vicx

When I saw what CA was offering I was quite impressed. It actually has a unique realism edge in some very important areas. The attention that is paid to the munitions is significant. Some of the surface to air missiles have AFMs and while I can't vouch for the realism of the flight and accuracy of the other munitions; at no time do they come across as unrealistic. Things are constantly improving in these areas. Other areas appear to lag in development but I see more that they are hibernating.

Frantz, have you thought about making Tacview a network client? I pose this as a Tacview 4.0 suggestion. :)

Silver Dragon I love your models and particularly the theme that you pursue with the Naval units and armament. I was so hoping you were in a team and this was sneak previews. Please backup your work in five places and continue your work. Maybe one day you will get a PM. --- Does anyone know who made the Molinya and Moskva? I love those new models.

Tacview has a map for DCS. It isn't very fancy but it works. My testing with mission environment exporting continues. ACMI is attached. This is all done in engine except for the interleaving of tacview logs from mission and export env. Tacview-20150203-032252-DCS.txt.acmi.zip

Chrom hope the new idea has panned out. You might have to use ugly hacks but what you want to do IS possible. The players won't care how you did it. Anyway that code I shared with you for exporting scenery and static objects to Tacview will need some review. I found that the orientation of scenery was not what I was expecting. I had errors until I (rotated the object by 90 degrees and then applied NorthCorrection ). Happy to have gone from crooked bridges to straight bridges. This is going to be a big deal. Tacview supports 3D objects in *.obj format. So we could start replacing some of the HITBOXES for strategic scenery and statics with meshes that look more like the real deal. Tacview playbacks are going to be really powerful once we get this ball rolling. *Note Working on moving trains - where there is a will there is a way.

Settle down lads. The boats in DCS don't even let you tell them where to go half the time. Try giving them a target and they won't engage it. This is the most basic functionality and it isn't working too well. The new Molinya and Moskva look pretty nice but they certainly don't like taking orders. They make nice looking targets is the truth of it.

Pretty good idea for a template Z and nice execution on combining mods. Combining mods is a lot of of work sometimes.

There will be more than one way to do what you want to do. What is you want to do?

Ian I just tested this quickly so it will need to be confirmed by someone else. --- For objects returned via World.searchObjects() In the case of search by type Object.Category.SCENERY object:getTypeName() is valid object:getName() is valid object.id_ is valid object:getName() == object.id_ true object:getID() is invalid sample - getTypeName=UKRYTIE, getName=280148, _id=280148 --- In the case of search by type Object.Category.STATIC object:getTypeName() is valid object:getName() is valid object.id_ is valid object:getName() == object.id_ false object:getID() is valid object:getID() == object.id_ false getTypeName=Barracks 2, getName=barstat, id_=8000987, getID=85 There may be unusual statics and scenery that have missing fields but I haven't noted them yet.

Truly the tool will unleash some wonderful powers but not all of those powers are appropriate for pilots to receive in real-time. For people in other roles, real-time visualization will be absolutely valid and be invaluable. Think admins, mission designers, trainers and such. Ideally the gods-eye Tacview feed would only be recorded on the server BUT made available 'in real-time' to Tacview clients who have a Tacview feed password for that server. The password would be there to allow clients who are supposed to have the real-time gods-eye view to have it. Without a password; Pilots on a PVP server would just have to wait for a delayed feed or wait for a post-mission recording (the gods-eye view recorded and saved to a file). The file can be made available via any kind of mechanism. It could be sent automatically to the TV client or put on a webpage. It don't think it is a good idea to allow real-time Tacview feeds available to pilots.

