DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum

[zerO_crash]

On 1/21/2024 at 4:56 AM, Smith said:

Does someone know if Eagle Dynamics uses 3D Scans for its new planes and cockpits? Grinnelli Designs showed some pictures of using it for the cockpit and details of the F-100D.
The F-16 Cockpit is not very accurate on the Dimensions in the cockpit. I hope ED can scan a MiG-29 Cockpit.

No one does 3D scanning (laser scanning) of complete aircraft. That would be far more polygons to render, than actual hardware is capable of running at anything above 30 fps.

 

Cockpits, however, do get 3D scanned. Heatblur was the first company to, at least publicly, disclose that they were doing. Nowadays, more 3rd parties are doing to so. ED hasn't yet admitted to doing it, but wouldn't be surprised if they did it anyways.

 

I have used 2D + TrackIR (later on) from LOMAC to DCS, and now VR for 8 years. What is it exactly that isn't up to standard with the F-16 according to you?

 

EDIT: Here is an example of 3D scanning being utilized to create realistic human pilot model:

 

 

Edited January 22, 2024 by zerO_crash

[BIGNEWY]

On 1/21/2024 at 3:56 AM, Smith said:

Does someone know if Eagle Dynamics uses 3D Scans for its new planes and cockpits? Grinnelli Designs showed some pictures of using it for the cockpit and details of the F-100D.
The F-16 Cockpit is not very accurate on the Dimensions in the cockpit. I hope ED can scan a MiG-29 Cockpit.

It varies from aircraft to aircraft, and how much access we have. Some use CAD, blueprints, some use Photogrammetry and if you have good access scans are possible, I dont recall for the viper.

If you think something is wrong I would suggest posting on the viper forum section with your evidence. Please note our viper is F-16CM Block 50, roughly M4.2+, operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007. Lets not discuss here as it will derail the thread. 

thank you

 

[Dragon1-1]

9 minutes ago, zerO_crash said:

No one does 3D scanning (laser scanning) of complete aircraft. That would be far more polygons to render, than actual hardware is capable of running at anything above 30 fps.

Laser scanned models are never used raw. In fact, if you look at the HB laser scanned cockpit models, they tend to be full of glitches and holes. The finished cockpit geometry is heavily processed manually and doesn't have nearly as many polygons as the scan. The high poly model is used to generate normal maps and the actual game model.

I believe some parts of aircraft are laser scanned. Scanning the whole thing would be rather though, not to mention the amount of work involved would be considerable. Usually, several techniques are combined to get an accurate 3D model.

[zerO_crash]

14 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Laser scanned models are never used raw. In fact, if you look at the HB laser scanned cockpit models, they tend to be full of glitches and holes. The finished cockpit geometry is heavily processed manually and doesn't have nearly as many polygons as the scan. The high poly model is used to generate normal maps and the actual game model.

I believe some parts of aircraft are laser scanned. Scanning the whole thing would be rather though, not to mention the amount of work involved would be considerable. Usually, several techniques are combined to get an accurate 3D model.

When you perform an actual scan of an aircraft (or any object for that matter), you would have to take that file and process it further through 3DSMax for creating textures, animations, augumentations, etc... That does preserve the original scan, albeit with retouching. A cockpit is a relatively small part to scan though.

 

While scanning a whole aircraft wouldn't be too difficult, again, the issue lies on the user-side. The modules would not be a couple of GB each, but rather an order of magnitude more. What I hear is a common technique instead, is to perform even a complete scan of an object, and then have that as a print for topology. An artist would then use this print, and redraw the neccessary polgyons, in order to conform with the geometry. The process is called "retopology". Again, this is what's commonly know, however what ED uses, you'd have to specifically ask them about. Purely size-wise though, a 1-4GB module is definitely not a complete 3D scan, not by a longshot. 

Edited January 22, 2024 by zerO_crash

[Dragon1-1]

5 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

Purely size-wise though, a 1-4GB module is definitely not a complete 3D scan, not by a longshot. 

It might have started as one, though. Retopology can work in a number of different ways, and I believe there are ways to do that without completely recreating the mesh (although it still does take a lot of human input). I do know it is possible to automatically generate a lower poly model from a higher poly one. This is how normal maps are often done: small details are modeled, then a normal map created off the high poly model, to apply to the low poly one. The artist does not have to create the same model twice.

I think some DCS developers do use photogrammetry for the external model, which produces a similar mesh to laser scanning, only less precise and more practical to do with something the size of a plane. Neither photogrammetry nor laser scanned meshes can be used 1:1 for much, though, because as I said, they have holes. You need a convex mesh for most uses, be it using it in a game or making an STL out of it. Any usable mesh would have to be downsampled, made convex and have scanning errors fixed, plus of course have textures and animations added. It would also require adding surfaces that the laser scan couldn't see. The result will be quite removed from raw scan data, far more than simple retouching.

[zerO_crash]

23 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It might have started as one, though. Retopology can work in a number of different ways, and I believe there are ways to do that without completely recreating the mesh (although it still does take a lot of human input). I do know it is possible to automatically generate a lower poly model from a higher poly one. This is how normal maps are often done: small details are modeled, then a normal map created off the high poly model, to apply to the low poly one. The artist does not have to create the same model twice.

I think some DCS developers do use photogrammetry for the external model, which produces a similar mesh to laser scanning, only less precise and more practical to do with something the size of a plane. Neither photogrammetry nor laser scanned meshes can be used 1:1 for much, though, because as I said, they have holes. You need a convex mesh for most uses, be it using it in a game or making an STL out of it. Any usable mesh would have to be downsampled, made convex and have scanning errors fixed, plus of course have textures and animations added. It would also require adding surfaces that the laser scan couldn't see. The result will be quite removed from raw scan data, far more than simple retouching.

This isn't really my trade at all, so your guess is as good as mine. One thing is fore sure, the models have been verified in multiple ways, and I guess 2 modules have so far in the history of DCS needed a slight correction on the exterior. They do get it right, that's for sure. They do use photgrammetry as well, it has been mentioned around. Beyond that, it's a digital artist's playfield.

 

In VR for example, everything looks correct compared to the actual aircraft I have sat in the cockpit of. This is further confirmed by mixed reality, where overlapping of hommade cockpit and the virtual one, coincide. I wouldn't worry about anything related to this, there is a reason DCS and ED have the reputation they have. Afterall, their commercial side delivers on military contracts. That should grant credibility enough, though it's always important to have an open and critical mind. Don't worry, MiG-29 will be amazing, no doubt about it! 

[Harlikwin]

On 1/15/2024 at 8:35 AM, Viper33 said:

That's not how that IRST should work (not like in FC3). Laser ranging only works out to 6km in unubstructed conditions.

In  general the "IRST" mode of the KOLS was regarded as pretty useless by pilots. Being a linear PbSe sensor more or less backs that up since it will have issues with long range detection, and the lack of clutter processing will make it work "poorly". It was good at cueing weapons at short range with the helmet mounted sight though.  

The FC3 "IRST" modeling is in general really poor. 

[Ramius007]

On 1/23/2024 at 12:44 AM, Harlikwin said:

In  general the "IRST" mode of the KOLS was regarded as pretty useless by pilots. Being a linear PbSe sensor more or less backs that up since it will have issues with long range detection, and the lack of clutter processing will make it work "poorly". It was good at cueing weapons at short range with the helmet mounted sight though.  

The FC3 "IRST" modeling is in general really poor. 

lack of clutter processing is definitely delivered in fc3 mig, sub 15km detection ranges for small targets near ground, it's preety much what you described as helmet cueing support plus ability to make stealth attacks from the bottom

[Zeagle]

Please ED also give us some of the airfield equipment like an updated Ural 4320/APA-5d, towbars, and the like. I really liked the old Virpil airfield mod from a few years back.

Also, thank you for the MiG-29.  It is indeed a dream come true for me.

I suppose a request for the Su-25 or maybe a Su-27 as well would be out of order....lol. 

[Silver_Dragon]

1 hour ago, Zeagle said:

Please ED also give us some of the airfield equipment like an updated Ural 4320/APA-5d, towbars, and the like. I really liked the old Virpil airfield mod from a few years back.

Also, thank you for the MiG-29.  It is indeed a dream come true for me.

I suppose a request for the Su-25 or maybe a Su-27 as well would be out of order....lol. 

By that logic, the air bases should be full of equipment from other countries, such as NATO, but there is nothing. The only one who "tried" to do something similar was Aviodev, with the generator for the C-101 and that's where it stayed, and the few assets objects that have appeared in ED's Supercarrier or Heatblur's Forrestal, but with caveats. In itself, there is already a lot of Russian and Soviet material, the Ural 4320/APA-5d and other soviet/russian base stuff simply has not come out because it has not been a priority, and the shame is that much of what there is is simply "props". It has no real functionality, it's just to make it pretty. Let's hope (I doubt it), when ED makes the ground crew of the bases, something can change, but I think that we are not going to see that level of immersion in an air base, in the same way that we are not seeing it in a ship (example: there are no aircraft movements between slots for carrier crews, for takeoff or landing configurations on aircraft carriers, or move to the hangar or viceversa, and I think many of us know the answer, it is a lot of work for something that the normal player is not willing to wait 10-30 minutes for the air to be able to land or take off.

[AeriaGloria]

5 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

lack of clutter processing is definitely delivered in fc3 mig, sub 15km detection ranges for small targets near ground, it's preety much what you described as helmet cueing support plus ability to make stealth attacks from the bottom

I would be surprised to get anything more then 15-18 km on anything but after burning targets or look up, even at high altitude 

[Harlikwin]

12 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I would be surprised to get anything more then 15-18 km on anything but after burning targets or look up, even at high altitude 

The fun part no one seems to get about "afterburning" is that you don't see AB plumes past a few miles in IR because of rapid CO2 absorption in IR ( i mean this is IR 101). And early missile seekers can't see it at all. At best you get some increase in the radiated energy from the "hot metal" bits. 

In general the current ED IR model seems to be based on a poor understanding of how IR actually works. 

Edited January 25, 2024 by Harlikwin

[okopanja]

12 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

The fun part no one seems to get about "afterburning" is that you don't see AB plumes past a few miles in IR because of rapid CO2 absorption in IR ( i mean this is IR 101). And early missile seekers can't see it at all. At best you get some increase in the radiated energy from the "hot metal" bits. 

In general the current ED IR model seems to be based on a poor understanding of how IR actually works. 

 

What matters is the contrast of aircraft produced IR against environment. For the first there are multiple sources as plume is only one of them. Furthermore altitude also plays huge role. The IRST is not accidently placed in upper hemisphere. In addition environment IR changes rapidly depending on time of a day. The given detection values are likely given for conditions on lower altitudes in daylight for a certain target size.

[Harlikwin]

15 hours ago, okopanja said:

What matters is the contrast of aircraft produced IR against environment. For the first there are multiple sources as plume is only one of them. Furthermore altitude also plays huge role. The IRST is not accidently placed in upper hemisphere. In addition environment IR changes rapidly depending on time of a day. The given detection values are likely given for conditions on lower altitudes in daylight for a certain target size.

Yup, all of that is IR 101. Less range at low alt due to more atmosphere. More range looking up against cold sky. 

Most of the detection charts specify the conditions I forget all the ones for KOLS but they are listed usually a few thousand meters and with whatever target usually a mig21 or Tu-16. Usually they also specify the background and the loss of range due to it being vs cloud background or earth. 

What the manuals don't talk about much is IR clutter and reflection which are major issues when looking at ground (especially urban), or nicely lit cloud edges. But various mig-29 pilots have chimed in on the clutter issues when using the IRST.

 

[zerO_crash]

Fairly sure that ED realizes the limitations of the systems. However, as always, it's a matter of reallocating resources (mostly manpower) to more pressing issues. I wouldn't be surprised at all, if the mechanics behind the newly implemented systems (IR being one of them), are built with future modular support (software). In essence, any future upgrades to the physics and visuals, will be another layer of programming upon the exisisting system. That, instead of a complete rework. Don't worry, I'm sure that with time, we'll get ours.

Edited January 27, 2024 by zerO_crash

[apolloace]

 

Another interesting video.

[pepin1234]

 

[badger7966]

ya....i will be buying this......fantastic addition.

[pepin1234]

Any idea what HUD mode is this? It’s from a Mig-29G. 

[zerO_crash]

Difficult to say. Looks like an internationalized Mig-29, considering the use of imperial units in the HUD. Possibly an evaluation aircraft, or even more likely, an export one (IAF or so).

[pepin1234]

1 minute ago, zerO_crash said:

Difficult to say. Looks like an internationalized Mig-29, considering the use of imperial units in the HUD. Possibly an evaluation aircraft, or even more likely, an export one (IAF or so).

Yeah, that’s why I told you it’s a MiG-29G with imperial conversion. I just wanted to know the HUD mode. Look like GCI interception mode. Not sure if keep the same Soviet design for that particular mode or was a totally different conversion for western system.

