Jump to content

Trident

Members
  • Posts

    600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Trident

  1. What's up with the shadow (or rather lack thereof) of the bomb body on those GBUs? Looks like only the guidance kit is casting one.
  2. Damn that mesh is nice! I'd much rather have something like that than this, for example... http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/%3CFA%3EJaws/ScreenShot_034.jpg ... or this... http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/157921ScreenShot012HDR.jpg ... in combination with such a crude elevation model: http://www.berkuts.ru/files/screenshots/vat-br-vfat2010/vat-br-vfat2010-64.jpg Don't get me wrong, I like a smooth, faithful aircraft model as much as the next guy (in fact, I think it is an important part of why ED's sims have always looked better than the competition), but you can overshoot the target, you know. Sure, make curved surfaces as rounded as possible - arguably even rendering the gun muzzle in 3D is still reasonable - but those air vents are most definitely overkill. Same with the cockpit details, I understand that having a nice pilot model and perfectly round canopy frames is great for immersion, but that HUD camera (with wiring!) and the panel details around it are just pointless. How much time are you going to spend looking at your aircraft (let alone enemy aircraft) that closely? On the other hand, you'll be looking at the terrain mesh pretty much all the time, particularly in a sim like Black Shark or A-10 which place a lot of emphasis on low to medium altitude operations. Yet the terrain model has pretty much stayed the same since LOMAC while aircraft polycount has multiplied - IMHO the level of detail seen in the Hornet model (maybe slightly higher, but not much) is practically as good as it ever needs to be. (Sorry about plagiarising other people's screenshots for brevity)
  3. Sounds promising, keep up the good work! Thought so. LOMAC (and by extension probably DCS) is 30m AFAIK. To be honest, I'd rather they spend some more of their poly budget on the terrain mesh than rendering the boundary layer air outlets on the F-15 intakes in 3D...
  4. Nice! While I'm not a big fan of unmodified photo textures without vegetation and buildings, your terrain mesh looks like it might have a somewhat higher resolution than the Black Sea map. What's the spacing of the elevation data?
  5. Absolutely, and it may be important to observe that art work isn't necessarily any less time consuming than re-writing code (so I wasn't suggesting that). For terrain elevation models, there's the additional issue of data-availability. The current mesh is probably the best available off the shelf for the region, improving it any further means editing it in some way. Now, doing that by hand would be prohibitive for a map this size, so another solution with less human input needs to be found. Fortunately, such a solution exists: fractals. Google Outerra to get an idea of the potential offered by this technology. However, I'm not suggesting that ED implement the Outerra engine, just that they should use similar algorithms on the DCS elevation model (outside the sim environment) to increase its resolution without having to manually edit anything. Take the source data (DEM files, or whatever it actually is) which forms the basis for the DCS map, run it through a separate fractal tool and save the output mesh for use in the sim (with the current graphics engine). BTW, to expand a bit more on the point about the FF5 effects, how explosions and smoke look in motion is almost as important as how realistic they look in terms of "style". To provide another example, the missile smoke trails in DCS look almost photorealistic on screenshots, but their "wobbling", bubbling motion is VERY unrealistic and distracting when you actually watch them in the sim. I'm not sure if that's a z-fighting issue or something but I find it very annoying.
  6. FF5 does have some nice explosions which look very convincing in motion. Still pictures don't really do them justice, because you'll then notice how dated the technology behind them is (like most of Falcon's textures, they look like they were drawn in crayon on paper!). As far as how to animate the formation, development and dissipation of the fireball, smoke cloud and debris, ED could do worse than to emulate these though! Many of the other effects (flares, smoke from burning aircraft) in FF5 were very obviously inspired by their LOMAC counterparts however ;) Some of them actually improved on the originals, the flare smoke trails for example look better than ED's because they are more dense. Terrain is actually the least of the problems of the DCS graphics engine, IMHO. The texturing is still second to none - with a high-res elevation model, collidable 3D trees (copy ROF faithfully in this respect and you can't go wrong ;) ) and dynamic terrain shadowing as seen in MSFS it will be fine. Of those, the terrain mesh should actually be mostly a question of art work rather than coding as such. After some fine tuning with respect to LODs and visible range the above would put DCS ahead of any current competitor.
