FARP Update Please!

[swartbyron]

With the best and latest helicopters released and with the AH-64 on its way please could ED prioritise updating our FARP 3d models and textures. 

It would be a shame to have to continue to fly some of the finest 3d helicopter model's ever crated from outed relics from the Black Shark original release and green FARPs in the desert is just un cool. 

 

(There are 12 year old's flying the latest 2021 Mi-24P from FARP 3d models and textures created a simulator that was released before before they were born.) 

 

I'm certain everybody is well aware of this but I would like to ad my encouragement regardless.

 

Thanks for reading

 

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by swartbyron

[Furiz]

Altho I'm not a helo guy, yea I completely agree, those FARPs rly need an upgrade.

[Mike_Romeo]

Meh, I use invisible FARP instead with some vehicles. Looks more authentic in my opinion. here an example:

Edited September 1, 2021 by Mike_Romeo

[swartbyron]

 

10 minutes ago, Mike_Romeo said:

Meh, I use invisible FARP instead with some vehicles. Looks more authentic in my opinion. here an example:

 

I do as well but unfortunately all the servers like to use the old FARPS.

They need an upgrade regardless.  

 

Edited September 1, 2021 by swartbyron

[Bremspropeller]

I'd prefer a couple of additional generic airfield/ FARP objects and maybe a generic metal-truss helipad.

 

I think the FARPs we have are okay and I'll second that the invisible FARP is a game-changer in terms of accuracy.

[Freddo]

It is a lot of work to update multiple server missions with a lot of farps. But yes, since one of the last updates the hidden (.....) farp name in the atc radio menu is fixed. Now it make sense to update to the single or better to the hidden farps. Pls ED give us more stuff like a landing T or small landing zone marker lights.

[StevanJ]

3 hours ago, swartbyron said:

With the best and latest helicopters released and with the AH-64 on its way please could ED prioritise updating our FARP 3d models and textures. 

It would be a shame to have to continue to fly some of the finest 3d helicopter model's ever crated from outed relics from the Black Shark original release and green FARPs in the desert is just un cool. 

 

(There are 12 year old's flying the latest 2021 Mi-24P from FARP 3d models and textures created a simulator that was released before before they were born.) 

 

I'm certain everybody is well aware of this but I would like to ad my encouragement regardless.

 

Thanks for reading

 

 

 

Surely this is down to lazy mission building?

Have you tried speaking to the servers mission builders?

 

[swartbyron]

14 hours ago, StevanJ said:

Surely this is down to lazy mission building?

Have you tried speaking to the servers mission builders?

 

No and I'm aware of all the work around.

 

The pont of this post was to encourage and provid an incentive for upgraded FARP models.

 

If that ever happens or if it doesn't is up to ED in their wisdom.

 

[Tank50us]

The thing to remember is that ED isn't some big AAA Team akin to Gaijin or Wargaming. They have a lot of things on their plate right now as is, and they're working on what they can as fast as they can. The AH64 seems to be coming along very quickly, but that's likely due to the Mi24 model team switching to the AH64. The ground unit team is working on various things as well. When they decided to remodel the Leopard 2 for example, they made four different versions of the thing, and this will likely be the trend with the other ground units they're remodeling, including the Abrams, Challenger 2, and various other tanks that are on the to-do list.

[Furiz]

I think FARPs are more important than Leopard 2, Abrams or Challenger models don't you think so too?

[Tank50us]

28 minutes ago, Furiz said:

I think FARPs are more important than Leopard 2, Abrams or Challenger models don't you think so too?

 

In some ways yes, but in others... well... I'm torn really. IRL, no two FOBs will ever look the same, so I'm more partial to the idea of letting the players create their own rather than using the statics. That said, ED could create a 'fortification' that can act as a FARP, and then we can create a template using it.

[Gierasimov]

If my memory serves right, updated FARP stuff is coming with Kiowa module, whenever that happens. There were some screens of those already. 

[Northstar98]

I would love to see updated FARP models, but to be honest there's so much missing from the static objects (including more FARP variants) and nearly all of the current ones (apart from those found in the WWII asset pack) could do with a remodel. There's plenty I'd like to see.

 

But, before I get to that, there's still plenty of assets that have been in dire need of updating for ages, and ED's priorities can seem a bit misplaced at times.

 

Personally, I'd rather everything get updated to the same common standard, before adding completely new stuff (just as an example, we got a new RADAR for the SA-10b, but all of the existing SA-10b components are in dire need of an update).

 

On 9/2/2021 at 1:51 PM, Tank50us said:

In some ways yes, but in others... well... I'm torn really. IRL, no two FOBs will ever look the same, so I'm more partial to the idea of letting the players create their own rather than using the statics.

 

Agreed, what's missing is the objects to really make your own.

