213

the op needs to remove f22, f18e, f15e and f35. those are basically not even possible.

it looks really good. and i appreciate the skillful economizing of details.

it's possible to add more lods to the vehicles and there should be no more issue.

the detailed version can be used for the normal map. in-game, there should be very little visible difference, unless you pause the game and zoom in to study. on the gear door, brake, gear compartment, they modeled parts like individual wires or indentations that won't be visible most of the time and can be represented using either texture or normal map, or both combined for the best effect. i also read the part where they essentially say take it or leave it. i say be humble. john x is right when he says the details need to be toned down for performance's sake. as for the argument that they are future-proofing this model. that's not really the case. polygonal detail has seriously plateaued in recent years and video cards are now more geared towards shader processing, as in normal maps, than drawing triangles. anyway, good luck on the model.

the patterns are too tight to be effective. might want to scale it up.

i doubt popularity has any sway over what vehicles they do, much less popularity as measured via a poll on the forum.

the reflections use env map, a technology that existed for decades, and is not very resource intensive. cloud shadows at night are nigh invisible and is therefore an unnecessary resource tax. there's a difference between an effective use of resources and an unnecessary one. the latter would qualify as a waste.

very well made point. maybe people are getting too used to how ea and activision does things. ie, a sequel every year.

yes, they're experimenting with dynamic shadows. but the new direction is not is mutually exclusive with a bump map layer, and cna only complement each other visually.

i saw a video of xplane 9 or 10 which showed flocks of birds lifting off when an airliner flew past. would that be out of the scale of a dcs sim? i imagine you could make bird flocks or even individual bird sprites which if impacted at a certain speed to specific aircraft components would cause issues.

either the intensity of the moonlight isn't high enough to cast cloud shadows or the visual effect would be so minimal as to be a waste of resources.

terrain bump mapping hi, have you guys considered using bump mapping for the terrain? you can derive one from the noise layer. it'll be a tiled material layer that will show up as you approach ground level. the main purpose of this is also similar to the noise texture. to improve the sense of speed. but bump mapping is also effective for increasing the realism and detail of light interacting with the ground surface. you can generate the bump mapping directly from the noise texture using plugins for either photoshop or gimp(a free alternative to ps). this will also make either texture correspond to each other, so it wouldn't have a random appearance. rise of flight uses a more resource intensive form of this technique called parallax mapping to improve the sense of speed. i can attest to its effectiveness. here's a screenshot example: http://www.wingsofhonour.com/news/2010/img_riseofflight_screenshot_777studios_20101112_0002_parallax-mapping-2_1280x800x24b.jpg thanks.

it might work better for the farp to be reduced to individual landing pad models and then combined with command post buildings, watchtowers and accoutrements as a farp template.

i was under the impression that the documentation includes instructions on how to make your models work in the edm format. if it only contains instructions on how to use the tools themselves, then i agree there's no need. http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/8691/dcs11.jpg uses normal map, but no specular. but that can be achieved easily. exported to edm format. but cannot get it to show up in the game following the object import to dcs tutorial...i assume the problem is with the model itself.

i think the problem is that the current farp model doesn't blend into the surrounding terrain very well.

the blocked instrument panel was never a problem for me. i just memorize the hot keys or mouse over the buttons to get their name. so i'd like to see the pilot body return even if it's just legs. as for head bobbing in cockpit, i don't notice a decrease. although when turning on camera jiggle inside the cockpit, the effect is more subtle and fluid, and much better than it was before. i turn it on to simulate the vibration.

yeah: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX5StDRP_EM note especially the awesome effect of the droplets sliding across the window. another example featuring dynamic motion effect(if you turn your head, the droplets drag another direction):

hi, how did you make animated soldiers for dcs?

through the link on the first page there's a download for 3dsmax plugins, but the documentation is in russian. someone needs to translate it. also, your sig is a myth.

i get what he's saying. this really is a very simple fix and can be performed parallel to other more important fixes. and i can sympathize with someone who notices these things.

if they're worried about performance, just make a rectangular box using transparent textures.

20 minutes from takeoff to engagement zone. i use time compression.

have you guys considered using bump mapping for the terrain? you can derive one from the noise layer. it'll be a tiled material layer that will show up as you approach ground level. the main purpose of this is also similar to the noise texture. to improve the sense of speed. but bump mapping is mainly responsible for increasing the realism of light interacting with the ground surface. you can generate the bump mapping directly from the noise texture using plugins for either photoshop or gimp(a free alternative to ps). this will also make either texture correspond to each other, so it wouldn't have a random appearance. rise of flight uses a more resource intensive form of this technique called parallax mapping to improve the sense of speed. i can attest to its effectiveness. here's a screenshot example: http://www.wingsofhonour.com/news/2010/img_riseofflight_screenshot_777studios_20101112_0002_parallax-mapping-2_1280x800x24b.jpg

one of the examples sticks out. the "with us or against us" line is rhetorical, it's not meant to be logical. it's not saying if you're not with us, you can only be against us. it's saying either you're with us, or you're not with us, but we'll count that as an against for the sake of making a strong easily understood statement. the understood and intended meaning is completely different from the meaning at face value. i expected more from wikipedia tbh.

wrong version.