Jump to content

vicx

Members
  • Posts

    966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS CA
    DCS Mi-8
    DCS F-86
    DCS BS2
    DCS FC3
  • Location
    Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think this will end up being the best bang for buck HMD for DCS (at least for 6-12 months). Some people are wondering about the tracking but I think HMD-only tracking will be near enough to perfect so as to be a non-issue. This is because you can't really move your head fast enough so that inside-out camera tracking has problems. Lighthouse and Constellation tracking are overkill for HMD-only cockpit experiences.
  2. OK. For modules you can actually have more than one license bound to a SINGLE account and then bind the licences to SEPARATE machines. Easier to manage multiple machines using just one account. For maps this is impossible and I think the only reason I was able to do this with a module was because I was able to transfer a license from Steam to Eagle (and it didn't stop me from adding a module that I already owned).
  3. nessuno0505, there is a way to do it. I have done tests exporting mission specific regions of buildings and static objects and recording damage done to them during the course of a mission. It is possible and it makes great looking playbacks. BUT to do it my way you have to use lua and integrate the code with the mission manually. I can share lua snippets that you can assemble but I would share them without support cause I am taking a break from this type of play while I wait for 1.xx and 2.xx to be merged. Honestly taking longer than two weeks :megalol: Otherwise you might patiently wait and see what Vyrt has planned for Tacview 2.0. I think it will be able export most types of static objects AND scenery objects. Scenery export is not in the Tacview 1.xx exporter (not sure about Statics - some may work). === Now the conversation to have is what might be the best way to implement exporting of scenery objects in Tacview 2.0. The method has to be partially opinionated because you can't export ALL the scenery (run out of diskspace you will) and exporting large chunks on-demand might be bad for performance. Two approaches come to mind. First: Export mission-defined statics AND optionally a defined region of scenery around them Second: Monitor damage to ALL scenery and export scenery objects in a small region around the damaged object. Monitor death of bomb/missile due to ground impact and export region so you can see what was missed (show undamaged scenery). First approach could be VERY filesize greedy for large missions. Second approach might need clever code to avoid affecting runtime performance. Both approaches might end up being quite resource intensive for many missions in which case a third approach would be to require mission designers to manually define zones (naming convention required) for scenery export. Mission designers become responsible for balancing export detail with predicted load on client and/or server. Mission frameworks like MOOSE have a completely unique opportunity to use Tacview in much more powerful ways. They could pass structured data to Tacview for parsing or do their own unique and customised parsing for custom visualisation in Anyway if have ideas, you should present them (Even if it's just what colors objects like bunkers and bridges should be in Tacview) === Still assembling ortho imagery for Nevada.
  4. Vyrt, Pdmarsh, I decided to try adding orthographic imagery as an overlay for NTTR recordings. With older GeoTIFF imagery I ran into problems matching the images to the terrain and the recordings, but I had excellent results with NAIP ortho imagery from 2014 onwards. Basically I tried to translate older images from one projection to another but my results were poor - most likely lack of knowledge :) but I found with with new JPEG2000 images there was no need to translate them; they just work :thumbup: NAIP imagery is excellent so I think a great overlay feature would be an importer macro for overlay images that use the NAIP naming convention. Vyrt, I don't think the 1m resolution is being rendered as nicely as it could be in the current version of Tacview but I am curious if Tacview 2.0 will outperform in this area.
  5. It looks like it is LG who will decide if we have a next generation HMD in 2017.
  6. Unless you have money to burn I would wait for next generation. It is true that once you try VR it is hard to go back BUT everytime you fly in current VR you reminded that it still isn't there yet. For DCS you REALLY need a higher resolution. So I think you should avoid trying it until it is a bit better. That way you still enjoy playing the way you always have and then when you do you make the jump to VR it is the experience that it's meant to be.
  7. Flightcontrol, this confirms what I found via testing too. A few years ago I found the Abstract RWR device in most aircraft was a bit too effective. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=133111 Interesting thing from this old thread was a mention I made of MSF which is a Lua mission framework from the Russian speaking Forums. MSF had/has some very cool ideas in it. At the time I really liked the implementation of communications networks with unit/static object dependencies. There were other very strong elements in the framework that you might like to borrow for MOOSE. Automatic text to speech generation and other cool stuff. I was also looking through my old files recently and found lua snippets I wrote for exporting live mission data to a Tacview log. My goal at the time was to leverage Tacview to visualise as much as possible what the sim was doing during a mission (like detections and targets). I think a MOOSE class that exports data to Tacview could be very valuable for advanced mission development. Might be able to provide a gods eye view for mission designers including what the AI is thinking at any point in time. Will keep looking for videos and pictures I produced in Tacview because pictures speak louder than words.
  8. Anyone predicting how the tears will flow is guessing :) It is up to the server operators, they are the ones who will decide.
  9. There are two projects in development now that might help GCI implementations by motivated and interested experimenters. Moose Framework (Lua mission framework that extends built-in DCS mission capabilities) is making experimenting with GCI scipts easier. Moose gives realtime controls to the player via Function Commands (the menu system used for ATC and other comms). Viacom Mod allows Voice Attack control of DCS Function Commands (ATC and other Comms). So using the two projects together you could try and generate 100% voice driven GCI gameplay. I think some decent predictive math (a bit more advanced than basic distance and heading calculations) is required to make server based GCI truly as useful as the type that pilots received from human operators in Korea.
  10. On Vive I was able to reduce the this problem by a lot by modifying the gasket (A LOT) to bring the lenses closer to the eyes. I trimmed my gasket using scissors but anyone shy about doing this can buy thinner gaskets from places like VRCOVER. A much better sweet spot for me but YMMV.
  11. If I want to run a multiplayer Nevada server on second machine at home; do I need to create a second account for it? or can I use my existing account and add a second license of Nevada that will apply to second machine only?
  12. Reporting a bug in 1.7.2 When making a mod-package and zip already exists then you get prompted to "overwrite existing ZIP?" If user chooses "Yes" to Overwrite then task continues to try to make mod-package but returns error and fails to overwrite existing file. If user chooses "No" to Overwrite package task continues to make mod-package and overwrites existing zip. Unintended behaviour in both cases.
  13. Not just clouds. In VR any object with transparency chews up the frames pretty bad.
  14. Think you are right that the way the capabilities of air defence units are presented in DCS is too game-like. I played around with this stuff when it first came out for CA and was able to make some really interesting mods that allowed to direct Air Defence in a more executive fashion. One mod allowed units with the capability to use automatic tracking at all times but only launch at your command. Large benefit to air defence missile complex and point defence complex Tunguska/Tor. Other mod was used to allow you to manually control an optical director unit and use that to designate targets for a group of anti-air guns with radar predictors. It worked VERY well against suitable targets. Changes to DCS broke these mods. I was trying to make them work in VR at the time because that was my main interest. It is easy to see the potential in CA but in reality it may never be possible to unlock the full potential. This is OK ... DCS is primarily a flight sim and sim development is hard.
  15. From this thread -> https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2940453 I have mentioned this as a potential issue for people experiencing VR performance problems before BUT this is the first time I have seen actual measurements made from inside the export environment. Very cool! Vytuoz is a professional, he has been aware of these issues for a while and has been working on a solution.
×
×
  • Create New...