A windsock that adapts to the strength of the wind

[Kappa-131st]

It can be very easy to make : 

A model that has different animations.
Currently, when loading the game, the models "orient themselves" in the direction of the wind.
What's missing? An adaptive animation of the model according to the strength of the wind (related to its altitude)

 

[XCNuse]

This probably wouldn't be implemented in literally forever....

BUT, it blows my mind a flight sim game never took windsocks into consideration over a decade later.

 

I hadn't noticed this until I was testing a mission the other week, and the windsock was pointed straight out; despite winds being fairly calm.

It's super confusing to put in like 4kts winds, and the thing is pointed straight out and fluttering like it's in a hurricane!

[MAXsenna]

I would love to have them flutter. Flags too. 

Maybe will get them when wind and downwash affects trees. 

Cheers! 

Edited August 17, 2022 by MAXsenna

[Kappa-131st]

24 minutes ago, XCNuse said:

This probably wouldn't be implemented in literally forever....

I disagree with you: it can be implemented in addition to new weather effects they are currently working on.
Since they do dynamic weather with moving clouds, they might be interested in reworking the windsock.

It is not a difficult work : Take the wind direction to orient the windsock (work actualy) and take the wind's force to choose animation, at the starting of the mission. 6 States of animations : 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 knots

[razo+r]

Flags and Windsock that are part of the map do actually dynamically change their direction and attitude depending on wind speed and direction.

Only the placable windhose does not do that.

Example from the Normandy map, 2m/s and 8m/s.

Same goes for flags on Caucasus for example.

 

[Dragon1-1]

They could use a better animation, though. Specifically, they should inflate in stages, like in the picture in the OP. We should be able to estimate wind speed from them, not just direction.

[XCNuse]

6 hours ago, Kappa-131st said:

I disagree with you: it can be implemented in addition to new weather effects they are currently working on.
Since they do dynamic weather with moving clouds, they might be interested in reworking the windsock.

It is not a difficult work : Take the wind direction to orient the windsock (work actualy) and take the wind's force to choose animation, at the starting of the mission. 6 States of animations : 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 knots

Never said it is hard or difficult lol.

The fact the weather engine we got hasn't received a single update in almost 1.5 years despite chat about what all would come to it should tell you something.

The fact Rain3 still doesn't even have raindrops should show you how little they care about these smaller details.

[Kappa-131st]

11 hours ago, XCNuse said:

The fact the weather engine we got hasn't received a single update in almost 1.5 years despite chat

They announce moving cloud on there video "2022 and beyond". It's mean that an evolution is coming (For this year? I don't know.)

[XCNuse]

7 hours ago, Kappa-131st said:

They announce moving cloud on there video "2022 and beyond". It's mean that an evolution is coming (For this year? I don't know.)

They talked about fixing fog a year ago; and haven't since.

My point still remains lol, which is that the windsock is a sad reality of being swept under the rug of "not a priority" like many other things... but one can dream.

 

The real "issue" I have is almost the incredible lack of windsocks in game, I'm kind of surprised how not very common it is to see them.

I usually end up placing the static ones in places I assume they would or should be.

[M1Combat]

Well let me start by saying that I too have found it a bit curious that windsocks don't work "correctly" in DCS...  They should.

However...

Please don't say things like "It is not a difficult work".  You have no idea how difficult it may or may not be.  You don't know the code here.  It may be relatively easy...  sure...  but you don't know that for 100% sure.  Even adding "As far as I can tell" or "it seems" or "I think" to your comment improves it a lot.

"Take the wind direction to orient the windsock (work actualy) and take the wind's force to choose animation, at the starting of the mission. 6 States of animations : 0, 3, 6, 9, 12, 15 knots" - Yeah sure that sounds legit as far as the overall process goes but that doesn't mean this is all that's involved.  As was pointed out to you already...  there are placeable and static objects so your "it's just really easy trust me" comment is already blown out of the water.  Also...  Just at the start of the mission???  Wut?  If we're going for making them work right then they should make them work right.  That means they change with gusts (which will need improvements to the weather model), they need to change with downdraft from heli's...  maybe they even need to be ripped off their pole in a "Buzzing the tower in an F-14" situation.  Yeah sure super easy blah blah blah.  You have no idea.

Also...  

Regarding updates to the weather system where someone says "The fact the weather engine we got hasn't received a single update in almost 1.5 years" is both complete bull<profanity> AND highly offensive to the folks who have done the work you so simply dismiss just because you aren't paying attention.

