Night Owl
-
Posts
355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Night Owl
-
Not completely sure if it's comprised in your list, but a massive advantage of the MV for creating complex and high quality liveries is also the ability to view single channels and raidly switch between them. Only with such a functionality can you in my view create optimal roughmets and normals.
-
As everyone who has previously made complex liveries will agree, making a high quality livery without access to the model viewer is practically unfeasible, since it would take much more time and effort and would necessarily end up with a worse result. While I can understand the need for filr encryption and that it may take a while to implement a decent solution, I cannot comprehend the decision to launch a livery competition at this state, despite the issue not having been resolved yet and despite the previous claims that a solution was been searched. Since I would anyways not have participated in this competition, the best thing I can do to support this valiant protest is to remove my liveries from the user files. This a few of us livery creators have done today, as a temporary measure while we wait for a satisfactory solution. Players can of course continue to access said liveries through the discord link. I do hope that the strong community reaction today helps in showing ED management the importance of finding a solution.
-
Thanks for the explanation. Yes indeed, it should be self-evident that roughmets, normals etc. are needed aswell.
-
It was my understanding that with provided template, description lua and an adapted model viewer it would work. Is that not the case?
-
I don't think you need to be too worried for the longer term future. From a programming point of view it would be very easy to make a model viewer that reads encrypted files. I am quite confident they will make one
-
The thing is you really need a 1 to 1 model for livery making, down to the position of each rivet. I don't see another option than to make the model viewer work with the encrypted edm files. Or simply keep things like they were for 15 years, working fine without encrypted models.
-
I also have to agree with the absolute need for a module viewer to make liveries. Making liveries without a model viewer may work for the kind of simple standard liveries composed of simple colour shapes, but not at all for higher quality, more work-intensive liveries. I'd also add that given the rather poor quality or diversity of many of the default liveries, the work of community skinners is paramount to the DCS experience.
-
So neither of the belts we have in DCS is accurate for the time period. CM is probably more historical than HE
-
Hey @Reflected here you have an excerpt of the German weapons handbook (Dienstvorschrift). Dated June 1944 nullFor a 190 in the West, you would thus have: For the 20 mm: - 1x Minengeschoss (HE) - 1x Incendiary tracer (HEI-T) - 1x Armour piercing incendiary (API) For the MG131: - 1x HEI-T - 1x AP-T or API-T For the MK 108: - 1x HE - 1x HEI-T
-
Canopy Glass is Flickering During Head/Zoom Movement
Night Owl replied to razo+r's topic in Bugs and Problems
The issue is reported internally at ED -
@Rex There is a pretty good online ressource for the German airfields in France here https://www.ww2.dk Most of the airfields which are on the German side of the map were not used at all in summer 1944. The only ones we have on the map which were used as primary air bases with air units stationned there are: Guyancourt Villacoublay Saint-Andre Evreux Cormeilles Creil Beauvais Lonrai Of the others, some were used as forward rearming and refueling, or emergency landing fields, but not before end of June 44. Carpiquet, Lessay, Goulet, Tricqueville, Bernay, Feecamp, and many others were not used at all in 44.
-
You can use custom kneeboards. It just won't be a dynamic map that's linked to your home base, like the default map.
-
You can call net.get_player_list also from the mission scripting environment, if it fails (I assume it would) you would know that the mission runs in single player. That could be a way to easily determine
-
You can just set the slots to client, even if used as single player, and it will give you the desired event. By selecting player you define that there is just one player which spawns at exactly mission start, so any birth event is pointless. But in general you can't expect to have the same scripts work both in single player and multiplayer. Several things work differently in multiplayer
-
When you run a SP mission with a player slot, the simulation starts at the same time as the player spawns, so you won't get an ENTER_UNIT event. There is also no point in having them since they will always be at the exact same time the simulation starts. But with client slots, the mission starts before you select a spawn, so you will get these events.
-
OBVIOUSLY it would make more sense for you to include all the necessary parts of the script instead. As well as an example log of it working for client and not for player units.
-
I can't find where you add the event handler in your script. world.addEventHandler(TLC)
-
So the event is there, but you can't access it through the scripting environment. Is that the issue?
-
Check your debrief.log please. In single player events are saved there and not in the DCS.log
-
I haven't noticed that in Normandy 2, it was fixed before the map upgrade. Might be a new bug again. But we have very long train paths working, do you have an example where it happens
-
The players in this thread might be interested in this, I have made a reference mission with all the 154 radars on the map with their exact position and radar type as described in the CIU's Rhubarb XII Appendix from April 1944. Obviously we don't have all those radar types in DCS, but it may still help people in making historical mission scenarios German radar sites.miz
-
@birkenmoped Great, thanks. I read some more in the CIU's enemy radar intelligence briefing, and on a target drawing dating from march 1944 I can find the pedestals of the Mammut-Seetakt drawn as a primary target, but with a small note U/C, meaning under construction. Since they still included it in their primary target list for the preparation for D-day they probably assumed it probable that it would be finished soon, but it may still not have been. I guess we can't be completely sure for that one. Ah well, there are enough other Mammut sites on the map to use
-
I am not sure if this Mammut was terminated or not. Do you have another more thrustworthy source than wikipedia saying that it never got errected? The Central Interpretation Unit's Coastal Radar Stations intelligence document produced in march 1944 in preparation for D-Day mentions that Mammut as primary target but doesn't mention that it was not finished. So either they didn't see that the aerials were missing on their recon photographs, or the wikipedia entry is wrong.
-
Awesome news, looking great! Maybe the german radar sites could also be moved to the correct position in the same update?
