zaelu
-
Posts
4485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by zaelu
-
-
Does anyone has more than aiming axis for CA in axis settings? I thought we get acceleration, brake etc for CA as axis. Or do I have to make something at my PC so they get reinitialized?
-
That's a good idea. Maybe the 4096 MipMap should not have these details that look like forest from high alt but maybe something that looks more like a noisy close ground clutter but more sharp... clear. Also the 512 MipMap should be more washed and detail-less so will not generate tiling effect.
But I know it's tricky to make these. Richardo is an artist at putting details exactly where they are needed. maybe he could help?
-
Thanks tjhowse for reply! I'll look into it.
-
Because DCS has many aircrafts with trim controls on HAT buttons as well as some on knobs/wheels I made my trim box with rotary encoders. This gave me the possibility to have both things on same physical control.
The encoders have two controls for turning them in each direction and one for pushing them vertically... basically I also have reset trim axis on the same axis if I want. This is the case for P51 where we can have reset trim for each individual axis.
Also if I don't need the trimmers (like in Ka50) I can use those commands for something else.
The down side of this is that for example in P51 I need to turn a lot of times the knobs of one encoder to have the trimmer moving a few degrees because of very small indentation for each "click". But also I have better control over them cause I could count how many clicks of trim I put in one axis.
And the really bad part is that the system is a bit more complicated for some with little or no soldering experience :) ... but still doable.
P.S. The encoders being completely digital have no spikes or other bad sides of the potentiometers.
-
I wouldn't fire a 120mm antitank round into the ground hoping for a lucky bunny hop in the belly of the tank. A 12.7 (heavy machine gun fcs) burst fired from at least half a mile into the ground with the scatter effect that is seen on those tracers?... Good luck and don't stop praying. :D
-
I think this is the full episode
qtvi7OGp-Qw
just follow the next parts
-
some vibrations there....
-
@Dudester22
Good morning:
http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=105
:D
Aaahh... joey45 beat me to it :P
-
We should have spawn points placeable on maps already... not just FARPS. Just spawn points. A lot of cool coops could be made between those mountains... Don't worry... we can take off and land from roads.
-
Hello rockwelder,
it took me few days to install your mod and test it (not because it's hard to do it... just lack of time) and I wanted to share my observations about it.
I have a GTX660 video card with 2048 video ram... from what I heard is best to keep my video memory usage under 1536MB because the last 512MB are addressed differently and slowly...
So here are my observations:
1. Although your textures (including the new trees) are a lot more bigger...my MSI Afterburner software reports me same memory usage in DCS World as with stock textures: ~1530MB. I don't know if that is not meaning the graphic card sizes down the texture to 2048. Initially I thought it drops the 4096 MIP but no... it is using it.
2. I don't know how did you choose to compress your DDS files but after modifying them (see bellow) I ended up with a 21MB per file but you had 80+ MB. Anyway... the memory consumption did not vary. I used DTX5 with Alpha although it is not needed for terrain. The same format/compression I used for rsaving mips for DCS 6DOF Cockpits and they look very good even with the eye lids glued to them.
3. The big size of the texture is used and it is visible at a normal zoom (90-120 degrees FOV) just around the aircraft bellow 500meters and becomes less and less visible as you go up. At 1000m AGL the 4096 size is not used.
4. The 4096 size does show up when you zoom in from higher altitude.
Now the not so so parts:
5. The texture you have choose creates bigger tiling effect and is the 512x512 and bellow size that does it... and that is due to the actual picture in it... the default used by ED was a bit more washed out and neutral in "design pattern" so it doesn't create this effect.
6. The picture(s) in your textures represents forests seen from above 1000m altitude but the details of them are not seen completely when you fly above 1000m AGL in game rather when you fly a lot under 500m or your zoom level corresponds with an eye placed at low under 500 altitude. Actually the textures presents their details best when what you see is the ground under 100 meters and at that point it hits you... what it should be bushes and other terrain details for that low altitude are in fact trees/forests seen from 1000-2000 meters... thus the spell of immersion is broken.
7. Given the fact of small performance penalty for my system that runs at around 20FPS with all details maxed up... I choose the default textures...
But I hope my comments don't upsets you and you will continue to search for solutions to improve the game.
My personal opinion is that brute force (4096 textures etc ) is not the best option. Some procedural/parametric/fractalic method would be best but I don't think the engine supports/features such things.
I attach some pictures that I took over Crimea where there are no cities roads etc that could clutter the view. I painted your textures like follows:
4096 MIP RED
2048 MIP GREN
1024 MIP BLUE
512 MIP YELLOWISH
the rest I let them as original
so.. tis is how it looks:
-
While this certainly shows a lot of promise with pretty terrain mesh and trees, I'm afraid it is a long way from what we could ever use in a combat simulation.
1- Where are examples of real world location modeling?
2- Where are the towns and large cities?
3- Where are the multiple types of roads and road traffic?
4- Where are the rail lines and rail traffic?
5- Where are the power lines?
