Jump to content

zaelu

Members
  • Posts

    4298
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by zaelu

  1. would this info help for what I wrote above in anyway? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9247308/how-to-stream-only-audio-data-from-youtube-video-on-my-application
  2. Well totally agree with you but what you mentioned could be included in an expansion of current Caucasus... cough Crimea... cough... cough...
  3. if they can't do for some reasons, Afganistan, Korea, Vietnam or any other region that has some relevance to this game then is either hole Earth o good luck with the Northern part of South pole or whatever others suggested looking out their window.
  4. How can one structure the Mi-24P folders now after update so it works? Thanks! EDITED I found it! In the entry.lua it says the folders for the input should be called Mi_24_pilot (or the rest... "operator" is "op" I think)
  5. Thank you! This is so cool! Do you think it would be possible to add something through an API of some sort that you could assign for a frequency in the game or mission a youtube playlist/clip (audio part) or any other audio streaming option (free)? And also if it would be possible to have the real world radios from Radio Garden avalable when in range of them in a DCS Mission either on they current real frequency or on a translated one to the radios available on DCS Units? EG You fly your mission and when you tune to a frequency you actually tune to a preset YouTube (Spotify etc) public free playlist... you can add for example mission time to the time in playlist to have everyone in synch. You fly close to Gudauta city and you tune to a frequency either set in mission or real life frequency and you can listen to Radio Gudauta.
  6. Thanks! It worked. Neat little plug in!
  7. My point is about RoAF. LanceR as a mod... yeah... sure... maybe. But as an official module? Nope... Secret! LanceR is housing the 60's lasers in its belly or something...
  8. same for me, I thought only the multimonitor guys had this problem. I waited for second training mission to have voice overs and tried it after the last patch and... looks exactly like for first poster. VR Quest 2 -wireless using Virtual Desktop resolution se to "Ultra" which corresponds to 5376x2784
  9. I see dots of planes in VR before I see them on my Mig21 radar. It is ridiculous as is now and having people complaining they want more arcade is painful. Few years ago a lot of people complained about viz in 2D, most of them having hard time understanding the physical reality constraints on this matter. In VR this is worse. a hundred times worse. Everyone can play on 1000 models of panels with rgb or penta pixels and lenses with or without Fresnel and resolutions passed through several reprojectors and supersamplings made by the game or steam or virtual desktop or whatnot and quality settings to hearts will. These things multiply each other and create a nightmare for developer. The only solution is to man up, stop complaining and let it be as physically realistic as possible represented and not re-imaginations of stories and impressions or wishes of gamifying rebalances. I still have nightmares of popping oil radiators of Emils and gears from Stukas from Il-2 back in the day. May its mistakes never be resurrected again!
  10. I didn't had the courage yet to press Petrovitch activate menu button. From all I have seen is made like someone had a 4bit processor and tried to do 17 things with it using just a pen and two wires of same color. And that Predator style crosshair...
  11. These need to be added to original file or like a mod in the mods folder from DCS World in the Windows user folder? Thanks.
  12. I think they sold very few Yak52 modules so the resources spent on building the module were not recovered, so... they decided to let it rot (when you crash you see pieces of 109 and Spit so...) but they can't admit it. That's why I said earlier, ED should man up and accept this failure and set the module as free for everybody and use it as a marketing mean so updates would justify slowly by its later effects on public. Now... it would be nice that people that bought this abandoned module be also rewarded somehow... like some miles etc... not mandatory but it would be nice.
  13. I gave Ka50 pilot as an example. It was basically used in P51 and Ka50 at the beginning, small animation modifications and two very different airframes. I am sure that that pilot body can be replaced with a little better new one and probably it will be same amount of work but for and extreme case yeah... even that old low poly would fare better than nothing. Of course I would also like the rest of stuff you mentioned but I am soon 46... And speaking of priorities, of course all devs can have their own list etc and we can observe that... my previous post was basically that, an observation about how important this feature is for most of devs if not all. I mean... we have a audio casette player in F14 that I can't probably know to use... there were some resources poured into that at least in money for the music... Anyway, nice to see you again Cobra .
