davidtsw

How do I know that adding a separate setting for the aircraft shadows would solve my problem ? Umm, because then I wouldn´t have all the trees/buildings cast advanced shadows which kills my fps at low level ? That´s how I know. It isn´t rocket science. Yeah, I thought there´s no point in opening a new thread if this one has been ignored. Go figure. 15 minutes is obviously not meant to be an accurate number but I think you´ll agree there are things we ask for that would take lots of work and simple fixes which could be done easily. Adding a separate setting for aircraft shadows is definitely a simple thing that doesn´t require the whole team to dedicate their precious time to this for days. Now what makes you think it would take so much work ? Cause that´s what you´re suggesting here.

Oh yeah, I'll definitely wait for the next sale and get them together with Normandy + WW2 assets pack. But I'm not getting 4 aircraft. Definitely not at the same time. Too much.

LOL. I can't believe you're actually serious. Thankfully most people realize that they, as paying customers, deserve something better than "just get a GTX 1080ti and piss off". All that's been asked of ED in this thread is some more graphical settings to deal with the issue.

Gonna hijack the thread here :smilewink: I am not asking you to compare the planes. I like every single one of these glorious fighters. Instead, I'd like to know what differences, if any, there are between the 4 modules. Some of them are quite old by now, some are still new-ish. I've heard they've all been updated to the current DCS standards but the information is sparse. Is any one of them heavier on the framerate than the others ? Is any one of them graphically superior, especially in the cockpit ? Are sounds modeled significantly better (or worse) on any one of the 4 modules ? Is any of them known to be buggy ? I know the simple solution is to get them all, but obviously at $50 each I want to make sure I get the most of any addon I get and not buy more than I can fly the living crap out of :lol: I think 1 German and 1 Western fighter is a good compromise. So, which ones are the ones I should go for ?

You might wanna double check it. It doesn't. I literally just had a look since I usually fly with shadows set to medium so I thought high + flat terrain shadows might do the trick but there's no difference. And ultra is not even there so I don't know what you're talking about mate. So yeah, it's a choice between crappy aircraft shadows and unplayable framerate. It would probably take 15 minutes to fix for ED. Frustrating.

So I'm reading this almost 4 years later and we still haven't got more options for terrain shadows... It would be good if ED started paying more attention to what players say. Is it really that difficult to add a few more options there ? I want my aircraft to cast a proper shadow but don't want all the trees to do so since it kills my framerate. All we need is, as suggested years ago in this very thread, separate options for aircraft, trees and buildings. I'll check again in 2023. :thumbup:

My monitor has been calibrates by my eyes :lol: And no reshade. The ground in spring and summer looks almost like in old photo scenery products for FSX. But don't get me wrong. I appreciate Starway's work and as I said, what he's done to the terrain is incredible. I just wish those damn greens were a bit more realistic cause that's not how that (any?) part of the world looks and you can verify that with Google Earth / images. The autumn though... edit: Just gave it another go and a lot depends on the time of the day. Autumn looks fabulous any time but for summer and spring I find early morning and possibly late evening hours to look best, but not ideal. At any other time the ground looks too "cold" and bright for me. Autumn has those lovely warm colors and that's why it looks so much better IMO. I might just limit my flying to autumn and early summer/spring mornings though cause it looks so interesting to fly over :D

I agree. Autumn is fantastic in general, but the in other two seasons (winter is all white anyway so it doesn't really matter what mod if any you're using) the colors are not realistic. To the point I went back to using another mod. Also, things like grey grass covering concrete textures are a bit of a let down from ground level.

