

CapnCoke
Members-
Posts
129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by CapnCoke
-
Tested GBU-24 and GBU-10. No splash damage scripts, only visual mods/texture mods (Tested again with vanilla DCS and still same issue). Really large kill radius for live parked planes including planes in bunker. However, this doesn't happen when using parked planes as static objects, it is actually pretty weak against it (requires direct hit with gbu24 or gbu10 for both vanilla or splash damage script just to destroy one or two parked plane). Tested with F/A-18C to check if the bug is related to F-15E but same results. Have not tested single threaded version of the game. Attached two track files with gbu-24 test and gbu-10 test. GBU-24 GBU-10 same impact location, only 4 parked migs destroyed. gbu24bug.miz_26062023_20-14.trk gbu24buggbu10test.miz_26062023_20-14.trk
- 1 reply
-
- 3
-
-
mod conflict Missing Tank Engine Sounds - Fix
CapnCoke replied to DD_Friar's topic in DCS: Combined Arms
This needs to be pinned IMO -
Doesn't seem to be fixed yet after updates.
-
[NO LONGER PASSES IC] Improved Contact Dot Spotting (Updated v1.1)
CapnCoke replied to Why485's topic in DCS Modding
It's a hit and miss for VR users. It really depends on your situation, your hardware and your VR settings. Some VR users don't have issues with visibility and using the mod can make it worse and breaks immersion by making dots pretty big. Regarding your concern about element of surprise, it reduces visible dots to around 14 miles (but opaque) instead of the default 40 miles. If you seem to have trouble spotting incoming contacts around 3-5 miles then you can give it a try. If it doesn't look right, you can modify the mod as some users did. -
[NO LONGER PASSES IC] Improved Contact Dot Spotting (Updated v1.1)
CapnCoke replied to Why485's topic in DCS Modding
The commentator was wearing the headset and spotted the plane and said "I can already see the a10". If that and my experience on VR is not enough then honestly I don't know what to say. -
[NO LONGER PASSES IC] Improved Contact Dot Spotting (Updated v1.1)
CapnCoke replied to Why485's topic in DCS Modding
It seems I misunderstood which point you're referring to as there's currently a lot of confusion regarding what this mod is trying to achieve including that pilot. From my testing the mod reduces viewing distance to around 13-14 nm or 24km but it's very transparent and only way to visually spot that is from knowing where to look either from your radar or GCI. You're right but the 60km view distance is not reserved to 2d only but also VR depending on hardware, for eg this user was able to spot at 40nm (74km) in VR https://youtu.be/UIgB7b7mTUo?t=410. There's currently no code that restricts VR viewing ranges as 2D and VR uses the same technique. As the OP mentioned, there's two problems he's trying to address, 1. The contact visibility in WVR, 2. The range. The issue is that not everyone has the first problem because of their hardware/settings (some people might just stick to vanilla and downscale to 1080p to keep their max range viewing distance advantage). For eg one user commented that using this mod with VR makes contacts look like giant bricks. In his case I'm assuming his VR settings is setup correctly to spot without using mods as his individual pixels weren't blending from use of MSAA or SS (I've spent countless hours setting up my VR for DCS and understand how it works). In this case if he engages a user at 20 miles that is using this mod, he would be able to see him first in VR while the person he is engaging has to get close to atleast to 10 miles. I think Problem #2 can easily be fixed by ED for now. They just have to research an acceptable max range for contact dots to appear and implement that. They can always work on upgrading it later (implementing conditions that increases/decreases range for eg lighting/weather/glint). I think Problem #1 is where ED is going to struggle figuring out, and for now as a bandaid should atleast add an IC exception/option in server settings for admins to allow this mod (aslong as the mod is unaltered to prevent actual cheating). -
https://github.com/SlipHavoc/DCSAutoMate only workaround for now. You have to learn how to script it though.