  14. +1 Another developer that simply despises this feature and after having it in the making for years simply sabotages it by not showing it when is set to show. Goes without saying that same thing happens in Av8 Harrier...
  15. I think is the "neck/shoulder simulator" is called head shift movement in controls. IMHO, useless in VR as I already have a neck and the headset moves taking it into account.
  16. What I really don't like about this "pilot body -all devs are against it" is why in the earth do the devs believe that what we are interested are renders (most of the time untextured) with a pilot body in 30 billion triangles to look at for 5 years instead of a darn pilot body animated like the one KA50 had??? For me is obvious that developers are "working" on a feature they don't desire, don't use, dont' find it useful thus they simply do not understand. We want a pilot body. Get the Ka50 one for start. Then ad polygons or change it hopefully not in 10 years.
  17. No, but then again I am far from an expert on the matter. A lot of things could escape me even if I check . Thanks for reply!
  18. Two updates ago they said something about: I am not sure how much it influences your work on your mod. Here is the changelog link.
  19. Mmm, No. I will probably never buy the F4U or I will buy it at a huge sale... in 5+ years. If all things go well and we are good and healthy till then...
  20. LanceR will never happen. NEVER! At this moment even if it is a ridiculous franken Mig-Sixteen is considered precious secret by RoAF. This combined with standard time on project of Lethearneck... which is around 10 years minimum.... Later.... when probably we will have a AI program that would compile a believable Mig21 LanceR from available info on internet in 20 seconds... we will be either dead or the whole plane will be as interesting as the double fuselage P51. A mere oddity. I am a romanian, I would like a LanceR, and an IAR93, or IAR99/SOIM but no... it is worse than Russian planes as full fidelity modules. Far worse.
  21. Hello, is the last veriosn of the mod compatible with the last Open beta 2.7 updates to the Mirage 2000? Thanks.
  22. I said few yeas ago not 'current crop of FPS games'. Although I did played a little Squad, a little Arma 3(?), I even installed Enlisted to see if there is something to look at - I am not really impressed I must say... but then again those games are not my cup of tea at the moment. I am a bit done with triple A glowing shaders-upon-shining shaders FPS franchises. But technically, I don't consider number one important for a shooter to be super high fidelity graphics. No.1 should be the mechanics and here DCS can achieve the level no problem. Skeletal animation iirc is in the works. Decent damage model framework is in the works. It's doable for what is necessary here. I don't care about seeing correct translucence on face freckles adjusted for skin color, age and degree of hygiene. As a matter of fact what is easy to observe is that many good FPS games tend to get closer to the idea of open sand box combat sim... like Arma and Squad. Obviously they can't get closer to the complexity of a study sim for their planes and helis... but the other way around is totally doable. DCS can have some half decent infantry action.
  23. The level of detail in DCS especially the models are above a lot of very well known FPS shooters from few years ago not to mention older ones that simply were "garbage" compared with DCS and everything in them played basically in a matchbox. Things like Call of duty 1 and 2 or Medal of Honor. It really just needs a bit of attention that's all. But I guess ED focusses a bit too much on tasks at hand nowadays. The fact that we control the ejected pilot (I keep bring him up because is the closest thing to a FPS infantry stuff) by pushing the stick and moving the rudder pedals and not even by the clumsy but usable CA controls is mystifying for me. There are players in this world... most of them I dare to say that would impulse buy a game just because they see a friend or a youtuber doing something interesting/original/funny in a game. Why ED just doesn't provide a little bit more than incomplet tools for that to happen is unknown to me. Oh well.
  24. What is needed is just first steps. For example someone to build a "module" for a ejected pilot. How hard it is to have a EFM for that? For someone that knows one or two things about the subject. There is no avionic to model. No engine. No multiple aerodinamic surfaces. Then... change the chute... make it a bit controllable or even one for aerobatics. Then make this "module" spawn via script in the place or any chute that is abandoned by the pilot (it can be done by a command by that player or automatic) Then you can get rescued Then you can add a gun... and so on. Edit. Basically this sums it up. it needs to be done completely and a bit better. Is it that hard? https://youtu.be/1MyPHI_i5cs
×
×
  • Create New...