vicx

If you followed the link I provided you would read the discussion about how the AI F-86 has been given the radar system of an AI Mig-23 instead of his own radar. This gives him extra capabilities that he should not have. This is why I said maybe the module is still in BETA but in this case it's the AI F-86 module that lags behind rather than the module that humans get to fly.

Really interested in the missions. Sold!

Cool thanks for that Joey. I really wanted to use 1 millimeter as my System Unit but it looks like using centimeters and a 100:1 export setting is what will work.

Grunf, I loookd into this last year. I'll share what I found. Most of AI aircraft need enhanced abilities to stop them from being easy meat. This is a generally a good idea. It used to be that all the AI aircraft had something called "Abstract RWR" (which is a generalised RWR element probably introduced in the Lockon era) for detecting threats. This was a good technique for making AI aircraft smarter because all modern aircraft are expected to have a RWR. With the introduction of WW2 and Korean era aircraft the DCS engine can't rely on every aircraft having an RWR. So the old method for making the AI smarter can't be used. Initially the F-86 was introduced with Abstract-RWR sensor enabled even though it shouldn't have one. This got disabled in an update but the F-86 still has a radar . Keep in mind that F-86 is still a beta module receiving updates. Don't have time to see if this is where the extra detection range comes from. It can;t be assumed because there is also a value called detection_range_max = 30 in the f-86 and Mig-15 definitions. This value probably applies to sensors defined in Sensors{} where the value of 30 is used as an AI helper. I looked at F-86.lua and Mig-15bis.lua in Coremods and only the F-86 has a sensor listed in Sensors{}. This might be bad news for the Mig-15 - making him dumber than other AI aircraft. TLDR In my opinion if you want a smarter Mig - enable the Abstract RWR. If you want a dumber F-86 try changing the detection_range_max and see what happens.

I get your point - I have exaggerated. Still your second point is spot on. We fall back on mission design as a tool because it's the only one we have to change the sim. Mission designers put a lot of SAM in a mission not for realism but mostly to change the behaviours of online players. It is probably the right thing to do for online PVP.

Yes this was my main question but I liked all the comments in this thread. I think that it is the lack of risk to get the reward that is the problem I have with the extreme low flying in DCS. Flying low through mountains the risk should multiply as you get lower. Elements are only partially in your control. The main problem is with the geometry. At some point the geometry becomes predictable and is easy to fly very low. This is why in DCS at the moment there is no difference in risk to flying at 100m or flying at 5m. Here I will I present a crazy idea. I would not be against an RNG feature that throws up trees, rock outcrops and geological features in front of you when you are below 100m - even thought it might not be perfect simulation. I have a theory that when the simulation does not challenge us sufficiently, this is when we need the RNG to be the stick, so that people aren't chasing carrots all the time. Carrot vs Stick.

I know that the EDM exporter expects units to be in Metres but for some reason I need more more precision than 1 metre units as the System Unit when I'm drawing shapes. Example of this "precision problem" is not being able to draw small shapes? Still don't know why I can't draw small circles when the system Unit is 1 metre. What is a best practice and a good solution for getting the required precision and also satisfying the unit size expected by the EDM exporter? I am talking about cockpit and small vehicle size work.

That does not look like an engine fire.

Oculus Rift CV1 i HTC Vive : 1080x1200 po oku

Yeah I'm trying to sound solid on my plan to wait for Samsungs first VR flagship HMD and an Nvidia Pascal card to power it, BUT we'll see what happens as the hype train for the first gen really gets going.

I personally think that Valve's Lighthouse tech is really exciting. I'm a fan of VR (I have a DK2) but the potential applications for Lighthouse go far beyond VR and for me that makes Lighthouse a bigger deal than the HMD it comes with. Lighthouse makes robotic navigation in the home almost solved. It's a cheap system to build, gives you a tonne of performance, and it does this without a lot of effort required. Cheap, powerful and easy - it's the exact combination you want in a technology. Someone shared a comment Alan Yates made on what you could do using the lighthouse system with just one optical detector. You don't get an attitude but you still get sub-mm position with just the sweep timing from two lighthouse stations. That is just cool. And then if you stick two or more on a known geometry then you get the full track. And the more you add after that ... the more you avoid occlusion issues. It is just so simple. I really hope they end up selling thumbnail size, flexible printed circuits with tiny batteries that you stick on anything you want to track, it would bust things wide open. --- Occulus HMD vs the Vive HMD? I'm gonna say that being an early adopter is probably gonna hurt. I really think the second gen products will come out sooner than anyone predicts. When will Samsung announce it's premium VR product with 4x Moar pixels per eye than anyone else.