-
[NO LONGER PASSES IC] Improved Contact Dot Spotting (Updated v1.1)
CapnCoke replied to Why485's topic in DCS Modding
I want to make a point regarding that screenshot (could you provide your monitor size just to make sure?) but there are also things I want to make clear. Regarding about seeing contacts at 60 km (32 nm), the mod actually prevents seeing contacts more than 15 miles, and they start transparent and gradually gets darker the closer they are so technically it should be a positive thing for your case. Regarding for VR, see my last post but yes, there is limit depending on your vr hardware. For VR users, I recommend not using supersampling or any techniques that blends pixels like AA. Hardware wise, there will be a limit where pixels is not clear enough for distance far away. I set my valve index to use 100% steamvr resolution, no AA, and a pixel density of 1. If I want further advantage, I'll drop resolution to 85%. This advantage is one of the problem we're facing in this sim because we're trying to use hardware and settings to gain an advantage in a study sim. We're currently in a situation where we pit a mig21 vs an f5e in a dogfight and both pilots are in WVR but in reality one of them is blind because he's using a 27 inch 2k monitor. Regarding your screenshot, I'm assuming its a big monitor since you mentioned TV but I could be wrong. I'll explain that part at the end because there are some things I want to address what I feel the mod is really trying to push. First, it tries to create a level playing field for players who really need it because of hardware limitation. Note that I don't really like using spotting missions because being placed in a mission where you know where the aircraft is against a totally blue background is different than being vectored to a target 25 miles away, using radar to find them, then visually trying to acquire them. Second, it tries to keep the engagement as realistic as possible. You should use your radar in BVR and your MK1 eyeballs when it gets close. So the mod makes targets 14nm away (25km) fully transparent. Can be a disadvantage for some players, but on the other hand provides a realistic advantage knowing that the dots you see are contacts that are <14 miles away from you enhancing your SA. Third, targets in visual range where an actual fighter pilot can see irl shouldn't be pitch black unless there's a sunset behind it (I guess?). That's why fading is introduced in this mod. Scaling and spotting conditions (weather, lighting) is the correct way to fix it. Once you merged, you shouldn't lose visual of your target unless you are looking away for extended period of time. Currently if you merge at a really high speed, you go high and get separated by 3 miles, you can lose visual of your target because it turned into a pixel against the forest background even if it has a white bare metal camo. Scaling is the correct way to fix that but currently to mitigate this issue, downres to 1080p to have a bigger pixel displayed on your screen to easily track or reacquire your target after a pass. This mod allows you to keep your resolution and have the same pixel size as 1080p. Now there are two sims that I know which are tackling this problem differently. One of them is an f16 simulator that uses smart scaling based on research documents https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA414893. Instead of dots, aircraft model is scaled. The size of the model is determined for eg if at this range "can you tell its heading and aspect?" then the model size will be big enough to answer that but not to IFF. However, it's not perfect and it feels exaggerated imo for small monitors, and it was addressed by OP here https://why485.itch.io/smart-scaling-demonstration. The other sim is WW2 sim and aircraft visibility is determined by the weather conditions, clouds, and lighting. It's also not perfect but its a step in the right direction. I think this mod tried to also "simulate" this by fading the dots the farther it is. DO I NEED THIS MOD? IMO it depends on your hardware, settings, and your experience playing this sim. This mod fixes an issue that does not apply to everyone, and for those who don't need it is not going to miss out on anything, and won't be handicapped when fighting a player that uses it (No unfair advantage when both parties can see each other in WVR). Yes if you cannot play missions without labels. If you acquired your target with radar using a cold war jet (HUD is basically a gunsight) and try really hard to visually acquire your target within 10 miles but still failed. Lose sight of your target frequently during a dogfight that is kept within 3-5 miles and 90% of your time is focused on him, 10% to check your six. Tons of flight hours but terrible spotting but your teammate somehow keeps spotting enemies. No if you're playing on 1080p. Correctly dialed up your VR settings. Playing on a large monitor and you are sitting close to it (32" 1440p is a Yes, anything larger depends on resolution and how close you sit so better to test the mod). If you're using a 24" 1080p monitor then you're out of luck, from my experience your spotting ability will be between 27" 1440p player and 27" 1440p downrez player. The mod won't improve