Aarnoman
-
Posts
372 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Aarnoman
-
-
Based on todays video, it looks like the water issue is resolved completly!
Excellent news for Syria map users.-
2
-
-
On 6/7/2021 at 5:50 PM, evanf117 said:
there is also a second site that is covered by trees and in the harbour of Haifa there are 4 pears missing and non removeable civil boats in navy boat parking spots along with several spots where SA-2 and SA-3 sites are IRL that are covered by trees or buildings in DCSInterestingly enough, bug does not seem present for me currently regarding tree removal.
See thread for updates:You might have some luck with the sceneryRemoveObject trigger zone after all. Try the example mission I linked previously.
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, Forest Rat said:
edit: I should clarify, I often experience issues with the trigger not behaving as it should, but in this instance it worked as expected.
Huh, I'm actually so confused right now. The mission is now working as expected for me, with appropriate removal of trees.
On 6/10/2021 at 3:06 AM, Forest Rat said:My experience with this issue is the trees will work for whatever mission you open first, so if you launch a fresh instance of DCS, load your mission, the trees should be gone. Then if you load a 2nd mission, it seems to no longer care about updating the trees, unless you restart DCS.
I'm definitely not 100% sure on this theory, but maybe it'll prove helpful.
Interestingly enough, I seem to be able to reload mission with no issues, with trees still removed correctly.
I am even able to change the trigger zone, with removal of trees appropriately getting adjusted.
This is a really odd bug, I wonder why it wasn't working earlier. Will do further testing. -
17 hours ago, Forest Rat said:
edit: I should clarify, I often experience issues with the trigger not behaving as it should, but in this instance it worked as expected.
Did you use the above linked mission?
-
17 hours ago, Forest Rat said:
My experience with this issue is the trees will work for whatever mission you open first, so if you launch a fresh instance of DCS, load your mission, the trees should be gone. Then if you load a 2nd mission, it seems to no longer care about updating the trees, unless you restart DCS.
I'm definitely not 100% sure on this theory, but maybe it'll prove helpful.
No, not the case in my testing. See above mission, trees will remain present even if run as first mission.
-
Here is a link to how it should be set up (though it currently does not work until this bug is fixed). Hopefully will be fixed sometime soon.
-
1
-
-
This issue is still present on the current open beta (DCS 2.7.1.7139 Open Beta).
Example mission attached illustrating this issue.
It would be nice if this currently broken feature could be fixed. Per BN on discord Ugra is aware of the issue, but it seems to have gone by the wayside since the release of Syria nearly a year ago, so it is probably time to give it some attention. I also note this thread is still lacking the "reported" tag as well.Many thanks.
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, evanf117 said:
thanks ill look into it
Actually scratch that, sceneryRemoveObject is currently still broken in Syria.
-
On 6/7/2021 at 5:50 PM, evanf117 said:
there is also a second site that is covered by trees and in the harbour of Haifa there are 4 pears missing and non removeable civil boats in navy boat parking spots along with several spots where SA-2 and SA-3 sites are IRL that are covered by trees or buildings in DCSYou can use the sceneryRemoveObject trigger to remove trees from zones btw, so works as a temporary solution for you at least.
-
12 hours ago, BlazeXI said:
Thanks for your appreciation and yes you are right with your points. But now its to late to change anything. I didnt took that many time for a Mission Name, didnt expect it would be so necessary how you call your mission, because i thought the gameplay is what counts. But after reading your arguments i understand it.
Fair enough - I do think if you find the time the mission would be worth a slight rebranding under a different name, because it is a well made mission with a fun and interesting premise that plays well in multiplayer too.
However, I appreciate your frustration at the moment, and that likely you are not in the mood to address this currently. I do hope you reconsider after some time, you are a talented mission editor and I do think the mission itself is quite good.Thanks for taking the time and effort to see the comments from a different perspective. I wish you all the best of luck for the future.
