This is just my opinion. From looking at older pictures this one look a bit dark or grayis and a bit muddy .@Chelaru what looks odd about it? I think it looks great for what it costs, but maybe that's because I've been trying so many techniques I got to compare them. Most of the techniques fall apart when you get up close to the shadows unless you have extreme cascade optimization like SDSM. The variance techniques have wobbly edges that look terrible up close. You spend a bunch of passes blurring the shadowmaps trying to get them closer to what PCF looks like.
I have no reason to suspect it won't work for large outdoor scenes. The biggest issue there is stretching a low resolution cascade over a large area in the distance, but this is true for any of the techniques. PCF doesn't fall apart at those points in my tests, but we'll just have to see. In the event that using a different technique on the final cascade is beneficial I can add that as an option. My biggest issue with the variance techniques was getting a smooth shadow edge up close so using it on the furthest cascade won't be a problem if it's beneficial.
You both should check out Matt Patteo's A Sampling of Shadow Techniques:
https://mynameismjp.wordpress.com/2013/ ... adow-maps/
It lets you test a variety of shadowmap techniques in a couple of good test scenes. I spent awhile trying them all out and optimized PCF 5x5 seems to have the best cost/benefit ratio in my opinion.