Sonoda Umi Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 As changelog in Jun saying, the afterburner visual effect missed. Through a few version updates, the issue is still exists. I don't believe that the issue is easy to settle down. Can you devs give something about that? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viper2097 Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 As far as I see, the actual situation is by far more realistic, and it was always meant to be so by ED with the light changes. Steam user - Youtube I am for quality over quantity in DCS modules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonoda Umi Posted July 5, 2019 Author Share Posted July 5, 2019 As far as I see, the actual situation is by far more realistic, and it was always meant to be so by ED with the light changes. In other word, is it a issue contributed by ED light mechanism changes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viper2097 Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 I think so, but I also think that it is not an issue. Steam user - Youtube I am for quality over quantity in DCS modules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinde Posted July 5, 2019 Share Posted July 5, 2019 Better this way unless they can't make those effects look like on Hornet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cgjunk2 Posted July 16, 2019 Share Posted July 16, 2019 I hope the missing afterburners are fixed or adjusted. I don’t think removal of AB flames was done purposefully for a few reasons. One reason is the f-14 AB texture seems to be there under the right light conditions, but it is short and truncated (I don’t do texture modeling, but it seems as if layers are missing) Secondly, I recently bought the mig 21, and there is absolutely no AB texture. Mig21 videos IRL show prominent afterburner flame during daytime. Also, if you set an f-14 and a mig-21 flying as AI in single player mode, after burner flames are clearly visible on both planes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinde Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 I really hope that they redo them from the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuiGon Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 It's an issue that got introduced with lighting changes by ED. Heatblur is working with ED on fixing this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3970018 (see IronMike's first comment). Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cobra847 Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 The shader calculation for sampling alphas changed. We've just received information on how; and we can now try to alleviate. Nicholas Dackard Founder & Lead Artist Heatblur Simulations https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuiGon Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 The shader calculation for sampling alphas changed. We've just received information on how; and we can now try to alleviate. Awesome, I hope the console backlights will come back as well then :) Intel i7-12700K @ 8x5GHz+4x3.8GHz + 32 GB DDR5 RAM + Nvidia Geforce RTX 2080 (8 GB VRAM) + M.2 SSD + Windows 10 64Bit DCS Panavia Tornado (IDS) really needs to be a thing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eldur Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Simple. The reason is ED. Since it's occurence, I don't have visuals on AB for any plane except for the glow directly at the rear end of the engine inside the nozzles. But nothing coming out of those, not even out of the Hornet's. Strangely, noone filed a bug report there yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ala12Rv-watermanpc Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Mine looks correctly, how is it possible I haven't had this issue?...odd. Take a look at my MODS here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strikeeagle345 Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 Simple. The reason is ED. Since it's occurence, I don't have visuals on AB for any plane except for the glow directly at the rear end of the engine inside the nozzles. But nothing coming out of those, not even out of the Hornet's. Strangely, noone filed a bug report there yet. Hornet burners work fine for me.:huh: Strike USLANTCOM.com i7-9700K OC 5GHz| MSI MPG Z390 GAMING PRO CARBON | 32GB DDR4 3200 | GTX 3090 | Samsung SSD | HP Reverb G2 | VIRPIL Alpha | VIRPIL Blackhawk | HOTAS Warthog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackLightning Posted July 17, 2019 Share Posted July 17, 2019 I think that, like other people have written sometimes on this forum, the visibility of afterburners in videos and pictures is different from real life because, depending on the settings, camera sensors can be more sensitive than the eye to the light and some say that sometimes common cameras are affected by IR light from remote controls, for instance. Therefore, I consider only the opinions of those who have seen the afterburners in reality to be reliable. Planes: FC3, Spitfire, Harrier, F-14, F-18, MiG-21, Edge 540 - Helicopters: UH-1H, Mi-8 - Environments: Persian Gulf, Supercarrier PC specs in the spoiler I run DCS 2.7 using: MasterWatt 550 semi-fanless and semi-modular, core i7-3770 (4 cores @ 3.8 GHz) with 8 GB DDR3, GTX1050 Ti (768 cores @ 1.8 GHz) with 4 GB GDDR5, 5.1 sound card, 240 GB SSD, Windows 8.1, T.16000M FCS Flight Pack (i. e. stick+throttle+rudder pedals), opentrack head trakcer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cgjunk2 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 I think that, like other people have written sometimes on this forum, the visibility of afterburners in videos and pictures is different from real life because, depending on the settings, camera sensors can be more sensitive than the eye to the light and some say that sometimes common cameras are affected by IR light from remote controls, for instance. Therefore, I consider only the opinions of those who have seen the afterburners in reality to be reliable. I have noticed from my observations at airshows, and from my own DSLR photography that the visibility of afterburners in real life varies depending on lighting conditions and the viewing angles. It’s hardest to see them midday when the airplane is backdropped by clear blue sky, but they are still visible (structure, shock cones, and all). I have not seen a tendency for AB flames to be exaggerated by a decent DSLR camera (which have IR filters over the sensor). Of course, you can juice