Knock it off.  Be nice.  Do you have ANY idea the kind of things they're working on with the weather system and why it might be actually legit that it's taking so long to get your pet little detail done?  Thought not.  No raindrops on the canopy in rain3?? Isn't rain 3 pretty heavy rain?  Do you just want drops that would be the same as the drops from rain 2 or do you want a sheeting water effect that's affected by the speed of the aircraft as it taxi's (you won't see a damn bit of rain after about 75MPH on the takeoff run) or do you just want "drops on the canopy" that would be exactly as unrealistic as no drops because neither of those is reality for the level of rain in Rain3?

So what is it?  You want realism or you just want something to bitch about?

 

Clearly everyone involved would like to see the sim progress faster than it does...  That includes the devs.  Anyone posting some bull<profanity> statement like this has CLEARLY not been around either ED or the flight sim hobby for very long.  OR...  if they have they just haven't been paying attention to the peculiarities of the genre.

 

There's a LOT of very entitled mindset in this thread.

 

Knock it off.  Of course feel free to not...  you do you...  but understand that the flight sim world is about .001% the size of some of the other genre's of game...  so it just can't support having huge dev teams that can implement your pet feature or even make major adjustments to core sim systems on your preferred EA FIFA style schedule where they change...  names and stats....

Edited August 19, 2022 by M1Combat

[Germane]

vor 21 Minuten schrieb M1Combat:

 

Regarding updates to the weather system where someone says "The fact the weather engine we got hasn't received a single update in almost 1.5 years" is both complete bull<profanity> AND highly offensive to the folks who have done the work you so simply dismiss just because you aren't paying attention.

 

 

Sorry, but No. 

Yes, it's true. We don't know anything about the work going on in the background and what difficulties ED is facing. But that is only because the communication on the part of ED is so bad, or better - non-existent. What we do see, however, is the result, and that is very much in need of improvement. And what we also see is that nothing has changed in the last 1.5 years and that cannot be glossed over. So you don't have to be surprised when customers become dissatisfied. 

 

Edited August 19, 2022 by Germane

[Kappa-131st]

Quote

"Please don't say things like "It is not a difficult work".  You have no idea how difficult it may or may not be.  You don't know the code here."

First, i'm a professionnal developper, so I have an idea of what this could require in terms of complexity.
I don't ask for a highly realistic full dynamic behavior, with gusts, etc... Just animations ajustements relative to the force of the wind.

When I say "it's not complicated" it's because most of the work would be contained in the 3D animation of the model, not on the code...
A 3D model contains a whole series of animations.
Here, it would take 6 for each state of the windsock. Very easy job to do with a 3D soft.
 

Next, the wind at the location of the model must be determined during the launch of the mission.
And again, the luas functions already exist:
 - atmosphere.getWind (table vec3 ): Returns a velocity vector of the wind at a specified point
 - Object.getPoint(Class Self ) : Returns a vec3 point of an object
https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_func_getWind

I suspect ED to use thoses functions to the orient of the windsock :
currently, the wind direction is used to "orient" the windsock, at the start of the mission
It would be enough easy to exploit the speed data too, to choose which animation to play relative to the force of the wind.

So yes, when I say "It is not a difficult work", I know what I say!

[M1Combat]

48 minutes ago, Germane said:

Sorry, but No. 

Yes, it's true. We don't know anything about the work going on in the background and what difficulties ED is facing. But that is only because the communication on the part of ED is so bad, or better - non-existent. What we do see, however, is the result, and that is very much in need of improvement. And what we also see is that nothing has changed in the last 1.5 years and that cannot be glossed over. So you don't have to be surprised when customers become dissatisfied. 

 

 

No.  "highly offensive to the folks who have done the work you so simply dismiss just because you aren't paying attention."

 

YOU don't know what's going on behind the scenes because you aren't paying attention.  As I said.  Other people DO know what they're working on and why it would take a long time.  YOU don't.  Because YOU aren't paying attention.  But you're fine with using your position of not knowing what's going on to try to tell everyone else that nothing is going on.

There's a word for that...

[MAXsenna]

3 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

No.  "highly offensive to the folks who have done the work you so simply dismiss just because you aren't paying attention."

 

YOU don't know what's going on behind the scenes because you aren't paying attention.  As I said.  Other people DO know what they're working on and why it would take a long time.  YOU don't.  Because YOU aren't paying attention.  But you're fine with using your position of not knowing what's going on to try to tell everyone else that nothing is going on.

There's a word for that...