it and its up to ED to introduce scaling to level the field. These are my opinion based from my experience. You should give this mod a try and run a couple of missions/multiplayer and form your own. I want to expand on the hardware side regarding monitors as it might explain why people voted worse for me or no difference. I would like to point out that using the mod might seem "worse" because it fades out contacts far away rather than keeping it pitch black. Therefore if you have no issue seeing pixel dots, then using this mod might be a disadvantage for you, but it will be "closer to realism". Below are pictures with two monitors that I have, both are Samsung Odyssey G7. One of them is 27", the other 32". Both are 1440p. They both have the same pixel counts but the bigger the monitor, the more "stretched" the pixel is to fit the whole monitor screen. This is why (in general for gaming/content consumption) if you're upgrading from 1080p 24" to 27", you should always go 1440p as 1080p looks terrible with 27". Please note that I am using reshade with curves.fx and amdfidelitycas.fx for sharper pixel (I recommend it to help with spotting) and forgot to turn it off when taking these pictures. Also, it might look different in my perspective than yours. Also the pictures are taken at the same distance, the hud looks bigger on 32" because its just a bigger monitor. 27 inch 1440p, 1440p ingame resolution, vanilla - visual on enemy 23 miles away but pixel dot is really small you have to zoom in the screenshot to see it. Anyone who plays with their monitor further away from them will technically be blind. You basically have to pixel hunt. 27 inch 1440p, 1080p ingame resolution, vanilla - visual on enemy 23 miles away. Pixel is more pronounced. 32 inch 1440p, 1440p ingame resolution, vanilla. Much better than 27" (first screenshot). This is due to the pixel being bigger than 27inch monitor. 32 inch 1440p, 1080p ingame resolution, vanilla. Not much difference from 1440p res. Might look a bit blurry than 1440p res but it's thicker so its easier to spot. In multiplayer scenario it's slightly better than 1440p resolution from my experience when scanning around (was more consistent in different environments). Anyone who used to play downscaled on 32" vanilla and moved back to 1440p res after installing the mod won't expect much (This is the case if they just loaded a quick spotting mission, my conclusion at the end will clarify what I mean). That could explain why some voted "no difference" or "worse for me" because they can't see further than 14 miles. (Next picture explains what I mean). 32inch 1440p, 1440p ingame resolution with mod - no visual on enemy 23 miles away. Mod addresses the issue of seeing targets at unrealistic range. 32inch 1440p, 1440p ingame resolution with mod - tally on enemy 14 miles. However, it's opaque. Usually you'd be in this situation if you acquired your target in radar and flying towards it, or was vectored in by GCI. You have to work hard by scanning the horizon. Also note that its much easier to see in my perspective than the picture due to loss of quality. 32 inch 1440p, 1440p ingame resolution with mod - tally on enemy 9 miles. Pixel is darker. I didn't include screenshots of 27" 1440p with mod (me being lazy). Basically from my experience the pixel dot visibility is the same as downscaling to 1080p. Now you don't have to sacrifice your overall graphics fidelity anymore from downscaling. Only downside is you lose the advantage of seeing planes more than 14 miles away. I want to point out the dot clarity from using this mod in WVR is the most pronounced with this monitor size and resolution, and that's important because its the most common monitor size and resolution. That's why a lot of players are complaining about spotting in DCS and having to resort to downscaling. Do I prefer using the mod? Yes. The mod offers the greatest benefit to 27" monitor as dots is the same size as downscaling to 1080p. I currently main with 32 inch unless I sim in the other room that has my 27" monitor. Even though the screenshot shows the 32 inch 1440p vanilla looking pretty good, it's not always the case as those pictures were taken in a clear perfect environment comparing to a busy combat environment. Before the mod, I fly pvp servers with my resolution downscaled to 1080p. Downscaling to 1080p resolution also had flickering issue where dots disappear at certain fov at certain distances (I think its caused from 2x MSAA). Now with the mod I can get the benefit of 1080p spotting while running 1440p resolution, and that also fixed the flickering issue I had. Also, losing track during "on the deck" dogfight is no longer a frequent issue.- 258 replies
-
- 13
-
-
-
[NO LONGER PASSES IC] Improved Contact Dot Spotting (Updated v1.1)
CapnCoke replied to Why485's topic in DCS Modding
