can see that the mountain looks very plain. The green and it's front right bunker, along with the 2 dimensional boring tee boxes adds to the low res look. But check out that beautiful rock!!!.

e6nice rock.jpg

[bubba22]

Good points ZMax. Its as if there are some nice features like the water, plants but a lot of plain boring features like the mountains, bunkers etc. You hit in on the nail with that!!

[rdh]

Yep...and Tiger Woods 2013 looks even better from the screenshots I've seen. EA should still look at adapting that engine for the simulator market... (wishful thinking)

I think it's the lack of anti-aliasing for smoothing that really hurts E6 by creating very rigid/jagged lines. Some simple anti-aliasing on the graphics would make things like those bunkers look a lot better, I would expect. Maybe it all ties in to using such an old engine (Links) and being limited by it?

[rdh]

One other thing I've always liked about E6 and I pointed out to red chain, is that their lighting looks a lot better. It gives a much more natural look and a lot of screenshots I've seen really convey an appearance of sunlight shining. Red chain has lighting of course (trees cast shadows, etc.) but it's never really looked like true sunlight to me.

[psace]

I agree 100% RDH. Even Optishot's latest software has better lighting. I find a lot of GSA courses a little dark for my liking. There are few spots where the sunlight seems to come through but they are few and far between.

[ZMax]

I think it's the lack of anti-aliasing for smoothing that really hurts E6 by creating very rigid/jagged lines. Some simple anti-aliasing on the graphics would make things like those bunkers look a lot better, I would expect. Maybe it all ties in to using such an old engine (Links) and being limited by it?

I don't believe so. The E6 engine does not appear to be anything like Links. My gut feeling is that when they were designing it, they opted for low res textures to keep the computer hardware requirements low. Most commercials setups are using 1024X768 projectors. They prefer to use cheap but very bright projectors for obvious reasons.

[rdh]

Yeah...and that's crazy since they created it a few years ago now and what was low on the hardware side THEN is REALLY low now. I was looking at new PCs for my simulator and asked Dean at red chain what video card they were optimizing it for, and he said it would likely be optimized for cards not even on the market yet (coming in 2012). They aim to be ahead of the curve and push the boundaries rather than shooting low.

[psace]

Me thinks we need a thread just for golf graphics software! There can be a ton of discussion just on this topic.

[ZMax]

That is good to hear rdh. Can't wait to see some screen shots. Does that mean GTX460 1GB will not be enough to run at max detail? Perhaps I will pickup another cheap one off Ebay and SLI it. LOL!!

[psace]

That's not good news for us laptop users! I may have to look into a desktop computer now seeing as I can't keep up with the changes. Kind of reminds me of the old Links days where I had to upgrade computers everytime a new update came out.

[rdh]

I'll be surprised if a machine/video card that is reasonably good today couldn't at least run the new software at a low to mid detail level. They also market the software as a PC golf game, so their market will be pretty tiny if only brand spanking new machines can handle it. I won't be surprised, though, if you do need something at today's top-of-the-line to run it in max. detail. I won't have a problem upgrading my machine if the visuals in the new software are good enough to justify it. Assuming we can all upgrade to the new software at a fair price, that plus a new machine will likely still be less than E6. I'd rather see them produce something that looks incredible and requires some hardware investment, then get another package that falls short of blowing people away.

I am getting anxious to see some screen shots...hopefully red chain can put some out in the next couple months.