213

the ed plugin model viewer provided by ed only works with flaming cliffs 1.1?

what do you mean? nato also uses names. i think there's a certain appeal to the nato names. not just the sound, but the fact that they tend to be rather obscure, yet short words.

that's because a russian company makes the game. or if a company simply wants to defer to its original name.

there's absolutely nothing wrong with making assumptions about other cultures, in many cases, it's really the only way you can learn the differences. it's part of the process of testing what's real and what's false. you make an assumption/theory and test that against what other people say. in this case, a representative of russia with knowledge about the subject has shed light on the matter and the op will have benefited from the learning experience.

i think they incorporated my suggestion of less pronounced cockpit shaking(shift+j inside cockpit). although it might just be a coincidence.

he's right, it would be redundant in the sense of making a t-72 sim when there's steel beast pro, although there are variables which mitigate redundancy; visual improvement, pricing, etc. the best route would be to make another vehicle that has yet to be explored very fully. f-18 does fit this criteria as it has not received much exposure of late, nor has it ever been modeled to anywhere near dcs quality. falcon on the other hand has been aptly handled by bms, falcon 4 and a plethora of software, new and old dedicated to its simulation. but i suppose i'm biased. i dislike famous vehicles and f-16 is as famous as it gets.

you'd think with 67mil thrown their way, they'd at least be able to supply the us army with realistically proportioned characters instead of this basketball player nonsense. aside from that, this looks promising.

i thought it was already possible to do mapping, just extremely hard. and you need an older version of 3dsmax. 2008 i think. because that's the only program the plugin is compatible with.

someone made a joke about this that i think was hilarious and made sense. he said a quadruple amuptee would have serious trouble trying to fly an aircraft. it was in response to an "i am the pilot" argument.

in the case of computer monitors, 60 is ample. any more is a waste of resources. ka-50 looks and plays smoothly capped at just 30. people who claim they can notice differences up to 100 fps are of course liars and ignoramuses.

aldeda, none of what you posted contradicts my point. i said the snow follows the camera around, not that it faces the camera. also, particles are made similar to the sprites, but they don't operate like it. they are sprites which inhabit 3d space and exhibit 3d behavior.

no, they're sprites. textured quads don't follow the camera around.

if it has zero height, then it's 2d.

that would require particles, these are just sprites. they could make a version that's black, i guess, for night time. but they would be basically invisible.

people who play games for achievements lack the attention span to appreciate dcs. i doubt much "learning" will take place.

bird strike and bird flocks as simulated in x plane: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSqT-w-Zecc

make sure scene detail is set to high.

nice, but the eye doesn't function like a camera, we have wider horizontal perspective therefore the view of the goggle would be slightly more oval.

csb

this is good for the gear touch down effect, however for off road vehicles it doesn't look very natural. it looks like excessively large exhaust fume rather than dirt/dust being kicked up. on green terrain of black sea map, this is especially incongruous. perhaps ed will find it fitting to separate the the landing gear touchdown effect from the vehicle dust trail effect. thank you

the concept behind all of these flight sim terrains is fairly identical. a satellite layer, with a detailed noise layer draped on top of a mesh derived from satellite data. then comes the models, trees, buildings, etc. ed is already improving upon a proven concept by adding dynamic shadows to their terrain. something i don't think has ever been attempted before, but please correct me if i'm wrong. one way to further improve upon the terrain is to add a bump map layer.

i know people want carrier operation with f-18a, and we all know that's the choice with the largest liklihood of being true with the revelation about the domain name registration. however since the poll also asks what we would like to see, not just what we think is the most possible, i chose f-15c for its superior(in my view) aesthetics.

dcs engine capable of convincing sprite based explosion and particle explusion effects as evidenced by the sprite based sprouts when you fire into the water. same technique can be applied to explosions. what is needed is the same shader for shadow effect so the sprite appears 3d, and transparency for effect of dust, debris and dirt because ground sprouts are less dense than water sprouts, although transparency is not a requirement if it's currently not possible to do so. there is no need to go all out with dx11 and full particle and physx style calculations. with clever use of sprites, similar effects can be achieved at a fraction of the cost to performance. thank you.

fyi the ftp link is faster even though it takes awhile to load.

that sounds wrong. if you were to operate in rainy weather, especially in a storm, you should be able to see rain just fine.