Jump to content

Trident

Members
  • Content Count

    600
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About Trident

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/18/1983

Personal Information

  • Location
    Germany
  1. Yeah, it's a bit overdone, but I'm impressed - a pretty cool way to see the improved AI flight-modeling at work!
  2. I have to say, all four of the new effects (engine smoke, ship wakes, vapour trails, tire smoke) are fantastic! In this screenshot it even looks as though the amount of smoke depends on throttle, with intermittent bursts as the wingmen modulate thrust to maintain position relative to their lead! The ship wake effect makes me wonder if ED could not implement white caps as an indicator of sea state.
  3. But a much more realistic dust effect already seems to exist NOW in DCS - the aircraft dust trail is just about perfect (unless it saps too much performance to be used for large numbers of vehicles simultaneously?). I have never understood why ED made two different effects for essentially the same thing anyway: the dust is the same material whether it gets kicked up by a ground vehicle or an aircraft, so logically the graphical representation should be the same as well. It sounds like a banal issue, but inconsistencies like that (of which the above is far from the only example in DCS) actually
  4. Agree completely - alter the general shape of the explosion to include DCS-style "dust prongs" and that's pretty much perfection right there. The cannon impact effect wasn't half bad either, though I'm not so sure about the fire/smoke-plume effect - in this latter regard Wings of Prey remains the reference IMHO.
  5. Agree completely! As suspected, 3rd party aircraft development is a bit haphazard, based mostly on what the various groups have previously done, and not necessarily what would make the most sense with respect to a coherent combat environment. I don't blame anybody for it, nothing could be more logical to a 3rd party developer than to draw on existing experience and material when approaching a new sim engine, but IMHO new and better theatres are just as sorely needed. I only hope we don't end up with Iraq and Afghanistan though :( Desert Storm was probably the most interesting conflict of th
  6. Ground clutter looks good, more interested in the terrain mesh at this point :)
  7. Agreed on both counts, some variety would not go amiss :)
  8. IMHO the Wings of Prey graphics engine is overrated in many respects, but it does have rather fantastic smoke effects and they seem to be based on a very clever puff implementation, too. What's more, the puffs aren't actually that small apparently, the textures are just done to a very high standard and are animated very convincingly. So, as Irregular programming has already demonstrated, there is a lot that can be done with this kind of smoke effect. Maybe somebody will eventually be able to "reverse-engineer" the general appearance of the WoP smoke in DCS? http://i5.fastpic.ru/big/2010/052
  9. My two cents on the new explosions: Very promising, but not quite finished yet. IMHO, the following changes would improve them substantially: 1. As others have said, it's currently a one-size-fits-all thing which doesn't really work very well if simply scaled for warheads of different explosive power. I strongly suspect this is a beta issue though, but I'll mention it just to be sure ;) 2. A stylistic gripe: the incandescent fireball should in my view be brighter and more luminous with reddish areas, a bit like it used to be with the previous explosions actually. 3. The shock wa
  10. I like where this is going... still needs some improvement (the incandescent part of the explosion and the flames aren't nearly bright and luminous enough), but it's already a big improvement on the previous effects - the potential is obvious!
  11. Seconded! I'm still a bit baffled by P-51D, but there does appear to be some method to the madness after all ;) Things are looking promising, the improvements and new features which DCS: World provides are very interesting, I might have to try it out even on my lowly notebook here. Keep up the good work, ED!
  12. So the performance impact is mitigated to a great extent by LOD instancing (which however didn't work particularly well until not so long ago, IIRC) - fine. The immense visual dissonance remains.
  13. That's still the default Hornet model which has been with us since LOMAC v1.0, right? Amazing - what was the poly count again, something like 15000? What on earth do you need 100000+ polys for? Ok, the canopy doesn't look perfectly round yet, as do a few other small details, so make it 20000, maybe even up to 50000 if you want to have a very detailed damage model. But more than that (even on ground vehicles), while having a terrain mesh where you can almost count the triangles by hand? I really hope ED stops making vehicle models even more detailed than they are now, some of them are alread
  14. Yes, the night lighting in XP10 is definitely industry-leading with respect to flight sims, here's hoping EDGE will bring similar capabilities to the table.
  15. And that is different to this: http://www.a-10c.com/en/series/black_shark/?PAGEN_2=2#22731 ... in what way exactly? Apart from it being a reciprocating engine in A2A's case and (as yet) turbine engines in DCS, obviously ;) IMHO the Accu-Sim level of modelling is only remarkable in that it is a M$FS add-on, where most of the other competitors on that market are bound by the severe limitations of the Microsoft simulation engine. Yes, this is something ED does not currently model AFAIK, but for both A2A and Flying Legends (neither of which simulates a proper, continuous WWII campaig
×
×
  • Create New...