The C-101 cockpit has a lot of charm - it has a cool cockpit in my opinion. I also enjoy that the version in the current module doesn't have a HUD or gunsight - so you can just look out through the front of the canopy an enjoy the view - which is a novelty for a jet in DCS. This is quite a chilled out jet amongst all the straight up murdering machines in the game. It is good to have just for that unique aspect. I still don't have the Mig-15 but I decided not worry about it. If I wanted to go online and shoot at people right now, I would totally get the Mig-15 and then go online and shoot really big bullets at people. I think there's more to the module - but that is what I will want to do with it when the time comes.

Sorry BUT I think it's going to look totally amazing and next-gen. I've just seen some of the work of the new hire for LN and his work looks sick. Sick as in awesome.

*EDIT* I'm using the standalone modelviewer and I think it does things a little differently. I don't know why maxfps isn't working but I've decided to look into it sometime in the future when I am in the mood to play with Lua.

Pretty sure I did the same thing [FSF]Ian. I'm sure I tested this last year and it didn't work. I really did think that 1.5 was going to come out a lot sooner and even though I said STOP waiting for 1.5 to come out guys. I actually stopped doing a lot of experiments with CA scripting and waited for 1.5 to come out. :music_whistling: One script in particular is something I was going to return to if the CA unit AI in 1.5 was not much improved. I wrote a script that allows an AI unit to target and track enemy units with it's turret but to hold fire at the same time. Normally putting an AI unit into HOLD FIRE means that the unit stops tracking targets altogether and goes into a very dumb form of sleep. It then takes a tactically significant amount of time for the AI unit to powerup and rotate the turret onto the enemy target you want engaged. The script I wrote made going from HOLD to FIRE almost instant which made ambush attacks work a lot better. So Vandal I am glad you are into CA and testing this stuff. It's good to know this is working. Looks like everyone who has posted in this thread is in the Combined Arms Mafia. We almost got a team here.

You had an entire 300+ post thread to argue about this in. Why you gotta bring it up again. I was glad when the conversation was done on this and it was decided to put into EDGE as an option. Curious to me why you would want to call someone using this feature a cheat? In this community we got some people with small laptop size monitors and other people with 4K wall size monitors. Noone is running around calling people with big monitors cheats - instead they focused on 'more positive ways to improve the experience for people with average hardware. Spotting is usability feature for people who have average hardware. People who have HUGE 4K monitors won't get any extra benefit from larger 'spots'. People who don't have HUGE 4K monitors get to spot something that would have been totally invisible to them before. If anything it brings a parity to the 'spotting' experience - "for everyone". I'm gonna be on this like a broken record if I have to. Sourcery :smilewink:

Well the sights in the Russian CA vehicles are being constantly improved. The only reason that vehicles from other countries aren't receiving the same attention probably comes down to a lack of reference material. If you go the info - share it with ED.

This is a good idea and I think a model pack already has a placeable tree in it. If someone can remember which mod has the tree fortification EDM in it - point Stratos to it.

Modelviewer on my PC runs at 240+ fps and makes my GPU run at 100% and the GPU fan ramps up to very high speed and the noise it makes is ridiculous. I don't need that all noise when I just want to check some stuff in the modelviewer. Nvidia actually had a frame-rate limiter built into the driver interface but at some point it got removed. However today I got so sick of the fan noise that I went looking for, and found, a tool that restores the framerate limiter setting. Nvidia Inspector lets you limit the framerate in lots of different ways but I just lock it to 60. Screenshot shows how to set the right value and how that locks the framerate in modelviewer and stops the GPU working so hard.

I'm interested in Texturing the hell out of these models in Substance Painter. Does anyone want to Mudbox the hell out of these to create the high-poly shells for baking the normal and curvature maps?

I was able to get the view for this mod oriented properly. I ended up using a LUA unit definition command which isn't used in DCS unit definitions since binding to connectors became the better solution. Proof of concept is attached. OD_EXA.lua Instead of binding elements to a connector which is not oriented properly you can can bind elements to a set of co-ordinates using a .pos parameter. So instead of GT.WS[ws].connector_name = 'CENTER_TOWER'' use GT.WS[ws].pos = {x, y, z }; GT.WS[ws].LN[1].BR[1].connector_name = 'POINT_GUN' GT.WS[ws].LN[1].BR[1].pos = { x, y, z }; then adjust so that it matches up nicely GT.WS[ws].LN[1].customViewPoint = { "genericAAA", {x,y,z}, }; This is not a perfect solution because wonky models are still wonky models. Modding the desired RG31 MRAP was irritating because the gun is not aligned perfectly with the turret - perhaps a a feature of the actual vehicle in real life? I spent a lot of time trying to get a proper ironsight working (trying a lot tricks I won't go into in this post) but I wasn't happy with the results. To get the x,y,z co-ordinates (if you don't have original 3dmax source) use the modelviewer and turn on grid, turn on orthographic, take screenshot of TOP view, take screenshot of LEFT view. Scale in image editor so that 1m = 100 pixels. Count pixels from point to point.

Not sure if this is a bug or just a limitation of the T-72B So when you fire the last of the pre-loaded three SVIR 9M119 rockets - an automatic reloading sequence starts that cannot be interupted. While the reloading sequence is counting down you can't switch to fire the main cannon OR the co-axial MG. Bug, Combined Arms limitation, or feature?

Long before this thread - I had already assumed that the only data you can rely on regarding combat records is the secret record of LOSSES that a country records during a conflict so that their own war machine can respond. Some of the kills claimed by Soviet fighters were Australian so I will add this data point. I have previously read about Australia's contribution to the Korean Air War and I went again to refresh memory. The short story is that the first Australian squad in Korea were flying Meteors against Migs and they did not do well. They lost a couple and would have lost more aircraft and pilots if the outmatched Meteor was more fragile. They picked fights, got beat up, but made it back. The accounts of these flights are not very authoritative but claim one Mig and four Meteor losses. So the Australians in Meteors were retasked to ground attack and overall they lost 37 pilots and had 7 captured. They lost 54 out of 90 Meteors. Pilot accounts say that most losses were from AA and accidents. Interview and Re-collection of a Australian pilot recruit in Korea http://australiarussia.com/geoffrey_lushey.htm Lot of interesting outbound links from this page http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/MEGGS_BIO.html One short story from the POV of US infantry about the effectiveness of Australian Mustang CAS sorties until Chinese Migs required their retirement in favour of jets. Aust Govt record of Australian involvement in the Korean Air War http://korean-war.commemoration.gov.au/stalemate-in-korean-war-1952-1953/migs-versus-meteors.php

Aburro I kind of agree with you here. Arma has the most awesome content I have ever seen in a game/sim. The quality and vast amount and range of it is amazing. It does seem that with Arma right now the biggest problem is getting people to play the same game. Still maybe in the long term the Bohemia approach of creating an open market in content will get sorted out --- it is too early to say. Content in Arma is like libertarian capitalism, a messy chaotic system for users, you have to embrace the madness of choice. Content in DCS is more like a state controlled system. For the users it is more sedate but like in the Soviet system there is lot of waiting. We queue in the forum for glimpse of new module in shop window. Is there a new map comrade? It is just like this. But I think it is OK to have two different systems like this. There is no color revolution required for DCS. Let DCS be the Soviet style. You would agree? :thumbup:

Yes gamers and real pilots use every advantage because it is in our nature. This video posted by Primal shows something never would happen in DCS. The profile of the ridge looks OK but the ridge is uneven and a random outcrop with a tree on it catches out the pilot in the F-16. So is clear that in the real world the randomness of terrain creates much more risk for low flying. My question is. Would more random terrain in DCS would make flying low harder and make the game better. I'm not talking about things that only affect look ... I talk about terrain features that can explode your plane or give you a near death experience like the pilot of the F-16. Before watching the F-16 video I thought maybe it does not matter if DCS has trees you can fly though and that there are no randomness in the mountain ridge. After watching the F-16 video I think it does matter.