6- Where are the streams and large rivers?
7- Where are the oceans, lakes and coast lines?
8- Where are the ports and large airfields?
9- Where is the weather?
10- Where are the various seasons?
11- Where are the damage models for buildings?
12- Where are the star maps and correct phases of sun and moon?
13- Where are the crop fields and other man-made terrain features?
14- Where is fog modeling?
15- And so on...
LOL... let's say... not ready yet. :D
-
which Monday?
-
1
-
-
The commentary is saying that the tanks carried a trailer with a fuel tank in it. And they would leave the tank (armored vehicle) alone, and shoot the trailer, and the fuel tank (container) it carried.
Meaning the trailer and the fuel tank (container) weren't armored underneath, so it might have been just a sheet of thin aluminum underneath the trailer.
Let's be serious... the commentary says clearly that the tanks (till now you could say they mean the fuel tanks from the trailer) were not armored underneath but armored above... (now all doubts are blown off) A trailer is not armored at all... that's why they shoot at it in the first place... but especially above has nothing and beneath is a flimsy chassis.
The movie is legit... the commentary is just funny. I heard a lot of these war stories similar to the ones of fishermen. "Man... once I caught an 20 feet long tuna in my toilet bowl..." "Sure... after so many beers anything is possible."
Once I heard that some pilots used to kill soldiers with the prop blades from their two engine ground attack planes... From a hate fantasy or a freak accident/one in a million event to "used to" is such a long way that only people that are sufficiently drunk can endeavor on it.
-
OMG... I thought it was a myth started by kids... now I see it's started by grown ups... hesus! :doh:
This is like in a Scooby Doo animation... the bad guy has a laser gun and see Scooby Doo (or whatever the good guy was) points the gun towards Scooby and fire... but!!! It was not Scooby Doo it was his reflection on a mirror... so now... be cause it was a mirror and silly kids don't know much about reflection rules the laser just get's back towards the shooter instead bouncing from mirror towards Scooby Doo just as the light reflecting from him. Obviously the bad guy dies.
The same with the mighty 1km spread 12.5mm rounds fired from a mile at 30 degrees angle in the dirt behind the tank... Some of the bullets after plowing through the ground decide to ricochet upwards without loosing any energy (heck... gaining, like a DU shell) and is not hiting the "weak armor" (ha ha... paper?) of a... tank at same 30 degrees angles and richoche even more off the metal surface... nooo... it comes right at 90 degrees with the energy of a 500kg armor piercing bomb and gets inside the tank and... pssssss..... BooOOOOMM!
Bwahahahahaha!!!
Loony tunes! That's all folks! ...if you believe it...
-
Slightly O/T, but Italy had some of the best looking aircraft in WWII, which unfortunately didn't survive the war.
[picture]
In your picture that plane shows only the almost standard BF109 nose and hides the ugly sloppy messed up canopy design solution. Also the general lines of that plane don't inspire anything... awe, fear... nothing... just izoelectric line :D .
Look at the next two aircrafts... a long time I thought are made by same factory... but... no... they really loved this multiple personality disorder concept that it was rampant in italian designs. A wing stolen from a wooden closet, a fuselage thought to be smartass aerodynamic but without any thought about where and how the engine will be mounted... when the engine arrived I'm sure the designer said: "Ooooh... it is more... roundish than we thought", and then... the pilot couldn't see a thing in front so they raised a bit more the seat making it look even worse. Of course... the other factory did the exact same silly thing... :doh:
Please take my post more as a pamphlet... beauty is in the eye of the beholder... some say A10 is ugly but functional... I can't see its ugliness even if I try harder.
:beer:
-
In my opinion the cockpits as they are now don't look/feel very "real" and there is no sense of... "Oh... A10C looks so much better than Ka50 because it has no pilot body". Or F15 than old F15 or P51.
I would say without trying to flame ED that A10C and F15C new cockpits look more unnatural than other cockpits. When you look in the A10C pit down you really look into a pit... it just looks like a pit not a cockpit and the HUD instead of giving you the impression of "right in your face" it looks like is just got WARP 5 activated.
If you tilt your head up the cockpits suffer from horrible distortions. Distortions I can't understand at all even after almost 15 years of LOMAC/FC/DCS. IL2 never ever had those effects, Wathunder has no such odd looking effect, I even flew 15 minutes in Raise of Flight and that one neither has this strange geometric distortions.
So... i don' think the pilot body has anything to do with how the pit looks. Just try Warthunder (it's free... but less simulation though) and see how the pilot body is rendered there. And all cockpits (tens of cockpits) have the pilot body in them... Toggle-able... and 6DoF... no clicky on buttons but they are there.
Also... the pilot body in ka50 and P51 is distorted so we cannot say that the pilot body looks great and that's why the pit looks bad. Actually besides old LOMAC pits Ka50 and P51 have the most natural feeling cockpit... P51 being the top one.
And finaly... it may be difficult to put pilot body in DCS pits but that could be a result of weak design of those pits. Clearly because is toggle-able the pilot body is detached of the pit and could be very well inserted in any pit. The only thing that remains to be understood is how the animations are made. Cause if they are made not via a rag-doll physic way... it could become difficult... true.
-
Nooo... they should stop ASAP and fix this! Hammers and blow torches should not stop a second until it is done!
:P
-
I like WW2 planes... almost all (italian planes are ugly... sorry :P ) so... me likes teh news.
-
I would also be interested on the reasoning behind this annoing feature.
The zoom buttons can stop it but not the axis... head tracking doesn't work while this is on, clicking buttons in cockpit is imposible cause they run away beneath your fingers...
...what can I say, it feels like an out of body experience might feel.
And then you go: "frack this, let me go god dammit" and you press numpad* while shaking diperately your head and rocking the zoom axis back and forth like a drunk monkey.
This has to go somehow.
-
Seriously, 'Show Pilot Body' is baffling?
Btw, I voted no since ED is a small team with limited resources and I consider the pilot body to be a waste of those resources.
This is why in original post I said (besides the obvious but disregarded by many "Toggle-able") that this "feature" could be developed by moders from community if info is provided!
I didn't touch 3Dsmax in the last 10 years but iirc you can create simple skeletal animations by just attaching the limbs to some moving points... that would be: stick,throttles,rudder pedals and the arse of the pilot to the seat.
We have a pilot for P51 and one for Ka50. Those pilots are not from outer space and they fit quite well any plane or heli. Even their animations are not mind boggling different from the ones required for other aircrafts... We don't have F16 yet also no Macchi to have to turn off or switch some animations.
Maybe the pilot body will not look perfect for all planes but lets remember that neither the the A10C HUD looks really natural and that is an important object in the pit.
-
It would be cool as a view point but not much to do.... besides waiting and connect... refuel... wait... disconnect...
But yeah... it is a nice feature to have if someone wants to play that role... but maybe some moding team to do it cause ED might have other stuff on the list... like pilot body for all modules... (kidding :D )
-
Why not both? Why forget the body? Why this charge on negativity?
And how would you represent health without the body anyway? A health bar? Where? And what is suppose to mean? If you are wounded you are incapacitated and are going to get killed if you are not RTB.
And what kind of wounds could you "digitally" express? Glass cuts in your face? Disorientation after a large boom near you? Limb torn off? Bleeding? Cause you don't get flu in the cockpit you know...
Usually the damages a human body can take inside a warplane cockpit that are not lethal but also don't deserve or need graphic representation are just bare simple incapacity on operating the controls... which leads directly to crash or limping with minimum controls to base.
And don't forget that rarely the pilot gets hit and wounded but the aircraft is untouched... usually the plane is worse.
-
Anyway i think there are a lot more important things that ED should focus on.
I agree. However... some features that look trivial for some are nice to see for others. Some features are even implemented by ED although many say are not needed. Examples:
-DCS P51 - was born out of free time work of one ED member and opened the gate for WW2 era planes.
-Pilot body in Ka50 (toggle-able :P ) was introduced with all kinds of animations... the pilot even makes some gestures after landing with the chute. Not a very top priority feature i suppose.
-Pilot body in P51 moves legs and arms from external view.
-Visceral 1st person bail out sequence from P51 which adds a bit of drama to the moment.
-Small animation of the gunsight range wire in P51
-Gazillions of cockpit lightning possibilities in Ka50, P51, A10C.
etc.
For each of the above if someone made a plea for them before they were added some people would have come and said... "Oh... drop it... is not necessary"...
-
@Kenan
OK, would you make a plea for removing the pilot body in Ka50 and P51?
In the title I said "Togglea-able" like in Ka50 and P51... not mandatory. Also one of the arguments pro (4) was stating the same. I don't think I have to use a lawyer language full of disclaimers and warnings and caution full phrases do I? Why do you "react" without reading? Why in the earth would ED make pilot body mandatory fixed in cockpit???
Of course optional/togle-able.
Also... it is funny when someone says:
Hey would you like to have an optional thing like this?
No! I want to impose my "no thing" option for you!
nice...
Why so few coaxial helicopters?
in Military and Aviation
Posted · Edited by zaelu
My opinion... as a bystander in this is that the loss in maneuverability is quite significant for an attack heli in the case of a coaxial... at least from what I've seen... ka50 displays are some bouncy bouncy yo-yos as for an Apache... well... quite impressive.
The speed advantage for coaxial is... debatable and you just don't feel like "push it!" when the lights go bananas in cockpit at 300IAS.
The OMG has smaller rottor... yeah... but taller :P and has no tail rotor... ok... is that meaning simpler? I doubt it.
The biggest marketing gimmick is that a coaxial can lift more for the same power... OK... let's increase power or save weight... :D
But!
Ka50 has ejection seat... that is handy. Btw... The ka50s lost due to rotor strike... the pilots did survived?
P.S. That doesn't mean I don't love my Ka50... I do and take care of her! :)