  7. And I stand by what I said. Unedited photo terrain texture sets can have numerous problems with incorrect geo-referencing, poor compatibility with ground objects and lighting conditions (meaning they will only look good at the right time of simulated day). Some examples from the site you linked: Flat cruiseships? Wonky shadowing. If you placed autogen objects on these textures it would likely look more than a little weird. Overall, ED's approach to texturing is still unmatched.
  8. Speaking strictly in terms of graphics, what DCS needs IMHO is a much higher elevation mesh resolution, the terrain shadowing from MSFS, the trees from ROF and some improved effects. As for the latter, ED might be closer to a good solution than you think, I still have some pre-release screenshots of LOMAC with explosions which are far better than what we have now. Not perfect (no flying debris), but easily competitive with any sim out there today with some updating. Combine this with the flame effects from ROF and it would blow the competition away. Still, after all these years, no other sim - NOTHING - comes close to this kind of terrain texturing: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=938194&postcount=1649 The DCS engine is still competitive, just needs some polish to keep it up to date. Yes, the blast wave is exaggerated and has been for some time. Too large, not transparent enough - it should be a lot more subtle.
  9. Give that man a cigar! http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=45953&postcount=108
  10. Sounds good, I particularly like the work on AI communications. This is one of the few competitive weaknesses remaining in ED's sims, so that bodes well for a future air to air themed installation of DCS!
  11. The upshot being that I can't quite see the R-77 as a kinematic lemon (at least by the standards of its day) ;) Unlike the AMRAAM, the deployed state of the art has stagnated, allowing the US missile to leapfrog the Adder's range capability by a combination of electronics miniaturization (resulting in a better fuel fraction, with or without a larger motor) and advanced shaped trajectories. However, I see no reason why the Russian missile would not do what it says on the box - in the early 90s it was very much a competitive design. GGTharos is right in saying there is a certain drag disadvantage to lattice control surfaces, but that it is not the main factor in the inferiority of the R-77 to later AIM-120 marks. Propellant performance is probably also not very different, so most of the blame does reside with the electronics (weight, size and capability to perform energy efficient trajectories). Every inch of length not taken up by guidance and seeker is available for more rocket fuel - without data on the AMRAAM's guidance system it is hard to say how good 16kg is.
  12. I'd like to know where this notion originates, because from what I've been able to gather lattice control surfaces do NOT carry a huge drag penalty (if indeed any at all) at speeds outside the transonic region (where the lattice 'chokes'). Since air-to-air missiles rarely operate in this condition (launch preferably at supersonic speed, endgame velocity for a successful shot also comfortably in excess of Mach 1), the disadvantage is minimal and may well be outweighed by benefits. If the R-77 does have a kinematic problem it is more likely to be caused by other issues, for example inferior propellant performance or a lower fuel fraction due to bulky guidance and seeker electronics. A much more serious drawback of lattice fins is RCS.
  13. Excellent model! Any skinning guru up for a what-if scheme? How about a hypothetical Chilean AF Gripen, wearing the same rather striking colours as their current F-16Cs? The JAS-39 was the Falcon's main rival during the procurement competition, so there is some justification for exploring this scenario. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v79/wolfgripen/topcammo.jpg Another option would be a Polish Gripen, but the pattern is very similar anyway and unlike Chile's fighters, it's only two-tone grey.
  14. Evil, I see your glider and raise you a F-15I: Not sure if it's been posted before, but it is a superb photo, IMHO!
  15. Nice MERs on the Su-34, or are those the dual S-13 pylons we've been seeing on Su-33 #69 at MAKS for years?
  16. That looks fantastic! Can't wait :)
  17. Yes, that Mi-17 is definitely unlike any other I've seen before. Two US-built IR-jammers, as nscode says (perhaps three, can't see what happened to the standard Russian one because the rotor blade is in the way!), as well as an exhaust IR-suppressor also of American origin rather than Russian.
  18. Not per se, but the Zhuk-M radar is more modern than the upgraded N001V.
  19. LMAO, I can only hope Alfa never sees this :D It's actually an SS-N-16 ASW missile (called Vodopad by the Russians). The western counterpart is the ASROC - the SS-N-23 is more like the Trident D5!
  20. Fantastic piece of modelling! No pressure about the release, it clearly won't be very long now and another week or three of waiting won't do us any harm - so don't rush it.
  21. This is very, very nice work! I'm looking forward to it!
  22. Nice! Can anybody identify that MALE UAV in the shot with Lukashenko? http://http.cdnlayer.com/jwcinc01/2297935425/minsk_oct_2008/BELARUS--Belarussian_Presid01.jpg
×
×
  • Create New...