Chrom, OK I see. :thumbup: Right now if you want I can share some LUA which is only a partial solution. Up till now my only goal was to explore the idea of what new visualizations could be made from data exported from the "mission scripting' environment in addition to the "export" environment. I just had an idea and wanted to test it. It turns out that both environments have interesting data of their own so that the key to creating new visualizations in Tacview relies on interleaving data as it is recorded from each source or to post-process two separate logs and match up object ID's and timestamps. This matching up looks like it can be done without too much trouble. Truly. For my own explorations I have been happy to manually interleave limited amounts of data instead of writing my own parsing tool but I have thought recently of making a parser so that I can do much more ambitious demos. Once you connect the data from a 'mission' LUA environment to a polished viz tool like Tacview many interesting things are possible. (I do know that Ian has ideas above and beyond visualization for using 'mission data' in external apps and we get closer with the help of his tools) I have mentioned in the Tacview thread and to Frantz in a PM that for a really cool Tacview debrief we really need objects that can be customised. I would like to define objects for explosions that allow me to display the size of blast-cloud that matches the explosivemass of a warhead and an object for a building that displays labels. If objects are custom then extensions can be custom. A new building type could have a child object smoke cloud that emits based on the damage status of it's parent. You see the idea. Anyway Frantz is working right now on a Tacview 2.0 BIG update and he is inviting suggestions. Imagine it, draw a picture in paint dot net and post it to the Tacview 2.0 thread. Also I think that object:getName() and object.id_ may both have a use. Ian or Grimes may know of the cases.

Interesting premise. I have the Mi-8 but not Huey but perhaps I can see what can be done with the cargo cam.

Chrom, that picture is only days old. This picture and others like it I have been posting to a Tacview thread. It is fitting that Ian AND Grimes answered your question promptly. I run DCS Witchcraft at all times AND I use MIST so they both help me all the time. Note. I used object.id_ notation as per Grimes post. As for how I export 3D objects, I'll neaten up the LUA and post it later. Bascially I use userhitbox information IF it is available or export a 1x1x1 cube. I have not compiled a list of which objects have and do not have available a userhitbox but this gives me an idea for a visualisation which will show this pretty quickly. I think visually so I see Tacview as having a lot of potential as a tool for mission scripting. I am in PM's with Vyrt about generalising some features in future versions of Tacview to allow for more customised visualizations. If any you have ideas for features that can help DCS mission makers or modders then perhaps we could start a thread 'Tacview for scripting' and work on this.

You can. And you can even export them to Tacview.

OK this will be the last couple of images for a little while. This is a test of something I wanted visualised, which is bombs that miss targets still making a boom. There are only two objects in Tacview which are spheroids/domes which can look like good candidates for impacts. <ObjectType>58 Smoke Grenade and <ObjectType>E0 Explosion/Flak I tried<ObjectType>58 Smoke first. Strangely these ones fade into sight before they actually spawn. You get smoke appearing where the bomb will hit BUT The animation of the smoke expanding is nice effect. It would be great if the size and rate of expansion was configurable. The bigger the boom the longer it should take to expand to full size. Also this <ObjectType> can't take a label which is shame because I might want to show some stats in a label. Like how much hitpoint damage it did to surrounding objects (if any). This last image uses <ObjectType>E0 Explosion. It appears instantly instead of fading up BUT there is no expanding animation. A hit and a miss. I think I would like something that is bit of 58 and bit of E0. I have discussed with Frantz via PM what I'd like to see in Tacview; which is a way to make my own <ObjectType> with it's own properties. Still there has to be defaults and that is something that people here in this thread might have some ideas about. Most of the images I have posted have been in my area of interest which is Combined Arms. If anyone wants to see if there is a way to visualize something of interest to them I might take a request. Maybe you could supply me with a trk.

