stormrider

Or a bigger bandwidth

Also in the interview: Whole World Map? Oh my...

Thank you Eagle Dynamics for taking this approach towards VR, modificating the code into a more "VR-friendly". That, I'm sure, will make all the difference. Even if the release date is unknown, testing is said to start by the end of the year. That's a great new just by itself.

+1

By any chance, are you bushlurker, veteran arma map maker? Nevermind, I just realized that he passed away in 2017.

As we usually answer to people being intransigent around these parts, you're right! https://www.esimgames.com/?p=2070 "High time for simulation engines to catch up!"

Thank you for your answer, that's exactly where Im getting. Do you realise there is a DCS module called Combined Arms? This is the kind of love that this module deserves. I can only imagine the possibilities of reviving it so it becomes a central part of DCS Apache Longbow. It reminds me of the missed opportunity that once was Microprose Gunship!, a helo game supposed to be multiplayable with the planned, but never released, M1 Tank Platoon 3, to create the very first combined arms game.

If you think about it, a famous tabletop wargame covering the Fulda gap region is called: Less than 60 miles ! From Buddingen Airfield to Meinningen Airfield, you have 90km! That would make already 4 airfields inside ~90x90km I'm not sure that you or the other really understood what I wished. It has nothing whatsoever, to do with textures, or how the ground looks from up close or high up. I meant the heightmap, the core of the terrain, the lay of the land if you will, the 3 dimensions representation model of the relief. Details, in this case, is the difference between a rounded, "blurred" hilltop and a sharp edged that more resembles the real geography, ditches instead of a flat surface and so on... A brief explanation is when you compare different spatial resolutions, for example: 30m/px means that for every pixel; be it white or black or any shades of grey in between, represents a 30x30m square, while on a 2m/px spatial resolution, one single pixel with the same shades of grey, represent only a 2x2m square. It's easy to notice that for a ground based game, with tanks and infantry, that is of utmost importance; it's the difference between a tank being in wide openn uncovered, unconcealed from being hulldown, just because of the spatial resolution of the DTM/DSM (Digital Terrain Model/Surface Model). When I'm back home this weekend, I'll take some screenshots to better represent this difference using Steel Beasts Pro PE simulator and to show how much difference it actually makes. Cheers

This is something that I realized some time ago. It wasn't really necessary before, but now we're going to really get an Apache! With that, some nap of the earth flying and smart use of terrain; but wait, there is no terrain in DCS currently; it's all "flat", blurred with barely any detailed relief. From 15k feet, looking through a straw in thermal shades of green or grey, we'd never needed that anyways. Now its different. Our prey will depend on the finer terrain details to survive; heck, even in open wide deserts like 73 easting, ground forces used anything whatsoever that they could find to "hide", in that particular case, a minor long dried shallow wadi, and alike. This is when I plead my case for new kinds of maps; maps that are made with the chopper user in mind from ground up: smaller of course so as to not waste that precious fps, and with a base map at its core, the heightmap: as detailed as possible; and it is possible. I made myself quite a few of these for another simulator of mine, using freely available, lidar sourced, processed DTMs, ranging from 1 to 5m/px of spatial resolution. Nowadays, one can get hold of this kind of data basically for anywhere in Europe. I can only imagine a proper DCS helo terrain, a Fulda gap of sorts, made specifically for choppers while not excluding the fighter jock, about 80x80km (or less) at ~2m/px spatial resolution...the sweet spot. That'd be something! Currently, I'd estimate that DCS maps are made from 90m/px.

You can actually play in there with any asset you choose or own. A region, in the end, is just that, a region.

More than that, it will be interesting to see how VAICOM Pro will implement that: "George, please fire that laser of yours at that target, would you, thanks mate"

Thank you, 100%

https://www.geaviation.com/sites/default/files/datasheet-T700-401C-701C.pdf

I'd like my copilot to be Abby:

Dont take that as a reference as dev personnel are shuffled around just as quickly depending on other projects needs. Hint F-16 vs F-18.

Dont waste your time trying to argue with these kids... they're always "right".

Any news on Vulkan? As I remember, it was mentioned for 3rd quarter 2021.

Gulf War map.

They are slowly shutting off all modding options in DCS.

If they hadn't officially confirmed it so far, I assume that's ED being ED. They're gonna say later that they never promised it.

I wish for better AI in DCS, which is more effective and less resource intensive. It is possible, just look at Steel Beasts for example. You can get a regiment of AI ground forces to fight against a battalion of human players located each somewhere around the globe. And it just works.

On one hand, it's great news that we're getting the Apache. It's been the one wish that some of us have been waiting for during all these meager years. On the other hand, the bad news is that it's DCS. They're gonna charge people in advance, then, like the F-16, will be sent to the fridge for months, years on end until some other plane is out of EA. On top of that, I don't see how DCS, as it currently is, would be a good pair for this. The current and planned maps all have a very low resolution heightmap, acceptable for a fighter plane sim which needs huge open spaces, but not for an attack helicopter' sim whose raison d´être is to hunt ground forces. And the ground forces...both AI or Combined Arms modules are basically rubbish. One gets a company of AI tanks moving and is down to 10fps. And the AI helos who can't fly below 90ft... IMO for this to be any good, we will imperatively need purpose made maps for attack helicopters and ground forces, smaller in size to accomodate higher resolution height maps and real substantial fixes to everything ground forces.

Even better

But it worked. Not that DCS radar modeling is much better.