Flagrum
-
Posts
6849 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Flagrum
-
-
I am pretty sure that this concept of “NVG Compatible Cockpits” is a internetism.
No it isn't. German Tornados, for example, were at first not capable to fly at night over Syria in 2016 because of that.
-
I mentioned this already, burried in some thread, but as I just stumbled upon this again in the WIP manual, I'll want to propose something.
The WIP manual says: "The real NAVFLIR hotspot detector has more features and options that cannot be simulated on DCS. One of these features is sensibility. The real NAVFLIR hotspot detector will detect ALL temperature differentials which creates many false readings. Unfortunately, it is not possible to simulate such sensibility in DCS, so the hotspot detector is limited to detection of active vehicles (AI or player controlled vehicles). The hotspot detector in DCS will not mark buildings or scenery objects."
As we have no temperatures for objects and scenery, I understand that the hotspot detector can only be an approximation. But if the hot spot detector would give false positives and also false negatives, it would not be so "uber" in terms of target detection.
Afaik scenery objects can not be queried by a module and so the hotspot detector just has no clue about their presence or absence. But maybe terrain type can be determined? The Viggen seems to be able to distinguish at least water, grass/fields and forrests. Perhaps even urban terrain. I would like to see false positive returns around the borders of different terrain - ofc with only a certain probability. That would emulate to some extend the temperature differences between i.e. a forrest and an open field. Perhaps some more false positives around urban areas? If we want to go overboard with it, take the position of the sun into account and add false positives on water (i.e. reflections of the sun).
And ofc not every real object should give a cue in every instance. Maybe the ratio can also depend on the terrain type? (i.e. open fields + truck heated up by the sun, clearly visible > shadowed truck in a dense forrest).
What do you think, Razbams? ;-)
-
EDIT: is the attached more or less what you were talking about?
:thumbup:
-
LOL I will stop posting stuff otherwise I will spend my whole time backtracking and updating things I have already done ;)
Joking. In facts sometimes I am using old pics from original manual, especially where there is no way to get a good screenshot angle. But some of them are outdated with new switches etc added to the pit so I have to replace them. Sometimes it is better to see parts of the pit against the background of other instruments etc. I'll do my best to make it easily readable and looking good at the same time.
Started working on HUD and I am sure I will use colour screenshots against some nice Nevada background.
I am not sure I understand what you are refering to ... if it is about our request regarding the screenshots, then there might be a misunderstanding.
At least what I meant was, the numbering of the elements of a screenshot does not stand out enough. For example, at first, I did not even saw that there were numbers added to the fuel gauge. The white numbers looked almost as were they part of the instruments labelling. Finding a specific element by number, i.e. when reading the description text, is somewhat difficult.
So, it is not about the screenshots itself, or any surrounding scenery, it is just simply the numbers added for referencing the switches and gauges. It would probably already help alot, if they would stand out more by using a bright (red?) colour and/or graphically (framing them into a circle or something like that) to make clear, that they are not part of the actual cockpit labels.
edit:
But if you say, you would have to redo all your pictures and that this would be an insane amount of work ... I would totally understand that. But if it is NOT too late, then, well, maybe something could be done here. ;-)
-
Nice work, I really like it!
But - if it is not too late - maybe you would like to consider changing the way the elements in the pictures/hardcopies are numbered. As it is in these sample chapters, the numbering is somewhat hard to read. I actually like the ED way - numbering outside of the pic and arrows/lines connecting them to the cockpit elements. But if that is not viable, at least make the numbers stand out a bit more? Put a circle around them, use a deliberately (and consistent) highly visible colour?
-
Some of your points also don't make too much sense, or they are covered in the in-game training. The RB-05 tutorial for example, teaches you step by step on how to utilize the missile.
This is fairly redundant information in the manual.
I disagree here. Imo the manual should cover all aspects at least to a level to serve as a reference guide. Training missions are great and a good way to practice what you learned from the manual - and maybe a bit more. But a training mission can not be loaded on an e-book reader and studied at the toil... well, where ever one finds the time and peace to learn stuff.
I hope, you had something like that in mind..?
-
The head movement does not cause much distortion because in our cockpit our head movements are quite restricted - not much change of the virtual eye-point here anyways.
Distortion comes into play if the total FOV is different from what it would be in reality. I.e. if we squeeze a 120 deg. FoV scene into a 27" monitor - which practically can only cover something like 40-50 deg (or so).
-
For me, it does ... I think.