Yeah sorry Crumpp. I wasn't jumping on you. It is just that the whole aircraft visibility thing is debate still raging elsewhere on these forums. I have noticed that making it a technical discussion with all the information out front can take away a lot of the heat. You use a 1080P 27" display, that might be an average display, maybe even the type of display that ED uses as their baseline. Now some guys using very large 4K TV's have mentioned that they can see enemy aircraft at ranges far better than what you can do in real life. This is not just technically feasible it is technically inevitable for some types of display and the DCS engine in it's current form. You can do the math if you want but it isn't necessary. Just consider the arc minutes the display takes up in your view and if it is larger than the arc minutes being covered virtually you are effectively zoomed in even if zoom is not activated in the game. The higher the resolution you have the greater the benefit of the zoom depending on the size of the objects you want to see. Sorry for the digression. Back to the Skies of Normandy :) I think they will be populated but I'm also interested in the fields and roads of Normandy. It's not just going to be fighters vs fighters is it? Won't there be bombers to escort and targets for the bombers to hit?

It is disingenuous to make theses statements without disclosing what you are running with. "Fine for me" is just an empty statement without qualifying remarks and it doesn't take much effort to include those remarks. Just say - Fine for me (1x1080P,27",TIR) [Number of monitors, Res of monitors, Size of monitors and TIR(true/false)] It makes a difference to include this useful shorthand. People can see under what conditions you think it is FINE and they know you aren't someone who uses a 55" TV as a monitor so that his old eyes can actually see the damned little dots while telling everyone else to "harden up". It takes no extra effort at all to include your setup EACH time you make the "fine for me" remark and it gives your remark some credibility which it totally lacks otherwise. It takes no effort and improves the quality of the conversation.

On my server y'all would get an F-15A from 1972 and an SU-27 as depicted in Hollywood movies and I would harvest your tears for an exclusive bottled water brand called "Simmers Tears".

Well this interesting. Does this mean there is going to be a Battle of the Beams. Searching for Battle of the Beams will probably offer up the most "enthusiast" driven material on the subject matter you are looking for ... at least in the English language.

Example of exporting Statics and Scenery from DCS into Tacview. You can also export hitpoints and maybe some other interesting things which is what I was doing here - tracking the health of the Barrack as an AI Tu-22 executed a strike mission (with the wrong loadout). It was deliberate. This would be a better example with more colors and labels it is OK. Just viewing the playback of this I was thinking it would be much better if bombs and missiles that do not strike objects to perhaps explode on impact with the ground. If the explosions were scaled with the explosivemass of the ordinance (available via LUA) then you would be able to see why some objects took damage and other objects did not. This one is just the same with more scenery exported. It looks good and gives a good sense of scale even with pink buildings. If you use auto-scale with this scenery in the view it looks terrible- the units are waaay to big. OK enough with my complaints with Tacview auto-scale. Tacview is a great tool - already it allows for a lot of cool things. Wouldn't it be nice if we could stamp roads and train-lines onto the Tacview terrain too. Unfortunately I do not know how to do this.

I meant high resolution ground mesh would be my favorite feature in POST DCS 2.0/EDGE maps. Now it would be so awesome if ED made the old map sources available to a qualified and enthusiastic group to upgrade gratis. Yeah get the group to sign NDA on the tools whatever it takes to get the old map EDGIFIED. Bohemia made all their Arma2 maps available under a license that allowed modders to edit and make available derivatives BUT only for Arma3. All the old Arma maps are now appearing in wonderful shiny new forms. For DCS a tiny map with a portion of South Ossetia would be interesting. People have been doing that with the Arma maps. Some have been making micro-maps and filling them full of detail. It is interesting to track even though I haven't logged into play for a while.

High resolution ground mesh is going to be the best feature. All the new objects, effects, and props will be lovely but smoothing out the pyramids will make a huge difference.

Shag, I agree with you so I hope I'm not being admonished. Thing is that on my pc at least the first page of this thread is about Migs, which is funny. People were waiting for a Mig-23 and a Mig-27 first. Maybe they should get their planes first - being first in line and all.

I don't know how these threads work but maybe the poll was added after the thread was well underway.

Radical idea. You buy a license of mig-21 but ... License is for one plane. You crash it, it's gone. You ruin the mechanical from over driving it, it's gone. You get shot down it's gone. Still very affordable compared to the real thing and simulation of a crew chief is not required, You will kick yourself up the ass each time you have to buy a new license.