Search the Community
Showing results for tags '3d model'.
Found 12 results
-
Please add LODs for the 3D model to help improve performance on multiplayer servers. Fewer tris is important but also consider reducing object count in the LODs as DCS considers these when calculating lighting and shadows. This change would benefit all of the multiplayer community.
-
This issue has been reported by @NineLine but it was handled inside a report for a different issue which has now been resolved and will likely be closed in the future. I'm creating this thread to have a place to track it's progress through different Open Beta updates until it is resolved. The MiG-29 variants in DCS do not have lighter LODs. Under certain conditions the full detail model will still render at a range of more than 75km. The evidence for this issue is the .lods file for each variant and the absence of relevant .edm files in the shapes folder. This issue is still present in DCS Open Beta 2.8.2.35632
-
The MiG-21 currently only uses a LOD0 model. It has a .lods file describing transitions but they all reference the LOD0 model and the LOD0 model has no embedded transform nodes. While the model is not the heaviest in DCS, in a multiplayer environment near a busy airfield, a few MiG-21s can add up to a lot of objects and triangles very quickly, putting an unnecessary load on the player's CPU & GPU, particularly with shadows enabled. Also, due to how the camera seems to work in DCS, zooming in can cause the 3D model to begin rendering at longer distances. I did a search in this forum for the term "lod" and saw references to different LOD levels in the past, so possibly they did exist once and have been omitted along the way. Attached are two in-game screenshots showing 10 MiG-21s taking off at Senaki airbase, at close range and 6km away, with similar object counts in both scenes. I hope you can find the time to add the lower detail LODs as it would be a great help to the multiplayer community, especially the Cold War servers.
-
The 3d model of the Mirage F1CE is very detailed and beautiful. But for multiplayer servers it can be quite heavy when there are multiple Mirage F1s close by because, at the moment, DCS multiplayer is very hard on CPUs when dealing with high object counts & shadows enabled. The F1CE LOD transitions at 50m and 100m still use the LOD0 model. Are the Mirage-F101/02 files going to be replaced with lighter models when there is time?
-
The MB-339 has a beautiful 3D model but it would be helpful for performance on multiplayer servers if there were some simpler LODs added. Multiplayer in DCS is currently very hard on CPUs, especially with shadows enabled, so reducing load where possible will help all players.
-
- 2
-
-
- 3d model
- performance
- (and 1 more)
-
Hi everyone, In DCS, Saipan has numerous radomes where there should actually be tanks of some description. In many cases these radomes are much larger than whatever tank is there in real life, making them quite obvious, even from relatively far away. Agingan Point: Saipan International Airport: Tanks east of Garapan: Tanks next to Puerto Rico Drive, near Puerto Rico/Tanapag Harbour: Tanks on the grounds of an industrial facility, near Tanapag Harbour: Tank on Route 320 near San Roque:
-
investigating 3D model fixes and other issues.
catchforusthefoxes posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
I'm sure the team is busy and I'm sure some things have taken more than a year to address but I'm just wondering if the 3D model inaccuracies and incompletions will be addressed some day? Also, taking a look at the model I've noticed that the dorsal fin may have some sizing inaccuracies. It is thinner and less prominent than the real fins and not as wide or tall as true to life dorsal fins for the currently existing P-47 are, I notice that the sides of real dorsal fins have an almost curved slope and cover a greater area on the empennage unlike the dorsal fin we have at the moment which just sticks straight up and connects from one point to another. True to life fins: DCS: Much smaller with nearly no slope or curve
-
Nothing serious, but lightning rods on the tailerons should NOT be symmetrical. Tailerons are interchangable, therefore lightning rods on the left taileron should be (and they are in game) on the upper side, and on the right they should be on the down side (and they are not).
-
Hello, I’ve noticed this for a while but only just decided to get the screenshot to have the evidence. Seems pretty clear to me they come out of the chute that points 90 degrees to the right and not from straight behind the gun cover opening. Thank you
- 6 replies
-
- 3
-
-
- modelling
- animations
- (and 5 more)
-
Hi everyone, For some time the AN/SPS-48E NTU (RADAR on the rear of the superstructure) has had a rather excessive rotation speed; currently, it rotates at about 4× the speed that it should (~60 rpm / 360°/s or a rotation period of 1 s as opposed to 15 rpm / 90°/s or a rotation period of 4 s). Tarawa_SPS-48E_rot_speed.trk
-
Hello, since Mi-24P release I have pored over the 3D model to find different things. Among things I could not find were the rear antennas for the SPO-10. Through research it seems on earlier models these antennas were placed on the rear of the weapons pylons. It appears that when flare dispensers were integrated into the fuselage, the rear of the dispensers (same ones in DCS Mi-24P) has the SPO-10 rear antennas integrated into the back of them. As time moved on, antennas were placed in the tail for SPO-15 upgrades. And when the shrouds of the integrated flare dispensers are removed, you can see circular cut out sections of the metal structure holding the flare dispensers. In the DCS Mi-24P 3D model. The flat plate upon where these would be installed is modeled, but not the hemispherical dielectric antenna radon’s itself. here are some pictures that show the dielectric radome missing from the in game model. As well as when the shroud has been removed and circular cut out of the metal supports. This is very minor and I’m probably one of the very few that would ever notice such a thing. I only wish to bring it up due to the apparent renewed push to finish the Mi-24, thank you
-
Leander-class - missing UA-8/9 and Type 668 antennas
Northstar98 posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
Hi everyone, All 3 members of the Leander-class are missing their ESM and ECM antenna. The ESM antennas are located directly below the FH-5 HF/DF antenna, located at the very top of the foremast (as a side note, on HMS Ariadne the FH-5 is replaced by UA-13 - same electronics, but drastically different antenna, which kinda look like 4 Yagi-Uda antennas in an X-shaped configuration, with a cone on top. In DCS, they all have the same antenna). Immediately below the FH-5 antenna, there is the UA-8/9 bearing receiver, to the left of that is the UA-8 frequency analysis receiver and on the opposite side the UA-9 frequency analysis receiver. See the linked video below for a source. For the Type 668 OECM antennas, these are mounted on either side of the foremast, at roughly the level of the funnel. [source] All of the mountings are there, but the antennas are not. See the spoiler below for images: Before anyone says anything about sensitive information, classification or whatever - everything about the UA-8/9 ESM system (not only what the antennas look like and where they are, but how it works, what it can do, how to operate it and what its frequency range is) can be found here, in a publicly available video, provided by the Imperial War Museum. The same can be said for the Type 667 ECM system (which the 668 is an improved version of), video here - again from the IWM. In any case the shape of the antennas are absolutely not classified (anyone with a photo can see them) and its not like ships in DCS have functional ESM and ECM systems present. Not only that, but HMS Invincible has its ESM antennas present in the current version and the Condell-class frigates have their ECM systems present.