Having played DCS with valve index, 1080p monitor, 1440p monitor, and 1080p res with a 1440p monitor, I see no reason to use the mod for VR as with the correct pixel density and resolution settings, you can spot as well as a 1080p user or even better. Current implementation in DCS is contacts that are farther than 3-4 miles are rendered as a pixel dot. This mod increases the pixel count for resolution over 1080p. If you look closely in your VR LCD panel, you can easily see individual pixels. This is why you're seeing "giant bricks" when using the mod as it doubles or triples the pixel based on what resolution you're using. In this case for G2 which is 2160 x 2160 at 100% resolution, it allows you to see 3x3 pixels for contacts rendered as dots. This is unnecessary because of how close the panel is to your eyes and how easily you can see pixels. In fact, using this mod can also be a disadvantage as you cannot see targets 30 miles away anymore. This mod is usually geared towards players playing 1440p or 2160p monitor and don't want to resort lowering their resolution. It might also help some VR users using high end headsets with high pixel density or high steamvr resolution, but because of how variable their resolution is, its not an easy fix by just installing this mod. On my 27" 1440p monitor, the target that's rendered as pixel dot is smaller than the model so when he gets close, the model "pops in". With the 2x2 pixel dot when using the mod, it fits within the model at ranges where IFF is impossible but considered WVR. That's why OP selected 1080p pixel as baseline as its not too big or small. -
[NO LONGER PASSES IC] Improved Contact Dot Spotting (Updated v1.1)
CapnCoke replied to Why485's topic in DCS Modding
It seems you were testing the "neutral label" which appears like a grey dot over the planes. This mod doesn't affect and modify the labels but the rendering of a "pixel dot" for planes far away before their model is rendered. The mod does reduce the distance of visible planes by fading it out gradually the farther it is. From my testing with 1440p 27 inch with the Mirage F1 Dogfighting with cannon mission in instant action, I see the mig23 pixel dot without the mod farther which is just one tiny pixel comparing with the mod which is opaque. After getting closer, the modded dot is thicker and easy to see instead of the vanilla single pixel. Before the merge, I can easily see the mig23 and I can easily keep track it during the dogfight. Without it, I'd just lose sight of the mig23 after a loop or two. -
[NO LONGER PASSES IC] Improved Contact Dot Spotting (Updated v1.1)
CapnCoke replied to Why485's topic in DCS Modding
For the people that voted "seems worse to me" might be a bit biased regarding the actual range you're supposed to see another jet, and are worried that they'll lose this advantage they're comfortable with if this ever gets implemented. The advantage you get with 1080p is understated because it's not just the ability to spot aircraft 40 miles away, but to instantly build situational awareness without having to do any work that an actual fighter pilot would do. Before using 1080p, I'd rely on EWR picture and overlord bot to build my situational awareness. Now, my workload significantly decreased and all I do is takeoff, circle around and look for dots, and bogey dope with textlord. Sure it is nice to stalk the first dot you see 30-40 miles away and shoot it down and get your dopamine hit, but I prefer a level playing field where it simulates WVR range in a simulation. Maybe even have contrails rendered for planes 50-100 miles away as another tool to build SA? The biggest issue I currently suffer from in 1440p is when overlord tells me that I merged (which I believe is 5 miles for textlord/overlord, but not sure for DCS awacs), and I can't see the target at all until its too close and I'm already at a bad position since I wasn't able to react accordingly. -
work in progress Improved FLIR improvement discussion
CapnCoke replied to gmangnall's topic in Improved FLIR System
Even if some of the thermal models are fixed and we can see IR emissions from a tank engine, it's still awkward to use for scanning because of the other little things that are bugged, which adds up becoming a major problem. For example, if you have a hot vehicle placed on the outskirts of a village and you want to scan your targeting pod to find it, you will have trouble locating it. It's because a couple of parked static vehicles are glowing bright white, and windows of houses are glowing as if the interior is on fire, and as far as I know, windows reflect thermal infrared radiation. You'll be checking every single heat source to make sure it's not the tank's engine, and even it was, the rest of the cold body blends in with the green/gray background for some reason. I once had a group of 10 vehicles and a waypoint designation on top of it. I tried every contrast/gain settings and couldn't see them at all. Also, season and weather temperature also requires some tweaks. For someone who has been in Syria and the Persian Gulf region, Syria can have deserts but the weather is mostly warm/temperate/dry during the summer, not scorching hot. In the Persian Gulf, it can get really hot but anything that is metal becomes scorching hot. However, you can still see both a person and a hot parked vehicle standing next to each other in a thermal camera because it works by measuring difference in temperature. In this case, the vehicle is hotter than the sand/asphalt it is on, while a person who stepped out of a building is colder than his/her surroundings. -
MT Crash after about 1 hour play, DXDiag log attached.