I just realized that the port in the city of Poti hasn't been modeled. What on actual Earth :cry: It almost looks like it was planned and forgotten! The coast in that place is shaped like it's just waiting for all the port infrastructure to be added (though it would need to be larger) so I'm really surprised nothing is there. It's the largest sea port in Georgia and not irrelevant to the 2008 war at all as it was bombed back then. Even the rail track going into the port has been modeled but end short of what should be the port. The port in Batumi, on the other hand, has been modeled together with several ports on the Russian coast. Does anyone know the reason why Poti didn't get its port modeled in DCS ? I know nothing about modding maps but would it be a lot of work to add this to the existing Caucasus using the existing structures/buildings/textures ? Or maybe ED could add it in one of the future updates ? I mean we're supposedly getting another free map, so why not improve this one too where it clearly needs it ?

:lol: Working now. Brilliant job Starway. It really transforms the bland map into an authentic place.

I got my copy via Steam so as far as I know all the updates happen automatically. I do run a couple of other mods including Mustang's terrain mod but if Lurz doesn't then I don't think this is the issue. BTW, is it necessary to use JSGME or can I just drop the files in the appropriate folders ? Anyway, reinstalling DCS right now and I'll give it a go tomorrow.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm seeing. Are you guys able to use the mod without these issues ?

Thanks for this mod! I was using another terrain mod but wanted to try something new as the other one didn't do anything for the fields I find particularly boring. Overall I'm very happy with this mod but there are 2 things that bother me and I'm not sure if that's because I messed up with the files or what: 1. I often see bright green "borders" between individual fields. Especially visible in the summer, both from altitude and ground level. It looks like a strip of grass from another place really. 2. The ground textures near airports are a different color to the surrounding ground textures. Again, they are brighter and greener and make the airfields stick out like a sore thumb. Is this just the way the mod was designed or am I doing something wrong ?

Sure guys, but as I said, these are minor adjustments / fixes and not a whole new weather system. I believe most if not all of these issues could be fixed fairly easily which is why I would expect someone from ED to at least have a look at it. This isn´t another thread on the new weather system.

I've got to say that even though we all know DCS needs a proper weather system with realistic cloud types and patterns, etc., it can look stunning even now. I've been flying in and just above a layer of morning fog and it's stunning, especially in the mountains. However, I've found a few fairly small (I believe) things that bug me: 1. How fog looks from above. So when you're in the fog or just above it, especially with terrain peaking out here and there, it's all fine cause you have a reference point to judge the vertical distance to the top of the fog layer. But when it's lowlands you're flying above or the sea, what happens is that a uniform flat texture covers the entire area leaving you clueless as to your altitude. The easy fix for this would be to make fog appear from above just like the current 9/10 and 10/10 clouds look. Although not great, the top of the cloud layer does have some patterns to it making it much easier to gauge how high above it you are. It doesn't even have to actually be non-flat. It just needs to look like this with some minor color differences here and there. Doable ? 2. Lighting under overcast skies. Again, when flying on top of it, it looks pretty damn good I've got to say. I've got a feature called "dynamic contrast" on my otherwise mediocre screen and it makes everything look even more realistic. The top of the cloud blanket looks very bright, almost to the point where you want to squint. But as soon as I find myself under the layer of clouds or at ground level, it's all too dark. I know that overcast days can be pretty dark but not in the middle of the summer in Georgia! It should still be bright, just less colorful. Any chance this could be improved to make the otherwise good lighting system even better ? 3. Reflections. Same conditions as above. When underneath a layer of clouds there seem to be lots of reflections on the canopy making it very difficult to see anything clearly. Why would there be so many reflections in such conditions ? Unrealistic and it makes spotting even harder. 4. How clouds other than fog interact with terrain. Fog in the mountains looks beautiful, but other clouds don't have that soft feeling to them when they touch the ground. If you can make it look so good with fog, I'm sure it wouldn't be too difficult to apply this effect to other clouds, would it ? 5. You know that look of the top of a 9/10 or 10/10 cloud layer I was talking about ? How about you add something like this to the bottom of the cloud layer, too as currently it looks pretty bad looking up from ground level on overcast days. Having these issues fixed would make waiting for the new weather system much more bearable for me. I'm a little bored of flying with the same weather again and again. Clear skies look good but get old fast. 8/10 cumulus clouds are fine, too. But anything else and at least one of the mentioned issues comes into play and affects the gameplay and/or graphics negatively. I'm not even asking for dynamic weather, etc. All I want is these minor improvements that would make the game more playable and aesthetically pleasing. ED? Do you guys also notice the same issues? Are there any mods / tweaks I may not be aware of?