To be fair. @Kappa-131st is OP of this thread. He was NOT negative in anyway. He even comes with some suggestions, but the thread derailed again with negativity from others, as it always does. So I do see where you're coming from with your rant, but please don't direct it at the OP, it is the wishful section after all.

Have fantastic Friday! I do enjoy DCS several hours every day, hopefully like you!  

Cheers!  

 

[M1Combat]

14 minutes ago, Kappa-131st said:

First, i'm a professionnal developper, so I have an idea of what this could require in terms of complexity.
I don't ask for a highly realistic full dynamic behavior, with gusts, etc... Just animations ajustements relative to the force of the wind.

When I say "it's not complicated" it's because most of the work would be contained in the 3D animation of the model, not on the code...
A 3D model contains a whole series of animations.
Here, it would take 6 for each state of the windsock. Very easy job to do with a 3D soft.
 

Next, the wind at the location of the model must be determined during the launch of the mission.
And again, the luas functions already exist:
 - atmosphere.getWind (table vec3 ): Returns a velocity vector of the wind at a specified point
 - Object.getPoint(Class Self ) : Returns a vec3 point of an object
https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_func_getWind

I suspect ED to use thoses functions to the orient of the windsock :
currently, the wind direction is used to "orient" the windsock, at the start of the mission
It would be enough easy to exploit the speed data too, to choose which animation to play relative to the force of the wind.

So yes, when I say "It is not a difficult work", I know what I say!

Yeah...  I understand animation too sir.  You missed my point.  The point is that you're sitting here saying "Oh hey if you implement the windsock in exactly the way I think it should be done then it's be easy peazy...".

And you're right...

IF they chose to do the windsock as you say, and MAYBE they will.  But that's not my point.

My point is...

That's a bull<profanity> windsock that only works for when you start a mission.  That's crap and is very unlikely to be the way ED will do it.

You know that....  but you want to try to justify your statement by re-qualifying yourself as an SME.  I don't care what you think you know about animation and modeling and making entire effing games sir...  What you DO NOT know...  is what ED wants out of their windsock model :).

Well yeah you're right that the animation bit isn't super difficult.  As I said in my first post here.

 

BUT...  the bit you're missing is exactly what ED's windsock design goals are :).  You have no idea.  You DON'T actually know what you're talking about.  You know at least a tiny bit about modeling and/or animation.  Good for you :).  Awesome.  Means nothing here because we're not talking about modeling or animation.  We're talking about a windsock design goal and people's interest in just throwing random meaningless shade at some developer because they think they know all about it.

 

How about if an AI truck pull up and stops upwind of the windsock?  What then sir?  Does it go limp or not?  I would choose not for simplicity's sake...  but neither of us know ED's design goal with the windsock so neither of us can talk intelligently on "how difficult a work" it is or isn't...  and you know it.

 

 

[Germane]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb M1Combat:

No.  "highly offensive to the folks who have done the work you so simply dismiss just because you aren't paying attention."

 

YOU don't know what's going on behind the scenes because you aren't paying attention.  As I said.  Other people DO know what they're working on and why it would take a long time.  YOU don't.  Because YOU aren't paying attention.  But you're fine with using your position of not knowing what's going on to try to tell everyone else that nothing is going on.

There's a word for that...

Ehm, please what?! We all know exactly the same thing from the official channels. No more and no less. Whether that is enough is up to each person. You are the one who speculates and insinuates something. There is a word for that too... 

[M1Combat]

1 minute ago, MAXsenna said:

To be fair. @Kappa-131st is OP of this thread. He was NOT negative in anyway. He even comes with some suggestions, but the thread derailed again with negativity from others, as it always does. So I do see where you're coming from with your rant, but please don't direct it at the OP, it is the wishful section after all.

Have fantastic Friday! I do enjoy DCS several hours every day, hopefully like you!  

Cheers!  

 

I'm only taking issue with this bit here...

"It is not a difficult work"

I find it to be offensive to developers when people say "Well your job is just super easy" when they have no idea what the design goals of this little detail are.  As I've pointed out...  Is it still "not difficult" if the plans include modeling heli downdraft, or a truck driving in front of the windsock?  wind gusts?  changing weather conditions???

[M1Combat]

13 minutes ago, Germane said:

Ehm, please what?! We all know exactly the same thing from the official channels. No more and no less. Whether that is enough is up to each person. You are the one who speculates and insinuates something. There is a word for that too... 

Well...  if that was the case we wouldn't be having this discussion sir :).

[MAXsenna]

7 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

I'm only taking issue with this bit here...

"It is not a difficult work"

I find it to be offensive to developers when people say "Well your job is just super easy" when they have no idea what the design goals of this little detail are.  As I've pointed out...  Is it still "not difficult" if the plans include modeling heli downdraft, or a truck driving in front of the windsock?  wind gusts?  changing weather conditions???

Yeah! I do get that. But like I said. It started out as a wish/suggestion. And the choice of the word "easy" was probably meant in a positive way. Like "we don't demand a full flexed windsock simulation, but it would be cool if done like this". I'm only guessing here though.

But yet again, the half empty bottles comes along. One of the strangest things I find this forum are the people that comes with negativity (not you!), in the wish section! Why! If one does not care or agree with a wish stay the f*** away. On the other hand, if you like it or agree, or even can ehance the idea. Please stay and comment.  

[M1Combat]

Well...  I don't disagree with you MAXSenna :)...  99 times out of 100 I do exactly that...

 

But...

There are a few very derogatory techniques used when people are trying to make their point that tend to set me off.  Two of those were used in this thread so I decided to respond for MANY reasons.   The two techniques are being derogatory to the devs based on how easy their job seems to be and trying to convince the community that "nothing is happening" regarding a specific feature when there's actually a LOT happening but the statement is made by someone who has clearly not paid enough attention to know what those things are and how they might affect something so simple as a wind sock.

The more we let these things just slip through and go unchallenged the more people read them later, even years from now, and think "well clearly these devs just don't care about their product or customers...".  As was even stated in this very thread.

Sorry...  I've been around flight sims long enough and ED long enough to know that this isn't the case.  It's more a matter of having a small dev teams working an EFFING MASSIVE project and...  more importantly...  working it with a specific approach that defines that things aren't done "the easy way"...  but someone comes along and just says...  "Well...  this is crap...  just do it the easy way and it'll be easy...  duh..."

Ugh...

Sorry, but...  wrong approach.

 

 

[M1Combat]

What happens if an AI C130 points it's prop wash at our dear little windsock and runs up the engines?  Does it affect the windsock?

What if a player slides off the runway and hits our windsock???  does it knock it over or explode the plane?

That about that truck that drives in front of it?

We have placeable windsocks...  What happens if someone places one down wind of a building?  I know...  bad placement but do the devs program for that?

What about windsocks at FARP's that have crosswind relative to the general wind in the area due to terrain features and/or trees...  

Oh yeah super easy...  just change up the animation a tad what's wrong with you devs????

 

Yeah I get it...  I'm being a bit ridiculous... 

But so is saying "it's not difficult" when you have no idea what the design goals are.

Then suggest a windsock that only works based on mission start conditions when the devs are already working on turning this into a complex wind sim?  So they'll then have to go REBUILD the windsock again from the ground up???

 

Anyway...  I'll stop contributing to the thread :)...  you're welcome...

BUT...

Please don't try to tell the devs how their job isn't difficult until you actually know what their job IS...

[Kappa-131st]

Thanks MAXsenna.
I don't see when I was offensive to the developers. When I say that my proposal would not be difficult to implement, I mean that it would not take long for a developer to realize, in no way did I "insult" the developers of incompetence, don't overinterpreting my words. On the contrary, I have the greatest respect for developers, I am one myself, and it is not my habit to gossip about ED teams, on the contrary I try to be constructive and to propose ideas and solutions.

This topic aims to be a peaceful place for discussions and proposals, and not a fighting pit.

Please be respectful to all.

Edited August 19, 2022 by Kappa-131st

[MAXsenna]

57 minutes ago, Kappa-131st said:

Thanks MAXsenna.
I don't see when I was offensive to the developers. When I say that my proposal would not be difficult to implement, I mean that it would not take long for a developer to realize, in no way did I "insult" the developers of incompetence, don't overinterpreting my words. On the contrary, I have the greatest respect for developers, I am one myself, and it is not my habit to gossip about ED teams, on the contrary I try to be constructive and to propose ideas and solutions.

This topic aims to be a peaceful place for discussions and proposals, and not a fighting pit.

Please be respectful to all.

 

No worries! You were not. You have an honest wish. Not your fault others shows up with dishonest negativety. In @M1Combat 's defense, whether he wants it or not, I have ranted and vented on these forums when people takes it too far.

If you read your two first posts in a positive context, Wishlist after all, there is none there that makes you diss on the devs. 

I find it mildly confusing that the Wishhunter hasn't showed up yet, maybe he wants this!

Funny thing is I was just thinking about this the other day in a very windy and rainy mission, but you beat me to it.  

Cheers!