vicx

From what I have seen, devs get interested when all the stars align and they have in their hands something they can work with. One of those things is going to be a DCS-ready model with many parts and components already rigged. Realistically you have to take a long view of these things. If you want to see an F-111 any work you undertake now, might be the catalyst for a module appearing in the future. Maybe the F-111 will never be a DCS module because the people who own the copyright say No ... but take a long view ... it seems inevitable that all cool aircraft must be eventually be virtualised. It must happen. So yes photos are required but specifically I refer to Photogrammetry which is the technique that is emerging as a very powerful way to help create 3d assets of very fidelity. Photogrammetry is when you take photos and process them in a way so that dimensional and color and lighting information can be extracted from them. It requires a technical approach but it can be learned and if you are interested in the subject matter it probably makes a hell of a hobby. Of course the actual 3D model for DCS will still be put together the old fashioned way but having photogrammatic resources will be VERY handy. It becomes possible for artists somewhere else in the world to recreate that object down to the individual scratches on dials and dents in panels just using your reference model and photographic assets. So yeah photos ...but we are talking about serious amounts of photos. I'm going to go and have a look at my nearest F-111 too. Not sure if I'm ready to take a thousand+ photos yet :) but maybe I'll be inspired. Or maybe I'll find that someone else is in the process of doing it or has already done it.

Well maybe you can be the one to make it happen. Australia's old F-111s which were not broken into scrap are now in museums. Aviation Historical Society of the Northern Territory (Winnellie NT) Evans Head Memorial Aerodrome Heritage Aviation Association (Evans Head NSW) Fighter World (Williamtown NSW) Historical Aircraft Restoration Society (Albion Park Rail NSW) Queensland Air Museum (Caloundra QLD) South Australian Aviation Museum (Port Adelaide SA) Someone would have to take the reference photos and get the 3D model made. That is before anything else can happen.

I think you found the best case scenario for missile range. The missile didn't have to turn at any point and it didn't have to change altitude. It could use all of it's energy for one thing ... to fly as far as it could. On the surface, this looks more like a good simulated result than a bad result. * Graph of missile velocity would be interesting

Google Cardboard can't really be considered a VR HMD. It lacks almost all the fundamentals which are required for immersion. It doesn't have 6-DOF positioning, low latency, high framerates, or persistance of vision strobing and other advanced VR hardware features to make a VR experience work. You could use Google Cardbord for watching back VR recordings ... it would be good for that and adding TrackIR to Google Cardboard would make it a better viewer. I bought my Oculus Rift DK2 for $400. That's cheaper than buying TrackIR and a decent monitor. It's half the price of an iphone :)

Using the neck mod would make no sense. You have a real neck and the DK2 uses absolute positional tracking. The shoulder settings in DCS should be and probably are, completely ignored in VR mode.

DCS 1.5 BETA has been a bit of a game changer when it comes to playing in the Rift. There has been a tweaking of the renderer and it is way easier to read the dials and spot other aircraft compared to DCS 1.2.xx. Still due to the limitations of the Rift I don't fly the combat aircraft that much BUT I have been flying the Mi-8 in VR a lot. Right now I would easily choose the Rift DK2 over Multi-screen for flying the Mi-8. VR is awesome and the Mi-8 is a great module for VR as it is right now.

I don't actually think this is essential. I think that a study level tank module is something people could enjoy in DCS as it exists right now. There is something to be said for just being able to sit in a simulated high fidelity vehicle and make it move and operate in a highly realistic way that has an appeal of it's own. Without combat even coming into play; just having the controls, sounds, and motion all feel real goes a long way. For me this is the appeal of modules like the Mi-8 ... which I love. I have a Oculus Rift DK2 and let me tell you ... I want to sit in a DCS tank module with my head sticking out the top hatch. OK ... put me on the tank team. Let's do this.

If it is time to start working on such modules then you could have an important role to play. The fidelity of DCS modules these days is higher and higher ... the bar is raised so that it is not enough to build your model simply from some public domain plans and a few photos. To make a DCS level module you need real reference objects. If you are fortunate to have access to some tanks then you should take advantage of that. You can start coding a module before a 3D model is complete BUT it has been suggested that having a DCS-ready model in very complete state before coding is MUCH better. So it seems obvious to me what you should be doing. Start taking photos of your subject matter with a purpose. Your purpose is to document the object from every angle and every point of interest so that artists somewhere else in the world are able to recreate that object down to the individual scratches on dials and dents in panels ... using just your photos. Ideally you will take enough photos and do it with enough skill, so that time saving methods like Photogrammetry can be applied. Learn everything you can about Photogrammetry. The main point of Photogrammetry is take photos and process them in a way so that dimensional and color and lighting information can be extracted from them. It requires a technical approach but it is not hard to learn. Taking technically consistent photos inside a tank will present the biggest challenge but other people may have worked through these challenges and documented their technique on the net. You won't need a fancy camera but you will need good lighting and a consistent and disciplined technique. Of course the actual 3D model for DCS will still be put together the old fashioned way but having solid photogrammatic resources will be VERY handy during this process. Especially for models that will bring new levels of fidelity in future versions of DCS. You mention tanks but I wonder if there are other objects that might be worth looking at in the short term. Photogrammatic capture of actual WW2 shells, bombs, casings, and stuff like that could be useful in the short term and let you hone your skills and those of any team you build. Don't be blind to other opportunities for STUDY level objects ... WW2 radio sets, air defense range-finders and stuff like that might be interesting too.

