Are FLIR Improvements Coming to CA?

[Hobel]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The problem actually has ED has none a "full time" CA / Ground environment team. That require time, money, planning and big core changes.

yes okay and why then as one here says the studio of Steel beasts was rejected and what about the Battlefield studio?

2 possibilities that would have taken the work from ED?

[Silver_Dragon]

yes okay and why then as one here says the studio of Steel beasts was rejected and what about the Battlefield studio?
2 possibilities that would have taken the work from ED?

Sb was a rumor (if any can confirm them) . About battleffield studios, they only put a post and waiting them talk about any develop update about your plans.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

[Hobel]

thank you.

do you have a link to the thrad?
 about the search I find unfortunately no more

[LordLobs]

Pretty sure it's coming to CA judging by this picture from one of the newsletters?

 

[XCNuse]

13 hours ago, SFJackBauer said:

Let me break news to you.

Things take effort and time to be built.

And how many years will it take for everyone to implement? How soon will ED allow third parties to implement?

 

I'm still waiting on anyone to notice how many aircraft are missing canopy reflections, something I take very seriously between wanting for immersion factor, and for evidence of how a situation like this is treated. I've made my list, I know exactly who has and who has not added reflections, which are bugged, which are not.

 

What makes anyone think an updated FLIR engine will be a smooth transition?

 

We're not talking about massive jobs to undergo; the literal purpose of an API, which has been stated as such for the record, means this should be implemented with [potentially] literally a single line of code; replacing the original API.

Then down the road, what happens if someone is smart about it due to this decision of a new API, and writes it in so if something goes wrong, it falls back to the original code?

 

Has everyone forgotten under certain circumstances the weather engine makes the FLIR stop working entirely? How long will we have to wait then to have functional FLIR weapons and sensors?

 

For the record, nobody will have these answers, I'm just pointing out speculatively of a situation that is likely to happen that I'm forseeing that everyone else appears to be ignoring.

This might also come true with multithreading/Vulkan, do we have to wait on all the third parties to transition as well? I don't know, but we might!

[Silver_Dragon]

8 hours ago, LordLobs said:

Pretty sure it's coming to CA judging by this picture from one of the newsletters?

 

That pics show the FLIR vehicle textures enable on vehicle Thermals. That is only a matter of time.

Remember that textures was leak on late 2021 by ED on the Modelviewer, surelly to test a new texture to the develop teams. After was removed.

11 hours ago, Hobel said:

thank you.

do you have a link to the thrad?
 about the search I find unfortunately no more

The link has here, the post was locked when the comunity start a flame war.

The problem has be the last entry on the forums by BP was on April 24, 2021 and your last message on February 11, 2021. No news updates has been post by them (not sure if them has FB, Tw or other news plarform).

Edited January 30, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Silver_Dragon]

30 minutes ago, XCNuse said:

And how many years will it take for everyone to implement? How soon will ED allow third parties to implement?

ED has working on some branches years, as dinamic campaing, Vulcan, Multitherad, the whole world, comunications, weather, new APIs, etc. The same situation with ED change to Dx11, build map technology, previous APIs or build EDGE engine years ago. 3rd party has no access to the core, they only can build over the APIs available.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Shadow KT]

@BIGNEWY I know that CA is fun and that is why I am invested in it. I play a lot of CA and I make all my missions with CA. I make large scale PvP campaigns with CA. 

See, I know what you mean and I understand that you have to say these things, but there are issues. No, not requests for new features, old issues which stay unaddressed and reported. And to me as a member of the community, at least, it seems like there is no feedback on them. There is just so many times I am willing to keep bumping old bug report threads and then being asked to make a report for the same issues again.

There are some extremely dedicated CA user that I personally know of, some with military background even. It would be great if there is something, we as a community can come together and somehow collaborate with ED to make these things works. I get all the business yadayada, you guys over at ED have your priorities, can't have community members just barging in and ordering what has to be done.... the point I am trying to get across is, that we are desperate and there is a lot of us that will grasp even on the slightest chance of hope, so... please, let us know how can we do this better, because reporting the same old bugs over and over is not it. 

There is also a big percent of issues, which cannot even be reported, because they take extensive play time, during an active mission to show themselves. A lot of bugs, which seem random as well. Things that are very hard to record in a short track or recreate on the spot. Maybe we can all gather on missions and report issues as they happen, I don't know, this is for you guys to figure out and tell us how can we better help to resolve these things.

Please!

Edited February 1, 2022 by Shadow KT

[BIGNEWY]

5 minutes ago, Shadow KT said:

@BIGNEWY I know that CA is fun and that is why I am invested in it. I play a lot of CA and I make all my missions with CA. I make large scale PvP campaigns with CA. 

See, I know what you mean and I understand that you have to say these things, but there are issues. No, not requests for new features, old issues which stay unaddressed and reported. And to me as a member of the community, at least, it seems like there is no feedback on them. There is just so many times I am willing to keep bumping old bug report threads and then being asked to make a report for the same issues again.

There are some extremely dedicated CA user that I personally know of, some with military background even. It would be great if there is something, we as a community can come together and somehow collaborate with ED to make these things works. I get all the business yadayada, you guys over at ED have your priorities, can't have community members just barging in and ordering what has to be done.... the point I am trying to get across is, that we are desperate and there is a lot of us that will grasp even on the slightest chance of hope, so... please, let us know how can we do this better, because reporting the same old bugs over and over is not it. 

There is also a big percent of issues, which cannot even be reported, because they take extensive play time, during an active mission to show themselves. A lot of bugs, which seem random as well. Things that are very hard to record in a short track or recreate on the spot. Maybe we can all gather on missions and report issues as they happen, I don't know, this is for you guys to figure out and tell us how can we better help to resolve these things.