Where and when was that announced ? I don't mean to hijack the thread but would appreciate the link as I'm looking into buying a helicopter soon.

With those ugly, rotating 2d textures that look good in screenshots but more and more disappointing as you get closer and fly through them ? No, thanks.

Well, I agree it´s all down to your imagination in the end, but I just don´t think I´d be getting enough out of an expensive module without dedicated map(s) to use it. And modifying a map is beyond my capabilities unfortunately.

Definitely an interesting option and an alternative to the Baltic States map I mentioned. But I don't think your map could be used in a fictional conflicts in the 90s. The Baltic States and Eastern Poland would then have to be the main focus. For mid or late 80s though it would be absolutely fantastic. The great thing with such a map and conflict is that we could utilize lots of the already available aircraft: Su27, Mig29, Mig21, M2000C, AJ37, F15, A10 plus pretty much all the helicopters we now have. I wonder if they even consider making a map like this.

Well, I do agree. Especially the weather system bothers me. Though I wouldn´t say we have so many modules to choose from. Only 2 modern maps and the free one plus just one (!) ww2 theater. We haven´t even got such an iconic theater as Vietnam and no news of it coming any soon either. Lots of aircraft are still missing and I´m not even talking about the most modern ones which for obvious reasons won´t be possible for a long time. But what I mean is that even though I haven´t been playing DCS long, I´ve already realized ED isn´t exactly known for listening to the customers to say the least. I doubt they´ll see posts about this or that feature missing and then decide to implement it. They must know it very well anyway. I´m just curious what other people would like to fly next and where knowing that this is not going to lead to these maps and aircraft actually being released. @Rick50 Yeah, the FC-level F117 sounds good. I´m afraid it´s too modern though. @AeriaGloria Wow, really ? Could you send us the link ? I haven´t been able to find anything. I wonder why Sweden, though. I mean if it´s a fictional NATO vs. Russia conflict then the Baltic States would make much more sense.

That's not what the topic is about.

Hi guys, What do you think should be the next maps and aircraft we need in DCS? I'd like to discuss them together simply because it's pointless IMO to buy the F86 without the Korea theater, etc. So we know that Syria, Afghanistan and the Falklands (Razbam) have been announced / confirmed. Here's my take: I'm particularly excited about the Falklands. Razbam have mentioned releasing a few era-appropriate aircraft to go with the map, but even if they don't, we could still use the existing Harrier (yeah, I know it's not the exact version that flew there), the Mirage (same), the Gazelle apparently and all that is missing really is a proper payware A4 Skyhawk. Syria and Afghanistan are both great ideas and I'm sure they will be very successful. Lots and lots of aircraft both available and upcoming can be used there: Mig29s, Mig21, Ka50 (not quite the -52 but close enough I guess), Mi24, Mi8, plus the western birds like the upcoming F16 and more for Syria and then the A10C's playground Afghanistan would also suit aircraft like the Gazelle, F16, F15, Harrier and from the Soviet war the FC3 Su25 would be perfect together with Mig21, Mi24, Mi8, etc. We'll never run out of things to fly there for sure. From here there are a few theaters DCS could go for and they would all be fantastic: - Vietnam, especially if we get that A4 and the already announced Phantom! I went to a local Vietnam War museum which has some downed American aircraft on display and this bird, even just the wreckage, looks so damn powerful and aggressive. I'd love to fly it over Vietnam. We already have Mig19 and Mig15 and the existing Mig21 could also be used. - Iraq, for the first Gulf War, the more recent one as well as the struggle against ISIS. Again, lots of birds to fly especially considering the present-day Iraqi Air Force now flies the Su25 (we seriously need an updated version of this plane for Syria, too) Fictional conflicts over real maps: I see no need at all to create any fictional maps since there are more than enough real places where conflicts could start like somewhere near the Chinese coast, perhaps near Japan or the Philippines or maybe Taiwan, the Baltic States or now Venezuela. The options are there. And finally more WW2 theaters. I feel there is a huge potential that is not being utilized at the moment with the other sim I don't want to mention leading the way. They could extend Normandy to make room for the Battle of Britain, do the N. African theater, something from the Eastern front maybe or the Pacific on top of the already announced map which no one really knows what it is. All in all, there are at least 10 theaters that I believe would be profitable and suitable for DCS. Realistically, that's probably at least 10 years of flying assuming we get one every year. Hope ED isn't going anywhere any soon! :lol:

