nrgized

Pretty silly thing to say in the VR forum where FPS dictates whether you can fly at all.

Yeah the pre-processor macros for the shaders exist and make that part easy. Sadly the rest of the system doesn't appear to be setup so that its aware of the different modes. Anything related to textures has no concept.

So then are you only going to produce shaders that look correct in deferred? I hope that is not the case beings deferred rendering is a user configurable option.

My items have taken 30days from the time yogi gave me a tracking number to there arrival in California. Currently my cyclic has been in transit over 2 weeks. I don't know if there is anything he can do about it but I would gladly pay more for faster shipping options if they were available. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Added options for visor colors and fixed the visors not working in VR The yellow and green colors are horrible looking and thus are more to inspire than anything else. Download Link Would be great to have something similar added to the base module. Enjoy

You just had ask didn't you? :P IMO thats why modules have a hard time reaching the feature complete milestone. Which then leads into the rush for the next plane while the previoius isn't feature complete. Its like a giant ponzi scheme.

Just leave peaches as red, my stingers thoroughly enjoyed meeting him :)

Only took them a day and a half with 20v[0-10] odds to capture 3 bases. Grats!

Sigh... More acceptance for lack of attention to detail. I mean spend all the effort going through official documents, collecting wind tunnel and performance charts. To then only burden yourself with pesky things like an eye for details. Psh! I have some clients I want you to throw that excuse at when they ask my employer for modeling changes. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The real meat of that pdf can be summed up as... Normalized values of 0.0-1.0 because AoA varies based on aircrafts current configuration. 0.0->0.6 = Green 0.6->0.8 = Yellow 0.8->1.0 = Red / Your a brick :)

When the 14 comes out you bet your a** they better have some 28 slots on red!

Understandable. Would have preferred you alerted a mod to clean up the one or two bad apples in the thread instead though. Quiet a few people in this topic who were being helpful and enjoyed the feedback.

I agree with your sentiments although your last statement I have to respectfully disagree. In my line of work I'm often given "gut feeling" and "picture reference" as feedback that something "is off". Good feedback doesn't follow a singular template. For the above scenarios I check my data and if I can not correlate what I was presented I provide the user the data I have. This has resulted in instances where the user realizes why they were getting incorrect results but also in numerous cases resulted in me finding out mine was incorrect. The user while not being able to articulate why things were off was able to formulate a more detailed response when they were given the information I was working off of. Only respecting extremely detailed fact proving feedback will only hurt your quality not improve upon it. Anyone that does something for any length of time eventually learns most often then not the book rarely correct. Take the glare shield issue brought up earlier in this thread. I have been unable to find a single image on the internet or in Harrier documents that look like the RAZBAM glare shield. The only images that show the very abrupt lip are those pictures of RAZBAM and a single plastic toy model. Google link It would have been a great moment to post reference of your source. Should you're reference be correct it would have been a "what do you know" tip of the day that the type of user that posts in these kind of threads would have found interesting. I've been sourcing parts for my UH-1 pit. I know how crazy it can be when it comes to parts. There can often times be very many with slightly varying differences that make them tough to distinguish.

Great. Looking forward to the changes. One last thing, I hate to add more to the pile.. It would be nice if there were some cleanup for helicopters to do before being able to take a capture point. Not asking for complex scenarios. Could we maybe have 10-15 troops spawn that scatter when the bunkers are destroyed. Would be nice to have a little extra flavor to the fly 30 mins, avoid enemy cap, drop troops routine. Then again I can see a single enemy troop running off into the weeds and impossible to find. Preventing a capture which I would instantly regret :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Glad to hear. We are on the same page. The template system I mentioned accounts for individual bases. FARPS and COMM arrays you wouldn't need to individualize as much. When I say spawn zone I'm referring to a 25/50 yard in size area. Not the entire capture point area :). That way you can still place zones around a capture point in the editor and have confidence units wont be spawning in the water or inside a building.. So for example if a capture point had 10 units that can spawn at it you might make 25 different spawn zones, dummy trigger zones, all over the point. Each template configuration would define the units for the capture point and what zones at the capture point they are allowed to occupy. When a capture point reads its template it loops the units and spawns them. As each unit is created and put in a respected zone. It consumes the zone from the capture point which would prevent other units from occupying the same area. No need to worry about collisions. When a unit dies it releases its zone back to the point. Allowing new units to spawn as the base is repaired. I knew if I posted any type of code, sudo or not, that someone would say put up or shut up. Was hopelessly praying nobody would call it as I have enough side projects. But since my weekends are spent mostly running around BF I would possibly consider taking a stab at it if requested.