up the AB in pictures through post-processing by playing with color, sharpness, contrast, etc, but even that is using visible-light photons that have been captured in the pic. The previous post from heatblur pretty much indicates that the loss of AB is a bug, and not purposefully done as a re-interpretation of realistic looking AB. I certainly hope that they would never do that, as it would take some really nice (and realistic) eye candy away. Us flight simmers really only have vision to play with in trying to simulate these birds, so taking AB away would be unnecessary and upsetting. In any case, the fly-by and orbit cameras, and our ability to zoom in are arguably much less realistic than having visible AB flames, so I would hope nobody has the idea to permanently ax AB flames in a quest for realism. The AB effects on the Flaming cliffs airplanes are beautiful, and in my eye do a very good job of being realistic in various lighting conditions. I’d love to see what my newly acquired mig-21 looks like with decent AB effects, rather than the dark tube I currently get to look at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nealius Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Burners are working fine for me in every module, so I'm lost.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMike Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Our intention is to bring them back at least close to as they were. We think the effect adds to the immersion and helps convey the feeling of something as powerful like an F110 lighting the air on fire. In that sense it compensates for this deep rumbling atmosphere you get irl, even if you do not see them. In the sim the visual representation is meant to help you "taste, smell and feel" it. Heatblur Simulations Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage. http://www.heatblur.com/ https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shimmergloom667 Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Simple. The reason is ED. Since it's occurence, I don't have visuals on AB for any plane except for the glow directly at the rear end of the engine inside the nozzles. But nothing coming out of those, not even out of the Hornet's. Strangely, noone filed a bug report there yet. No? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242508&highlight=afterburner i7 - 9700K | 32 GB DDR4 3200 | RTX 2080 | VKB Gunfighter Mk II /w MCG Pro | Virpil T-50CM2 Throttle | TrackIR 5 | VKB Mk. IV AJS-37 | A/V-8B | A-10C | F-14A/B | F-16C | F-18C | F-86F | FC3 | JF-17 | Ka-50 | L-39 | Mi-8 | MiG-15bis | MiG-19 | MiG-21bis | M2000-C | P-51D | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | UH-1H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AvroLanc Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Our intention is to bring them back at least close to as they were. We think the effect adds to the immersion and helps convey the feeling of something as powerful like an F110 lighting the air on fire. In that sense it compensates for this deep rumbling atmosphere you get irl, even if you do not see them. In the sim the visual representation is meant to help you "taste, smell and feel" it. Good decision. Effects and visuals can compensate somewhat for the lack of feel. Wholeheartedly agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinde Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 Our intention is to bring them back at least close to as they were. We think the effect adds to the immersion and helps convey the feeling of something as powerful like an F110 lighting the air on fire. In that sense it compensates for this deep rumbling atmosphere you get irl, even if you do not see them. In the sim the visual representation is meant to help you "taste, smell and feel" it. How about you really look footage of afterburner flames and make them realistic, instead of cheap looking orange cones... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMike Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 How about you really look footage of afterburner flames and make them realistic, instead of cheap looking orange cones... I'm sorry if you experienced them as cheap looking orange cones, but I thought they looked very organic and more organic than what we had so far, but of course that can be my personal taste, too. In any way, as explained above, realistically they are often enough not visible, hence you increase visibility to compensate for the lack of feel. The rest is simply determined by what DCS allows us to model. Heatblur Simulations Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage. http://www.heatblur.com/ https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blinde Posted July 18, 2019 Share Posted July 18, 2019 (edited) I'm sorry if you experienced them as cheap looking orange cones, but I thought they looked very organic and more organic than what we had so far, but of course that can be my personal taste, too. In any way, as explained above, realistically they are often enough not visible, hence you increase visibility to compensate for the lack of feel. The rest is simply determined by what DCS allows us to model. Thanks for reply. I find them just way too cheap when compared to Hornet, F-15 and Sukhois for example. They should be more transparent, blueish and have shock diamonds. All this of course depends on certain lighting but current ones look very bad, especially on daylight. F-16 footage should be more than enough to show what F110 looks like with afterburners. Edited July 19, 2019 by Blinde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronMike Posted July 19, 2019 Share Posted July 19, 2019 Thanks for reply. I find them just way too cheap when compared to Hornet, F-16 and Sukhois for example. They should be more transparent, blueish and have shock diamonds. All this of course depends on certain lighting but current ones look very bad, especially on daylight. F-16 footage should be more than enough to show what F110 looks like with afterburners. Thank you for the input, we'll take a closer look. Heatblur Simulations Please feel free to contact me anytime, either via PM here, on the forums, or via email through the contact form on our homepage. http://www.heatblur.com/ https://www.facebook.com/heatblur/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonoda Umi Posted August 3, 2019 Author Share Posted August 3, 2019 Thank you for the input, we'll take a closer look. Thanks for your hard work.:thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts