vicx

Pretty sure the self shadowing on the land in NTTR is pre-computed. Wags mentioned in a video that there are four shadow maps for four different parts of the day. This is a pretty smart way to do it but whether pre-computed shadow maps can be made for the Caucaus map was not mentioned.

Cross-post from Russian thread on MAKS 2015. Baltic Bees Aerobatic display team. Nice skills.

Well there are ways but you might have to blaze your own path because your use is for now unique to yourself. You can have some control over the F1 HUD canvas in DCS ... you must learn LUA and the interface is a little esoteric, but if you are motivated ...

I looked into this a year and half ago. I can't remember what I found, only that I didn't find the specific information I was looking for. Hopefully if someone has an answer they can post it here BUT otherwise I can suggest you try using software that Ian[FSF] has made that lets you explore things and find your own answers. Look in these threads for DCS Witchcraft and read back all the posts by Ian that give clues on how it's best use.

Great video! Thanks pr1mal. That is what I was looking for. *edit* Just watched the F-16 video ... wow it seems like he takes forever to hit those trees after lining them up but on second view that tree is on a rocky outcrop and it does stick out a bit from the ridge outline. Interesting ... *edit* That first video shows that the flying techniques are the same in principle. The digital flying for the most part is more extreme due to the "no respawns" in real life idea that Rage mentioned. It seems like adding extra geometry to the mountains in DCS would increase the height that people fly by a small factor (20-40m on average maybe) and take a few more scalps. I think it would change the player experience in subtle way. Only a small thing but adding some extra randomness. So overall mission design and server settings are much more important but maybe enhancements to the terrain add some extra elements that you have to account for. I think for online fighters - a dedicated linux server (on the DCS roadmap after version 2.0 is released) and enhancements to mission scripting for multi-player purposes are more important than new maps but maybe higher detailed terrain will turn out to be interesting.

Gibb. Try inverting the gloss map and see what happens. Even though it's a Gloss channel it might performing opposite to what you think in DCS - more of a roughness map. Update - Gibb, when I responded to this thread I didn't notice that you asked about WHERE you attach the Roughness map to the material. I don't think Joey is wrong about the Gloss channel being an option, I was using the Green component of the Specular Channel as a Roughness channel and I was getting a reliable outcome so I've been doing that. I'm not a fan of the specular configuration in DCS but other people have worked with it and done great work with it so ... it isn't the tools. I am going from dabbling with the EDM tools to trying to understand how to make DCS texture sets for models which are as visually impressive and feature rich as they can be. Having a deeper look at the EDM plugin for Max has given me more ideas on what features are supported by the plugin and what is expected as input. Of course I am talking about the publicly available EDM tools ... I do not know if Edge comes with new tools and texturing features.

Well the videos I watched, the fighters were doing this where SAMs were not involved at all. It is just the technique I saw being used for air to air combat.

Morkva_55, we shouldn't hijack this thread to talk about your mods. Will you make a new thread to talk about them? I would post my questions in it.

I don't dogfight online but recently I am watching a lot of videos on youtube of action from DCS multplayer servers. It seems to be that the jets pop up in the mountains, get lock, fire and then it gets silly. Jets start flying defensive but in a very unrealistic "looking" fashion. They do CRAZY angles over the terrain, scrape paint on polygons and flying inverted with less than 5m metres of clearance over peaks into 45 degree inverted dives into very short valleys on the other side. I know that in real life pilots would use the terrain BUT would they they do it like it is done in DCS. Or has the simple triangle terrain in DCS created this wacky style of flying which doesn't exist IRL. Triangle shaped mountains don't have much variation which means the angles are fairly simple and predictable to fly which leads to quite unrealistic forms of terrain hugging. Agree or disagree? Or is that that the speed of the aircraft is such that adding more detailed geometry would not change the angles much at all. What would happen if you added more geometry to mountains. If there were subpeaks, spurs, ridges, rocky outcrops, hillocks and valleys with more twists; would people still be flying the same angles?

This a thousand times. It is easy to get carried away and ask for many features to instantly turn the flight sim into the ultimate land sea air sim but first there are many basic things to work on that would add a lot and build the functionality in a logical progression. First the most basic thing to get working before even to consider the rest. Can I walk to my plane and get in?

