Jump to content

Modular Ships and Map editing


Recommended Posts

I'm going to get the second one out of the way first, since it's the simplest. But one thing I'd like to see in the future is the ability to make certain edits to the existing maps. Nothing drastic mind you, but it would be nice to do things like changing the names of cities and airfields, add or remove trees and grass, create 'custom cities', lay roads, place new airfields, etc. The reason I would like to see this personally is it gives mission creators a bit more freedom in the kinds of missions they can create, and the settings within which they create them. As you all know, while the mission creator is quite powerful, it's limited to placing and removing units, triggers, and not much else. It would be nice if, for example, on Channel, we can place down things like 'modern' airfields so that those who want to have a more modern mission on that map can do so. Alternatively, someone who wants to do something with WW2 can add appropriate airfields on other maps such as Persian Gulf.

 

Now for the meat of this topic: Modular ships.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting anything whacky like the Warship Gunner series, but what I am suggesting is a way for ED to make it so that certain modules on ships can be switched out for anything that will 'fit' on that part of the ship. For example, take a Nimitz Class Supercarrier. Now, as I'm sure many of you know, the Nimitz herself, the Lead ship of the class, looks nothing like her younger sister, the George H. W. Bush, which is the last ship of the class, and yet, they're the same class of ship. What I'm suggesting, is that ships in the game be tied to their hull, with certain aspects, such as the weapons and super structure being able to be switched out in the mission editor to suit a players desire.

 

A good example of this would be if a player wanted to do a mission set in the early 80s, when the Nimitz was still brand new, and this new fangled tech called the "Aegis Combat System" was just installed onto the Ticonderoga. Currently, the ships we have would make this impossible, as the version of the Nimitz we have now is the more modern versions of the ship, and the Ticos all have the VLS. Wouldn't it be nice if, we could switch out the weapons and super-structures that are more 'period appropriate' for the setting we're trying to do? The hull and speed all stays the same, but the rest can be changed out as needed (and again, only in the mission editor).

 

The limitations on this are quite simple: You can't put anything in the space if it won't physically fit there. So if you tried to place a Ticos VLS in the place of one of the CIWS on a Nimitz, it won't work, simply because it can't fit in the space. But you could place a Phalanx, Sea Sparrow, SeaRAM, or even a Goalkeeper or Kashtan (the latter two being JTF options only) in the space. Such a system could also give the mission makers even more options when setting up a mission as they could even edit how much ammunition the ship has for certain weapons. So you could have a situation where a ship is out of SAMs and is down to guns only, and you have to defend it until a resupply ship can get there and give them more missiles.

 

It's all food for thought, but I'm the kind of person that likes setting my missions and campaigns in the Fictiastan Republic, so, I think this option would work well for those people who think as I do. Oh, and if anyone's worried about if this would mean carriers with no superstructures or weapons running around, no, all of the ships (in my eyes) would have a certain default that is loaded up the moment they're dropped in the mission. But there could easily be an 'empty' option, for those that like the idea of escorting a freshly launched ship on its way to be fitted out.

 

So what do you guys think? Good idea? Bad Idea? Would you support either option? Let me know, I really want to know what people think of the ideas presented as a whole.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think if you have enough imagination to play fictionistan ace combat scenarios you have enough imagination to make do with what we already have

  • Like 1

hahaha hey look at me i surely know more about aviation and coding than actual industry professionals hired for their competency because i have read jalopnik and wikipedia i bet theyve never even heard of google LOL

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, probad said:

i think if you have enough imagination to play fictionistan ace combat scenarios you have enough imagination to make do with what we already have

you say that like asking for more options is a bad thing, especially when the systems are technically already in place for it to be a thing

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear there is a way to clear trees and objects in the mission editor but I have not used it yet.

 

As for creating cities and towns. That is already in the mission editor. I create sections of towns with static objects then create templates to repeat and copy sections around a blank part of the map.

 

I am currently attempting to build my first one.

 

Unfortunately you don't have access to all the buildings that are modeled on the map, that would be a big wish list item for me. Maybe even a way to re-texture or skin buildings just like Liveries for aircraft.

 

Now you don't get roads and you don't get runways but those are way more complicated in setting up then dropping static objects on terrain.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Aloha,

 

Personally, I would like to see some changes in the ability to give instructions to ships. Indeed, placing navigation points (via F10 during the game) is the only possibility (except script). An instruction system allowing to manage take-offs for example would be welcome (like in Fleet Command, for the less young among us).

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Marroux said:

Aloha,

 

Personally, I would like to see some changes in the ability to give instructions to ships. Indeed, placing navigation points (via F10 during the game) is the only possibility (except script). An instruction system allowing to manage take-offs for example would be welcome (like in Fleet Command, for the less young among us).

Ah, a man of culture. I remember that game.... oh fun times were had.

Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Wdigman said:

I hear there is a way to clear trees and objects in the mission editor but I have not used it yet.

 

As for creating cities and towns. That is already in the mission editor. I create sections of towns with static objects then create templates to repeat and copy sections around a blank part of the map.

 

I am currently attempting to build my first one.

 

Unfortunately you don't have access to all the buildings that are modeled on the map, that would be a big wish list item for me. Maybe even a way to re-texture or skin buildings just like Liveries for aircraft.

 

Now you don't get roads and you don't get runways but those are way more complicated in setting up then dropping static objects on terrain.

 

 

 

 

There are two ways they could do that. The first is to make an object like a FOB and have a few varying sizes of that, and that could handle the runways and ramp, requiring other buildings being placed to complete the look. Alternatively, they could have a series of presets that you place down, and it 'creates' terrain under it to allow it to be flat (in theory allowing you to place on water as well, akin to that one airport Japan built.)

 

As for the roads, that could be a very simple thing. Just add a tool that lets us 'draw' the road (think Cities Skylines), and link them to a main road.

 

Another thing that could be done to avoid accidents, is to put the mission editor into one of two modes: Mission mode (where you're plunking things down for missions), and Map mode (where you actually make the changes to the map itself, such as the roads and towns). I do know that you can remove trees and objects using scripting, but part of me feels that that isn't always the best option, like having more trigger zones than needed ups the chances of something going screwy.

 

Although, speaking of trigger zones... wouldn't it also be nice if we could draw the trigger zones rather than just placing big circles down? I bring this up, because there's times where  want to do a proper border area with DMZ, and instead of having just three zones that are nicely shaped, I instead have several circles of varying size, and it doesn't seem to fit just right...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree with being able to set up maps as you desire by expanding the mission editor, though for things like roads and runways it's more work - especially for AI.

 

The principle though I absolutely agree with, though much of this is somewhat present - as with what Wdigman said.

 

4 hours ago, Tank50us said:

Now for the meat of this topic: Modular ships.

 

Now, I'm not suggesting anything whacky like the Warship Gunner series, but what I am suggesting is a way for ED to make it so that certain modules on ships can be switched out for anything that will 'fit' on that part of the ship. For example, take a Nimitz Class Supercarrier. Now, as I'm sure many of you know, the Nimitz herself, the Lead ship of the class, looks nothing like her younger sister, the George H. W. Bush, which is the last ship of the class, and yet, they're the same class of ship.

 

Meh -ish, not really.

 

The Nimitz class is the more colloquial designation, but it's actually further broken up into 3 subclasses.

 

There's the baseline Nimitz class, which comprises the Nimitz, Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Carl Vinson. You've then got the Nimitz-Roosevelt subclass (which is what our Supercarrier module represents) comprising the Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, John C. Stennis and the Harry S. Truman. Finally you've got the Nimitz-Ronald Reagan subclass which comprises the Ronald Reagan and the George H. W. Bush.

 

Quote

What I'm suggesting, is that ships in the game be tied to their hull, with certain aspects, such as the weapons and super structure being able to be switched out in the mission editor to suit a players desire.

 

Personally, I'd rather we just get historical fits for our current ships, and tie that to historical mode in the mission editor. At the moment our ships are at least mid-to-late 2000s fits as AFAIK this was when they were fitted with RAM. 

 

And as for simulating other vessels, I'd rather just get them instead of having something modular -and it sounds like the workload would just be easier to do the ship in the first place instead of making the elements but having them be swappable.

 

Quote

A good example of this would be if a player wanted to do a mission set in the early 80s, when the Nimitz was still brand new, and this new fangled tech called the "Aegis Combat System" was just installed onto the Ticonderoga. Currently, the ships we have would make this impossible, as the version of the Nimitz we have now is the more modern versions of the ship, and the Ticos all have the VLS. Wouldn't it be nice if, we could switch out the weapons and super-structures that are more 'period appropriate' for the setting we're trying to do? The hull and speed all stays the same, but the rest can be changed out as needed (and again, only in the mission editor).

 

I'd rather just get era appropriate ships - such as an initial Ticonderoga Baseline 1 (our current ship is once again a mid-2000s fit and the ships present in the liveries make the ship a Baseline III or IV.

 

Quote

The limitations on this are quite simple: You can't put anything in the space if it won't physically fit there. So if you tried to place a Ticos VLS in the place of one of the CIWS on a Nimitz, it won't work, simply because it can't fit in the space. But you could place a Phalanx, Sea Sparrow, SeaRAM, or even a Goalkeeper or Kashtan (the latter two being JTF options only) in the space.

 

Nah, if I were to have the ability to swap weapons out I'd only have weapons that were fitted there IRL.

 

And Goalkeeper and Kashtan might have enough upper deck space, but they both require a significant amount of below deck space for their ammunition - Goalkeeper has a very large ammunition drum underneath it and Kashtan has at least 8 missile reloads on a rotary loader (though, disappointingly, this isn't implemented in DCS).

 

Quote

Such a system could also give the mission makers even more options when setting up a mission as they could even edit how much ammunition the ship has for certain weapons. So you could have a situation where a ship is out of SAMs and is down to guns only, and you have to defend it until a resupply ship can get there and give them more missiles.

 

I absolutely agree, I would love for there to be a similar "magazine" system as in command that can be resupplied, but that's a whole wish in and of itself.

 


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Nah, if I were to have the ability to swap weapons out I'd only have weapons that were fitted there IRL.

 

And Goalkeeper and Kashtan might have enough upper deck space, but they both require a significant amount of below deck space for their ammunition - Goalkeeper has a very large ammunition drum underneath it and Kashtan has at least 8 missile reloads on a rotary loader (though, disappointingly, this isn't implemented in DCS).

 

That would be an option for you, and as I previously stated, when you drop a Nimitz down as a USA Naval unit, only those options are available, but when dropped in as a JTF unit, it allows the possibility of people going hog wild with fits if they so choose to of course. I used Goalkeeper and Kasthtan as they're modern systems in line with what already exists on the Nimitz. But other options could be done as well (again, assuming they fit), like adding some late WW2/Early Cold War era AA Weapons, or, having no weapons fitted at all. The choice would be yours in that regard. I mean heck, there are many, MANY ships that went through decades of service and saw plenty of upgrades in that time, and modern ships are built with that factored in from day one. Basically, having some modularity put into the ships I think would give us mission creators a lot more options when designing our missions and situations, and for those (like me) who want to have a fictional nation, they can go for it.

 

Why some people get so ticked off at that prospect I don't know. I'm not exactly strangerealing it up here, I'm just suggesting something that could have some real benefit in the long term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah. I would NOT like DCS to go in that direction. 

I like the current way of things better. 

 

  • Like 2
Intel Core i7-10700K - ROG Strix Z490-H Gaming - 64GB Vengance LPX - RTX 3080 Eagle OC - non-VR - single player - open beta

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

That would be an option for you, and as I previously stated, when you drop a Nimitz down as a USA Naval unit, only those options are available, but when dropped in as a JTF unit, it allows the possibility of people going hog wild with fits if they so choose to of course. I used Goalkeeper and Kasthtan as they're modern systems in line with what already exists on the Nimitz. But other options could be done as well (again, assuming they fit), like adding some late WW2/Early Cold War era AA Weapons, or, having no weapons fitted at all. The choice would be yours in that regard. I mean heck, there are many, MANY ships that went through decades of service and saw plenty of upgrades in that time, and modern ships are built with that factored in from day one. Basically, having some modularity put into the ships I think would give us mission creators a lot more options when designing our missions and situations, and for those (like me) who want to have a fictional nation, they can go for it.

 

Again, I'd rather just have assets that are appropriate for whatever decade.

 

I'd rather just have say, a Ticonderoga Baseline 0/I circa 80s and a Baseline II/III circa 90s. 

 

When it comes to ships however that can fire different types of weapons from the same launcher (such as the Mk41) I would like the ability to edit what's carried, even on a cell-per-cell basis.

 

40 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

Why some people get so ticked off at that prospect I don't know. I'm not exactly strangerealing it up here, I'm just suggesting something that could have some real benefit in the long term.

