vicx

AMEDooley. I can't disagree. I'll adopt this approach just for this thread and this subject. He just isn't participating in good faith.

Great quote because it supports all my arguments :) WAGS explains why DCS needs a sprite/billboard system going forward. ED can't "scale up the models" but they also can't "scale down the models" when they are too big. For visual purposes in the DCS 1.2.xx sometimes the LOD models are too small and sometimes they are too big. That is actually the core of the problem. We got a solution being developed to answer that ... it's in BETA at the moment.

The point of my post was to show that there aleady exists a system in DCS 1.2.xx with many problems. You attack features in 1.5.xx BETA for problems that I have shown are directly related to OLD PROBLEMS in the legacy engine. Fix the old problems and you may very well fix the new problems with sprites. Are you against fixing old problems in the engine? === :huh: How do you do that Sharpe? There is almost an intelligent comment in there. The intelligent comment buried in the poop is that oversized LOD models "MIGHT" be required for non-visual aspects of the game. The rest of the statement is pure nonsense. Separation of the visual system and non-visual system is a good idea. Again I see the sprite/billboard system as ED's first tentative steps in this direction. I'm assume they will take this further over the next few years.

Yes it is ... Yes it does. I feel that a highly tuned version of this BETA feature could become the default renderer in a future version of DCS. It could be tuned to offer the most accurate visual representation possible ... far exceeding what has been achieved with the old system. This is part of what the upgrade to directx11 unlocks.

Let me scoop that up for you. In future whenever you say "the player" just put "I". See how I just took your statement and made it reflect reality. Do not assume to speak for everyone when you only speak for yourself. === Jaws, this is also how it works in DCS 1.2.xx and DCS 1.5.xx EXCEPT the LOD system was might not be very well tuned for visual range aircraft spotting. the LOD system might be tuned more for the A10-C TGP than anything else. the LOD system performs randomly under different resolutions and zoom levels An answer (and not the only possibility) would be to have a billboard system that actually works well. The billboard system gives the renderer a resolution dependent and zoom dependent layer. This would be a technical layer for the renderer that can be tuned for simulating visual spotting ranges independently of the underlying system.

Almost all the ground vehicles with turrets already have a separate hitbox for Turret, Body and Gun. Presently they are not used. The damage model used by Ships would be a good fit for ground vehicles. Most of the ships have ten or more hitbbox regions. A ship can have it's systems disabled without being completely sunk. You probably don't notice it but it is working just like that for ships.

You totally ignored the point again. You are playing DCS 1.2.xxx and it already has an enlarged model system. That is a fact. The DCS you know and regard as "pure" already has an enlarged model system and it also has some problems that stem from it being an old legacy system. === Sharpe, You can skip this technical part as you always do or you could read it. It would be great if you did read it. I provide this for others anyway. Below I will provide just one example of the enlarged LOD system that is in DCS 1.2.xxx and also is the base system in DCS 1.5.xxx. Basic Example of a LOD system for a typical object LOD0 is a normal size high poly geometry for 0m-30m LOD1 is a normal size low poly geometry for 30m-3000m LOD2 is a box geometry 50% larger than normal for 3000m-10000m LOD3 is a box geometry 100% larger than normal for 10000m-50000m *Note* Not all geometry remains visible beyond 30km BUT most ground objects are defined to render all the way out to 100km. Why? Ask ED? I have theory ... at the end of the post so keep reading. DCS 1.2.xx has rendering problems and I've provided the pictures that show this. In these images I added red and orange circles around missing models that should be showing. I didn't have to add these circles to the 4K image because the F-15 models never failed to show. A 4k monitor could exhibit rendering problems but so far it seems to be much worsse on a 1080P monitor or in VR where it is shockingly bad. Why does it happen? On a low res monitor at some point in the LOD1 operating range of 30m-3000m, a model can be in the distance range where it starts to stop showing up. But then if changing distance to the object causes a LOD with a larger size to be used then the object can pop into existence again. Sure a box also renders much more clearly than a geometrical shape but most time it is BIGGER BOX too. You can get instances all too often where an aircraft further away shows up (bigger size LOD) BUT a closer aircraft doesn't (Normal size LOD). This happens less on a 4K monitor maybe because the extra resolution means that aircraft don't enter a problematic rendering situation as often. === Now when sprites misbehave (with this new BETA feature) whose fault is that? We could blame ED's legacy LOD system for this problem. Why does ED have in DCS 1.2.xx and 1.5.xx a system where a ground object is still rendered all the way out to 100km? Can you see a tank with your eyeball from 10km away ... No. But in DCS 1.2.xx you CAN see that tank if you zoom in on him with a monitor with a large resolution. So there is an exploitable weakness in the system where a tank should just not show up at all past a certain range. With DCS 1.2.xx you will be able to zoom all the way in with an 8K monitor and you will be able to see a tank from truly ludicrous distances ... this I guarantee. So we know that these things shouldn't be possible but they are possible in the old system ... even without the sprite system. Adding sprites just makes it VERY obvious the old system has some weird stuff in it and might not be future proof. Now to add an extra complication, LOD distance ranges change based on zooming ... which means that in some instances with a high resolution monitor a tank might show show up easier if you don't fully zoom in on him. Maybe there is a sweet spot in the zoom where the biggest LOD gets used. Why is this old LOD system a bit weird? I suspect as theory that LODS were tuned a long time ago (at least for ground) to work perfectly with A-10C TGP on a fairly average monitor. My guess is ... LOD tuning was most likely done manually via trial and error testing. It worked at the time and it kept working BUT ED never planned that people would fly with 4K monitors or took into consideration how the LOD system would work with modules without a TGP or Radar/IRST. ED also didn't design the existing LOD system to accomodate a sprite system on top either. So you see my thoughts on this. Just attaching a sprite system to an old legacy system and expecting it to work perfectly is not reasonable. It will require tuning. I'd be inclined to start with a new system without any LOD scaling BUT I'm not the guy paying salaries at ED. Insisting that there are no problems with the old system does not seem that reasonable to me either. ED is trying some stuff ... I don't assume we are seeing anything final for while. It might take a while to find the right solution. Anyway I got the pooper scooper ready but I really hope I won't be needing it. I tried to keep this post technical. I got some facts in there and I got some suppositions. If you are going to offer a critique I would appreciate a technical critique. Don't mix up my facts and my suppositions ... there is a difference. If you can't separate them, maybe ask for a confirmation instead of just attacking.

Bob, I thought with some training you would make a tanker. It is OK, you can drive the fuel truck.

Cibit, Noone suggests this. Be free and do not fear things that would never happen. This test uses GUI elements just like the F10 map. It is evolution of existing code. Try to answer without fear. === To the OP dpatt711, I think that people who could know the answer won't answer. I think that progress in this area will slow and steady and maybe they will watch what people say. B-Scope and A-scope I do not expect to see before a TV type display showing the locked target. Question for me is would I like to see SAMs get much much more detailed or for this idea of a interactive display to make it's way to many more vehicles. For me it would be more valuable to have an MFD type display for many things than to have just one SAM unit with very detailed functions. This is just my preference and my own opinion. I see a lot of potential for adding MFD controls to CA vehicles and maybe to buildings and also AI aircraft. Add an MFD to a SAM site and and a SAM vehicle? Add an MFD to an AI A-50 Mainstay and AI E-3 Sentry? Add an MFD to an airport tower? Add an MFD for Ground Command (Commanding from forward base or command vehicle)? Add an MFD to artillery units (Howitzers and Rocket)? === For sure offtopic ... please at least answer to the topic and then add your request. Would it be OK for the drone to have a simple gui display ... probably not a simulation of reaper? So far the GUI for the SAM unit is very simple and we don't know if that will change to become a high level simulation. It may not be the goal.

The point is to have a more realistic tank experience. More simulation and less game. ED add FCS so you can stop using a game feature like the "aiming circle". I think it works.

No this is incorrect. You should not be using the game mode feature that is the circle. Maybe you normally lock a target using ENTER (keyboard key for "lock"). Don't do this anymore for vehicles that have FCS. Do not use the circle. Make the circle go away using BACKSPACE (keyboard key for "unlock") Now without the circle to help you ... engage the target. Turn the FCS "Tracking Mode" ON Smoothly keep the crosshair on the target Lase the target ... press "L" The next round you shoot should be adjusted to hit where you aim and take into factor the tracking motion input. IF you track smoothly the target the shot will automatically LEAD the target. === Also maybe your shooting scenario is too easy. Put a HUMVEE going 80mph left to right at a range of 1km or more and see of you can hit him without the circle helper. Use only the FCS.

For everyone, You do know that Enlarged models are already in the old version of DCS. It's a fact, you can see them with edmodelviewer. Almost all the long distance LOD models in the game ARE BIG BOXES. Much bigger than the actual model. This is the legacy enalarged model system which is part of the legacy rendering system. The legacy rendering system has problems ... which is why alternative strategies were discussed in several threads over the last year. For sharpe, I would love to see your thoughts on the legacy model enlargement system and the legacy rendering system and the problems and possible solutions ... BUT ... you don't want to talk these subjects. I don't know if lack the technical knowledge but I do know that you prefer to remain ignorant of details and spread a simpletons idea of how rendering works in DCS to distract from discussing technical details. My observation is that this is part of an approach you take so that you can poop in this thread and get away with it. This is your poop which I summarise ... All games have a field of view and perspective so fifteen levels of zoom is the only way. Don't worry about any other problems in the DCS renderer because all games have a field of view and perspective so fifteen levels of zoom is the only way. That is your position which we already know very well. But way BACK in this thread you were momentarily more willing to acknowledge some truths about the rendering problems in DCS. So you said that unrealistic advantages (for you) are self regulating. That is a very convenient position for you to take. I suggested an easy fix for this unrealistic advantage, but you don't seem capable of responding directly to a point and so you pooped ... All games have a field of view and perspective so fifteen levels of zoom is the only way. Don't worry about any other problems in the DCS renderer because all games have a field of view and perspective so fifteen levels of zoom is the only way. That is the circular spiral shaped poop you drop in the thread. Your contribution winds back in on itself and sits there. We know your position.

An F-14 module but only coming with an IRAF version and no provision for carrier ops. Would people expect the Mig-23 to be an export version or the best version. This is also relevant to the Mig-21 module. It is a great module but is it missing one of it's principal modes of operation. I use the example of the F-14 so that you see the parallels. It isn't technically wrong to do this ... but it is not what is expected. Many DCS modules receive updates ... perhaps it is just a matter of time.

Tweaking might not work easily ... I think that LODS are part of the problem. It's all explained with pictures here -> http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2558667&postcount=163 LODS are shown for a tank at 1000, 3000 and 10000m. Notice how the shape gets bigger. That's also why there is popping and invisible objects when you zoom in and out in DCS. It also causes the oversize blob for ground objects when you use the new feature at long distance. You have given a primary school explanation of field of view ... is that meant to impress anyone? Explain to us how LODs are used in DCS. Considering how much evidential material you have posted versus how much authority you claim .... and the fact you haven't even run the Openbeta; I have to conclude that you must think that demonstrating your ignorance proudly ... will suffice. It will suffice. I'm actually glad you have posted so much of your thinking in this thread. Absolute nonsense. If you are an ED developer ... you better unmask yourself and let us in on the joke. All of your posts (from my perspective) have been very helpful. I hope they are read and appreciated by future generations. :megalol:

DAV ... not a fan of that idea but why don't you create an image to show us what you think it should look like. Someone could easily troll this thread with suggestions but maybe you can show us what you have in mind with a picture that shows very clearly what you have in mind. Doge "overly masochistic server admins" can do what they want. Let there be choices and players will choose. Dedicated server is coming eventually ... that is the main thing holding back online play.

Icarus maybe you "will" buy the Virtuix Omni 3000 clone that Apple makes when they invent and patent "moving in place". Introducing Apple iMove ... Go Places. Coming in 2020. You know it could happen :lol: === I am committed to getting the Vive because I will be experimenting with the Lighthouse tracking. All I needed was for Wags to confirm DCS will have Vive support. Even if Oculus announce *surprise* 4K screens for everyone ... I will still have to get the Vive because I have to have the tracking. Other people might be in a different situation but that's my mine. If Oculus announce *surprise* Lighthouse Tracking ... all bets are off.

Guys can I direct you back to this post. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2558667&postcount=163 This shows that spotting is broken without the new features even being used. Sharepe, you already use an enlargement system that is broken dude ... and it gives you massive benefits compared to low resolution users and VR users. Of course you would defend it and want to keep it unchanged. We need a system that is "resolution dependent". This way it can be tweaked perfectly to provide a realistic and fair representation of objects. This means getting rid of long distance LODS and the legacy FLANKER/LOMAC way of doing things. You guys can talk about the new features but if they built on top of an old system that is broken and flawed ... the new system will be broken and flawed.

For many game experiences the greater FOV will be better to have than a sharper more detailed image. I can't see that being the case for flight sims but I wouldn't pass up the chance to test the StarVR in DCS or ANY other game/sim. And StarVR could pull sometghing special out of the bag at the last minute ... something like interchangeable lenses that makes the FOV switchable. You could go from 105 to 210 depending on what game. Anyone who was sitting on the fence would just buy it. Even at FOV 210 the StarVR will excel in close combat and driving games ... a lot of games sell in those areas.

A mod like that might be possible to make by an end user if there is an argument on the EDM model that changes the canopy texture. How many of the modules have this iced up canopy feature? I know that the C-101 has it just by looking at the textures but what other modules have it.

Maybe you did cause damage ... you can damage the heli without knowing. DCS only tells you if you cause a failure through damage. Probably you already know that. :) If you want to know if take little bits of damage you have to run a script .. I'd love more detail on damage but ED doesn't give us that yet.

*Update* WORKS. Your building might need to be strong because it takes a little damage when the AI lands. The AI is not a great pilot. I am able to land without any damage to heli or roof so just make sure your roof is strong enough for the AI.

After installing a new updater. BUG appears when trying to launch the Mission editor OK I found the problem ... I disabled a mod via JSGME before the update and left it disabled when I loaded DCS after the update. However it looks like the ME stalled while trying to load some cached data. I'm sure this cached data was to do with COALITIONS for missions. vdata.country = countries[1] vdata.task = country_tasks[__view__][vdata.country][1] vdata.type = country_task_aircraft_list[__view__][vdata.country][vdata.task][1] This kinda shows that there is still no way to smoothly add and support new countries and factions not already built into DCS. Why did the US Agressors have to be hard coded into the engine when all of their units are inherited and the rest is mostly metadata. If ED had made a mechanism for adding factions without requiring changes to db_countries then other agressor forces could be created easily and without triggering bugs (even when a MOD is disabled) Mods can feel free to put this in the wishlist section where it now belongs.

If you had Combined Arms you could try it yourself with all helicopters and all the buildings in the game. I'll probably try this very soon :) ... but you SHOULD buy Combined Arms.

ebabil, that would be nice to be able to do. Until it is in the game maybe a workaround can be found. I just nstalled the KA-50 module and I noticed that you can command the AI to land anywhere. So you can edit a mission and can command the AI to land straight away. If you start the mission using Combined Arms you can take control of the AI chopper that is landed and fly it exactly as you normally would. If you don't have the Combined Arms you SHOULD get it. It lets you do this and heaps of other cool things with aircraft and ground units. Combined Arms is a very useful tool.

Crunchy, it's not just the Rift with problems, this bug may also be affecting others. It has been reported. Not sure that more than that can be done. Use the provided work around and you can keep playing.