Aginor

Nice video, thanks for the update!

Haha, yeah, those close formations really didn't work _that_ well. Still nice for screenshots I must say.

Tanking is seriously flawed at the moment. So if you make it: Bonus points for you! As soon as the boom operator's behaviour gets fixed you will be able to tank like a pro. :)

Ah, now I can see a few small differences! Thanks for posting! :)

If they do it right the filter is something you can apply or change anytime, so actually the mission editor doesn't block the choice, you can merely temporarily have a cleaner list. If you need one you can just click on the "filter:none" button and you see all planes again.

Yeah, that's right. Which is why I am talking about stuff that exists in real life, and that we urgently need for building realistic missions in DCSW. So the wishlist section is appropriate. So, about those guns: For the German 88mm gun I can even imagine three or more variants: - just the gun (not very good but veterans I spoke to said it was sometimes used without any real guidance, since the approximate altitude and speed of the bombers was known) - with optical guidance such as the "Kommandogerät 40" - with radar guidance (FuMG 39 "Würzburg") EDIT: Oh, and don't forget the search lights! :) Such as these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_searchlights_of_World_War_II

...ugh... and I think I just overreacted a bit. Sorry for that.

With all due respect for you and your work of digging through the forums SD, please stop posting that in every **** thread someone creates. It doesn't matter what was said. What matters is what was done. And we have seen almost NOTHING in YEARS. Plans are nothing. I just disregard it as marketing blabla, just like 90% in that (great) thread of yours. All I see is plans, plans and PLANS. MY plan is to earn billions by letting my cat dance in Youtube Videos and still there is not a single video of my cat on YT. Those plans aren't worth a **** dime. ....ok, now back to things that exist, please.

I do like the idea using colors, but to be honest: A dropdown box for choosing the era so the ME just filters out the units not fiiting into it would be even better IMO.

Hey y'all! A thread about the SA-2 a few days ago reminded me of this topic and with 2.5, Normandy and other stuff coming soon I'd like to revive a thread that I created in 2014 because to me it is still very valid. Unfortunately it is in a read only section of the forums, so here is a full quote of the OP: Link to the original thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=133543 And I'd also like to expand on that topic today, especially the part about possible guidance systems for AAA guns. Here are some examples, just to get the discussion going: SON-9 / GRS-9 / Firecan German Wiki link because I am lazy and the English wiki article is empty: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gesch%C3%BCtzrichtstation_GRS-9 This is a fire control radar developed by Russia in the 1950's. It was used in the Soviet Union, and also in its satellite states, like the GDR (it was called GRS-9 there) and used in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and several conflicts in the middle east. It could guide the S-60 (57mm) and KS-1 (85mm) guns for example. It was later replaced by the RPK-1, which was produced until 1984 as far as I know and was still used in the middle east in this century. The Würzburg radar system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrzburg_radar Basically the grandfather of gun fire control radars. It was used to make the "acht-acht" 88mm guns much more deadly. I'd love to hear from ED if that will be implemented in DCSW, now that we get some WWII stuff. Especially how it will work. I imagine it will just increase some precision values and increase the spotting range for the guns as long as the radar is in the same group as the guns. Similar to how the SAM sites work in DCSW now. I think those two (and the guns that were guided by them) or other similar systems are essential for DCSW gameplay. We urgently needed them in 2014 which is why I created that thread (the irony...) and we need them now. So please, ED and/or third parties, give us some feedback, is this in the works for release soon (this year)? EDIT: Related thread, about ship guns: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181756 Thanks for reading. :)

I guess I really am a gameplay guy without an eye for graphics because I can't even spot the difference. The old model looked pretty much perfect to me. Still nice to see you are pushing the quality, aiming for perfection. :)

Nice changelog, love to see the systems progress. Really gives me hope that I can use the C-101 for my flight training soon. :)

Really nice mod!

