vicx

What size is your monitor? The whole point of my post is to suggest that if you don't get the size right you lose the whole benefit.

Some people get it. There are easier ways to make money. Keep that in mind before you make someones job feel way too much like a job they don't want to do anymore. If you actually like DCS, a certain amount of self-interest should have you giving as much consideration to it's long-term outlook as your own short-term disappointment.

I like the Viggen and being neutral means you can fight anyone you want.

Yeah I know this was started as a joke thread but I thought it had some truth to it. 4K is a good thing to have. Still for all the hype about 4K screens I was wondering if the size of your monitor is initially more important than the resolution for enhancing your virtual eyesight in DCS ... than going straight to 4K. I have this idea that needs to proven that there is a combination of monitor size and resolution which has to be tailored to the individual where you can hunt for pixels without straining your eye sight and this will give you the greatest benefit in DCS. Basically you actually want big pixels so that you can see them BUT you don't want them to be too big because then you can't see enough of them at once. It is an interesting thing to ponder but if you are slumming it with 24" 1080P monitor or something even far more limited how would you even know what you are missing. Well I have a methodology and Nvidia DSR has helped me put it into practice because I can take perfect 4K screenshots as if I actually had a 4K monitor AND after that I can use some math and some photoshop style cropping and sampling to emulate a monitor that is different to the one you have. It is What the other guy sees. So my first series of pictures will be for people who have 1920x1080_24" monitors. I have taken a 4K image from DCS and cropped it to a 9x9 inch square of screen at a specific PPI so that it matches the same view you would get from a 55" 4K monitor sitting in the same spot as your own monitor. It doesn't give you the whole 55" it just gives you a 9x9 inch window of a 55" screen showing DCS just like it would look. OK first image. It is an animated PNG. So if you are on Chrome you need the APNG Extension for Chome/Opera/Webkit. If you are on Safari you are cool if it's a newish version. If you are on IE ... sorry. Second image shows fully zoomed in. So this is only really for people with the exact size monitor 1920x1080P 24". For other monitors it won't be correct and the 9" tape will not be 9". So maybe I could learn some javascript and make a demo that shows pictures for all types of monitors. So what do you think? Does it make you want a 4K monitor? I did this same thing to see what a 4K 85" looks like. It was not as impressive - it is perhaps because 55" is a sweet spot where the pixels are just the right size for DCS. This is just my opinion.

The Lighthouse tracking technology that will be "debuted" with the Vive will a superior solution in every metric compared to tracking solutions that are presently on the market. Lighthouse latency will be the lowest. Lighthouse accuracy and precision will be higher. Even if you aren't interested in VR you should be excited by some of the tracking technology that needed to be engineered to make VR work. In 2016 you very likely to find Lighthouse technology incorporated into tracking solutions that aren't for VR. Just to remind you what is state of the art. Lighthouse uses lasers and laser detectors and an IMU. TrackIR5 uses a webcam, some common CV techniques and a few LEDs stuck to a hat or a dongle. If Naturalpoint are smart they will already be in discussions with Valve to license Lighthouse for a Naturalpoint TrackLaser product.

Well maybe you should just make an ASTAN 80's server and then you don't have to worry about the missing A10-C. I can guarantee that if you did the job properly you wouldn't have to worry about the server being empty. Just my opinion. Save the A10-C for the ASTAN 00s server.

It seems like only people who don't have heaps of modules could disagree with the MAIN idea. The main idea as put by the OP is to have unified defaults for common controls. If someone releases a module with totally different chat functionality OF course they don't have to use the default key. Has anyone actually released a module with totally different chat functionality?

TM1-495.pdf is not something I would normally click on. Agree with dooom ... thanks for posting. So who has downloaded the entire "War Department Technical Manual" archive?

TrackIR IS A webcam based tracker. There is no IMU in the headset or any other kind of magic. TrackIR is just optical tracking of dots using a camera that is basically a web cam. TrackIR is a good package but it is a little over-priced.

The information is all over the place. ARGS (short for the programming term arguements) is how the DCS engine controls animations and sometimes configurations of the 3d model. Custom liveries come with a definition file called description.lua and custom textures if they are required. In the definition file you can modify the models default values by inserting a table called custom_args. You probably don't need to know or do anything with custom_args unless you are trying to do something unusual or not directly supported by the Mission Editor. I want to use the custom_args for a specific purpose and that is to populate airfields with unique "Static" Aircraft. In DCS at the moment bort numbers don't work properly for Statics BUT you can work around this by creating special liveries for Statics that use custom_args to force bort numbers and other values to be used. I can do this with the BF and FW because I know what the numbers for the ARGS that control the DECALS are. I can't do the same for the P51D because I don't know the numbers of the ARGS that control it's DECALS. I can probably work the args out for myself ... but I also want to see if anyone already knows them. If someone is using the args directly - they are probably working on something cool and they are persons I want to meet.

you could start here -> "... DCS World\MissionEditor\data\NewMap\classifier.lua" Start changing settings and then modify, restart and check Until you go insane. Or wait and see what DCS 1.5 brings and then try the above.

