Tacview 2.0, a glimpse into the future of flight analysis

[Bushmanni]

Having lift vector plane (defined by velocity vector and lift vector), 3/9-line plane (plane perpendicular to nose-vector) and wing plane (plane perpendicular to lift vector) visualized in HUD view would be useful. I think it would be best visualized by a lines drawn as circles around the view point, so that from the inside it looks like a continuous line. The lines would not be drawn over or under the HUD to not clutter it though. I have attached a picture to explain better what I mean. The plane in the center is just a representation of the viewpoint.

 

[Vyrtuoz]

Are you talking about something corresponding to the W or the little plane visible in the HUD?

 

If you are talking about the plane attitude, it is visible as the W plus three arrows: one on top of your head and two the left and right of you. I admit they are not very bright, I may increase their visibility if necessary.

 

Having lift vector plane (defined by velocity vector and lift vector), 3/9-line plane (plane perpendicular to nose-vector) and wing plane (plane perpendicular to lift vector) visualized in HUD view would be useful. I think it would be best visualized by a lines drawn as circles around the view point, so that from the inside it looks like a continuous line. The lines would not be drawn over or under the HUD to not clutter it though. I have attached a picture to explain better what I mean. The plane in the center is just a representation of the viewpoint.

 

[vicx]

This video is a rendering of an ACMI recording I made available in the Tacview announcement thread. The buildings in pink are exported using an export script that grabs the building hitboxes via LUA.

 

This should show pretty well that Tacview 2.0 will not just be for dogfights (although dogfighters actually have a lot of goodies to look forward to). I will be using Tacview for Combined Arms and I think it will also be an excellent tool for ground attack replays.

 

The question is how do you want your buildings, bridges and map objects to look? It might be actually be possible to replace many of the boxes with objects are closer to their actual appearance in the DCS. That would be up to us as players. The file format supported by Tacview is *.OBJ

 

I think it's possible to make the objects in Sketchup and use a 'free' export chain to go from skp to obj.

[einarabelc5]

This has been asked before but I'm going to give it a shot by rephrasing alternatives, since this forum is linked  directly from the Tacview main site:
Tacview - About Tacview 2.0

Any plans and solutions to have an alternative to having to replay DCS .trk files  in real time in order for the tacview exporter to re-record them in real time into the new and updated acmi format?

Couldn't Eagle Dynamics and Tacview get together in a partnership and either rewrite the DCS recording/playback engine to export into ACMI or build into tacview a .trk file renderer that can then be converted on the fly without having to open DCS? I rather even wait on tacview than having to watch a mission again on dcs because I want the flexibility of free camera and telemetry insight.
Couldn't at least Tacview replay them internally and then record them?

Ideally of course a file converter, but that could be more complicated.

Those are 3 options and probably the last is the most discussed one and the reason why things haven't changed.

 

Of course, once you install tacview this doesn't matter as much but what about the other 100 .trk files I've recorded so far. I got a completely different conclusion from watching the same thing on tacview than when I did in the DCS Replay utility. I get that DCS allows you to "Take Control" mid mission, that's direct integration right there, and that is amazing but there's got to be alternatives.

Thanks in advance!

Edited April 24, 2023 by einarabelc5

[Mike_Romeo]

@Vyrtuoz with tacview 2, will there be a searchbar to find units, objects or players faster in the files ?

[joey45]

Completely forgot about this......

Any updates to tell us about 2.0..? 

[Rex]

This thread was posted over 10 years ago, so I assume 2.0 is no longer happening, but I figured I'd ask.  I love Tacview and was looking forward to it.  I'd pay for 2.0, no problem.  I've been using 1.x for so long.

I've also never necro'ed a 10 year-old thread before, and I want to impress the ladies by telling them that I did so.

Edited July 27 by Rex

[AdrianL]

2 hours ago, Rex said:

so I assume 2.0 is no longer happenin

It is still happening. 
See this blog post https://www.tacview.net/documentation/tacview2blog/
and this YouTube interview 

 

[Rex]

Thanks, I hope that's true ... but ... it's been coming since 2015.  Prince was still alive when 2.0 was announced,     The first Trump administration hadn't happened yet.  Kanye West was still quasi-sane  when 2.0 was announced.

I'm a software developer, and I know good software takes time.  But unless it's been cancelled, 10 years is probably unanticipated by most.  Not that the dev owes us anything, but it does toy with our excitement a bit.

I'm really happy that it's not dead.  But unless I missed it, which is possible, I haven't seen anything that looks like an estimated release date, so it's likely not imminent.  

I guess it gets here when it gets here if it gets here.  

I hope it does, and if not, well, there's always my kids.  And their kids.  And their kids.  And th ... well you get the point.  Somebody, sometime should be pretty excited.

I hope the dev charges 1.x users for it too.  Dude's going to go broke grandfathering us all in.  2.0 sounds like a ton of work, and he completely deserves to be paid for his work. I've been using the excellent 1.x.x for damn near a decade.  I got my money's worth several  times over.   I use Tacview for DCS and other programs too (like CMANO).  He doesn't owe me (or any of us) anything,  IMHO. Not to mention, if you told me I had to give my product away, it would take me 10 years to complete it too.  Assuming I ever did.

 

Edited Tuesday at 04:18 AM by Rex