Oh and if you think what I've mentioned requires a vast amount of system resources then your coding wrong. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The whole point of what I posted is so you don't have to apply it 400 times. In the mission editor all you should have to create is spawn points around an airbase. Trigger zones that abide by a naming convention so that your code knows what they are. Then you create a template lua file for each base and define what units can spawn in what types of spawn zones. You then code loading the templates and it's automatic and allows you to make easy adjustments. Farps and come arrays could each be defined by single template definition. Because you don't have to worry about the varying layout of airports. And problematic ones because of geographic location, well you just template them out on a need to basis like an airport. When it comes to DCS and mission scripting. The game is limited in what you can do API wise that you can't really get lost in doing something overly complex. I'd have more bugs related to getting LUA correct then I would with the implementation. Tyvm! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That makes absolutely no sense what so ever. And I'm referring to your logic not why ED chooses not to. If after installing BS1+BS2 Upgrade you have the same exact thing as what you get with standalone BS2 then its a licensing matter nothing else. ED aren't required to do so and it looks like they have no plans as has been mentioned. It would be a nice gesture though.

LOL! <3

You knowthis all started out as I said it would be nice to have them random. Then a bunch of nerds joined in and started nit picking the scenarios I gave for why I wanted them to be random. Not one tried to argue with whether they should be random or not. Now you come in and further skew my post even further by insinuating that I was saying its easy. Since you brought up the difficulties in what it would require I'll switch subjects and take a stab at it. I hate LUA and I don't feel like refreshing my DCS command syntax ATM since I'm at work so you're going to get this in Python. Its not difficult to template out random locations. Even semi-random which is what my example uses. class UnitDef(object): ''' ''' def __init__(unitId, spawnLocations, probablity): self._id = unitId self._spawns = spawnLocations self._probability = probability def id(self): ''' ''' return self._id def locations(self): ''' ''' return list(self._spawns) def spawn(self, team): ''' ''' do_create = random.random() <= self._probability if do_create == True: location = random.choice(self._spawns) DCS.createGroup(location, team) def unitDefsForCapturePoint(capturePoint, team): return UNIT_DEFS[capturePoint][team] def initializeCapturePoint(capturePoint, team) ''' ''' setBaseToTeam(team) for unit in unitDefsForCapturePoint(capturePoint, team): unit.spawn(team) initializeCapturePoint(RED_TEAM)

What kind of thought process does one need posses so that they think units forever spawning in the same location is O.K?

If the aircraft stick deflection was modeled to a 1:1 mapping with your joystick sitting on the desk you'd be more on the the correct side. Reality is they arent. You also have to take into account most people do not fly with extensions on there sticks which curves help mimic to a small degree. I don't know why this myth about curves continues to persist when there is little relation between the real and your pc controler.

As someone that has absolute zero issues with VR and uses VR for an hour+ a day for the past 5+ months... The zoom is extremely nauseating. Its a focal length change which is what makes it jarring. And for me personally its to much zoom. Really wish it were configurable through the UI.

Yes indeed. I fly the A-10 myself. However that is only when the A-10s can coast in. A perfect prep scenario. I've seen the example I provided when they had to rush through valleys with and/or dodging enemy cap the whole way in. Zero prep time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As a helicopter pilot myself I understand some of the frustration. I really wish farps/airbases had more than 2 slots per helicopter type. In particular the UH-1 for hauling troops. If more than 2 attack helicopter slots is to much then please at least think about adding additional troop ship slots. I would be happy with even a single additional bumping it to 3. Not asking for a full air wing I've had enough situations which I wanted to help out a in extreme need farp/airbase and or fly with a few friendly pilots. Also I agree with the topic brought up a few pages ago. Up the base defenses with a random chance of beefy sams and also randomize the placement of units. I've seen A-10 guys within 2 mins of being on station have 80% of a point down on there first pass. Grats to them for remembering where everything is but it makes it feel cheesy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk