Magic Zach

Gonna give this thread a new bump just in case.

Version 1.0.2 is up and available for download from the UserFiles! This time, adds something that's complained about the P-51 very frequently: the green pilots Courtesy of both Whiplash882 and WineNB for doing the actual work on recolorizing the pilot's suit. If you are a 51 livery conneseur, you may have seen this particular getup for our 51 driver before -added WWII-themed pilot for all available skins

Version 1.0.1 released and available to download! When updating it in your file structure, just drag it into the mods folder and click "Replace File In Destination" -Fixed shadow errors with the wheel wells -Fixed/removed 485th invasion stripes on tail -Bug fix for 84th battery vent V1.0.0 Wheel wells V1.0.1 Wheel wells:

Oh, good spot! I'll be sure to fix that. I'll try to remember to get this fixed for all the skins currently in before next Monday at the most. I'll make a post here when it's uploaded. This will be the first addition, or rather the start, of the changelog

This mod is a texture revamp of the default P-51D skins within DCS. It is an attempt to bring the Mustang's graphical fidelity closer to ED's latest texture standards. Currently it is only available in 2K, as the 4K texture overhaul is still WIP. See latest posts on this thread. Version: 1.1 (11/16/21) I have returned to this project in late October 2022, and the progress on a 4K texture Mustang has begun! For progress updates, be sure to check the latest posts on this thread. This is a WIP personal project. That means that working on this depends and uses my time, so I'm not going to be consistent. And the WIP also means that this mod will continually be updated! That means for the latest version with the newest features and latest bug fixes, you need to check in here or the DCS Userfiles occasionally. I will make a post here for every update I make. This thread is primarily for bug reports from you guys, feedback, and progress updates from myself. "Progress updates? Like what?" I will try to do major updates in phases. Planned features upcoming, in lose order, are: additional/modified weathering, increased texture resolution, completely overhauled rivet and fastener scheme, followed by an overhauled normal map. These last two are pretty far off. We'll see how this goes. As I work on these, I'll probably post little snips of the work in here. NOTE: NOT ALL SKINS FOR THE 51 ARE CURRENTLY INCLUDED. MORE MAY COME LATER. Modified default skins currently include: RAF 19 Sqn Jun 44 RAF 64 Sqn Jun 44 RAF 112 Sqn RAF 122 Sqn Jun 44 RAF 129 Sqn Jun 44 RAF 306 Sqn Jun 44 RAF 315 USAF 84th FS USAF 363rd FS USAF 364th FS USAF 375th FS USAF 485th FS USAF 302nd FS, RED TAILS (v1.1) Bare Metal (v1.1) Download for the 2K version is available here on the DCS website: Magic's Modified Mustang Makeup [M4] (digitalcombatsimulator.com)

Fairly often there is a row over the damage model, and most often it ends with confusion because as users, the best we can get are the misleading graphics for damage from the outside, and a very simplified (doesn't catch nearly everything) debrief window that's only available to singleplayer. And aside from that, a small chat window that just says "Aircraft damage/destroyed" on the right side of the screen. It would benefit a lot of discussion and potential bug-finding if a tool such as featured here in Nineline's video we're available and open to OpenBeta users.

D-22/23 would be perfect

I'm having trouble getting the wording in this part. What do you mean by "air charge temperature"? Do you mean the air temperature leaving the coolant shutter? How would the increased air temperature here decrease horsepower output from the engine? Is it through the rising coolant temperatures? You mean a hotter engine is less efficient? Could this be fixed within the DCS model?

The DCS P-51 data in this post has been found to be incorrect, and has been corrected here For easy visual comparison, I charted out these results in a similar manner used in the chart here. Also, here is verbatim the conditions of the original graph: As before, the conditions were all matched when gathering the raw values from DCS. Airspeed was taken as Indicated Airspeed. To match the real graph as linked above, the orientation of the oil shutter was inverted (360 is open, 0 is closed). While the coolant shutter has position 0 as open, and 360 as closed. I can't say why they did it this way, but I matched that as well (but limits in Google Sheets prevent me from doing it properly). Regardless, the lines are still representative if you look at their outputs on the left or right. Left side of the graph is the open position, right side of the graph is the closed position. Things to note: -The drag curve model for the coolant shutter within DCS nearly linearly drops in proportion to the coolant shutter's position. If you look at the relationship between drag and coolant shutter position in the real aircraft (ser 44-15342), the drag is minimized at the point when the coolant shutter is roughly 1/3 open. This shutter position vs drag curve is not represented within DCS, and DCS assumes the more closed the shutter is, the less drag will continually be generated. -The sheer range of control the coolant shutter has over the coolant temperature is much larger. The temperature minimum and maximum both feet comfortably within the minimum and maximum attainable temperatures of the real aircraft -The drag curve model for the oil shutter is nearly identical between DCS and the real thing, despite what may initially appear on the graph. If you were to take the average slope and curve of the speed drop between the DCS P-51, and P-51 44-15342, they will very closely follow each other. The difference here is just that our 51 is simply faster overall. This is an issue that is for another topic, another day. -The temperature range between the two needs adjusting, while not nearly as significantly as with coolant. While both our Mustang and the real Mustang will peak at the same temperature, the real Mustang can attain a lower oil temperature when it requires. As significant as 7C difference at most at their respective minimums. -The oil temperature of the real Mustang will flatten out once 72+% open. Past nearly 3/4 open, the oil temperature does not change.

I'm actually not sure this is a bug, but I haven't seen this behavior mentioned in the manuals. Better safe than sorry

Would make for a pretty neat new role for a warbird in DCS for sure

thx for the update Hiro. Hopefully ED gets to the grind on that soon. Lots of 3rd party aircraft out there

•This does not quantify to having head interactions with the cockpits, it is having head interactions with your chair •Not every cockpit will conform to the same dimensions as your chair •Your VR headset will hit your chair. Being a piece of equipment that extends 3 or so inches in front of your face, it does not conform to the same dimensions as the pilots' own head equipment across all platforms. Or even most. WW2 aviators' worst problem would have been their O2 mask, which is much lower on the face and does not restrict visibility as you can just tip your head forwards. Thus it can be relatively disregarded pertaining to WW2 models, my main field in DCS at least. •If you have a chair that you use to restrict your view already, then virtual limits wouldn't even matter to you anyways. Besides, the ideal situation would be that such things would be an option for users to pick and choose as they wish

Well its already been covered that this isn't necessarily true. What is at minimum just as jarring is moving your head through the canopy and equipment in the cockpit when you don't expect it to, because you shouldn't be able to.

Thanks BIG

Destroy it? lmao "killjoys" What destroys the immersion into a simulation that claims to be one of the best is when I can check my six and would have to catch myself from clipping through the canopy glass of the 109 or 190. Because this is what pilots in reality did during the war. Must have been some sort of wartime cover up, all their pilots were relatives of Danny Phantom. The only killjoys here are the folks that want to keep DCS VR a step back, preferring to enforce every and all VR players to use the same patchy, jarring implementation that's been there from the beginning. Or the people that screech with whataboutwhataboutism like this fellow above my comment.

Quite straight forwards. Mirrors for all modules (to my knowledge) do not have depth for VR players. It gives the mirrors an appearance of being essentially a small flat-screen television in your cockpit. Mirrors as they are now only compute the reflection per the center of the head, like TrackIR, when in VR it should render different for and to both eyes. Ofc if you look in mirrors in reality, you know that you can see depth and distance in them. Just a little request for VR, is all.

A mistake by ED there WW1 would be fantastic (I really crave an in-depth DCS simulation of a Sopwith Camel), but DCS is stretched thin enough already. The WW2 scenario isn't fleshed out for the D-day invasion period yet (though seems that finally ED has gotten a sort of groove on it). Plus there are talks of moving to PTO, which sounds like terrible news because that would split WW2 development and the community before even one scenario would be finished. There's just too much going on right now, so much left to do elsewhere.

I've had extensive experience using the head limits from other titles, and for those that don't give up in the first couple minutes, it is fairly simple to acclimate to them. 90% of the other title's VR users now don't get nauseous. It helps a lot also that for our sit-down games, it is much harder to get any kind of nausea than standing up. There may be an adjustment period, but long term, as elsewhere, I see no reason why most would be not acclimate either. Besides, some of the most popular games from the Oculus store (that I don't think I'm allowed to name) already practice moving the character's view independent of the user. Adding limits and independent camera movements is nothing new to the VR world. Aside from that, being trapped in a small box is part of the experience of flying our aircraft...probably the most tangible one, in reality. This entails other effects of being within a small box, largely your visibility outside of it. This is a problem mentioned rather often by our old warbird pilots. This also means that we can't experience these recreated aircraft as full as possible. The lack of feeling like you're being locked in a box completely aside, some aircraft had their own solutions for these visibility problems (if visibility around the aircraft wasn't a problem, they never would have made solutions during the war anyways). Such as our Spitfire, that comes with the Malcom hood canopy. This was made to give taller pilots some head space, but also to permit better rear and surrounding visibility by the pilots. A very real feature of the Spitfire, we cannot properly utilize this feature as of now, as we can merely bypass the glass entirely, and there are no defined edges. Might as well pop the canopy...but that's ridiculous and just further ruins the gameplay (need to be serious here because some individuals have honestly suggested this). As far as development time, it's overexaggarated. We already have all the cockpit models to use as a template, and the shape for creating such a box does not need to be complicated. As the case for the Spitfire; create the initial cube, slant the back for the seat angle, extend the front until the dashboard, use a sphere and additionally merge it (for the Malcolm hood), make an intrusion from the front for the gunsight, add collision properties for the VR cameras and model. The boundary box itself for each cockpit does not have to be complicated at all. To really shortcut things, the limit could be defined by the current box for flat-screen cameras...but that doesn't offer much fidelity with the cockpit's dimensions. Aside from all this, I also see no reason to not provide options for the effects at the boundary. Aside from a hard-stop, I've also heard of the earlier mentioned fade to black. Some suggest just blurring the view outside the boundary. This would be a swell option for the individual client-side, allowing them to pick the option they prefer when limits are going to be on, wherever they play. I cannot say if I rather the control for boundaries on or off be given to the client only or priority given to the server's settings. At least if with the above mentioned options, if a server is given priority over client, the client can still pick the effect at the boundary that suits them best.

What do you think about having restrictions in-game to your view, while in VR in the cockpit? Have you had experience with such limitations on your view before in other sit-down games? Do you believe that such limits will increase the immersion? Words and comments appreciated as well. Feedback doesn't have to just be from the poll alone. Preferably, it'd be both.

Other: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/225980-vr-head-moves-through-closed-cockpit/

According to a poll of 65 participants so far in a forum I don't know if I should link (but from a flight game that already has head limits for VR), 90.77% of VR users will not feel nauseous from head limits ever, 3.08% only feel it once an hour, and 4.62% 2-3 times an hour. 1.54% get nauseous 10-11 times per flight hour with the limits. For cases of nausea per every interaction with the head limits, 90.77% say they never feel nausea at all, and 1.54% each for 0-10% of interactions they feel nausea, 10-20% of interactions, 20-30, 50-60, 80-90, and 90-99%. Due to limits of the poll, the next one are combo answers (two in one etc). The question reads: Do you feel that the head restrictions add immersion to the aircraft, and helps you feel restrained as the real pilots did? Would you prefer the limits be removed or changed? Does the realistic restriction on SA effect your choice? The answers are 38.46% for immersed/satisfied with head limits, 44.62% for immersed/desire changes to some aircrafts' limits however, 4.62% for immersed/happier with them off, 3.08% for not immersed/satisfied (for cheating and unlimited SA prevention), 3.08% for not immersed/desire changes to some aircrafts' limits, 3.08% for not immersed/always want them off, 1.54% for indifferent/happy with cheat prevention, and a final 1.54% that's indifferent altogether.

Marduk

Can you refresh your links? I know it's from 2015 but it's a long-shot hope