Jump to content

RustyGunner

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RustyGunner

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 06/06/1959
  1. Admiral, thank you for the shipyard time. I am not sure we are using the same base model. I think there were four base models that were posted. The base model I am using is dated 10-03-2020. Its size is 130,929 KBs, has 33 objects, and 2,454,312 triangles. Also of note, this model does not have any luna lights showing up during the day. Some of the other models had that problem. The collision model adjustment you made looks to be for a different date model. It is centered dead-on but needs to be moved back and up for the model I am using to achieve the fps performance increase.
  2. Admiral, the collision model shown is the collision model provided with the base ship in, I believe, the last update posted. I mixed and matched the various base models (there are several out there) and collision models provided to find the combination that yielded the highest fps performance. The combination posted above provides good performance but the collision model and base model don't match as they were not packaged (created) together. I used Model Viewer to show both by; 1) Load Model (the base model is loaded) and then 2) Add Model (the collision model is loaded). Both mode
  3. Admiral, I have been playing with the San Antonio and can get a fairly consistent 60 fps using the USS San Antonio LPD-17.edm model dated 10-03-2020 combined with the USS San Antonio LPD-17_Collision.edm model dated 11-22-2020 (two different releases). This combination gives me the highest FPS for this ship. Other model combinations can give poor fps performance and make looking around the San Antonio a slide show as stated in previous posts last year when first released. Perhaps DCS 2.7 helped improve performance as well. The collision model needs a slight adjustment to its
  4. Admiral, thanks for the updated collision model. I like to "dress up" your ships with eye candy while they run about. Love your ships. That upcoming carrier looks very impressive. RustyGunner
  5. Admiral, Thanks for the new updated textures for the LCU 1627. They are excellent. Could you update the collision model so we can add static objects to transport. These tanks kind of sank into the LCU. Many thanks for your work. RustyGunner
  6. Admiral, tried out the new Montreal model and like the upgrades you made. Discovered two problems. First, the model has its hull separated at the waterline around the entire ship. Second, static objects now do not sit flush with the flight deck. They did before the change. Suspect the hull gap is causing this static height issue. RustyGunner
  7. Admiral, You have another ship in your mods with the same texture name. That texture is being shown as it is being called up first. Either rename the texture or remove the other ship with the same texture from your active mods. The proper texture will then display properly. Rusty Gunner
  8. Many thanks to all who made this great model possible. I noticed that after a carrier takeoff the launch bar does not retract and will protrude out the nose gear cover after the nose gear is retracted. Changing this line in the LaunchBar section of the .lua file will fix the problem. Change (should be the last line in the LaunchBar section): {Transition = {"Stage", "Extend"}, Sequence = {{C = {{"ChangeDriveTo", "Mechanical"}, {"Arg", 85, "from", 0.745, "to", 1.0, "in", 0.2}}}}}, To: {Transition = {"Pull", "Retract"}, Sequence = {{C = {{"ChangeDriveTo", "Mechan
  9. Admiral, I fully realize that a collision model is needed for statics to sit on the deck and for the ship to take damage. I only ran a test with and without the collision model to see what change in fps would result. The previous models for the San Antonio did not cause me concern as I never noticed "choppy" performance while looking at the ship from different angles. As another reference not reported in my first post is that the earlier San Antonio with the first "double hull" model released gave better fps performance. It ran around 37 to 84 fps with an estimated average of 50. Seemed
  10. Admiral, tried the new collision model today. Unfortunately, this collision model makes the San Antonio unusable on my system (4.6 GHz machine, 32 GB ram, 1080Ti). The fps are running from 7 to 42 with an estimated average of 15. It's a very jerky pan doing a 360 around the ship. The San Antonio model, with no collision model added, gives a fps of 70 to 95 with an estimated average of 83. Something in that new collision model isn't playing fair. BTW: the test was conducted in the Caucasus ocean. No land in sight and no other ships/planes around. I didn't try testing any statics on th
  11. rayrayblues, Just watched your video and must say top notch clear presentation. Followed your steps and now have active rescue helicopters supporting carrier operations. Thanks for the excellence video. Rusty
  12. Admiral, I took a look at both the ship model and new collision model in ModelViewer2. Picture 1 shows the collision model is not symmetrical (never have seen this before) about the origin and that its deck level is about 1 meter higher than the ship model (Picture 2). This may explain the floating static objects as they are about 1 meter too high. Hope this gives you a clue to what's not quite right. Rusty
  13. Interesting request but I do not know how to do that as an automatic sequence of events. I have been trying to trigger custom ship arguments using the ME trigger feature but have been unsuccessful so far. Sorry but you are pushing my experience with this one. A simple approach would be to spawn a LCAC behind the Oak Hill when the ship arrives on station (using a specific time) and set the LCAC to make a landing from there. If you get this one figured out I would be interested in how its done too. Rusty
  14. Admiral, tried the new collision model and didn't see any change from what was reported earlier. Static objects still float over the deck. The Oak Hill is a excellent model. I raised the deck level to 12.23 as AI helicopters had "flat" tires. As for the collision model it's great. I can put objects all over that ship and on different decks just fine. On another note: I was using the Oak Hill and San Antonio together and noticed when the hangar door closes on the San Antonio the two rear antennas go up too. On the Oak Hill the two rear antennas are fixed and stay extended out to the
  15. Admiral, popped in to confirm navyBtown and Sierra 99 comments. Setting the deck height to 12.7 will make AI aircraft and flown aircraft wheels flush with the deck. However, static models placed on the deck have two problems. My first picture shows an AI helicopter on Spot 2 and a static V22 on Spot 1. The AI helicopter sits flush with the deck (using 12.7) while the static V22 floats above the deck. So, the first problem is floating static objects. The second problem is if a static object is placed further back on the deck to Spot 2 or more, the static object will link to the bottom of
×
×
  • Create New...