Jump to content

twistking

Members
  • Content Count

    1465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About twistking

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday October 4

Personal Information

  • Location
    Berlin

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hello, i'm very worried, that the new newsletter and video do not mention VR compability in regards to the new prop effects. I was assuming the rework was to help with VR motion reprojection, which was an issue with the legacy prop rendering tech (on some planes), but now it seems the focus was on improving the visuals even further. Were the new effects designed with VR in mind? Thanks.
  2. Well, i googled pre-calculated ray tracing and all results somehow hinged on that dcs newsletter. For me that means that the technique used is either pioneered by ED engineers (which i doubt), or it is a solution that's commonly refered to by another name. In this case "pre-calcualted ray tracing" would still be a marketing term, would it not? Again, i am sure that those new reflections look great and all, but since most offline-rendering is raytraced since decades now, all pre-calculated shader effects and even textures could be called "pre-rendered raytracing". Do you get my point? It w
  3. i am pretty sure that in reality it's not integrated with any of the aircraft variants we have in dcs at the moment. we'll probably see it, when we get an aircraft variant that can carry it.
  4. you probably have an axis of your joystick bound to zoom. check all input devices connected, not only your flight controls. dcs automatically adds keybinds on detected peripherals, so it might be your gamepad or soemthing else. you can also search the control mapping menu for "zoom" and check there for unwanted binds.
  5. were there any more infos on the new propeller effects for 2.7? is it safe to assume those effects were made with vr reprojection in mind? that would be great news. *edit* sorry, wrong thread. was ment to go in in newletter discussion.
  6. lol. pre-calculated ray tracing reads like marketing-speak for baked-in-reflection. since we already have those, it's probably still only marketing-speak for "baked-in-reflection but more pretty this time"... i'm still looking forward to any improvment though, so thumbs up, i guess...
  7. if you have the tpod on point track it is absolutely dependent on LOS, so having LOS masked for a short time can indeed throw off your SPI. easiest way to solve this is to put the tpod in inertial track if you expext masking and switch back to point as soon as the tpod is clear again. alternatively you could transfer the SPI to a different sensor that is not LOS dependant (HUD TDC, HMCS, Markpoint...) and slave the maverick to that.
  8. i believe the outcome gets exagerated because of the simplistic damage model and simple AI. i think the panzerIV was in general superior to the sherman, but in reality that would have not translated to such a clear defeat, as sherman crew would have worked around the shortcomings of their machine. dcs doesn't model penetration characteristics and such things, so the panzers will simply be modelled with more hitpoints and deal more damage... in dcs you could also throw a lot (!) of scout cars against a tiger and they will eventually destroy the tiger by hammering it's frontal armor,
  9. @Cobra847 thanks for the reply. i understand your points (well, as far as i understand the subject matter; game engine technicalities and specific compressions methods go over my head unfortunately) and have no reason to doubt you, but i think the more pressing issue is what @Taz1004 is so eager to point out thanksfully: it's not so much the problem of a specific texture being a specific way. if an artist thought that this was the appropriate texture size for a given object, than i would trust his judgement. you could of course argue, that he was biased too much towards fidelity instead of per
  10. i don't think there is something like the almanac of "game industry standard formats and good practices". but just glance over the numbers: the normal maps for the a-10c cockpit are 600mb in size. that is just normal maps, not diffus, not rough, not metal, but just normal maps. you can get a whole videogame within 600mb. obviously standards and "good practices" change a lot in an industry with such constant progress, but you need no special knowledge to understand that this here is excessive. it's just excessive! nobody would care about 600mb of normal maps for a single cockpit alone, if
  11. i want to add to the discussion between @Taz1004 and @Pikey: i am not a fulltime professional 3d artist, but i do some simple 3d work for my job and also do 3d modelling as a hobby. so, i'm not "properly" trained on this, but have experience with the subject nevertheless. for me, it's unbelievable that ED has still not done anything about it. the texture sizes are a joke honestly and while it would be fine and dandy to have those extreme sized textures as an optional download for people with 12gb+ vram cards, having those as standard is really not acceptable. i have a very long thread i
  12. i voted no, because from the reading the forums it seems not to be a realistic option. if ED has good proof that harms on 4/6 can indeed be used, i would change my vote obviously... apart from that, i do like the idea to have a checkbox for experimental loadouts. people always say it could be easily done by lua, but truth is that most people are not confident with lua editing especially in a MP environment. honestly i don't really see how 4 harms would be such a gamechanger anyway, but on other aircrafts (f5e for example) such a checkbox would open up really fun and interesting op
  13. i'm not interested in public mp/pvp at all, but i guess allowing unpure clients in public mp would not be a good idea, because of cheating etc.
  14. i don't really get the discussion. stations 4/6 appear not to be wired to carry harms. why then include the option in the game? there are so many other options for things to carry on 4/6 that would compliment a 2 harm loadout. i don't like the option to have 6 mavs, but at least i can see why other people like to have the option; it gives them more firepower and it's probably fun to ripple fire all 6 in one go. also it appears as this would be technicaly possible, only not cleared for use. with the harms it appears to me that it's technically impossible and would not have such a big
×
×
  • Create New...