twistking

In_Dev_26.04.2024.4.jpg The trees are very dark and very saturated. Compare it to both the trucks in the foreground. I'm talking about nuances. A little bit (!) less saturation (and contrast) on the trees would make the image look more realistic. It's a little bit difficult to judge, because the image is rather dark (low gamma setting maybe). The fact that the trees are so dark, make them appear less saturated to the untrained eye perhaps. If you'd brighten the tree in photoshop, you would realize how saturated they actually are. I'm not expecting them to match colours with the trucks of course. The trucks are still a valid reference i think. *edit* I deleted that image, because it does not really show the issue very well. I think the issue might have to do with the blue tint of atmospheric modelling, as @zerO_crash pointed out. The blue tint in combination with generally high saturation colours would explain the "lime" green appearance. This is a good example of the "issue". Look at the areas where the sun hits the grassy areas. Top left at the mountain slope i would already call it oversaturated, but it's still a natural tone, so i would not complain. Top middle of the image (start at the pilots visor and "walk" upwards) where grasslands are partially occluded by the clouds, the green is oversaturated and creates an unnatural colour. This may seem nitpicky and i agree that this are nuances, but there are a lot of other images (from other maps as well) where greens can have that unnatural tint. There are older images of Kola that show this and also examples from other maps, by other developers. I assume that this is an issue of the DCS engine or the tonemapper. Another example: Here, the lighter green grassland areas at the coast have a slightly unnatural tint to them. With all greens in the image being well saturated.

I'm very excited for Kola map, but on many of the recent screenshots, it looks like it would -again- suffer from the over-saturated greens, that are common in DCS. Normandy had it (not sure if the devs tuned it back, or if it is only an issue with certain lighting conditions) and i think the South Atlantic map has it too. For me it looks as if the DCS engine would somehow push the saturation of greens, giving trees a very saturated, heavy look and making lighter grassy areas appear like poisonous neon green. It's a rather unpleasant look and i hope it can be dialed back.

I would also be interested in that. I'd argue that you could not really sell a "new" module in 2024 with those dated cockpit visuals. Externally they woudld also need -at least- a texture update IMHO.

i still don't understand. why would 16gb equal 2gb? is this some kind of inside joke, or am i missing a bit of technical context?

@BIGNEWY any news on this?

Yes, smart weapons is a big one as well...

so what?

you made a disgruntled crawler chuckle...

It sounds bad, because it wasn't sold as "special". When i bought it, i assumed it would be developed at a similar pace to other modules. It wasn't and currently aspects of its simulation are definitely not on par with other ED modules.

Perhaps, the mission designer WANTS the player to do the actual planning. Currently the mission designer creates the scenario AND does the mission planning. Ideally mission designers could choose if they want the player(s) to make their own planning. Additionally there are several rather important things, that cannot be preset in ME. For example CMS programs... It will also be important for the "upcoming" dynamic campaign, where the scenario is procedurally evolving and players are asked to come up with own missions and mission planning...

Good points.

I think the calculation of the apparent size of a light source is so simple, that it can just be done in software without any disadvantage. Modern material shaders, are - generally - way more complicated. For the sprite size, you could probably do the math in your head even. It's basically just the result of apparent brightness and distance. More advanced effects would probably be done in a post processing step afterwards. Atmospheric effects f.e. What we see in DCS is not a limitation of sprites, but just a super lazy and broken implementation. That said, i honestly don't know if there are more advanced techniques emerging. I could see the simple sprites struggling with atmospheric situations like fog, haze etc. But then we're already moving into the realms of volumetrics...

Thud

I think it could be fun to fly against an F-35. You could team-up against it, or design the mission in other ways that gives you at least a fighting chance. Surely would be interesting... That said, i could think of dozens of aircraft, that would make much more sense to add as AI, so i'd still agree with your notion that the F-35 wouldn't be a particularly good choice to add...

You mean as a PP effect that is calculated on a "hardware shader", or do you mean as a material property? I think it would be possible to do it as a PP effect, but the question is, if the benefits would outweigh the costs (both in processing and developing). Sprites are so common for distant lights, because they are easy, cheap and look "good enough". I would guess that those AAA games that have very beautiful distance lights, still use sprites, but add some PP on top of it, to give that distant haze effect f.e. or make the "bloom" more physically correct or "cinematic". Are you aware of games that do distance lights without sprites? I think that you'd always need some form of sprite as a base, because you'd want some uniformity in visibility. A pixel-based effect, could flicker in and out of existence if the light source is subpixel. I'm speculating only, so please correct me if i'm wrong.

it has the polycount of a cybertruck.

I don't know why you want to drag VR into this. Turbulence is equally dull in 2D/pancake. What we have in DCS, i wouldn't even call turbulence: It feels more like small gusts...

is the flag defined (FLAG SET RANDOM VALUE) before you check the value? Maybe the issue is that the events check for the flag value when the flag is still undefined? Just guessing...

you can also create helper-lines. use the zone tool, another flightplan or the drawing tool to create the straight line and then use that to align the waypoints (zoom in a lot!). after that you can delete or hide the helper line...

We'll initially only get the manpads themselves and then we'll have to be very patient until ED eventually adds the crew.

I would really enjoy the option to spawn as a pilot and then walk to and climb in my aircraft. I think it would be a great immersive element. Those aircraft just hit differently when looking at them as a fragile, little human. Wasn't that - at least at some point - part of the pitch of the supercarrier module? Spawning in briefing room and then making your way to the flight deck? Maybe it was just me wanting to read it that way...

The solution proposed in the video is not good enough honestly. Adding some "proper" light objects is not that much effort for ED and would really help mission designers. Not just lights for FARPs, but all kinds of light source objects. DCS WWII would also really benefit from some era appropriate illumination.

I endorse this message!

This is a very modest wish: DCS lets you select USAF and USN "skins" for bombs. The USN skins come with the thermal protection coating, but in the case of the GBU variants they also come with grey guidance kits. The USAF style bombs come with the green kit only. So, i humbly wish for the option to also have the "modern" grey/green (non-coated) USAF version for all the Vipers, Warthogs and Mudhens to make their load-outs look a bit more 21st century. Similarly it would be cool to have USN version with coating and the "old" green guidance kits to better fit historic scenarios.