vicx

Well actually the M1 collision model IS ready to use. When I say "collision model" I mean the geometry (hitbox or mesh) . For the M1 this is m-1-collision.edm. In this video (sorry no sound) I used the M-1.edm and m-1-collision.edm in a SHIP definition (which is why the tank floats up and down). I defined damage areas in a GT.DM attribute as explained in the OP. You can see that I mapped BODY_FRONT collision region to the model animation argument that rotates the turret. When I shoot the front it rotates the turret. Once the hitpoints for the DM area are depleted a fire and smoke effect is spawned. It works but this implementation doesn't offer as much as it could. I am curious as to how the damage model will be implemented into CA vehicles in the future. Will it be implemented like aircraft or like ships or will there be a new system for DCS 2.0.

I love Tacview but even this new version I went looking for the preferences panel and then went looking for the tacview.cfg file and of course there is not one these either. And it is because I just want to be able to modify some settings. Don't misunderstand me. A complicated UI is not my desire, I would be completely happy to hand edit xml. I want to be able to turn labels on and off for certain types of units. There probably isn't a default setting that will satisfy my requirements ... sometimes I want only one unit to be labeled, other times I want only a certain type and other times no labels. I like the idea of auto-scaling of unit meshes but I am rarely happy with the actual scaling done. I would love to tweak the settings. Longer trails you mentioned. Of course if this were configurable in an XML file, all the better. Configurable transparency and colors for all radar emissions. Yes the more I consider it the more the list grows. === This new version runs fine for me. There are no bugs that I have observed so far. :thumbup: I must agree with others that Tacview is a must have tool. Thanks for your work.

My fail to google first, was just guessing on how they named it. Named after a place is better than being named after a politician, much better actually.

NW, I think Area Life is the HP for a component, at least for ships. I didn't get this component damage system working with the M1 but I might have made a silly mistake somewhere OR it isn't possible because this component DM is only supported in wsType_Ship OR I didn't find the workaround. For wsType_Ground,wsType_Tank (which is most ground things |tank or not|) there are some attributes defined in DCS World\Scripts\Database\scripts\GT_t.lua for an armor_scheme But this gives me an idea to try. I did comment out the armour scheme but I will change the vehicle type to something other than a tank or an IFV next time. The armour scheme looks like it might entirely replace the collision model and use a basic hitbox and approximate armor by dividing the box into aspects and angles. The aspects are hull_elevation, hull_azimuth, turret_elevation, and turret_azimuth. The angles equate to front, sides and back | front, top, back. It probably does a decent job but it might replace the component damage model. Most of the ground vehicles have a simpler collision model like the Shilka which has chassis, turret and gun.

Earlier this week I was looking at collision models for CA units. It turns out most CA units have a basic collision model which has a chassis, turret and gun component. I was interested. Did this mean that guns and turrets could be disabled independently of the chassis or at the very least we could script a little more visual variety in the way that things smoke and burn when damaged. Maybe. It actually turns out this already in the game for ground units. Fire and smoke effects can be localized and scaled to match the damage taken by collision models for Naval ships. Naval ships are considered a type of ground unit in DCS. The Perry collision model has regions for front and rear tower, three turrets, the comm tower and portions of the hull. How the damage is to regions is calculated and displayed as fire and smoke is configured in the units lua file. Snipped from DCS World\Scripts\Database\navy\blue\oliver_hazard_perry.lua -- Oliver Perry FFG-7CL (OLIVER HAZARD PERRY Class Frigate) FFG-7 - FF-61 ... GT.DM = { { area_name = "TPK", area_arg = 109, area_life = 26, area_fire = { pos = {38.53, 7.49,0.0}, size = 1.0}}, } This is the SAM turret "TPK" taking critical damage. OK Ships have this cool feature; what about Tanks. This is the collision model for the M1. It has the most detailed collision model for all ground units which are not ships ... BUT ... it does not work like the ships. I couldn't get it working. Perhaps someone else can try and make DM work with the M1. GT.DM = { { area_name = "gun", area_arg = 25, area_life= 1, area_fire = { pos = {-0.11,2.73,0.49}, size = 0.3}}, } You might find the other attributes and types required to make it work. I will try and make it work as a type ship next. I think this will prove to be the requirement.

I keep finding stuff. I should just go pro and learn how to diff the whole install. Russian tanks have new configuration attributes for crew. -- Crew GT.CR = {}; GT.CR.locale = "RUS"; local cr = 1; GT.CR[cr] = {}; GT.CR[cr].type = 1; -- Gunner; My guess is that this is to support crew speech but I hope it is a more generalized model. What are the other types??

Wow. There is chaff and then there is filling the sky with metal. I would assume that standard fighter chaff countermeasures are not going to look like that. Also are you sure that was jamming at 20:12. Maybe someone was heating up their lunch in the microwave oven.

Since ED stopped overwriting mods and instead moved them into backup directories; there has been an explosion of "bug" reports which are due to old mods not being compatible with new versions of DCS. Like me you might have a bunch of folders _backup.001 _backup.002 _backup.003 _backup.004 Move those out of your DCS folder. Problems might be be fixed. YMMV.

Last month, I spent days trying to get kneeboard working for CA vehicles. ED, Please add kneeboard support to vehicles.

Ah I hope this fixes a problem I have. I am trying to attach a GT.customview or GT.driverview to to a ship but it doesn't work for ships. For all other ground types (fortification, static, etc) it does work, which is why it was curious not to work only for ship types.

What Fru posted has been mentioned so often it should be stickied.

The smoke would be effective but I think the mirror would explode into a thousand molten pieces. Yeah and Ponce. They should have used General Ponces nickname instead. USS Girly Man.

Keep seeing the F-35 mentioned as the last US made human-in-actual-airframe airborne strike platform. Supersonic drones from now on?

So there are lot of things that an aircraft flying right over a ship could do that it couldn't do at stand off distances. I'm not even a electronic warfare specialist or any kind of warfare specialist and I can think up some potential hacks. You don't have to shut down the Aegis system to cause trouble for EW operators. You culd spoof threats that aren't really there. That would be elementary for a Russian EW aircraft to do. Make the Aegis system think there are a hundred incoming anti-ship missiles Or if you have actually done some real super-spying you might be able to use a zero-day cheap hack and spoof some exotic Aegis system element. Make the Aegis think that someone (not them) has launched a harpoon. This might have been unnerving to EW operators NOT because spoofing is unexpected but because the Russians had done something pretty agressive without any warning. I do think something probably happened. If a Russian boat was in the gulf of texas you would expect the US to do something special too. We won't find out what it was until someone blabs. :drunk: Also ... EW officers may well have been taken off the ship afterwards for a debrief by naval intelligence to make sure noone blabs :censored: Cmon somebody, blab already, we want the details.

+1 Yurgon Great post. On this forum we should be interested in the details not in the silly stuff you can get on any average news site. I have to agree with RIPTIDE and what seems the most note worthy element of the incident. A very old SAM knocking out a strike missile. How did they do that?

I had to use standalone version of modelviewer to see collision models. It is quite interesting. Some of the AI aircraft have amazing collision models, others are fairly simple. Half the CA vehicles have collision regions for turret, gun and chassis. Not supported in CA code as far as I know. M-1 tank has edm collision model that is more detailed then the rest turret has top, left, right, back, front regions chassis has top left, right, back,front regions wheels, and tracks also have own region Not supported in CA code as far as I know. Ships have a detailed edm colllision model in and it is enabled. Perhaps there is a way to trick the engine to turn it on for tanks. The M-1 land ship

It's not just you. I do not think there is TIR support for this view yet.

Some crew intercom chatter has been added. C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\tech\CombinedArms\Sounds\Intercom\ENG There are speech sets for a Commander, Gunner and Loader. I like the sound of them but they seem more like placeholders to give people who are working on FULL mods something to drop in for testing. For CA you will need a far greater range of phrases with higher utility. We will need digits, and numbers and useful phrases for navigation , targeting and sitreps. Still it's cool to see new content just turn up.

No this is a definitely a new thing. According to this source it is 9Sh33A Karat 2 television telescope that ED have added as functionality to the S-125. Your surprise would have come from BUK 9A310M1 TELAR. This is a launcher with a built-in 'engagement' radar. Interestingly the BUK TELAR also has an optical tracking system but this functionality is not enabled for BUK TELAR in DCS yet. Optical or TV tracking appears to be present in a lot of the Soviet tracking radar systems. It is a form of stealth to target an aircraft but not alert their RWR. They TR may still need to go hot to get a lock (depending on the type of missile guidance required) but by then an aircraft might be in the 'no escape zone'. If you start getting lit up by a SAMs without any warning you will have to rely a lot more on reconnaissance reports.

The most significant pieces of hardware to leave out IMO are the Patriot and S-300. You are now pretty much done. Unfortunately when it comes to other ground units there's probably not enough units in the game that you have luxury of leaving any out. For example you could take out the M1A2, and T-90 but you really need an M1Mx so maybe leave both in just to be fair and they both look like 80's designs anyway. It is the same for a lot of the other units. If you leave out the Strykers then you have no Blue SPG. The HMMV was a 90's icon but you'll need a light vehicle with TOW so you gotta keep it. It isn't a case of leaving stuff out. Someone has to make some stuff.

There are lots of cool new features in 1.29.12 ... I found another and made a post here Some of the features are a bit green but that sort of thing is inevitable. A lot of change is coming. There are lot of small numbers between 1.29 and 2.0. If you don't like bumpy rides maybe you should stay on the ground until things settle around 2.1.1.

Just noticed just now some changes to Scripts\Database\vehicles\SAM\radar\SNR S-125 TR.lua This tracking radar now has the ability to "optically" acquire the target before 'ranging' it and sending a fire command to a launcher. This means the tracking radar unit can operate without a search radar (at a significantly reduced range). Here I was hoping the TR could optically track while cold but at the moment the stupid ROE and State system disallows this interesting possibility. Anyway it kinda looks like ED devs have been playing some SAM SIM and now they are seeing how they can make small changes to the sensor DB system to allow some of SAMs to operate more realistically. This is a good thing. :thumbup: I am hoping this technique can be applied to other units that have optical tracking systems in addition to their radars. OSA and Tunguska could/should be able to optically track a target with their optical and TV sensors. This and also other tricks. Launching cold and going hot for terminal guidance is the type of thing that has been done by highly skilled SAM operators. Wouldn''t that be fun; to surprise a friend like that. :gun_smilie: --- OK, it looks like an overhaul of the ROE and State system will be needed when it comes to radars and SAMs. The present system actually prevents you from doing a lot of fairly standard things. but it all looks more promising since 1.29.12

What does collision_shell = "V_lom.edm" mean? I mean what is special about V_lom.edm compared to other collision shellls. Is it an actual edm or is the name just used as a shortcut for a built-in feature. I ask this because I noticed that V_lom is being used for some fairly different types of objects. Different sizes too. --- OK I think I have a guess. LOM was an old file format and V_LOM is a shortcut that says to use the simple hitbox that is defined inside the converted model. Is that close? --- Might as well tell the whole story. I am looking for reasons why hit detection seems buggy at times in DCS but only for certain projectiles. My present theory is that some lod settings are interacting negatively with this v_lom thing. Wish I could view the collision shells.

Obviously the OP has drawn attention to an overpowered GUA-8 in the game. :book: The GAU-8 will now be made weaker so that it does not perform unrealistically against Russian MBTs. Thanks for drawing that to our attention Angus :thumbup:

Hitting anything that shoots flares with IR missile is very hard Which is why Stinger and the Soviet equivalent have had multiple sensors in the seeker heads since the early 80's. Stingers are not JUST heat seekers. They are probably nerfed in the game because it is everyone's least favorite way to be shot out of the sky.