@Mustang, thanks for this great mod. A significant improvement over the boring default textures.:thumbup: Did you play around with the runways ? They seem to have more detail to them now. With proper size trees, satellite image-based fields and more buildings the map could actually look fantastic. I understand there's only so much you can do but I second what @zionid said. The fields just look too generic. Not that it's your fault cause they look generic in the default version. Have you considered redoing them to more or less match satellite images in terms of shape, size and color ?

Hi, I'm playing on a budget-ish 24" 1080p monitor and aiming or spotting targets in the distance is quite difficult when flying with the FOV set to around 90-95. If I try to lower the value to see better, it makes the aircraft appear to be flying much slower than it really is, so I'm trying to come up with a solution. Since I'm using keyboard + mouse for now I need to have a keyboard key assigned to a view that is zoomed in, focuses on the HUD glass but still allows me to see at least the launch authority light in the Su 25. Custom snap view 5 is something I'm using now and it's already improved my accuracy with the Frogfoot but the FOV is just a little too narow and I can only switch to it once the LA light comes which takes some time, then adjust to line up with the target and only then fire so it's not very efficient. Is there a way to simply modify this snap view by zooming out a little ? Alternatively, how do I set up a similar view so I can assign it to 1 button ? Ideally, I'd like to have a key assigned to something that will simply zoom in my current view and go back to normal as soon as the key is depressed. I know I can just zoom in and out with the mouse wheel but there's no time for that when diving on the enemy, or use / and * on the keyboard, but that's just gonna gradually zoom in and out and I just want to be able to move to a preset FOV keeping my current view regardless of whether I'm looking forward or checking my six. Not sure if this is possible at all, though. Any ideas guys ? EDIT: OK, I figured out how to modify existing snap views. How about allocating a key to a certain FOV ?

Cool! Thanks for the info about FOV and how VR works. It seems that it might be worth getting the Rift or the original Vive now that prices are dropping. I wanted to go VR at some point anyway, probably 2nd gen, but if it fixes the perception of speed and doesn't really make spotting any more difficult than on a 2d screen then I don't see a reason why not. Plus that amazing feeling of actually sitting in the cockpit. The topic is drifting away from trees so let me just add that I did some more testing last night, placed several ground units next to trees, compared them to buildings etc. and there's no way they're the right size! At least not most of them. I still think it would help, VR or not, to have trees smaller. I understand why ED went with taller and wider trees (for the same reason they, sadly, removed lots of buildings in the new Caucasus making towns look like villages at best), but just like there's the option of choosing the quality of shadows, draw distance and so on, I'd like to have the option to fly over larger or smaller trees. EDIT: @Weta43, after some more research I'm reading your post again and I'm not sure if you were just talking about how our eyes work or saying that current gen VR headsets offer higher resolution in the center of the " screen" and lower around the edges. I'm reading about the Vive Pro Eye that's supposed to have this feature which would mean that Vive Pro or Rift don't offer it right now.