CapnCoke replied to MarkyMark's topic in Game Crash
It seems creating a 32gb pagefile solved the problem. -
MT Crash after about 1 hour play, DXDiag log attached.
CapnCoke replied to MarkyMark's topic in Game Crash
I have the same error in your crash dump. For me, the crash happens when changing slots after 30 mins of gameplay. From my past experience, this crash occurs when you don't have enough memory. I used to have that error before MT and I was told to add a pagefile. I've reverted to system managed pagefile after I got 32 gb ram installed but I'll put the pagefile back and see if it crashes again. -
Update: Played enigma cold war, around 35 players but only around 3-4 mirage in slots. Decided to take the mirage and declare seems to work until server started populating then ceases to work.
-
Ok so I tested on Grayflag with 9 players in the server and it seems to work fine. It's not consistent but 8 IFF with around 10-12 declare command is better than what I've been getting in the cold war server. I still can't tell if its the lower player count in the server or its call sign related. Let's assume its callsign related. The thing is that if a server has multiple users using for eg. Uzi 1-1 callsign, AWACS can still discern which player asked for bogey dope and give the correct call. So in that case if there's multiple Uzi 1-1s, and one of them has an STT lock of an enemy and asks AWACS to declare, it should be able to tell which Uzi 1-1 it was. But it doesn't explain why it is silent. I'm gonna go in theory here as I am no expert on how the AWACS system works and implemented. Currently you need an STT lock for the player to communicate with AWACS to declare and that is also confirmed by the player voice in comms. If the lock is lost before the player's sentence is completed, AWACS ignores and stays silent. You need to keep lock until the player's radio request is completed and AWACS will then reply and confirm if its friendly or hostile. Now if there's multiple Uzi 1-1s, and one of them locks and asks awacs for declare, the request goes through and awacs checks the sttlock but finds out the rest of Uzi 1-1s doesn't have a lock then it ignores the request. Again I might be entirely wrong here and that's not how the system works.
-
Yes, I have it tuned correctly and they reply to my bogey dope requests (it's kinda buggy but it works, and I think its reported here) But for declare requests, I managed to get a reply maybe 4 or 5 times total after like 10-20 requests by just spamming it just so I don't launch a missile at a friendly. It can be reproduced by joining a server preferably cold war like enigma where certain aircrafts don't have IFF like F5E or Mirage F1. Tune to DCS AWACS and you can hear awacs comms. Ask for bogey dope and it will reply. Then lock a target (friendly or enemy) and ask for Declare. You'll get no reply, but in very rare cases, might get a reply once or twice for the whole session. I haven't tested it in a low population environment, and I wonder if its because of shared callsigns. I'll give it a test in Grayflag server since most callsigns are unique to each slot if I remember correctly.
-
Awacs declare doesn't seem to be working in multiplayer but it works fine in singleplayer. Sometimes it works once but in 99% cases you don't get a response. I've been flying the Mirage F1 and it makes it tough to fly as an interceptor when entering an environment with friendlies off my nose.
-
can not reproduce Controls Indicator not working for AH-64D
CapnCoke replied to CapnCoke's topic in Bugs and Problems
Yep, it works now! That's strange since I've deleted the keybind, reset to default and rebinding didn't work and somehow replacing it the hind control indicator scripts works but it doesn't matter now. Big thanks! Saved me a big reinstall. -
can not reproduce Controls Indicator not working for AH-64D
CapnCoke replied to CapnCoke's topic in Bugs and Problems
My game flight and game avionics are disabled. I also replaced the keybind but no luck. I'll try reinstalling DCS and let you guys know. -
can not reproduce Controls Indicator not working for AH-64D
CapnCoke replied to CapnCoke's topic in Bugs and Problems
Forgot to add, I did try pressing the hotkey RCTRL+Enter and it doesn't work. -
can not reproduce Controls Indicator not working for AH-64D
CapnCoke posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
I couldn't find this issue in the forums so I'm going to make a new report here. The controls indicator works for the Huey and Mi-24p Hind but doesn't seem to work for the Apache. It could be the lua script in the controls indicator folder. To test this, I replaced the apache script with the hind and the controls indicator shows up but its incompatible of course. I also reinstalled the apache just to check if the files were corrupted but still the same results. I'm running a single monitor 24.5" 1920x1080. I have controls indicator set to on in the game settings.