not planned Missing HUD symbology in STT mode

[musolo]

And we are not talking about some minor missing stuff here. TTI indicator is a most vital thing in the bvr engagement for Flankers and Fulcrums. Nobody saying ED has to mimic all subsistems and inner workings involved in this TTI indicator line functionality.

Just take the ray cast value between player`s missile  and its locked target at the moment of the launch then store and convert it as 100% of the horizontal TTI line length(100 pixels for example), then feed the closing range number between missile on its way to target and interpolate this reducing value percentage to the percentage of the length of this  line on the HUD. That way it will work for every missile on the list. Simple solution to this  issue. It does not have to be coded inside Flanker or Fulcrum main chunk of code. It can be done separately and slapped on the HUD as a patch independent from previously constructed code base. And will not depend on jets code) One extra lua script that will take care of this issue

@Chizh @uboats This approach shoud do the trick guys. Please at least try it. 

 

Edited July 7, 2021 by musolo

[draconus]

12 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

So were does this leave us, "newbies" as you said, that like to fly non "F" fighters?

It leaves you in the exact same place where is everybody that want some aircraft that is not yet modeled - the wishlist. You can discuss, poke devs, make petitions... What you gonna do? I'd love to have full fidelity F-15C but ED or any 3rd party has no plans to do it. Different reasons but same situation. We can only wait for future announcements.

 

12 hours ago, GGTharos said:

I mean we don't even have pressure setting ability in the eagle.

Oh, yes we do now

 

12 hours ago, musolo said:

Eagle`s vertical scan is not working properly allmost every other time.

Where's bug report?

On the TTI implementation - it can't be based on pixels, LOL. It's already done in the Eagle, no need to rewrite. Just tune for other missiles.

Edited July 8, 2021 by draconus

[musolo]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

it can't be based on pixels, LOL

It`s based on range between players plane or pylon or missile and target plane at the moment of the launch. And after that this value is converted into percentage and interpolated into amount of pixels of the horizontal TTI line. Than as  percentage of the launch distance is decreasing so does the percentage of the line length (which comes to amount of the pixels along X axis)
Read carefully what is written in the post and several posts behind. Look at the pictures given in the topic before LOLing. Otherwise you`ll look silly as you do now.
And Eagle`s TTI scale operates pixels too, though implementation that leads to that  might be different. Its a UI thing in ALL games. I`m in gamedev for 10 years now. Trust me)

[draconus]

31 minutes ago, musolo said:

It`s based on range between players plane or pylon or missile and target plane at the moment of the launch. And after that this value is converted into percentage and interpolated into amount of pixels of the horizontal TTI line. Than as  percentage of the launch distance is decreasing so does the percentage of the line length (which comes to amount of the pixels along X axis)
Read carefully what is written in the post and several posts behind. Look at the pictures given in the topic before LOLing. Otherwise you`ll look silly as you do now.
And Eagle`s TTI scale operates pixels too, though implementation that leads to that  might be different. Its a UI thing in ALL games. I`m in gamedev for 10 years now. Trust me)

I might have misunderstood you but what's your point? You're trying to tell game dev how to dev a game? All measure values have to be relative, not pure pixel values, otherwise you'll have twice the TTI value on 4k over 1080p. That was my point.

Edited July 8, 2021 by draconus

[musolo]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

All measure values have to be relative, not pure pixel values, otherwise you'll have twice the TTI value on 4k over 1080p. That was my point.

That`s where screen space parameters come in. There are ways man) I suggested approach. A draft algorithm implementations of which are slightly vary due to specifics of any given game engine. But overall approach is preferable in case you don`t want to reorganize airplane`s existing code base. You just hook to some of the public events? params etc. and use those as anchor points for your UI 'slider". It`s similar nature to that of  a health bar in other games if you want me to over generalize the nature of this matter.

[Cmptohocah]

The Eagle has a timer for this right?
Can't this timer just be converted to a line that decreases in width?
For example: 00:42 is 100% width of the line and 00:00 is 0 width. Would this work?

[GGTharos]

Yes it does indeed.  In fact it has the closure on the HuD which was omitted from the gun mode, we asked for it recently and well, nothing    So literally not even adding something new in any way shape or form.

[musolo]

21 hours ago, GGTharos said:

In fact it has the closure on the HuD which was omitted from the gun mode

You mean it was there and then it was removed?

[GGTharos]

No, it should be there but was never added.   The HuD element itself is available when you are using missiles, so it's an existing HuD element, not a new function.

 

But anyway, this has nothing to do with the flanker - my point is simply, this:

 

As for stuff but don't get all upset when things don't happen.

Edited July 9, 2021 by GGTharos

[musolo]

5 hours ago, GGTharos said:

As for stuff but don't get all upset when things don't happen.

So much for "Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft"

[GGTharos]

Sorry but that's silly.   They have been very clear about the state of FC3 vs. DCS FF level modules.

[musolo]

2 hours ago, GGTharos said:

Sorry but that's silly.   They have been very clear about the state of FC3 vs. DCS FF level modules.

What exactly do you find silly? That they are very clear about the feauture complete state of feauture incomplete product? That members of the forum are being told by ED representatives counless times that documentation is the one and only deciding factor feauture implementation wise? And when being presented with these docs and asked to implement not all but just a couple of feautures that are vital for combat survival of jet just ignoring them?) imagine yourself in their shues and ask yourself how silly you`d look in that case.

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by musolo

[Snappy]

53 minutes ago, musolo said:

What exactly do you find silly? That they are very clear about the feauture complete state of feauture incomplete product? That members of the forum are being told by ED representatives counless times that documentation is the one and only deciding factor feauture implementation wise? And when being presented with these docs and asked to implement not all but just a couple of feautures that are vital for combat survival of jet just ignoring them?) imagine yourself in their shues and ask yourself how silly you`d look in that case.

 

 

Ok, I think it  had been pointed out , even by 9line or BigNewy( can't rememember which) that even if a user hands them the necessary documents for certain aspects of simulation, that does not mean they can legally use it.

I do not wish to get into this mud-slinging debate, whether or not they always state the true reasons for why they do or don't do a certain module or feature, but I can definitely understand your frustration.

 

Still I think it is best (for your blood pressure too   ) to simply accept that they are just not interested in adding any more features to FC3, as they have said themselves and regardless of how incomplete certain  aircraft aspects seem.

Seriously I mean, they can't even manage to finish/de-bug their own legacy FF modules (Yak-52,F-5 amongst others).

"Feature complete" for ED does not the mean the module is simulated completely or 100%. It just means they consider it complete in regards to its future developement in DCS, whether it is actually missing features or not is not important.

Regards,

Snappy

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Snappy

[GGTharos]

52 minutes ago, musolo said:

That they are very clear about the feauture complete state of feauture incomplete product?

 

It is feature complete.   Feature complete does not mean 'whatever musolo believes is feature complete' it means 'whatever features the developer decided to implement are done'.

 

52 minutes ago, musolo said:

And when being presented with these docs and asked to implement not all but just a couple of feautures that are vital for combat survival of jet just ignoring them?) imagine yourself in their shues and ask yourself how silly you`d look in that case.

 

I wouldn't look silly at all.   They use their discression - they've improved the radar ranges for the MiG-29 and I think the Su-27.   They've been looking at a few other things as well.  But you're not asking for a fix to an existing feature, you are asking for a new one.   You can swear up and down that you're not asking for something new, but I have bad news for you:  Any functionality that has not been implemented is 'new'.

Edited July 9, 2021 by GGTharos

[SFJackBauer]

On 7/8/2021 at 9:22 AM, musolo said:

That`s where screen space parameters come in. There are ways man) I suggested approach. A draft algorithm implementations of which are slightly vary due to specifics of any given game engine. But overall approach is preferable in case you don`t want to reorganize airplane`s existing code base. You just hook to some of the public events? params etc. and use those as anchor points for your UI 'slider". It`s similar nature to that of  a health bar in other games if you want me to over generalize the nature of this matter.

 

Wait what? There is no way time-to-impact should be calculated using anything even close to the screen, in terms of rasterized pixels nor in terms of raytracing. That belongs to the realm of arcade games

 

It has to be from an equation that takes into consideration the target position/orientation/velocity at the moment of launch, the launching aircraft position/orientation/velocity at the moment of launch and the estimated missile performance between those two points, and then integrate it over time.

[GGTharos]

17 minutes ago, SFJackBauer said:

It has to be from an equation that takes into consideration the target position/orientation/velocity at the moment of launch, the launching aircraft position/orientation/velocity at the moment of launch and the estimated missile performance between those two points, and then integrate it over time.

 

It's already estimated from a curve so you may as well use the rule of thumb of 2sec/nm head on, 3 on the beam and 4 tail-on.

I don't know if more accurate DLZ computation data and algorithms are being used anywhere at all in DCS - maybe for the AGM-88.

[musolo]

18 hours ago, SFJackBauer said:

Wait what?

i`m not talking about the way to calculate distance with screen space obvoiusly) I was answering question about adjusting line length to a different screen resolutions(which are only few cases anyway) So you can make initial length of this line to be displayed on HUD and go alone well with any from given resolutions of the screen full HD, 4K etc. Read it again slowly)

My main point however was that it can be done without disrupting existing code for the plane(if thats the reason preventing them from doing this). By adding extra script that would do the thing you said by itself by reading needed closure parameters between  missile and  target locked by player`s jet radar in STT mode. Call it FlankrumTTI manager if you will) 

Edited July 10, 2021 by musolo

[musolo]

18 hours ago, Snappy said:

Ok, I think it  had been pointed out , even by 9line or BigNewy( can't rememember which) that even if a user hands them the necessary documents for certain aspects of simulation, that does not mean they can legally use it

In this case they can man) It`s Su-27SK declassified document we are talking about here that contains this info. Check the first page of this thread, there is a link to a digitalized PDF version. You can copy text and google translate it.

[Schmidtfire]

While it would be nice to have the full symbology, missing TTI is to be expected from FC3. What about the incorrect OLS-27 symbology or the arcade-modeled Schchel-3UM Helmet Mounted Sight?

It would be nice if ED went back and remastered the FC3 series. Added and corrected HUD symbology... making parts of the cockpits clickable with all switches and buttons animated.

Sort of a step between Full Fidelity and what we have now in FC3. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Schmidtfire

[musolo]

4 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

While it would be nice to have the full symbology, missing TTI is to be expected from FC3. What about the incorrect OLS-27 symbology or the arcade-modeled Schchel-3UM Helmet Mounted Sight?

It would be nice if ED went back and remastered the FC3 series. Added and corrected HUD symbology... making parts of the cockpits clickable with all switches and buttons animated.

Sort of a step between Full Fidelity and what we have now in FC3. 

 

You`re digressing man) all those things you say are nice and all, but this TTI thing that "Flankrums" are missing is one main thing that would make them know for sure when is the right time to brake lock when usung Fox2. Thus no to commit extra seconds to target and getting splashed coz of that. This indication alone is a BIGGEST factor in combat efficiency and survivability for  those "Flankrums". Not to mention Fox3 missile that makes this TTI line  flashing when missile goes active. Hope it is clear now why absence of this TTI indication line on the HUD  is the most grave hinder for soviet gen4 pilots in Air to Air combat. Hence they are significantly impaired due to this ridiculous "feauture complete" nonsence. Аnd this begs the question - Was that initial  intent or trivial negligence? 

Edited July 10, 2021 by musolo

[Schmidtfire]

Only the dev knows why. But given how many years ED has worked on FC3, the amount of posts and discussions
in the russian forums, access to pilots... I would be surprised if they don't know TTI is missing. 

Im absolutely for a TTI indication, but Im pretty sure It won't happen. Most players don't even know that it is a missing feature.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

6 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Only the dev knows why. But given how many years ED has worked on FC3, the amount of posts and discussions
in the russian forums, access to pilots... I would be surprised if they don't know TTI is missing. 

Im absolutely for a TTI indication, but Im pretty sure It won't happen. Most players don't even know that it is a missing feature.

Most players don't know every little minute detail about planes, thats why they come with a manual.

That's where the fun is, playing the study sim to study and learn about it.

 

So the point is mute.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 7/7/2021 at 5:41 PM, GGTharos said:

 

... because FC3 rants aren't actually decade old rants since LOMAC came out?  I mean face it, you're basically new here.

My deepest apologies for not being a literal old person, if only I could have made LOMAC/Flaming Cliffs/Flanker 2.0 bug reports while I was still on a diet of Gerber carrot purees and baby formula. Maybe then we could have had these bugs fixed by now.

 

Give me a break, regardless of when we joined the community continually raising these issues to the devs is never a bad thing.

[Schmidtfire]

No need for this discussion to get heated, we all want the same thing. However, some of us here has seen waves and waves of FC3 requests and know that they are usually ignored unless something is broken. Especially when it comes to add a new feature for the system modeling.

Edited July 11, 2021 by Schmidtfire

[Cmptohocah]

On 7/9/2021 at 7:56 PM, Snappy said:

Ok, I think it  had been pointed out , even by 9line or BigNewy( can't rememember which) that even if a user hands them the necessary documents for certain aspects of simulation, that does not mean they can legally use it.

I do not wish to get into this mud-slinging debate, whether or not they always state the true reasons for why they do or don't do a certain module or feature, but I can definitely understand your frustration.

 

 

I don't think this is a solid argument. I mean, what is the line that should not be crossed when implementing features in this case (Su-27 time to impact)?