Yes it is beyond cool and why I bring this thread back to life. But I have to add some points. First point. DCS enables this via ARG based UV OFFSET applied to DECALS, which is for sure cool. Second Point - The sheer amount of customisation shown here is unique to only a few modules in DCS. P51D is one awesome example in this regard (developers get a special commendation) but perhaps there are other units that are almost as impressive but not quite as advanced as this. A-10C I would imagine has an amazing DECAL system almost as good as this. Interesting thing to note is that some Ships have ARG based UV OFFSET DECALS for unique ship names and unique ship numbers but the feature is not yet enabled in DCS. Soon I hope. Wouldn't it be great for all objects Ship, Ground Unit, Structure to have unique and customisable id/number/symbol.

It is a VERY cool idea but it needs to be more generalised for me. I will want to mark other units that aren't aircraft too. I will want markings on ships, ground units, and the statics for ALL types of units. Maybe it is too much information ... I don't know. If I had to choose between decent simulator framerate OR having unique borts on everything I would choose "better framerate". BUT if I can have both things - I want both things.

Read some great posts on this recently and found a great image posted by Whiplash I know how to set these values in the mission editor BUT what I want to do is make a custom livery that defines all these numbers and codes using ARGS. In the description.lua of a livery you can add a custom_args table and set the ARGS to match the code you want. BUT you need to know the right ARGS and for the P51D there are hundreds of them. Does anyone have a list of the the ARGS that manipulate the DECALS for numbers on the P51D? I have some args for the BF and FW that change the numbers for them but they use a much simpler and more limited system. Example for BF109 livery green. -- from Bazar\Liveries\Bf-109K-4\description.lua livery = {... as in existing green livery ...} name = "green69" countries = {GER} custom_args = { [31]=0.6,[32]=0.9}

So it is noted that tactics in DCS depart from reality and to the BIG list of things already mentioned - I will add something that is perhaps more abstract. I do not think that players are always flying the aircraft in the manner it was designed because they are not always adopting the doctrine of the power that designed it. Perhaps the doctrine and intent of the designers is way more significant than is realised. I will explain. The only country that tries to practice air superiority using almost only aircraft is the United States. This is mostly because the United States has historically been the only one to have the military industry and the desire to project air power far beyond it's borders. Other countries do not project air power like this. This makes the US air doctrine completely unique. If you want to simulate real world sorties, you might have to consider the doctrine and the actual missions you would most likely perform with your platform. I think it is obvious that the F-15s should always be an aggressor because this is how they have historically been used and statistically you can assume this will continue. The F-15 must always push, grow and control an airspace. Historically the Flankers are deployed more defensively and close to their own borders and air defenses and this is a matter of record. Statistically you would could assume this will continue also. Flankers will defend but they will flank for tactical advantage but rarely only very rarely for strategic goals. The F-15 has it's mission and the Flanker has it's mission. Same goal but not the same mission. Air Superiority might be a goal for both platforms ... but under what doctrine, and for what purpose? Without these questions considered the sorties in DCS will never look anything like what is truly likely. Everyone talks about not wanting balanced aircraft ... then why do you always seek balanced doctrines and balanced missions? It makes no sense. Asymetric aircraft - of course Asymetric mission - it follows Asymetric doctrine - as in real life

Eurofighter looks just like a Mig 1.44. I almost consider it a Russian aircraft. :smilewink:

This is good information.

USA ended up with lots red fighters during the 1990s and early 2000's some with very new equipment (thank-you ex-soviet republics) so why would it not be a US developer that could make the most modern red fighter using this source of information. USA probably also found some modern Soviet technology buried in the sand in Iraq. Want to make a modern red fighter for DCS - talk to the USAF.

I haven't tried mapping at any scale larger than a Half Life map so I admit to feeling small amounts of anxiety when I do the mental arithmetic on how many thousands of unique objects for each map and the amount of metadata wrangling required. :fear: Batou, I was looking for just one image where I could say - that doesn't look too hard. For example, Wake island ... I'd sign up for that. Everyone in this thread could handle a Wake Island level of complexity. We could make it really detailed too. I bet some lucky sod has already bagged it.

I want to develop DCS mods with Lighthouse tracking. Just started work on a proof of concept. All you have to do is imagine room size experiences that would make sense in DCS and you end up with more than a few ideas.

The last aircraft to get a cockpit will have the best cockpit made for the new engine. It is a good fate for the Mig-29.

If you visit the Russian forums you will find fans of the 50's and 60's US Navy birds. They love the planes that not many Americans have time for. It is quite interesting.

I love Helios layouts even though I don't use them anymore. I want to take all the helios panels of the Mi-8 and turn them into a big poster I can print and put on the wall. Someone did that for A-10 and it looked amazing.

Skate do you know if any if the present aircraft are having new textures made to take advantage of features in the new renderer. Or is it only new modules that might do this. Playing with the EDM exporter in Max recently I noticed that you can add heaps more texture layers to existing models than what the current modules take advantage of. I'm curious also about the existance of a layer just for ambient occlusion. - that would let you keep your diffuse clean so the renderer could use more physically based techniques.

It's amazing how cool that it is. It probably is something you don't want to send to the server - it is too much traffic for something non-essential. BUT this a use case for having a peer to peer network layer just for localised shared visual effects. If you enable it on your machine - other people who have it enabled on their machine get peer to peer traffic when they are close enough to see your head. Wow only realised how old this thread is. Cool.