-
4
-
-
Very useful, please keep up your work, it forms a great base for missions with so many areas prefilled
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, BlazeXI said:
Sure its like these rude people who tell a car is bad only because the gap dimension dont fit on some parts, but that the car is 99% awesome will be ignored thats why i hate the internet and most are like you defending their point for 1000 years until everyone will hate the creator too such toxic people! As i said this community/internet thing just doesn't make happy and im out thanks. Oh and last reminder the title is BATTLEFIELD & OPS kinda stupid to think this is something realisitc + tells me nobody is reading the description stop being so picky my god!
I appreciate that you put a lot of work into your mission, and that it feels like people are being toxic for pointing out 'minor' things like a title. However, keep in mind that titles are in part what sets up expectation - e.g. you wouldn't call a chocolate muffin a chocolate muffin unless it tastes of or contains chocolate.
Similarly, people are upset when they see a very nicely presented mission (e.g. your mission, which had a well made teaser trailer) with a title of a very well known air campaign, and then find out immediately when reading the description or trying the mission that it has nothing to do with said air campaign. Keep in mind that the majority of the user base has some interest in military aviation (or of an age group where they recall the Gulf War from real life), and is therefore familiar with that subject matter. Naturally, people feel mislead when they find out it has nothing to do with what they expected from the title, just like someone would be upset when they buy a chocolate muffin and find out it actually is a strawberry muffin. Nothing wrong with a good strawberry muffin, but it is not the chocolate muffin that was expected from the name, and is therefore not what you expected to have once you've taken a bite.Consider for a change that people pointing out that this strawberry muffin should not be called a chocolate muffin, isn't people being rude, but are rather trying to give feedback so the name is changed to something more fitting for the product.
This is analogous to what people have been commenting with the title of your video - it may feel rude to you, but try and see it from the perspective of other people.On a side note, you are aware that the first image they see in your description is the following, right?
How do you not expect people to feel mislead when it literally referring to the historical ODS?
-
3
-
-
25 minutes ago, BlazeXI said:
Because 90% of the comments on reddit are the same, all about the title. And you can give 1 star to the forum. And its not my fault if nobody is reading the description
If 90% of the comments are the same, it's probably because there is some truth to it.
-
2
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, BlazeXI said:
Sure downvote hundreds of hours work from somebody who is sharing it for FREE, only because you dont like the Title im so done with the internet! As i said on reddit, last content i will offer such an unthankful community! Sorry for all who actually enjoying my stuff but im out
Also no Videos anymore im not even adding ads to them but i get it, you all think this sim/game is real life and anything else must be hated lol im mad, frustrated that hate comments get more attention then my mission.. Nope its just time wasting and doesnt make happy at all, bye bye!
Ok bye. There is no way to downvote your content on the forum so not sure what you are on about.
Also not sure why you are generalizing the whole community as "this sim/game is real life", because that's not true. There are many different people who enjoy DCS for different things, including many I'm sure that enjoy the mission you made.
My comment was meant to only point out how naming your mission after a very famous and well known air campaign is misleading people into thinking the mission is about that, and so naturally sets up a false expectation for what the content is. I'm merely suggesting to pick a name that is not already so heavily associated with a real world event. None of my comment was intended as bagging on the quality of effort you put into making the mission, as a mission maker myself I understand the amount of unseen work that goes into it.
If you decide to remain defensive and and attack the community for the above feedback than that's your choice, but believe me it was given in good faith.
-
5
-
-
Why oh why did you name it after one of the most recognizable air campaigns in History, when it literally has nothing to do with it? Super misleading, you could have literally called in almost anything else.
-
2
-
3
-
-
12 minutes ago, MAESTR0 said:
Thank you for giving us a preview. I look forward to seeing how the end result turn out. Thanks for listening and responding to the community feedback, I think this improvement in the water will make a really big difference to the overall quality of the map.
Good work!
-
1
-
1
-
-
@BIGNEWY why is this moved to wishlist? It belongs in the Forums/Syria section, not in wishlists.
-
2
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Statua said:
Good find! I hope this applies to the forest layer in general across the map.
Layers of these kind are global on a per map basis in DCS, so would affect all forest regions including on the mainland in Syria/Turkey/etc
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BIGNEWY said:
water issue on Syria is already reported
Am aware, was just responding to the false narrative that this is due to an unfixable engine limitation, which gets thrown around a lot but is objectively incorrect as demonstrated by the issue not existing on Caucasus or PG. Thanks for bringing it to Ugra some weeks ago, I recall both threads discussing the water issue on the bug section.
-
2
-
-
Thirded, though at least in the recent Wags preview of Cyprus we can see the updated map layer, which demonstrated a different shade of green with clearly visible contour lines. I would hazard a guess that the Cyprus update at the earliest would be when we see this change brought to open beta.
(seen here: https://youtu.be/MPBM8XHFWW8?t=87) -
5 hours ago, shu77 said:
it happens in PG so not sure what you're referring to there. I cant say I fly Caucaus enough to say for certain, but that is a much older map so would expect there is far more chance behaves differently. As mentioned in several other forums, the issue relates to transparency and the lack of sediment modelling.
This is not correct. Please watch and compare the following two video demonstrations, one on PG and one on Syria, clearly showing this issue is ONLY present on Syria. Please stop the misinformation with "it's an engine issue etc".
Persian Gulf: No water transparency issue:Syria: Water transparency issue present:
-
2
-
1
-
-
11 hours ago, dimitriov said:
Hi 3 things
@clanithosry for late I have a lot of stuff to do here so you can reasonably expect the last fix to come this week I hope.
@Aarnomanstatics already are included in the pack.
@Igrok-kunthe last 4.5 version works, if it does not it's on your side I'm afraid. Unless ED again broke something.
I think you misunderstood me, I was asking whether your team would be open to adding some of these statics (specifically berm emplacement) to core DCS World (so the mod would not be required). You can apply to ED to have such models added to the base game.
-
1 hour ago, shu77 said:
The water transparency is a limitation of the engine currently which was touched on in another thread by an ED member. I have not seen a direct comment that its fixed in the marianas, but the screenshots they are posting indicate that it either is fixed or they are purposefully positioned to avoid the issue.
It is not an issue with the engine though, I don't understand why this incorrect information gets repeated so much.
See here for comparison to Caucasus, where this issue is not present:
This issue is unique to Syria, and does not happen on other maps including Caucasus and PG. It is not an engine limitation.
-
2
-
-
9 hours ago, Callsign112 said:
You don't need the level of detail seen in the picture above to look at something on the ground from 30,000ft because that level of detail wouldn't be visible. The only reason I see for that level of detail would be if ED actually intended to deliver on its mission as a digital combat simulator. And I can't think of any reason why they wouldn't want to do that.
Regarding AI behavior, its because so little work has been done on it. The behavior of infantry in terms of programed logic is not that much different then the behavior of programed logic in AI aircraft. The logic has to be worked on before we can see a change in its behavior.
In full agreement. The main issue is not the visual quality of ground troops (though I would not be opposed to better looking infantry like in the recent whitepaper), but the lack of logic to detection/movement/attacking/embarking/disembarking.
For one, it would be nice if vehicles by default carried a certain number of troops, that would dismount automatically when appropriate.
Furthermore, as @Callsign112's videos demonstrated, the detection and engagement logic certainly needs more work.However, the constant throwing around of DCS as an FPS just seems silly to me - it misses even the most basic features for this, such as enterable structures. Moreover, the immense map size does not land itself well to an fps either, especially with the limited ground level detail. It would not add anything much of value while taking a significant time and cost investment on the part of developers.
However, improved infantry logic/abilities (e.g. some degree of autonomy, appropriate use of stances, automatic embarking/disembarking, etc) with some level of control through combined arms (movement/objective logic) would be more than welcome, would significantly less work c.f. creating an FPS, and would add a significant amount to both combined arms and regular pilot's gameplay.
-
2
-
Water - Lakes and Sea
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
While some improvements could still be made to some shallow rivers (particularly Euphrates near Raqqa), overall this bug has been fixed in the latest release of DCS (2.7.2).
Well done Ugra, it is a fantastic upgrade to the visual fidelity of the Syria map! Coastlines and lakes in particularly look great now!
I believe this thread can be marked as 'resolved' now.