:) I'd say it has everything to do with ones personal philosophy. I DO understand why people might want to populate the sim with common configurations BUT you better believe I want to fly a rare bird. Another way to put it ... everyone else can have white bread, but I want a donut. This is pretty easy to understand. I DO think it is best that most modules use common configurations but I'm certainly not against modules that might be rare, unusual or prototypes. I think most developers take a more prosaic approach. What aircraft configuration do they have the best data for. That's the one they make. P.S A lot of players are against the idea of dedicated interceptors in DCS but that rules out a lot of awesome Russian aircraft because their defensive doctrine was very focused on this. All the jet age interceptors are fascinating to me. Su-15 Flagon I always liked but it was VERY specialised; made to intercept nuke bombers over vast distance and not much else. Compared to Flagon, Mig-25 is a more practical choice. I agree that Mig-25 would be a great module.

I thought it would be that this unit is not an artillery unit. You should be able to change this in the LUA definitions though.

NICE video McBlemmen. Stylish in every way and what a view, the 360 really adds a LOT. I was enjoying the view and looking around and then I decided to look all the way back and got a bit of shock because I didn't realise I was sitting in some guys lap. So it's not quite a pilots eye view - more like being a head on stick being held by the guy in a two seater not flying the plane but ... it is awesome. Also ... now want an F5 and Swiss Mountains in DCS.

If DCS 1.5 Beta doesn't launch with Directmode DK2 Rift support then I'll actually install the copy of FSX Steam Edition that I bought.

In my opinion this is a good idea. It is great to have singular DCS modules with very high levels of modelling BUT a very significant thing missing from DCS is cohesive parts. FC3 was cohesive and that made it a great module. The idea of having a module that bundles a lower tier of modelled aircraft with some combined arms units and maybe even a map would be a great way to get more cohesive simulated sorties and missions into DCS. You can always improve the fidelity afterwards which is being proven with the upgrade of FC3 aircraft.

Batman's JASSM.

Jacko, Wait for DCS 1.5 BETA coming some time in September. It "might" have better support for Rift. Better to wait and see what it brings than try and get the Rift working in the current DCS engine.

Tovivan I was admiring that model in the Modelviewer the other day. You are right that it is very nicely made. I do spend time flying but I enjoy playing with my 1:1 model aircraft in DCS too. I would love the ability to script an airport environment and have many things going on. Most of the models have the animation args ready to go for this kind of thing. Hopefully the new editor will open up this type of feature to be added in the future. Yes it would be great to fly in a simulated Il-76 but I think that is a very long term vision.

Steve65 thanks for the tip on the Janes Book. Shooting down "Tomahawk Cruise Missiles" from the Amazon blurb ... interesting mission idea.

Unofficially less than two weeks until 1.5 BETA. :thumbup: I am happy in every way with how things are being rolled out. I am glad ED decided on a 1.5 BETA release and looking forward to digging into documented and undocumented features. Just hope that everyone knows what to expect from a Beta.

I like to fly simulators and I don't ever think to fly the real thing BUT looking at the link from AlphaOneSix, that is place I would like to go. I would love to see all the engines laid out like that and learn a bit about them and fly the simulator. Finest Mi-17 simulator in the world is in Alabama. Go back in time and predict that! It would be a great thing to learn the engines AND fly the machine. If only we could have many lives. --- Terence, he just jokes. We know that the French make high quality things but they do not send the good things to Italy. Jokes aside it is impressive that France makes cars, choppers, aircraft, and yes even carriers. French do have a new reputation in this regard. If the carrier doesn't melt ... Russia must wait until it is re-made out of melting material :hehe:

For people who are unsure how you might bring physical cockpit controls into VR - this is how you bring something into VR. Pro tip :idiot: You put a tracking dongle on it.

Well it's curious to me that so many people are happy with something this primitive and basic. No insult intended to inSky I'm sure he knows it's pretty simple stuff. I just think maybe ED should take notice that something only a little better than this will please many people. What? :idiot: How long has this been possible. Little animated man climbs in Mi8, Huey?

Oculus has more than one product. Yes they work on the Rift and it's peripherals but one of the smartest guys in their team (JC) works exclusively on GearVR. GearVR will reach for applications that are less gamelike and because it has extra resolution over the Rift and is untethered it will make for a very compelling platform for watching media of all kinds.

Hmm this FW-200 information has put the cat amongst the pigeons. And by Cat I mean Catapult. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship The other aircraft will be a FW-200 and a Hawker Hurricane which will come with a ship with a rocket powered launched system. Purest of speculation. :detective_2: