More placeable assets for ground sites / dirt decals / tire marks

[twistking]

Hi,

i just realiszed one aspect of what makes ground unit spotting so difficult in dcs. Apart from the obvious technical limitations, ground-sites, like sam-sites, tend to be too sparse, as there are simply not enough assets to populate a sam-site (or FOB or similar...) with assets.

 

As we probably won't get things like dynamic tire-tracks or other evironmental effects that aid in spotting, it would indeed help, if we get more placeables like logistc support vehicles, ramparts (!!!), camo-nets (would ironically help with spotting simply by there being more stuff).

If the engine supports it, it would also be fantastic to get some ground decals that create larger patches of dirt/mud to put under those sites to simulate tire-marks and general heavy usage of the site.

 

Ramparts and "heavy-use" dirt-decals could also be used with WWII scenery...

[twistking]

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Rus-SAM-Site-Configs-A.html

 

if you scroll through that article on sam-site-configuration, you'll instantly notice, that the sites are recognizable not by the system-components, but by the defensive ramparts and signs of logistics (roads etc.)...

 

for dcs the defensive ramparts would probably be the easiest addition to add realism and better gameplay (easier spotting). also ramparts and similar assets could be used for all kind of hardened ground targets, not just sams...

ideally the mission editor would (on highest zoom setting) support some very basic object outlines to make the placement of said structures easier...

[MBot]

I really like the dirt/tire-track decal idea.

 

 

I proposed this in 2006 :)

 

 

[Bearfoot]

+1

 

Though I wonder if you can fake/munge it using other structures, e.g., bunkers, containers, hangars, outposts, or the like. If you are not opposed to using mods, then I think there are quite a few options that will get you 99% of the way there (pretty much everything but the roads).

[firmek]

Fully support the idea. Such objects may seem like a secondary priority but would really add much to the realizm and spotting capabilities of unit groups like SAM sites or marshaling area's.

I don't see howewer this proposal too realistic in a short time as efective use of such objects would require a different kind of editor - not necesarlly 3D one but a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) like.

[twistking]

+1

Though I wonder if you can fake/munge it using other structures, e.g., bunkers, containers, hangars, outposts, or the like.[...] (pretty much everything but the roads).

You can do sth. with it for sure, but there is really nothing to substitute the ramparts and other "earthworking"/defensive construction related assets... (in vanilla that is)

 

[...]

I don't see howewer this proposal too realistic in a short time as efective use of such objects would require a different kind of editor - not necesarlly 3D one but a what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) like.

I think a basic solution should not be much work to implement. In a way the editor already is "WYSIWYG" as the position and orientation of objects placed is coherent and reproducable. So, if you were a genius and could remember dimensions and pivotal points (important) of each asset, you could already perfectly align everything on first try.

If you save/load a mission the icons will appear at exactly the same position in the 2d-editor, so there is a direct translation between icons drawn on the map and position in 3d-space. It should be possible to let the editor draw a basic shape relative to the icon position. This would of course be offset in 3d when placed on a slope, but this could be manually adjusted quite easily.

Even if the outline would always be a simple box only, it would still help greatly, as it would be easy to memorize how the complex mesh would fit to the outline relatively.

 

I do think however that placable service roads / tire marks would be quite a lot of work, if done in a way that looks good reliably (no clipping, smooth transitions to original terrain, interaction with explosions...)

You would also have a greater problem with placement in the editor, as stitching together decals could become a nightmare.

 

However the ramparts, associated assets and the suggested small placement-helpers in the editor should be a reasonable amount of work for a great benefit, that would improve dcs in more aspects than "only" sam-site authenticity...

Edited January 11, 2018 by twistking

[Northstar98]

Yes, yes and absolutely yes. Though I feel a 3D editor is necessary for this to be used to full effect...

[twistking]

On 1/11/2018 at 11:37 PM, Northstar98 said:

Yes, yes and absolutely yes. Though I feel a 3D editor is necessary for this to be used to full effect...

i think the DCS editor is already setup quite well for this actually, as it somehow already renders the original terrain textures. Also since SAM sites are - more often than not - set up on relative flat terrain, just projecting the texture flat from above should be good enough.
Remember that those dirt roads and tire marks don't have to be super defined and crisp, you could never tell if they were warped a little bit, because of skewed projection.

The most splendig solution would be of course to have the engine generate those marks from vector data, so mission builder could just paint in their patterns, but that seems to be overkill. I think it would be good enough to have a selection of patterns (a few complete sam layouts and some smaller building block textures consisting of various patches and paths) with variants to fit different bases (grass, sand/dirt, snow...)