Please!

 

In short things take time and money, we have big plans for CA but it can not be rushed.

Bugs get reported and worked on, I can not give ETA's on fixes as it all comes down to when a dev is free to work on a particular issue. It's not what you want to hear, but it does require patience. 

thanks

[Wychmaster]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb BIGNEWY:

we have big plans for CA

Hope these plans involve full fidelity vehicle modules.

In this case CA would be the Flaming Cliffs equivalent for ground forces. However, I don't expect to see anything related in the next 3 years since ED already has a big todo list.

But it is interesting how we are getting slowly out of the skies towards the ground. With all the helos around the corner and already there, it is only a matter of time until we can get our boots dirty 

[Apocalypse31]

12 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

Hope these plans involve full fidelity vehicle modules.

I'm not sure how you define 'full fidelity' but if it means having insane 3d models with interiors than I hope not.

 

Vehicle interiors are such a waste of time when the player spends 99% of their time between the gunsight and the hatch. 

One of the Steel Beasts artists talked about designing the interior of the T-72, and how it took some insane amount of work; something like 500 man hours to complete. 

Tanks are NOT aircraft. There aren't a dozen switches you need to memorize. Tanks primitive, and are designed so that an 18-year old kid can jump in and learn how to operate. Only a small percent of operators are required to understand the mechanical and electronic schematics and systems (Master Gunner), but that wouldn't be something we need here. 

[Wychmaster]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Apocalypse31:

I'm not sure how you define 'full fidelity' but if it means having insane 3d models with interiors than I hope not.

Mostly that I can switch to all positions and have access to all relevant features like the commander sight, possibility to assign targets to the gunner, smoke launchers and whatever else might be possible that we are currently missing.

The interior would be an absolute blast in VR, but I guess a bit pointless in the pancake version for the reasons you mentioned. However, as you said, tanks are rather simple. So the system modelling wont take much time in comparison to a plane. So it might not hurt to put some hours into it and it would still not get even close to the dev hours of an F-16 or F-18.

So for some really popular vehicles like the abrams or T-72, I guess it wouldn't be unrealistic.

[Apocalypse31]

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/1049004dffda66f74e7e784ec4d55311/

 

I feel like someone from the development team should clarify to the player base about the API. I estimate that many people think their favorite FLIR-enabled module will have this great new feature on release and don't realize that the 3rd party developers still need to link the API. 

[Silver_Dragon]

13 minutes ago, Apocalypse31 said:

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/1049004dffda66f74e7e784ec4d55311/

 

I feel like someone from the development team should clarify to the player base about the API. I estimate that many people think their favorite FLIR-enabled module will have this great new feature on release and don't realize that the 3rd party developers still need to link the API. 

You see on the develop pics.

That show some work on Syria map. That can be Ugra-Media will be access to the API.

[Apocalypse31]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

You see on the develop pics.

That show some work on Syria map. That can be Ugra-Media will be access to the API.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

 

Nobody from ED is doing expectation management - this topic is a perfect example. Everyone assumed that the new FLIR technology would be included with ALL FLIR-capable vehicles on day one of patch, but didn't expect that ALL 3rd party developers would still need to update their products. 

[Silver_Dragon]

5 minutes ago, Apocalypse31 said:

Nobody from ED is doing expectation management - this topic is a perfect example. Everyone assumed that the new FLIR technology would be included with ALL FLIR-capable vehicles on day one of patch, but didn't expect that ALL 3rd party developers would still need to update their products. 

No, I have very clear from years ago, the 3rd parties need implement your product with the new APIs and the changes and updates of the APIs.... Example, SC API features on progress and the need of HB to implement them on your carriers from scratch. The same situation with any ED product with any core improvement or new feature and API.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Silver_Dragon

[Callsign112]

On 2/2/2022 at 6:32 PM, Wychmaster said:

Mostly that I can switch to all positions and have access to all relevant features like the commander sight, possibility to assign targets to the gunner, smoke launchers and whatever else might be possible that we are currently missing.

The interior would be an absolute blast in VR, but I guess a bit pointless in the pancake version for the reasons you mentioned. However, as you said, tanks are rather simple. So the system modelling wont take much time in comparison to a plane. So it might not hurt to put some hours into it and it would still not get even close to the dev hours of an F-16 or F-18.

So for some really popular vehicles like the abrams or T-72, I guess it wouldn't be unrealistic.

A little late, but this post caught my eye again.

I agree, I really think ED should add FF ground vehicle modules.

For me the big ticket is an accurate gun/armor/detailed damage model.

Then accurate view ports into the game world from all of the modeled positions. As already mentioned, the player is going to spend most of his/her time between the gun sight and the cupola. But the drivers/bow gunners view is just as important if you want to accurately capture the feeling of being in an armored compartment of a tank. The resource overhead used to create eye candy of a tanks interior would be better spent on improved ground effects like explosions/sounds iMO.

Then a good physics model for driving the vehicles, including appropriate engine sounds/track tension in relation to things like gear, speed, and torque.

Of course the exterior detail of the model is very important as well.

But I think FF ground vehicles in DCS would be a big hit. 

[joey45]

FF??

[Callsign112]

FF!!

Meaning accurate physics models for drive systems, gun/armor performance, historically correct and fully functioning gun sights/weapon systems, highly detailed exterior models, view ports ect ect... They could certainly go through all the pain of modeling the full interior, but I don't think it is necessary. As I said above, the resources that would be needed to create the eye candy on the inside of the tank would be better spent on things like ground effects IMO.

But maybe like @Wychmaster described above, a better analogy to the aircraft side would be FC3 where the focus is on the professional flight model and not the cockpit.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Callsign112