upupandaway

Seems like I will soon have to get an SSD with min. 256GB just for my DCS installation. Befitting...

I was thinking exactly the same thing, although you may have the problem that even slightly less dense forests wouldn´t produce very convincing results with this method. Still, it´s most likely better than having none at all if it turns out that individual tree collision is not feasible. Or a box in the center of a tree patch/forest area where only the trees at the edges are checked individually. This is something that would also depend strongly on the kind of vegetation encountered on each specific map. Just as an example, applying this to what is known from the Corsica videos I can´t help but think that with the thin vegetation on those mountain sides would feel even less convincing if it kills you or damages your rotor blades as soon as you come within 30 feet of the ground. Anyway, can´t wait to move to Nevada as soon as a beta version is available. :)

It´s pretty much gotta be Corsica then. But what happened to letting the community in on the other projects? ED has shared lots of interesting media about Nevada and the general features of EDGE, but no further info on future / parallel devlopment. I don´t want to be pressing, but that´s what´s been written.

Very much agree. I´ve never seen the stacking behaviour in progress, only the various results.

Nice! :thumbup: Weiterhin viel Erfolg mit deinem Projekt.

Thanks for the clarification. I was confused about this at first, too.

Lol! Did you know this thread? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114779 Seems it is known/reported, but apparently ED doesn´t comment on it. I´m guessing it is a fundamental AI problem in DCS/CA, but eventually this has to be solved.

Some quite interesting points, especially the bug section. I like it, although I ges it´s quite unrealistic this will ever be implemented.

This bug persists in DCS for me, too - even after update 2 for 1.2.6. I didn´t check all the airports, but confirmed it at Kobuleti and Senaki.

I knew it, but that´s just such great news. Seems like a quatnum leap for DCS is finally here. Also very interested in approximate Sys-Specs (if different from current). Guess I´ll have to upade my hardware soon. :)

1) No, you probably aren´t. There were others who felt like this the last time Wags posted WIP images out of EDGE, but they are all locked away now. ;) 2) I don´t think the trees are from the old engine. Look a little closer and maybe also check out some of the older screenshots - you will see there are many new tree models you won´t find anywhere in Georgia. Same goes for the clouds I think. Notice the different shape, size and distribution in the images. Changes don´t always have to be huge. This looks great I think. 3 weeks? Maybe 3³ weeks? Not longer than that I hope. :music_whistling:

If I remember correctly, the separate devolpment and release of these aircraft will not only permit ED to get rid of the restrictions of FC-franchise and its respective owner. It additionally makes a lot of sense to iteratively develop and finance these modules simply because, as Yoyo stated in one of the DCS WWII videos, once they have established a general template of a model (like supersonic jet aircraft or turbocharged piston engine aircraft) the subsequent development of similar aircraft will require far less time and effort. If an AFM for the F-15 and Su-27 is developed, it will most likely benefit the development of all similar future modules. F-15 and Su-27 may include AFM and the F-18 will later include the A2A/A2G "template". Who knows what´s to come after that. It´s a long road ahead till all this is realised and there is no pre-purchase to finance this huge workload ahead of time, so this seems a good way to go. At least that´s how I see it.

No, and I gotta ask now - which one? :) Anyway, good luck with your projects!

Not much to keep up with at the moment. ;) ...but that will change soon. BTW IMHO I think the remarks vis à vis cockpits looking cartoonish and ED needing to focus on "relevant issues" within DCS are just wrong and inappropriate.

+1 Have the same issue in FC3 aircraft. With your hand on the joystick it won´t stop shaking unless you restart the game.

Nice stack! I didn´t get that many at once... Posted some images of this because it is really hilarious and annoying at the same time. It´s basically the same thing here with yet another quirky glitch when they just attempt to cross over the water. This bug can be a real gamebraker for CA at times and getting the vehicles back on track works only if they are controllable and then only with a lot of work... They were sent along a road using CA-group command on the map during MP (client) when they ended up like this. When taking control over one of them you will warp this specific unit to the groud and by repeatedly activating vehicle control you might be able to break free one at a time (which just happened in the first image, placing you under the bridge). I also observed huge furballs of (around 10 or so) friendly units stuck together in one spot with the AI completely f*ed up, but that didn´t happen on a bridge. Also, the routes the AI takes on detours when trying to avoid such obstacles are sometimes just as weird... Is there any offcial word on this major glitch? I´ve seen this happen a lot.

Dedicated servers are to come with EDGE and I´m guessing that this will include some significant improvement over the current netcode - it has to. Visual damage effects have been on the to-do list at ED for some time if I´m not mistaken, so the P-51 and Fw-190 should benefit from that at least. I´m also hoping that with Dx11 support the new engine will run with more fps on Dx11 hardware or at least be able to display more detail at the same fps...

In the SP-missions you will encounter a mix of static (defensive) troops in and around cities and several units that are triggered during a mission and which will drive around, but generally no real offensive AI behaviour. As in all other games (like ARMA for example), the AI of course only does what it is told to do by the mission designer and the SP-missions for CA don´t vary that much in this respect. The first thing that has to be fixed for ground units IMHO is the pathfinding. It´s the basis for any real autonomy of ground units. Right now, they often can´t even cross a bridge without getting hopelessly stuck...

Very informative, very interesting and nice to see a few more of the faces at ED. Great video! :thumbup:

Nice read, thanks for sharing this. It´s always great to get these snippets from ED´s work process and I certainly enjoy to read (watch) it all.

After reading Wags´ latest posts and comparing this to previous events, I personally think that it can´t be all that long anymore. I bet / hope that any assumption to the contrary is mistaken.

Thanks a lot for this. Looks great!

Can you also see them when the sun is shining? It´s gotta be a new version of canopy scratches.

Ah ok, I always thought of these commmercial deals as very localized installations, like for military training at a specific location - with ED offering more or less the whole package. So they just produce a part (software) of a product / service that somebody else is selling in the end. Thx for the clarification.

Hm, ok - I get that general logic of course, but it´s inhumane and outright cruel. Then again, what´s the specific aspect that would lessen the commercial value of such a product (specifically a map) if it is publicly available? The army wants a simulator to train their pilots, big companies want to train theirs - they don´t redistribute the simulator, or are themselves offering this training as a service to others in which case it is understandable not to have it freely available. As I see it, a simulator is more like an acqusition that starts to depricate immediately after being acquired. It´s like machine or a physical tool and apart from military secrets I´m having a hard time imagining why its value would be diminished if it were publicly available. And on the other hand, if it is available for a greater number of potential customers, ED can stretch their development cost over the projected number of sales and it would in the end be less costly for one party to have this product developed (potentially). For the developers themselves the workload and cost / investment to engineer this stuff stays the same no matter how many people are buying it. EDIT: Or were you referring to a hypothetical contract between Altwolf and ED? In that case it makes much more sense of course.