 

On 9/2/2021 at 1:51 PM, Tank50us said:

That said, ED could create a 'fortification' that can act as a FARP, and then we can create a template using it.

 

Personally, all of the static objects could be moved over to ground units, and then "fortifications" can be renamed "static objects" which can further be subdivided into structures, warehouses, cargos, airfield equipment using the existing sub categories.

 

Doing it this way means I can have one template for everything, I can define FOBs with all of the objects and ground units I want, and have them be a part of the same group.

 

The only thing we'd need past that is an ability to group and ungroup individual units.

 

Static aircraft can be deleted, and you'd just use the aircraft under the existing "airplanes" and "helicopters" and use the "uncontrolled" checkbox (which effectively turns it into a static object, with the advantage that you can define a payload and the unit is able to be activated mid-mission) we just need the ME placement restrictions removed and an option to link them to another unit (for aircraft carriers). 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Northstar98

[Exorcet]

22 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Personally, all of the static objects could be moved over to ground units, and then "fortifications" can be renamed "static objects" which can further be subdivided into structures, warehouses, cargos, airfield equipment using the existing sub categories.

 

Doing it this way means I can have one template for everything, I can define FOBs with all of the objects and ground units I want, and have them be a part of the same group.

 

The only thing we'd need past that is an ability is to group and ungroup individual units.

 

Static aircraft can be deleted, and you'd just use the aircraft under the existing "airplanes" and "helicopters" and use the "uncontrolled" checkbox (which effectively turns it into a static object, with the advantage that you can define a payload and the unit is able to be activated mid-mission) we just need the ME placement restrictions removed and an option to link them to another unit (for aircraft carriers). 

 

I'm not sure if I want to see the static objects category removed. While you can make static objects out of units, it takes slightly more effort (non issue for one of two units down, but could become work for many units). Statics also don't trigger AI sensors I believe (although some of the issues with this are actually AI issues). There is also the backwards compatibility issue with missions. I wouldn't mind incorporating your ideas, but I think dedicated static objects might still be nice to have.

[Northstar98]

7 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

I'm not sure if I want to see the static objects category removed.

 

If we could get mixed static objects and ground units in one group/template then there would be less call for what I proposed.

 

Though I do see the static objects for Airfield and deck equipment, Cargos, Ground vehicles, Helicopters, Heliports, LTA Vehicles, Personnel, Planes, Ships, Structures and Warehouses, could be placed in the other categories, where static objects becomes a redundancy.

 

There is still things that are inheritently non-combat (such as civilian objects), but then again, I'd rather have a coalition and unit placement system like C:MO, which I might make a wishlist thread about.

 

7 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

While you can make static objects out of units, it takes slightly more effort (non issue for one of two units down, but could become work for many units).

 

The simple solution there is to have the state of the "uncontrolled" tickbox persist when adding new units, so say I want a group of uncontrolled aircraft, I'd turn it on, and then for every new aircraft I make (either as part of the same group or a new group) it stays on, until I turn it off.

 

Then I simply need to make sure that I add all the aircraft I want activated at the start and then do all the ones that I don't, just so I don't have to keep toggling it on and off.

 

7 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

Statics also don't trigger AI sensors I believe (although some of the issues with this are actually AI issues).

 

Sounds more like an AI limitation to me, AI sensors should detect static objects, though what we're probably after here is better AI controls, so we can tell them to ignore certain types of units (though we already can for 'Search then Engage', though for CAS tasked aircraft, statics don't appear in the list).

 

7 minutes ago, Exorcet said:

There is also the backwards compatibility issue with missions.

 

This is the main issue for me, as well as numerous other improvements to DCS, in that implmenting them would break existing missions, and updating old missions to work with the new system would probably take an age, depending on how many static objects there are.

[twistking]

@Northstar98 you do realize that statics come with less of a performance hit than "units", even when set to uncontrolled?

i use statics for performance reasons only.

 

well, at least it was that way in 1.5. i haven't tested since...

[Northstar98]

4 minutes ago, twistking said:

@Northstar98 you do realize that statics come with less of a performance hit than "units", even when set to uncontrolled?

i use statics for performance reasons only.

 

I've never personally noticed any difference, but maybe the difference is only noticeable in missions with a lot of objects.

 

However, I'm not sure why it would, apart from maybe storing waypoints and other attributes, and maybe weapons (if loaded), but I'm out of my depth here. They are ultimately the same model (I know some people use the non-flyable F/A-18C as a static object as it is lower in quality than the player F/A-18C Lot 20).

Edited September 9, 2021 by Northstar98

[Lurker]

If only more time was spent on better textures in maps than on every single rivet on the latest and newest module. How many of us actually look at exterior models? I wouldn't mind all that detail if there was some way I could turn it down and gain performance, but since this is impossible I humbly request Eagle Dynamics (and all the other third parties) to tone down the polygons and triangles for their next release so that the game doesn't run like dog s$%$ and maybe focus more on the scenery instead. 

[twistking]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

I've never personally noticed any difference, but maybe the difference is only noticeable in missions with a lot of objects.

 

However, I'm not sure why it would, apart from maybe storing waypoints and other attributes, and maybe weapons (if loaded), but I'm out of my depth here.

 

for aircraft i was assuming that it had to do with damage model. an "uncontrolled" aircraft can possibly jump into action every moment, so damage has to be tracked in more detail.

i am very much on the low end cpu-wise, so maybe these things scale a bit differently on my system...

[Northstar98]

5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

If only more time was spent on better textures in maps than on every single rivet on the latest and newest module. How many of us actually look at exterior models?

 

I for one, a lot.

 

5 minutes ago, Lurker said:

I wouldn't mind all that detail if there was some way I could turn it down and gain performance, but since this is impossible I humbly request Eagle Dynamics (and all the other third parties) to tone down the polygons and triangles for their next release so that the game doesn't run like dog s$%$ and maybe focus more on the scenery instead. 

 

Meh, most of the performance issues I see arise due to there being lots of objects in a scene (especially high quality ones), and less so the quality of said objects individually (though there are exceptions like the Tomcat and Hind).

 

Most of my performance issues actually arise from the maps, and not the detail of particular units.

 

I didn't see a hit in frames going from the older BTR-80 to the new one or the old SA-6 to new (which was a massive jump in quality). Besides, LODs should take care of this.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Northstar98

[Lurker]

36 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Meh, most of the performance issues I see arise due to there being lots of objects in a scene (especially high quality ones), and less so the quality of said objects individually (though there are exceptions like the Tomcat and Hind).

 

 

These exceptions are quickly becoming the norm. The HIND is the most taxing module so far. What do you want to bet that the Apache is going to be even more demanding? I prefer flying the modules instead of looking at them, and while I appreciate the detail what I appreciate by far more is immersion, and while a pretty model and a pretty cockpit with millions of polygons is great on the tarmac, once I'm the air if I can't push the 45 min required FPS for my headset then I couldn't care less how pretty it all looks as the stutter has completely ruined my immersion and now I don't want to fly anymore. 

[Lurker]

48 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Besides, LODs should take care of this.

 

 

Yeah, the famous LODs. I would agree with you here except how close is the highest detail LOD in DCS? How far do you have to be, and for how long before you notice every single rivet on that command hatch, or the flat screws on that swashplate on that helo that you're lining up in your sights? 50 meters? 10 meters? How far do the highest detail LODs spawn in and how optimized are they? 

 

These are mostly rhetorical questions, as I think we are all well aware of the answers. 

[Exorcet]

13 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

If we could get mixed static objects and ground units in one group/template then there would be less call for what I proposed.

 

Though I do see the static objects for Airfield and deck equipment, Cargos, Ground vehicles, Helicopters, Heliports, LTA Vehicles, Personnel, Planes, Ships, Structures and Warehouses, could be placed in the other categories, where static objects becomes a redundancy.

 

There is still things that are inheritently non-combat (such as civilian objects), but then again, I'd rather have a coalition and unit placement system like C:MO, which I might make a wishlist thread about.

I'm not super familiar with C:MO, but I'm sure there are other ways of organizing the menus/options. However sometimes even what appears to be a super system comes with drawback that were not obvious before implementation so I'm a bit cautious about a full replacement. Expanding templates to include statics sounds like a good idea though.

 

Quote

 

The simple solution there is to have the state of the "uncontrolled" tickbox persist when adding new units, so say I want a group of uncontrolled aircraft, I'd turn it on, and then for every new aircraft I make (either as part of the same group or a new group) it stays on, until I turn it off.

 

Then I simply need to make sure that I add all the aircraft I want activated at the start and then do all the ones that I don't, just so I don't have to keep toggling it on and off.

 

Ground units are also a concern, there are times when I want inactive vehicles on the ground. I suppose an uncontrolled checkbox could be added for ground units though and then we could follow the same procedure you outline.

 

Quote

Sounds more like an AI limitation to me, AI sensors should detect static objects, though what we're probably after here is better AI controls, so we can tell them to ignore certain types of units (though we already can for 'Search then Engage', though for CAS tasked aircraft, statics don't appear in the list).

As far as AI detection goes, I can see that being a bug and feature (in relation to other bugs/features). For one thing undetectable statics keep your wingmen or AWACS from announcing false targets, but this is a problem in a lot of cases because AI communication is poor. They jabber on about things half a continent away that they shouldn't even be able to see etc. Ideally communication would be fixed, but it's taking time for ED to get to it. Using the quirks of units vs statics in the meantime is a good solution. However even with improved AI the distinction could still be useful. Statics could be used to represent known units, especially those with degraded capability (ie a ship docked for repairs). You'd want the AI to treat that target differently from an actual ship unit that can move and attack. This of course could be handled with something other than the static/unit divide, but I feel like the existing static menu is a sensible way of sorting how units will be treated.

 

Quote

This is the main issue for me, as well as numerous other improvements to DCS, in that implmenting them would break existing missions, and updating old missions to work with the new system would probably take an age, depending on how many static objects there are.

Yes it's a pretty big issue. Ideally everything from the beginning of DCS would be compatible with the latest patch, but this is already not the case for on reason or another. I know I mentioned my hesitation with fully replacing existing menus/options, but I do sometimes consider if DCS's incremental improvements should pause for a little while to consider a larger overhaul where outdated portions of the UI are dropped or updated.

[Northstar98]

7 hours ago, Exorcet said:

I'm not super familiar with C:MO, but I'm sure there are other ways of organizing the menus/options.

 

For one thing C:MO has a far superior coalition set-up, which is far more flexibile and is essentially perfect IMO, when I get around to making a wishlist thread for the system I think I will.

 

I'm drifting off topic here, but I'll put a breakdown in the spoiler below:

Spoiler

Firstly, instead of our coalition editor, where we only have 3 coalitions, only 2 of them combat that we assign countries too, C:MO has a side editor that allows you to add, rename, delete, different sides at will, as well as set their posture to other sides (hostile, friendly, neutral or unfriendly). Using this system, if you so desired you could set up each country individually to be its own independent side. The editor also has global settings for ROE and doctrine as well as skill level for newly placed units, while retaining the ability to configure them for each unit individually.

 

When placing units, it still has countries, but these are only there to filter out different equipment, and only the specific equipment that country operates gets listed for that country. Unlike DCS though, countries don't get assigned to sides per se, they're only there to group and filter units, every country is available to every side, including the same country on opposing sides, in the unit selection menu, there's just a drop down menu that allows you to select which side the unit belongs to.

 

There are also 'countries' for "generic", "civilian", "commercial", "terrorists", "rebels", "pirates" and "unknown", though "civilian" and "commerical" can be grouped together as one, as well as "terrorists" and "rebels". You can also select "none" which will list every single unit.

 

However, when it comes to unit placement, it only has one menu for everything, it just has a drop down menu for the type of unit (aircraft, surface ship, submarine, facility) and then further differentiates units by what country it belongs to, what subtype the unit is etc. It also features a search bar allowing you to search for a particular unit.

 

Here though, it's mostly the fact that it groups unit types together, so anything that is airborne goes in one category "aircraft", everything on the ground goes into one category "facilities" (though "ground units would be a better name, personally).

 

I still think we should have the separate buttons for different types of units however.

 

7 hours ago, Exorcet said:

However sometimes even what appears to be a super system comes with drawback that were not obvious before implementation so I'm a bit cautious about a full replacement. Expanding templates to include statics sounds like a good idea though.

 

Well here, I'm only really interested in the groupings, and for 2 main reasons:

1. It means everything is in the same place
2. It means that static objects and ground units can be placed in the same group/template.

Regarding the latter, if DCS offered mixed unit types as part of the same template, it wouldn't be an issue.

 

7 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Ground units are also a concern, there are times when I want inactive vehicles on the ground. I suppose an uncontrolled checkbox could be added for ground units though and then we could follow the same procedure you outline.

 

That would be the idea, though there is a trigger to turn the AI off, which more-or-less accomplishes the same thing.

 

7 hours ago, Exorcet said:

As far as AI detection goes, I can see that being a bug and feature (in relation to other bugs/features). For one thing undetectable statics keep your wingmen or AWACS from announcing false targets, but this is a problem in a lot of cases because AI communication is poor. They jabber on about things half a continent away that they shouldn't even be able to see etc. Ideally communication would be fixed, but it's taking time for ED to get to it. Using the quirks of units vs statics in the meantime is a good solution. However even with improved AI the distinction could still be useful. Statics could be used to represent known units, especially those with degraded capability (ie a ship docked for repairs). You'd want the AI to treat that target differently from an actual ship unit that can move and attack. This of course could be handled with something other than the static/unit divide, but I feel like the existing static menu is a sensible way of sorting how units will be treated.

 

I mean, there is a "contact report radio usage" advanced waypoint action under "options" which allows you to filter out different unit types that you don't want the AI to report contact, though it would also be good to be able to filter out individual units though.

 

7 hours ago, Exorcet said:

Yes it's a pretty big issue. Ideally everything from the beginning of DCS would be compatible with the latest patch, but this is already not the case for on reason or another. I know I mentioned my hesitation with fully replacing existing menus/options, but I do sometimes consider if DCS's incremental improvements should pause for a little while to consider a larger overhaul where outdated portions of the UI are dropped or updated.

 

That's my biggest worry too.

 

Right, back on track.