[zerO_crash]

37 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

Yeah, that’s why I told you it’s a MiG-29G with imperial conversion. I just wanted to know the HUD mode. Look like GCI interception mode. Not sure if keep the same Soviet design for that particular mode or was a totally different conversion for western system.

 

I see no evidence why this should be GCI. If this was a combat mode, then both weapon information would be displayed as well as target distance on the sides of the HUD. I see absolutely no reason to infer that this is GCI!? This is standard navigation HUD, albeit with different layout for showing the flight information. It's pure speculation without any documentation confirming this, however, from what I see:

 

Upper part of the bottom information on HUD - KNQX (Key West Naval Air Station - the HUD is in landing mode for the KNQX airfield), D (destination 300*), T (flight plan track, in other words "course" - 276*).

Lower part of the bottom information on HUD - He is setup for time 5 minutes, because the system calculates for the pilot that with the airfield at a distance of 025 nautical miles, he should hold 0284 knots to reach it in estimated time. (25NM/284KT = 5 minutes and 17 seconds)

 

This is basically the navigation mode set up for landing at pre-briefed airfield. Nothing more than that.

Edited February 5, 2024 by zerO_crash

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

1 hour ago, pepin1234 said:

Any idea what HUD mode is this? It’s from a Mig-29G. 

Looks like the navigational mode. There's no indexes, no target selections, and that circle looks like the waypoint symbol. Not sure what the lower information is outside of the distance and heading readouts.

It's definitely a 29G of the Luftwaffe.

For comparison, here are some Yugoslav 9.12s and their own HUD symbology:

Note the same circle? Waypoint.

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

 

I see no evidence why this should be GCI. If this was a combat mode, then both weapon information would be displayed as well as target distance on the sides of the HUD. I see absolutely no reason to infer that this is GCI!? This is standard navigation HUD, albeit with different layout for showing the flight information. It's pure speculation without any documentation confirming this, however, from what I see:

 

Upper part of the bottom information on HUD - KNQX (Key West Naval Air Station - the HUD is in landing mode for the KNQX airfield), D (destination 300*), T (flight plan track 276*).

Lower part of the bottom information on HUD - He is setup for time 5 minutes, because the system calculates for the pilot that with the airfield at a distance of 025 nautical miles, he should hold 0284 knots to reach it in estimated time. (25NM/284KT = 5 minutes and 17 seconds)

 

This is basically the navigation mode set up for landing at pre-briefed airfield. Nothing more than that.

I was actually about to suggest that the "Q" is just an O with some detritus or a cloud in the way. And then, one more google search phrase change up and BAM!:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/when-u-s-navy-fighters-dogfighted-with-the-mig-29-fulcrum-remembering-exercise-agile-archer-2002/
 

Sure enough, German MiG-29s over Key West in 2002. KNQX.

Edited February 5, 2024 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[okopanja]

10 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Looks like the navigational mode. There's no indexes, no target selections, and that circle looks like the waypoint symbol. Not sure what the lower information is outside of the distance and heading readouts.

It's definitely a 29G of the Luftwaffe.

For comparison, here are some 9.12s and their own HUD symbology:

Note the same circle? Waypoint.

I was actually about to suggest that the "Q" is just an O with some detritus or a cloud in the way. And then, one more google search phrase change up and BAM!:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/when-u-s-navy-fighters-dogfighted-with-the-mig-29-fulcrum-remembering-exercise-agile-archer-2002/
 

Sure enough, German MiG-29s over Key West in 2002. KNQX.

This Yugoslav is Mig-29, photograph taken probably during 90s.

Edited February 5, 2024 by okopanja

[zerO_crash]

8 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Looks like the navigational mode. There's no indexes, no target selections, and that circle looks like the waypoint symbol. Not sure what the lower information is outside of the distance and heading readouts.

It's definitely a 29G of the Luftwaffe.

For comparison, here are some 9.12s and their own HUD symbology:

Note the same circle? Waypoint.

I was actually about to suggest that the "Q" is just an O with some detritus or a cloud in the way. And then, one more google search phrase change up and BAM!:

https://theaviationgeekclub.com/when-u-s-navy-fighters-dogfighted-with-the-mig-29-fulcrum-remembering-exercise-agile-archer-2002/
 

Sure enough, German MiG-29s over Key West in 2002. KNQX.

 

Yeah, that last digit seems deformed, but if you look closely, it's because of the F-18's vertical stabilator posing as a different background than the sky. The time readout is in the following format - "0-00" where the first digit is in hours, and the last two digits in minutes.