Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    Il-2, DCS World, FSX, Silent Hunter 3 & 4, X-Plane, Strike Fighters 2, PT Boats, Steel Beasts Pro PE, T-34 vs Tiger, Steel Fury: Kharkov 1942, Rise of Flight, rFactor, GTR2, Flight Gear, Condor, Battle of Stalingrad, Cliffs of Dover
  • Location
  • Website

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Holy sierra you're actually correct. I only have the take off panel to test with so I haven't bothered much with the axis settings, but indeed besides calibration there are no axis shaping settings at all. If the same applies to actual joystick axis, that's a bit wow. Of course curves can be set in-game and usually are, because there's usually no one size fits all -solution anyway, so it's not that big a deal. Unless of course there's a deadzone or something that can't be adjusted away in-game. It doesn't matter if the deadzone is relatively small, hovering a helicopter or trying to set one down in a tight spot you're often more like thinking about moving the stick than physically moving it, for that even a tiny deadzone is huuuge. Most importantly, even if a little deadzone was the best way to go, people should get to choose the sub-optimal way if they want to. Funnily enough, I'm actually looking for a unit to review myself. Unfortunately we operate mostly in print, so we're probably not on Winwing's radar. Because I need to buy the stuffs myself and in this price range whatever I'd make from writing the review wouldn't even cover the cost of the hardware, I'd really like to get something I actually want to use myself. A tiny deadzone wouldn't necessarily be a complete deal breaker, but definitely not something I'd expect to see in this level of hardware and price range. Have you asked other users or tried to contact Winwing directly? Apparently someone had a sensor slightly loose causing problems so maybe it's a fixable issue? In any case the sensors won't have a built-in deadzone so if WW want to, they should be able to remove it pretty easily in software. Now that I look at the description (and if I read it correctly), WW don't actually advertize zero deadzone on Orion - but I think they're probably referring to the mechanical design here: https://wwsimstore.com/p/333.html
  2. Is the deadzone on the Winwing platform 1) a setting or a permanent feature and 2) does it also exist on the Libra base?
  3. It would be nice if you could combine regular in-stock items and preorder items in one order, so that I could for example order a F-16EX stick with Super Libra base and extension and have everything shipped when the stick is available.
  4. This is a bit of a necro, but I was recently working with radio commands with renewed interest due to getting the Oculus Rift HMD for testing with DCS and other games. Please point me to more recent or more relevant threads on the subject if you know of any, but I was left wondering how the voice command system could be improved. People have been putting huge effort into profiles for popular voice command software to make sense of the complicated DCS radio command structure. I can only admire their work, but I really think people shouldn't need to go to such lengths to get voice commands to work. I'm not really a programmer so perhaps you guys can tell me if my idea has any kind of merit whatsoever. Step 1: ED add another Lua file to give modders access to radio commands. Basically anytime the radio menu is opened and DCS waits for a key press it would also activate this Lua file, provide an array of radio commands ["Flight", "Two", "Three", ...] and expect an array index in return (the option chosen by the user). My gut feeling is that this would mean a fairly reasonable amount of effort from the ED programmers - but of course I could be wrong. Step 2: Individual modders or open source communities can now utilize this interface to connect to for example the speech recognition engine that comes with Windows. This would probably involve quite a bit of effort, but since the real heavy lifting is already taken care of by MicroSoft, it should be doable. The modders have already done such amazing things so I don't think this kind of a mod would be too much to ask, especially if a group of people work together. Basically the way I imagine it works (I know nothing about the internal working of the speech recognition libraries) is that at some point you can actually send an array of expected word or sentences and tell it to figure out if any of them can be recognized from the mic input. This could then be used to create a totally dynamic system that would work regardless of what kind of radio options DCS decides to use in the future. It would simply send the options as plain text to the Lua interface and the external software could listen to those exact sentences and then tell DCS which one the user selected (if any). As a fallback option you could have "option one", "option two" and so on - this is actually what I chose to do with my recent VAC profile. Not very immersive, but foolproof and since VAC gets to work with a very limited set of commands it does a pretty good job of recognizing the correct options even though my English is pretty bad. Eventually (given suitable licensing) when the mod gets good enough ED could just pick it up and implement it as a part of the default DCS package. Again, am I missing something really important or do you think this could work? Of course many people seem to want seamless commands (like "Two, engage air defences with missiles" all in one go) instead of going step by step through the menus, which would require a bit more complicated interface with the simulator, but at least I would be very happy if I could just read the one command at a time and then progress to the next menu level and so on. I think voice commands for radio ops is just such a useful feature - especially with HMD devices when your access to the keyboard is quite limited - that it would catch on pretty well if there was a seamlessly working, simple implementation available. I would appreciate it if you let me know what you think of the idea or point me at more recent discussions on the subject if you know of any.
  5. Sounds fantastic! This is what DCS needs so badly right now. Just one note; you mentioned that the moving ground war is like making a strategy game, but in reality it isn't. At least the all-important first step isn't. Let's take for example the Il-2 DCG. It simply has a list of units it spawns at the ends of a simple node-route track that is usually a simple line with maybe a few intersections. A bit like this: o-o-o-o=8=o-o-o. When a unit is destroyed it's placed back into the pool and beore each mission there's a random chance it will respawn at one end of the node-route network. During each mission the units move towards the opponent's end (unless there's still some abstract infantry strength left in the current node). And that's pretty much it. Sounds deceptively simple, right? Something you'd program in a few moments? Well yes, because it's probably true. Most importantly, though, it works very well, providing thousands of hours of fun for our group since years ago. Of course there's a lot of room for improvement, but the DCG system is a very good starting point. And despite being so damned simple, it really really does work even though you probably wouldn't believe it just reading the description. I'm not saying you need to do the ground war thing right now or even that you need to do it like the Il-2 DCG does. My point is that when you do start thinking about the ground war it's vital to not try to reach too high to begin with, it's the best way to burn yourself out and make sure the project dies. A very very simple system can work and provide lots of room to grow - and that growing is much more fun and painless when you have already kind of reached the goal and the campaign engine does what it's supposed to. After that it should be much easier on your sanity to set yourself ambitious long term goals, because you can just build on the already working system bit by bit. I've seen too many of these projects and especially the wonderful people behind them burn out because of too ambitious initial goals. Ideally you'll one day notice that you've done a couple of games' worth work, but it all just kind of happened and you had fun all along by continuously reaching some rewarding mini-goals. Anyway best of luck with your effort, a good dynamic campaign (engine) is the best thing that could possibly happen to DCS.
  6. Dynamic campaigns, BOTH single AND multiplayer.
  7. I've been involved in testing and even kind of in the design efforts of some 3rd party dynamic engines for various games so I might as well start following this one as well. I'm not sure I completely understand your design, but it might be quite close to what I consider a good model for a dynamic campaign engine; the Il-2 DCG by Lowengrin (http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php). DCG is a deceptively simple (and this is a good thing) design that has immense room for growth. Basically it consists of a table of units for both sides and a (hand made) grid (is this similar to your concept of grid?) of nodes and routes that are used by the units to move and fight. The units move towards each others' spawns points along a network (grid?) of nodes and routes, the units are mostly trains, supply columns, infantry columns and tanks. When they meet on the battlefield they fight it out and when tanks occupy a node, their presence reduces the number of defending infantry every "turn" until they conquer it (or get killed) at which point the support units roll in and fill the node with their own infantry (actually they usually roll right into the combat zone anyway all the time). The node-route -networks are mostly simple lines with occasional branches and when a unit reaches a branching point it basically randomizes the direction it takes. There are maybe about two dozen (hand placed) nodes per campaign and the distance between them is usually several to a few dozen kilometers. When a unit (such as a tank platoon) is destroyed it goes back into a pool and before each mission there's a chance it will respawn in either of the end nodes. That's basically it, sounds simple, is simple and has produced tens of thousands of man hours worth of fun for our smallish group of people during the last decade. You don't need a super complicated system to entertain people, that's the most important lesson learned from DCG. A dynamic campaign generator is probably VERY MUCH WORTH DOING even if it's not the most perfect and complicated thing ever. Most importantly DCG would have so much potential for growth. Resource pools for units would probably make the campaigns flow better (currently they are highly stabilizing designs due to the winning side's supply routes getting massively longer and eventually the defending side gets to fly their ground attack planes to target before the other side has a chance to cover them) and some kind of rudimentary AI and a wider network of nodes and routes would make the campaigns much more organic. And a million other things. The improvements are unfortunately unlikely to happen, since Lowengrin himself is quite understandably tired and probably busy with other stuff - and the project isn't open source so no-one else can pick it up and continue. I'm not a very capable programmer and my ideas probably aren't that brilliant, but if you go open source I would at least try to help in any way I can. If you're for example trying to monetize the campaign that's of course fine and ED's business model even supports such a thing nowadays. In that case if the campaign is good enough I can probably at least review it for a games magazine with at least a few readers potentially interested in such a thing. However, if that's not your intention, I highly recommend open sourcing the effort at some point. If you're interested (and how could you not be interested in the pearls of my infinite wisdom), here's how I'd subdivide a dynamic campaign: - The strategic stage that defines the goals and available units (in the beginning this could be a list of units that spawn at the starting point after getting killed like Il-s DCG) - Tactical stage that define where the units go on the map and stuff like that (at first this could be a simple linear maximum speed progression towards enemy spawn with randomness at possible crossroads like in DCG) - Mission generation stage that generates the actual mission file for a specific simulator and for example defines which units actually appear on the map and which planes are flyable etc. (in the beginning it can simply be every unit in every mission) - Mission analysis and simulation stage is where the results are analyzed and if necessary simulated (for example if the mission duration is thought to be one hour and the player quits at five minutes after a botched take-off, this also makes it possible to have bigger campaigns where your role is realistic-sized and not a hero who has the power to kill all existing units in one mission. Of course in the beginning this isn't necessary) I think that might be pretty much it. Every single stage can be incredibly simple and still provide a fantastically entertaining campaign (which is true for almost any design, never forget that!) and endless room for improvement and expansion. Anyway, I wish you the very best of luck with your project, DCS needs dynamic campaigns more than anything else at the moment. I don't know if I can actually be of any help, but I'll do what I can (and sparing you from my wonderful ideas and opinions probably belongs in the I can't -category, sorry) if you need anything. PS. How about multiplayer? That's of course a huge thing for me and especially my (not imaginary, I swear!) friends and it might not be trivial in DCS.
  8. Basically yes. That's a pretty neat picture by the way, how did you approximate the effect? Additionally stereoscopic rendering (which is becoming a thing with Oculus & co.) will make vertical cockpit supports look much thinner. Everyone can try sitting in a (stationary!) car, cover one eye and observe the apparent width of the vertical supports change depending on the number of eyes used. That's of course an entirely different issue than the refraction stuff in this thread, but I think it's important to realize that simply creating a model that is accurate to the drawings may result in a view that's not even very close to what you would get in reality.
  9. That Zaelu's image shows a far more massive difference than I imagined. Whether or not something is done about this issue is another matter altogether, but anyone with contacts to ED please ask them to do that refraction rendering in 3D max and then do another shot from the exact same position with regular rendering. That would be a fantastic and unique opportunity to demonstrate to the community just what they've been talking about for years. I mean something like 35% of the Internet is now filled with FW bars. Just PLEASE do it. It's totally worth it. The video is wonderful, but it's not an exact replica of a 190 cockpit - but luckily ED now have one. And then try the same thing with the P-51, it should also be affected to a degree as are most other WW2 planes, especially the La series. And then we can move on to discussing the effect of stereo view on vertical beams...
  10. I may have succeeded in setting the Paypal account thing straight, at least the system told me money was sent and I got some kind of email from VEAO for my troubles so at least the money wasn't completely wasted if everything goes wrong anyway. I don't know if I messed something up or not trying to buy the plane, in the first stage where I was supposed to choose the payment method there was only the one choice (Paypal), in the next stage it asked me to pay with an existing Paypal account or create a new account. I managed to find my account details and got the thing working, so the first option seems to have worked.
  11. I decided to take advantage of the easter offer and went to the store, added one Hawk with reduced price into the basket and proceeded to checkout only to find out that apparently I either need to have or to create a paypal account. I was under the impression this wasn't necessary and if that's true, what might I be doing wrong? The only options I get are "Pay with my Paypal account" and "Create a Paypal account" (which seems to include the option to pay with a credit card once the account is created. The problem is that years and years and years ago I created a Paypal account, was less than impressed with it (apparently the thing has improved quite a bit since the early days) and decided to have the account removed - which didn't work properly pretty much like everything else related to the service back then. As a result, my account is still kind of in a limbo of sorts, making it quite bothersome (especially since I'm not really motivated) to buy anything that requires a Paypal account. Simple credit card transactions that are done through Paypal without the requirement for an account have worked ok in the past. I think. Any advice?
  12. I really really hope that it is - and it could well be, but it's by no means certain.
  13. The real question is why do simulators have a single player mode at all anymore? Basically multiplayer mode simply means sharing data and replicating events across a network between all the participants there is really no need for a single player mode at all. It's just a case where the number of participants is precisely one, meaning that you don't have to send data to anyone. Thus if you make all your stuff on top of this mode all the content is automatically available to every pilot out there regardless of if they like to fly single or multi. Of course this isn't up to Leatherneck, it's more of an Eagle Dynamics thing. However, I believe Leatherneck want to create exciting experiences in addition to wonderful planes (and this is probably something they've already thought about) maybe it's time to bug ED a bit about the issue. No more separation! ALL the content to ALL the pilots! To the barricades! Or to the nearest sofa with a fridge full of beer next to it, whichever is less trouble!
  14. It's good to have this as a sticky, but how about adding these options to the default controller file so that we don't have to replace it after each patch?
  • Create New...