I'm still doing a lot of experiments with CA and the VR mode. I would love to show people some of the cool stuff that is possible but I am finding that it is really hard to take screenshots or make videos that capture how good stuff actually looks in VR. My screenshots look ordinary BUT in VR the same scene is amazing. :hmm: There is however one bigger problem with the CA VR experience at the moment. The HUDS or SIGHTS for Combined Arms are completely screwed up in VR mode. The HUD appears at a strange position in 3D space and it does not update it's position to react to HMD movement or even vehicle or turret movement. What I have decided to try and do is create several HUD elements to fix this. The first I want to lock to the vehicle. The second I want to lock to the turret and project into 3d space in front of the turret where the barrel is aiming. The third one I thought to lock to the HMD so it is like a Helmet based display. At the moment I am finding the HUD script for the Combined Arms a bit tricky ... have to work out how some of the features work.

This is very recent footage from Damascus.

Been reading about Physical based rendering. Could it be that in DCS 2.0 that the G channel will ACTUALLY be working as a "proper" roughness channel. Black is perfectly smooth - Full Green is maximum rough micro-surface. This would make the G channel the most important channel for affecting the way a surface reacts to light and making it an inverse of R would NOT be the right approach. If ED were to use PBR in an industry standard way .. the B channel would actually be a channel for defining metallic surfaces. Black is non-metal and White is surface behaving like a metal. Non-metal areas would only have fresnel reflection, and specular highlights would match the color of the light source; the intensity and diffusion of spec and reflection would depend on the roughness (G channel) of the surface. Metal areas would have actual reflections and the color of specular highlights could also be affected by the diffuse color of the metal as well as the light source color and again the intensity and diffusion of spec and reflection would be based on the roughness of the surface.

From the testing I am doing right now ... the settings in Config/MonitorSetup/Stereo.lua have no effect in DCS 1.5 BETA VR mode. I am throwing some wild values into these settings and nothing looks different. What are you guys doing different to me? * Update - It doesn't work. I'm calling BS on this one*

Wow ... that was great. In my opinion ... the addition of additional frequencies provided the most pleasing simulation ... even with the simple model. The other videos also great. Dynamic ship wakes look pretty amazing.

I know how IPD in VR works. I also know how traditional stereoscopic rendering works. I do have a DK2 and I am running DCS 1.5 BETA with an Nvidia GTX780. (DCS 1.5 BETA uses the Oculus 0.7 Runtime so I am using Oculus 0.7 runtime.) From the testing I am doing right now ... the settings in Config/MonitorSetup/Stereo.lua have no effect in DCS 1.5 BETA VR mode. I am throwing some wild values into these settings and nothing looks different.

I think you guys are imagining things. Pretty sure the "stereo separation" settings in Stereo.lua are for things like Nvidia 3D Vision with the shutter glasses. These settings have nothing to with VR rendering.

I don't care how it's done as long as ED can get the motion of ship and boats on the water to look more natural. It is the motion that looks a bit fake at the moment and the ships look a little like toys bobbing in bathwater. Perhaps the ship motion needs have some subtle lateral and sliding motion to make a more natural look.I do care about the motion more than photorealism.

At 1.20 a Mig-23 With music or dry

Looks like shadows for forests are pre-computed but shadows for towns, villages and cities are not. This is probably not something that can be fixed in Caucasus map without complete overhaul. Which is a shame. I think the NTTR map will have shadows done in a much smarter way so you can turn them on and not have bad performance.

Razo+r, If you are using a FCS Fire Control System you don't need to use an aiming helper (the circle). Get rid of the helper by UNTARGETING (backspace on the keyboard). It is natural for the gun barrels to move and adjust when sighting but in a real systems they might only be adjusted for range at the moment of firing. Depends on system. If you want to play with the Tunguska (using laser mod) Turn on the FCS Track target very smoothly - use the red arrow mode of the mouse or use a thumbwheel throttle axis. The tracking movement MUST be perfectly smooth. While tracking smoothly press "L" (get laser range) this will adjust the gun barrels to match the target range Fire! Using the laser mod we approximate the Optical Tracking Mode of the Tunguska. From Wikipedia The Tunguska can fire its cannons in two primary modes of operation, radar and optical. In radar mode, the target tracking is fully automatic, with the guns aimed using data from the radar. In optical mode, the gunner tracks the target through the 1A29 stabilized sight, with the radar providing range data. Also I found some Lua code which ED has commented out for now which lets the FCS mode use a Tracking Radar instead of a Laser. This is exactly what we want for units like the Tunguska and others - BUT it is not enabled in DCS 1.5 yet. Finally it looks like ED will get rid of the aiming helper for ground units which are meant to have an FCS. It will be more realistic and more closely resemble the behaviour of the actual FCS systems. Very cool ED.

Shagrat, I do agree with you. Maybe tweaking will be sufficient.

Great point. The RWR in all the aircraft was quite magical. It probably still is.

I don't think it's impossible. DCS 1.5 BETA hasn't been out long enough to say that. There may have been code changes in Combined Arms that allow for this type of mod. Be patient.

Keyboard input sampling? There is no problem if using a joystick or throttle axis.

Just this thread is killing my framerate. *Not really. I would like to see MUCH MORE attention given to smoke and dust effects* Also not just to make it look good from an aircraft which has been the only consideration up till now. It SHOULD be realistic for people at ground level in Combined Arms units. I have been testing CA in VR mode and the smoke and dust is not that good.

Well I have come around to the idea that the smoke effect is a bit overdone. Some rockets will have this BIG smoke but many of them just shouldn't. Once you start firing all the different types and also looking with the external camera you can make up your own mind. The smoke on the Combined Arms ATGMs. They are also too much in my opinion. I understand that all the visual effects in 1.5 BETA are very far from final and that ED focuses on the larger issues - this is as it should be.