Aarnoman

I think that is more of a shortcoming of the current static object implementation, and as you pointed out could easily be solved by allowing this level of functionality for static objects. FYI, you can already copy/paste static objects anyway with Ctrl+C/Ctrl+V.

Likely the same bug outline here.

DCS Version: DCS 2.7.7.15038 Open Beta Brief description of bug: Cloud shadows cause visual artefacts near area of terrain elevations. This resembles large shadows, but are cast in direction of view angle rather than sun incidence angle. These are most visible from higher altitude, and appear to have a much lower refresh rate than normal shadows, causing a pop-in effect whenever the position is updated. Expected behaviour: No shadow artefacts. To reproduce: 1) Mission with any cloud preset, set in daytime. 2) Find area of terrain elevation (mountains, ridgelines). 3) Go into free camera to see shadow artefact. Note that as you move closer/further away, the artefact changes in intensity. You may also see shadow artefacts far in the distance. This occurs on all terrains including Caucasus. However, Syria is used in this demonstration as it has high contrast terrain with prominent mountain ranges. This bug does not occur if the cloud preset is set to "None", confirming that it is directly tied to the new cloud system. Demonstration video: Why is this important: These shadow artefacts are immensly distracting, particularly when flying at higher altitudes. They may also obscure target areas if near an area of terrain elevation. Example missions for Caucasus and Syria attached, reproduce as per instructions/video example. BrokenShadows.miz BrokenShadowsCaucasus.miz

Addendum example mission on Caucasus, as requested. See spawned unit and look north - you will see an image as follows. Note the lack of cloud shadow over the water. This is the case for any cloud preset on any map. Note, don't confuse the water shaders for shadows - they occasionally mimic the look of shadows when directly under a cloud, but as can be seen from a distnace, the clouds do not cast a correct dynamic shadow on water surface. CloudsNoShadowTest.miz

Because it is tangentially relevant, consider adding your support for this wishlist post (Two seperate parts): This wishlist was constructed to achieve the above in part, specifically around easily creating walls/berms/hesco's for base building/setting up of defensive positions.

+1, it would be nice to have a way to easily save/load drawings from one mission to another. I would definitely be keen to see a feature allowing saving/loading drawings as a template, or alternatively a "import drawings from miz" functionality.

DCS Version: DCS Open Beta 2.7.7.14727 Brief description of bug: Clouds currently only cast shadows on terrain, but not onto water. Expected behaviour: Clouds cast shadows on all surfaces including water. To reproduce: 1) Mission with clouds set in daytime. 2) Observe lack of shadows on water. This: (in game screenshot) Should look more like this - note the continuation of the terrain cloud shadow into the ocean, as would be expected (quick mockup in GIMP) Why is this important: Cloud shadows serve an important function from both a graphical and gameplay perspective. The graphical function is fairly self explenatory - because shadows are cast on both terrain and water in real life, it will naturally look more authentic. The gameplay function perhaps not as much: shadows help break up the monotonous ocean surface, allowing for more accurate interpretation of altitude/distance. This has been partly improved already through the addition of the improved water shaders in this open beta update. However, with the addition of cloud shadows casting onto the water surface, this will be singifcantly enhanced, further enhancing the naval environment within DCS.

Well done! Thank you for this very useful resource for mission editors

While nice to have, a 3d editor is absolutely not a prerequisite for this as illustrated by how easily usable the frenchpack mod berm is. Please keep it on topic, discussion on 3d editor should occur in its own dedicated thread.

I second this, would be very useful for longer running missions.

1) yes 2) no (but you can always change it in the mission editor).

I back all these suggestions, which would all be very good to have.

@Surrexen Fair enough, I appreciate that life can definitely get in the way of doing hobbies, so I won't push the point - just want to show my appreciation for what you created and what I would personally love to see in the future if you ever do want to further develop this mission Regarding the SceneryObjectIsDead trigger condition, it is quite simple to use. You can get objectId for any map object using Right Click->Assign As in the mission editor. There is also lua script level access to this function I believe, with use of the objectID (also selectable for map objects using the Right click functionality). Here is a quick example: I think it is fantastic we now have the tools to use any map object as mission targets, as the static map objects we have available are often a poor fit into the environment. Hope this may be helpful to you in some way, least of all if it makes it into some future mission if you ever get into it. If it is ok with you, I might add some of these map object strike missions to your existing Scarlet Dawn campaign, and I can send it through to you in the future to have a look and see if it fits with you vision of the mission (I of course would not release this publicly since it would just a small addition to an existing complex mission you created). Kind regards, Yoyo

@Surrexen any thoughts on the above? Thanks again for a great mission.

+1

Hey Surrexen, really enjoying your mission. If you are still considering doing further updates/additions to it, would love to have some moving ground targets included (e.g. supply convoys, infantry in the open). From my testing in missions they no longer cause massive slowdowns like they used to for performance. Another request, would love for to see some map objects as targets (now that we got the scenery object is dead trigger condition). Would be interesting to hit some bridges/factories/etc present on the map natively, lots of great potential targets. Just my 2 cents, I am really impressed with the mission and having an absolute blast already as is, but would love to see the above to additions in the future if you are open to them. Hands down one of the best missions I've played in DCS world thus far. Thank you for your amazing work!

I concur. Tested a range of bombs included a GBU-38 with DLY1 fuzing, a GBU-12 with INST fuzing for comparison (note identical effect from the GBU-38, though it should not have been able to damage the MiG), and finally the GBU-31(V)3/B with DLY1 fuzing, again exploding at impact rather than penetrating into the bunker in the F/A-18C. Track attached. Expected behaviour would be as in here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UN7yX-1LmVo (same bomb type dropped from F-16), which correctly penetrates into the bunker before exploding. PenetrationFa-18track.trk

I agree that a civilian coalition plus separate civilian units (people, a few vehicles) would help flesh out a lot of missions and create much more engaging environment requiring some thought before weapon employment.

You can already set max range - under advanced waypoint actions -> options -> set intercept range. Pretty sure you can also set target type too already.

Do you have stereo_mode_use_shared_parser enabled in the autoexec? If so, disable this, it is a wip feature. I'm unable to replicate your findings on reverb g2 in latest open beta.

+1 to the original request, and you can try this bot out on any of the hoggit at war servers (SAW, GAW, PGAW).

Interesting, I don't have these options in my WMR for SteamVR settings. Are you running the Beta version of WMR?

DCS Version: DCS 2.7.6.13133 Brief description of bug: The VR Mask feature is intended to save performance by masking areas of the viewport that will not be visible from the headset. Currently, this masking feature is automatically present when VR is enabled. However, when MSAA is selected on 2x / 4x, the behaviour is different from MSAA set to off, where a black border rather than a sky coloured gradient is used: Expected behaviour: The VR mask colour would be expected to be unchanged regardless of MSAA setting. IMPORTANT: The ideal behaviour would be for the VR mask to be BLACK in colour rather than use a gradient as default behaviour. This is because the VR mask will create a distinct blue tinge at the edge of peripheral vision, which is very distracting. However, as the users peripheral vision is already black due to the physical VR HMD blocking external light, by having a black VR mask as seen with MSAA on no such off-colour light at the edge of vision is created. Therefore, the expected solution for this bug is to have MSAA off VR mask also use the same black border as seen with MSAA set to 2x/4x, and abandoning the gradient altogether. To reproduce: 1) Start a mission with VR enabled. 2) If MSAA is set to off - the VR mask will be a blue gradient emulating sky/sea - this is not optimal as it will create a distracting shade of blue at the edge of lower peripheral vision, particularly when reprojection occurs. 3) If MSAA is set to either 2x or 4x - note the VR mask is black. This is ideal, as the peripheral vision is already black due to the physical VR device blocking the light. This should be the default behaviour of the VR mask regardless of MSAA setting. Why is this important: While a small change to turn the VR mask to black with MSAA off, it would be a significant quality of life improvement particularly to users with high resolution HMDs (Pimax, Reverb G2). The reason for this is multifactorial: 1) As outlined prior, the gradient mask used with MSAA set to off can create distracting blue tinges in the peripheral vision, which stand out very starkly. This is particularly a problem during times reprojection is used. The degree this affects individual users will vary depending on their specific eye position within the headset, with only a portion of the VR community likely affected. 2) MSAA causes significant frame loss, particularly when running a high resolution HMD. Therefore, it would be ideal to have black VR mask available to all VR users with MSAA set to off, as a portion of the VR community has enabled MSAA as a stop gap solution of having a black VR mask - causing them to have significantly degraded performance. 3) There is no logical reason for VR masks to behave differently for the end user depending on an unrelated graphics setting. In conclusion, please make a black VR mask available to the end user with MSAA set to off, as is current default behaviour with MSAA set to 2x or 4x. Thank you for considering this significant quality of life improvement for VR users.

To reply to your post (and the one above it) yes, asset packs are that much of a problem. To use the WW2 asset pack as an example, it is a big reason why many (including myself) are not interested in purchasing any warbird module, as a asset pack + seperate map purchase are required. Furthermore, that is also a large component of why the WW2 online community remains small. In regard to solutions - probably the most sensible in my eyes is to allocate a certain portion of development costs of modules to the creation of module-appropriate assets, which is something ED is doing in part already. - Example: Area-appropriate units as part of map sales. - Example 2: Module-appropriate assets. E.g. for Kiowa -> new FARP objects, new farp, some appropriate new ground units such as new infantry models/new animations (e.g. IED planting). The prior can also be nicely incorporated as part of the module cost of the AH-64, as could appropriate units such as technicals. This allows - cost of new AI assets to be covered (ED makes money). - appropriate AI assets/statics are available for a new module. - DCS core as a whole has more models. - Note that all such assets would be part of DCS core, available to everyone unrestricted (essential for use in user missions and multiplayer), but the cost paid towards modules/maps goes into funding these assets.

To echo what has already been mentioned - I use VIACOM for voice control of the F10 menu in VR. - Helios for display export (wannabe simpit that is not there yet, but hopefully in time ). - DiCE for countermeasures in the hornet, since we still don't have DTC/a system like the JF-17 For specific files/uses please see the above posts, the developers of all three have already posted in this thread now.