If i move my head sideways, parts of the cockpit closer to me are moving more than objects further away. For example in the M2000 - the HUD assembly protudes quite a bit into the cockpit and by moving my head sideways, I can see "around" it, see the side of it and parts of the dashboard that were hidden by the assembly before.
-
Isn't that exactly what TrackIR in DCS is already used for? You can move your head laterally and the scene/cockpit is adjusted for the changing eye position.
-
So a question: Since the control stick is the same as the F-18C when Eagle Dynamics releases this stick for purchase will Razbam config the controls to match the stick? (Like the A-10C HOTAS)
Huh? Eagle Dynamics releases no sticks. Thrustmaster might, though.
-
That is not normal ... what are your grapics settings and have you tried to run DCS Repair?
-
Despite the supposed bug fix, I am having issues with the rocket pods.
I tried this with pods on each station, i.e. only the outer ones, only the middle ones, only the inner ones and also with rocket pods on every station. The very first volley goes off okay, but subsequent trigger presses seem to do nothing. I can't say what caused it, but after several seconds (was checking the pods from the F2 view, checked cockpit settings - but didnt change anything, etc.), I could shoot again until the pod was empty.
Having unlimited ammo active, I waited until the pods were reloaded. But since then, I could not fire off any rocket anymore.
When I had rockets loaded only on the inner pylons, I had GUVs at the other stations. I switched back and forth between rockets and GUV and while rockets where making troubles as described above, I was always able to fire the GUVs, even after an unlim.-auto-reload.
This happened on 2.1.1.9459.269 NTTR (+ NS430, if that matters).
-
That is Neo-Caucasus as well, isn't it?
-
Well, am pretty sure you don't specifically need an F-14 to develop an AI backseater - I do believe the backseater of say the L-39 would still look around, acquire targets, actuate controls, respond to pilot requests etc etc. Yes the specifics of the F-14 controls would need to come later. Perhaps you misunderstood my statement?
No, I understood you correctly, I think. But I am pretty sure that the RIO will be very tightly integrated into the F-14. A F-14 RIO would be pretty useless in a L-39 as the fighting in both aircraft would be very different. The "radar" part in RIO is the keyword here...
Yes, looking outside the cockpit could be applied to both aircraft, but that probably makes "only" half of the capabilities of what the AI RIO is supposed to have.
A RIO is not a GNS430 ... ;-) Instead the AI RIO is just another component in the F-14 cockpit as any other avionics device or sensor.
-
I sort of assumed HB would have the Jester AI pretty much nailed down and proven to work well before even starting the rest of an F-14 module.
Well, how could a AI F-14 RIO be proven to work well ... without a F-14?
-
1
-
-
I believe, _( ... ) is a function call which returns the localized/translated text.
-
Manuals are included in the Module's /DOCS/ Folder.
IF you have purchased the module. ;-)
-
-
"it'll be ready when it's ready".
... and that is about the time when it will be revealed to us, how the transistion is going to happen (give or take 2 weeks).
-
Sorry about the nagging but can we get that info pretty soon please? If it is really only for Mi8 15$ is way too steep for me. But if it gets integrated into other modules without making me rebuy it's a different thing.
Bottomline, we really need to know if we are to buy this. I am not buying it on a hint / assumption only to get burned later. I own all DCS modules and adding another 'buy' for a bunch of modules would ruin me. :)
The thing is, you are not forced to purchase it now and waiting until some more info shows up seems to be a viable option ...?
-
It is already implemented - since one or two patches ago. It was buggy at first, but I just re-tested it briefly (Nevada) and now it seemed to work. But I bet, it is still WIP - at least there seem to be two issues with that.
Use Advanced Waypoint Actions / Perform Task / go to waypoint
OR
... / Perform Command / go to waypoint
You see the issues I mentioned already: a) the action appears twice (but both seem to work ok) and b) the text does not match the other texts (different wording, no capitalizing ... perhaps missing translation?)
-
(...) ... what do I get from that? (...)
Well, what do you expect us to say here? Other than ... "Welcome to DCS World!" ? :D
-
1
-
-
Trim the helo.
-
Uhm, you don't have a DCS screenshot as background image and the info bar is part of that ...?
-
1
-
By way of an update
in VEAO Simulations
Posted
Things break, stuff wears out, tolerances change subtly and the environment (temps, humidity, density) is always different. Real aircraft are not digital, every time you start it up is a tiny bit different. Sometimes they just start not at the first attempt, but at the second, or third ... I think, they try to replicate this kind of behaviour.