Some more feedback on the display of deleted posts, now that the change is in effect for some time: I still like it. :)

I would like to +rep you on this one. Granted, I like new modules as much as anyone here, but the simulation environment lacks so many things (those you are mentioned are on my list as well) that I really want to see some change there eventually. Sadly many things are happening only behind closed curtains or nothing at all (can't tell which but I give ED the benefit of doubt). I really hope we see something about those in today's news or maybe in the next few weeks. EDIT@NeilWillis: Me too! Maybe we will see the 2.5 soon (this year), that would be very exciting!

Neutral faction and controllable civilian units should be included IMO. How the sim reacts to shooting them should be up to the mission designer. That fratricide thing killing your logbook is.... bad. I like realism, so having complex ROE situations is important. So +1 I guess.

Yeah, as always I consider those nonexistent until proven otherwise. I learned to not give anything on such info. Just makes me angry.

Definitely!

I am not sure what you mean with better SAM systems, do you mean more realistic and/or better looking, or do you mean more modern? I agree with the first, but I'd say we also need some that are not modern, to have systems filling the gap between the low altitude systems and the modern radar guided systems that are rather effective, even though some are not nearly as deadly as in real life. I wrote something about that years ago, here is the thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=133543

I think I'd rather not have that. Either my post was important enough for me that I check back on that thread, or it wasn't and then I'd rather not be noticed, it would just make me angry.

I just read a thread where some posts were deleted by moderators, and I think I like the change. It does make the thread a tiny bit less fluent to read (but so do bad posts), but if someone all of a sudden seems to write incoherently I can now recognize he is referring to a deleted post, and if I read a moderator's warning I can tell it probably isn't directed at the last two or three posters above, but at people who wrote the deleted posts in between. It makes things more transparent.

Ok, since I failed to contribute to the project itself I can at least help out a bit to explain what is being done here: As it is now the tool chain for creating *.EDM files (Model files used in DCSW) are - roughly speaking - create the model - create animation arguments and so on - create LODs - create collission shells - do UVmapping - export it to *.EDM format using a plugin for the 3D program 3DstudioMax (the plugin is made by ED) Problem is: 3DsMax is an expensive software. The license is, like 2000 bucks or so. There is another, free, 3D software (called Blender) that many people like to use, but there is no plugin to export *.EDM files from Blender so if you create models in Blender you cannot use them in DCSW. NickD creates a plugin for Blender that adds that functionality to Blender, so you can create *.EDM files for use in DCSW using free software. :) Ok, that sounds kinda easy. There are several challenges in that though. - Documentation of that format. NickD has to understand how the file format works. This is done by reading existing documentation and by analyzing files that work. Preferably files that are simple so he can look at the parts and see how they work together. - Translating Blender functionality into the needed structure. In 3D programs there is some sort of object hierarchy. It is different between 3DsMax and Blender, so NickD has to find the equivalents. The export plugin has to get all the necessary parts from the Blender data structure and repackage them into their EDM equivalents. Some parts may not be there at all (3DsMax is a HUGE, mighty tool, Blender may still lack some features partly or completely that are needed for more complex stuff) - values may differ. Simple example (not from this project): In 3DsMax or the resulting EDM file a semi-transparent texture may have values between 0 and 1, 1 being transparent. In Blender it could be values between 0 and 100, 0 being transparent. - Those object structures can be nested. So there may be objects in objects in objects and so on. So a recursive algorithm might be needed for some things. Recursion can make program code intransparent, complex to understand, and hard to debug. -Test stuff. Do LOTS of tests, of which most fail spectacularly, with the plugin crashing, Blender crashing, the modelViewer crashing, DCSW crashing and so on. NickD has funny examples like an animated gun shooting monkey heads. (no don't ask). :D

Yeah same here.

Hey, not bad. Does it apply to whole threads as well?

Thanks for the clarification Vibora. I understand it is complex and y'all have limited resources. No offense intended. It is still very annoying. I wish you the best to get it right now. :)