New effects

[shagrat]

No, engine exhaust should result in particles to condense a vapour trail...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrail

Edited August 3, 2016 by shagrat

[Aginor]

Yeah, of course, especially not later in the flight when the missile has its engine off anyway.

Although ... now that I think about it... I am not quite sure, especially for bigger missiles like the SA-10 or something similar that fly very high, in icing conditions.

 

But what about condensation on the wings/fuselage of the missiles? When pulling Gs or something. Or transsonic vapor.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Aginor

[Vitormouraa]

Wings use the Bernoulli's principle, basically the wing has a specific format, over the wing the airflow passes faster but the pressure is less than under wing airflow, the air passing under the wing, is slower, but the pressure is higher, this is what produces the lift, and this is what makes the airplanes fly, the difference of pressure over the wing, makes the humidity and etc condensate, i.e, when there is a huge difference of pressure, condensation happens. It will depend on humidity, load factor and others, in rainy days are so much easier to see those effects, but we could say, missiles don't have wings, they don't use the Bernoulli's principle, they are so fast, but so fast, that wings aren't needed to make lift.

 

You might see some missiles with wings like the airplanes have, but that's an exception, probably..

 

EDIT: I have never seen a missile using Bernoulli's principle. (not sure if they use or not, but the argumentation is still valid, the lift produced by an airplane and missile is HUGE)

Edited July 7, 2016 by Vitormouraa

[sobek]

It's not the difference in pressure below and on the top of the wing. It's the difference in pressure before and while moving over the wing. If you expand a volume of air adiabatically beyond the dew point, condensation will occur. This is exactly what happens, there is a low pressure area on top of the wing that the air moves through, which causes it to expand adiabatically and compress again.

[Vitormouraa]

I meant the lift, sorry.. I'll fix it, thanks.

[Solty]

I would like to see new tracers, hit effects (sparks, chunks, , muzzle flashes, light glint on cannopies), smoke, leaks of liquids etc. Raindrops are way farther on that list.

 

Rain or a storm, is not a good time to fly anyway.

[Aginor]

Yeah, I checked some sources again and there are almost no mentions of missiles ever causeing vapor. Those who do probably confused it with rocket engine exhaust smoke. Case closed for now I guess. :)

 

As for the sparks, chunks and muzzle flashes, smoke, liquids and so on that Solty mentioned:

If I am not mistaken we have some already, but we could discuss whether those are appropriate.

I think that is a good thing to look up. Again, I am not a huge sucker for graphics, but I see it from a gameplay perspective.

- if plane shoots at you, you can see tracers and muzzle flashes. Thats kinda important.

- if you hit a plane your indication might be sparks and chunks and whatnot, flying around.

There are other games who overdo it of course, like with every effect. But there are pretty impressive examples for those effects in real life videos as well, so yeah, why not.

But then both of those are particle effects, and if something is more annoying than not to see whether you hit, it is a lag spike everytime you fire because of particle effects. I still have nightmares from that P-51 gun smoke problem we had a while ago. :D

[shagrat]

Apart from sparks, everything is already modeled.

Muzzle flashes even light the environment/aircraft.

Chunks and plane parts depend on what you hit. This would be cool for ground units, though, where visual damage currently is not modeled.

Smoke from engines is even modeled when jets switch from afterburner to cruise where appropriate, prop planes model smoke from overstressed engine. Of course damaged engines, jet and prop alike, cause a nice visual smoke trail, so does a fuel leak to a tank, nice white “smoke“ trail showing the dispersing fuel.

Tracers are even modeled with correct color, physically correct path and ricochet...

 

And that is since years!

 

Sometimes I wonder a bit if people really fly the sim before posting here. Or is everybody flying on low settings?

Usually everything should be there with high settings.

EDIT: or may be you have a mod active that breaks something?

Edited July 8, 2016 by shagrat

[Solty]

Apart from sparks, everything is already modeled.

Muzzle flashes even light the environment/aircraft.

Chunks and plane parts depend on what you hit. This would be cool for ground units, though, where visual damage currently is not modeled.

Smoke from engines is even modeled when jets switch from afterburner to cruise where appropriate, prop planes model smoke from overstressed engine. Of course damaged engines, jet and prop alike, cause a nice visual smoke trail, so does a fuel leak to a tank, nice white “smoke“ trail showing the dispersing fuel.

Tracers are even modeled with correct color, physically correct path and ricochet...

 

And that is since years!

 

Sometimes I wonder a bit if people really fly the sim before posting here. Or is everybody flying on low settings?

Usually everything should be there with high settings.

EDIT: or may be you have a mod active that breaks something?

You know that I was talking about bringing it up to a standard. I fly WW2 99% of the time here and 90% of that time at multiplayer.

[ame]

[/ame]

 

DCS has improved smoke, especially for missle trails and 30mm cannon like the A-10's avenger. They look very well.

 

But .50cal effects are just poor. Tracers are barely visible, even at late evening they are not satisfying. When you hit an aluminum of the Bf109/Fw190 there should be sparks. What we have is a puff of brown smoke with some fire inside it.

Check this video for real life example of how .50cal should spark on the aluminum aircraft's cover.

https://youtu.be/PLxI6kW7bFU?t=40s

 

Tracers in DCS are barely visible right after they leave the barrel, and then disapear and then appear at very far distances for some reason

This is how tracers should look like:

https://youtu.be/PLxI6kW7bFU?t=10m12s

 

Fire effect is quite poor as well, it seems very flat and low quality. Also, it's placement is mind boggling. Why would Me109's wing Burn when shot off? Or why a wingtip of the P-51 burns for that matter?

 

Same thing goes for the "fuel leaks" that do not actually leak, just look as if they do, but again... why is the 190 leaking fuel from it's wings? Its placement is not correct and is annoying at best.

 

I am talking about version 1.5.3

[shagrat]

You know that I was talking about bringing it up to a standard. I fly WW2 99% of the time here and 90% of that time at multiplayer.

 

DCS has improved smoke, especially for missle trails and 30mm cannon like the A-10's avenger. They look very well.

 

But .50cal effects are just poor. Tracers are barely visible, even at late evening they are not satisfying. When you hit an aluminum of the Bf109/Fw190 there should be sparks. What we have is a puff of brown smoke with some fire inside it.

Check this video for real life example of how .50cal should spark on the aluminum aircraft's cover.

https://youtu.be/PLxI6kW7bFU?t=40s

 

Tracers in DCS are barely visible right after they leave the barrel, and then disapear and then appear at very far distances for some reason

This is how tracers should look like:

https://youtu.be/PLxI6kW7bFU?t=10m12s

 

Fire effect is quite poor as well, it seems very flat and low quality. Also, it's placement is mind boggling. Why would Me109's wing Burn when shot off? Or why a wingtip of the P-51 burns for that matter?

 

Same thing goes for the "fuel leaks" that do not actually leak, just look as if they do, but again... why is the 190 leaking fuel from it's wings? Its placement is not correct and is annoying at best.

 

I am talking about version 1.5.3

As I said, sparks as in better hit indications for bullets, would be an improvement. The explosions should be reserved for explosive ammunition.

 

Damage effects especially on AI planes is poor, absolutely agree here.

 

Yet before putting new effects I'd prefer to have an actual effect modeled. Like flight time reduction whith a fuel leak, performance affected by control surface damage etc. ...far more important than eye candy.

 

The visual effects may not be perfectly placed, but they do look fine with me.

 

The problem with tracers especilly in b/w footage is, that film catches a far different spectrum than the human eye which can look very different from reality.

I agree the tracers could be more bright, but on the other hand they ARE very difficult to see from the back.

If you ever shot tracers at daytime you know what I mean...the difference is the eye in real life can better separate and focus a object in space than on a flat screen.

Tracers usually need a moment to ignite properly and then you look at a dot of light measuring a couple millimeters in diameter at a distance of usually 20 to 150m, right?

Wouldn't it be for the eye to catch a longer lasting image on the retina due to the brightness it would be even more difficult to spot tracers.

It is much different from the side due to the "lasting image" effect that would blur into a short line...

 

Compared to shooting a real life FlA MG with double MG3 (basicallly the german

WWII MG42) with standard tracer-belts, DCS isn't far away from what real life looks.

 

EDIT agree on the fire effect. Let's hope that see some love with the new explosions.

 

EDIT 2 may it be you have the no-smoke mod active? Or the ACG Server Mod? There seem to be no smoke trails or tracers on your .50ies?

Edited July 8, 2016 by shagrat

[Solty]

No, tracers have smoke trails, it is just so barely visible in my game. You just have to look waaaay closer to see it :P. I run vanilla game, no mods.

[Aginor]

Yeah, just to be clear: we often mention effects that are already there, I think we are aware of that (although I admit I really forgot one or two already existed, position lights reflecting on wet surfaces for example).

In that case it is meant to discuss those effects concerning a possible improvement, either of their visual appearance or (my main point most of the time) how they affect gameplay.

That's why I think both of you have good points here. As you said, it isn't only about the eye candy.

[dotChuckles]

Not to fuel the fire or pointing particularly at anyone, more a general observation of the community as a whole, but why do we assume it's a zero sum game?

 

Visuals v Gameplay... Do both. ED are a clever bunch, they have crammed an amazing amount of calculation along with some already great visuals in to a pretty tight space and with each patch seem to do it even better.

 

Great graphics AND great AI/experience is possible, one doesn't have to preclude the other. It just requires some very clever development, which is already evident amongst the ED team. We should all just un-rustle our collective jimmies and realise that everyone is probably going to get what the want given a certain amount of time.

[shagrat]

Not to fuel the fire or pointing particularly at anyone, more a general observation of the community as a whole, but why do we assume it's a zero sum game?

 

Visuals v Gameplay... Do both. ED are a clever bunch, they have crammed an amazing amount of calculation along with some already great visuals in to a pretty tight space and with each patch seem to do it even better.

 

Great graphics AND great AI/experience is possible, one doesn't have to preclude the other. It just requires some very clever development, which is already evident amongst the ED team. We should all just un-rustle our collective jimmies and realise that everyone is probably going to get what the want given a certain amount of time.

Abolutely. I just care about the priority here.

First Gameplay relevant stuff as better AI damage effects to systems and performance etc.

Then visual effects, that are relevant to combat/flying. For example indication of hits through sparks, explosions, overwing vapour showing high G-Loads.

Last of all, anything that is just looking nice, rain, lights, reflections, and so on.

 

Through all this a balance between fps and visual quality needs to be achieved.

 

What good is the most stunning effect visual, that no one sees, as he needs to dial down settings to get more than a slide show.

 

Without heavy hits on performance definitely go for the best visuals possible though. :)

[Art-J]

Re. the eyecandy part - for a good start, I wouldn't mind just two basic, different ground hit effects for small and high caliber weapons. Might be even the old one, just downscaled and upscaled accordingly. Nowadays, it doesn't matter if it's a 7.62 mm o a 30 mm hit, the bang-flash-and-dust-cloud effect is the same. That does actually have some negative influence on gameplay, as it makes adjusting fire by observing burst impact point somewhat difficult - You can't see a vehicle-sized target behind the Hollywood'ish cloud of dirt, even if You were shooting only a puny machine gun at it.

[Aginor]

Now that you mention it, I also think that - depending on weapons/ammo type and surface the effects seems a bit over the top sometimes.

I have fired 7.62 machine guns in real life and while they sometimes kick a lot of dust they quite often don't. Of course a 30mm explosive shell kicks up more, it is like throwing a hand grenade somewhere. I'd say the effect looks appropriate for a 30mm or for a 20mm firing grenades.

For armor-piercing ammo it is maybe a tad too much, but still OK I guess.

 

For the cal.50 or smaller it is really a bit too much dust IMO.

 

It does look really cool though, I have to admit that. :D

 

Any other opinions on that?

[shagrat]

Now that you mention it, I also think that - depending on weapons/ammo type and surface the effects seems a bit over the top sometimes.

I have fired 7.62 machine guns in real life and while they sometimes kick a lot of dust they quite often don't. Of course a 30mm explosive shell kicks up more, it is like throwing a hand grenade somewhere. I'd say the effect looks appropriate for a 30mm or for a 20mm firing grenades.

For armor-piercing ammo it is maybe a tad too much, but still OK I guess.

 

For the cal.50 or smaller it is really a bit too much dust IMO.

 

It does look really cool though, I have to admit that. :D

 

Any other opinions on that?

You have to differentiate between the “explosion“, firecracker like effect, and the brownish “Dustcloud“.

The later is actually representing a defensive smoke screen from a vehicle equipped with smoke grenade launchers.

Honestly, this really could use an overhaul... ;)

[Aginor]

I meant the dark brown dust effect kicked up by the bullets when they hit.

 

The white defensive clouds from vehicles are ok for me (although they don't look too good and I think they don't affect the AI's accuracy.)

[HeadHunter52]

For the first time, I'm seeing vapor from the wings in my Stang. I can't say that I've ever seen that before. I thought I'd taken a hit and was smokin....

[Vitormouraa]

In the near future..

 

https://www.facebook.com/aviacaosemnocaoo/videos/1036428393106454/

Edited July 13, 2016 by Vitormouraa

[Aginor]

I'd like to come back to this thread because Wags said he'd like to answer some of my questions, but "at a later time".

2.5 seems much closer than a few months ago, so maayyybe now is the time?

 

Anyway, there is also news concerning this topic. I was pretty excited to see the working wind shield wipers on the Mi-8, because that's exactly the "gameplay effects" I was talking about.

 

And because we have seen the trains in the 2.5 WIP screenshots here's the next set of questions:

- Will those steam locomotives produce appropriate columns of smoke?

- If yes: will wind affect those? (strong wind can make them less visible)

- Will they keep their engine on during short stops but turn them off when standing still for a longer time?

 

EDIT:

More about spotting. We have already discussed criteria for spotting objects by the AI, such as

- contrailing

- dependent on direction from sun (less visible when coming out of the sun, more visible on certain angles, glittering metal and so on.)

 

Now I'd like to add more, based on smoke/dust.

- A plane with a smoking engine (either an old, smoking jet, or a damaged piston engine, or a plane that is on fire) should be spotted earlier by the AI.

- moving offroad vehicles should be spotted earlier because of the dust

- same for moving steam locomotives

 

- On the other hand that means that units that do not move shouldn't magically be spotted by the AI at great distances, which is the case now.

 

Is that already included or at least planned for the NEAR future?

Edited October 4, 2016 by Aginor

[Vitormouraa]

I feel the same.. 2.5 seems to be very close.

[Aginor]

Ok, next thread resurrection, just because we now actually have something close to release (ok, I admit we also thought that was the case a year ago :D ).

 

Does anyone like to talk about this topic, perhaps fire up the Normandy Alpha and see what of this is already there?

 

I heard lighting the water up with aircraft lights is still not possible (sad) but may be worked on (yay). I heard clouds are synchronized between clients and don't disappear all of a sudden (yay), so something has been done.

 

Also the questions for Wags are still there in this thread, so.... please Wags? :)

[MikeMikeJuliet]

You are one cheeky Threadnomancer, Aginor.

 

Though I did see the Mudspike early access look at the Normandy. I was very impressed with a few of the screenshots on the B-17s and the Sabres, as those showed new lighting and PBR the best.

 

Go check it... and look at them shiny shiny metal fuselages... and the sun glare off of the propeller on the bombers...

 

Not every aspect promised earlier will make it to the 2.5 initially, as stated by ED, but what we see already shows progress is ongoing.

[BIGNEWY]

Ok, next thread resurrection, just because we now actually have something close to release (ok, I admit we also thought that was the case a year ago :D ).

 

Does anyone like to talk about this topic, perhaps fire up the Normandy Alpha and see what of this is already there?

 

I heard lighting the water up with aircraft lights is still not possible (sad) but may be worked on (yay). I heard clouds are synchronized between clients and don't disappear all of a sudden (yay), so something has been done.

 

Also the questions for Wags are still there in this thread, so.... please Wags? :)

 

Light on water has improved but needs more work, I have made a report internally.

 

Light in DCS 2. will show a little on shallow water, but as the water gets deeper it fades to no reflection. ED are looking into it.

 

Clouds are still being worked on, when ED are ready they will show more.