 

This might have something to do with it.

 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

  • Thanks 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Again, I'd rather just have assets that are appropriate for whatever decade.

 

I'd rather just have say, a Ticonderoga Baseline 0/I circa 80s and a Baseline II/III circa 90s. 

 

When it comes to ships however that can fire different types of weapons from the same launcher (such as the Mk41) I would like the ability to edit what's carried, even on a cell-per-cell basis.

 

 

This might have something to do with it.

 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

One thing I also thought about (just minutes before this post) is the fact that some ships do under go refits when they transfer to a different navy. Some of the Perry Class had their Arm Launchers removed, and replaced with a small VLS Cell (I think it was either Turkey or Taiwan that did it.). One advantage to such a system however, if implemented, is that it would cut down on resources by quite a bit. After all, why make a completely new 3D asset that will have to be stored somewhere for a completely new ship that's of the same class as another, but has small differences present and that being the reason you have this new 3D asset, with code, and all that. When you can make one 'hull', and have a host of possible weapons and modules that can be fitted to it, and that's just a ship we have in the game right now. Imagine if someone used this to bring in some other Cold War ships that started with X configuration, and went to the breakers with Z configuration.

 

And as I've said before, the framework is present already in the game, granted, it's with aircraft an helicopters, but it is there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile supercarrier get the ability to add "cockpits / interiors / other stuff" to a ship (similar to helos and aircrafts), you need require the 3D source to add connectors and making modifications to put on the EDM file, and the subsequence luas and other files.

 

Take acount with ED need build on the core some funtionalities missing on ships, include other weapons and systems no present on actual ecosystem to recreate them as WW2 and Cold war eras.

 


Edited by Silver_Dragon
  • Like 1

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tank50us said:

One thing I also thought about (just minutes before this post) is the fact that some ships do under go refits when they transfer to a different navy. Some of the Perry Class had their Arm Launchers removed, and replaced with a small VLS Cell (I think it was either Turkey or Taiwan that did it.).

 

Yes, they do, but again, I'd rather just get the actual variant.

 

Just now, Tank50us said:

One advantage to such a system however, if implemented, is that it would cut down on resources by quite a bit. After all, why make a completely new 3D asset that will have to be stored somewhere for a completely new ship that's of the same class as another, but has small differences present and that being the reason you have this new 3D asset, with code, and all that.

 

Why would you need to create an entirely new 3D model? Just edit the existing one. Ideally 3D models should be made modular such that a single element can be made once and then be reused on multiple models (an example is for instance the Phalanx CIWS - it would be better to make a Phalanx CIWS model once and then add it to whatever model you're working on).

 

It's largely just copy and paste the existing model and edit it. For instance our current Arleigh-Burke model is a hybrid from various early and late Flt. IIA 5"/62 ships; it has 2 Phalanx CIWS (out of the Flt. IIAs the only ones that have both are DDG-81 to DDG-84, rest of them only have the aft Phalanx), the funnels however depict DDG-89 and onwards. We have the liveries for DDG-101 to DDG-116 (so the later 12 of the Flight IIA 5"/62, all of the Flt. IIA 5"/62 restart ships, and the first technology insertion ships), however on the DDGs 103, 104, 113 and 116 there is an additional port on the stern for a towed array SONAR system which isn't present in DCS.

 

The solution is not to start all over again for each subvariant, but to take the existing model and copy and paste it, then edit it. So remove the forward Phalanx for DDG-85 and onwards. Add in the different funnels for ships preceding DDG-89, and add the port for the towed SONAR array in appropriate ships.

 

So the workload is basically identical from the 3D modelling side - in fact it might even be more work to have this as something configurable by the user, as that mandates developing functionality for ships that currently doesn't exist (but arguably does exist for aircraft).

 

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remove and place weapon system require implement them into the core and change all ships funtionality (include build weapons, turrents and mounts as unique 3D EDM model).

Ship variants or dedicate country ships no only has a weapon change, need make superstructure, sensors and other system / cosmetic changes.


Edited by Silver_Dragon

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yes, they do, but again, I'd rather just get the actual variant.

 

 

Why would you need to create an entirely new 3D model? Just edit the existing one. Ideally 3D models should be made modular such that a single element can be made once and then be reused on multiple models (an example is for instance the Phalanx CIWS - it would be better to make a Phalanx CIWS model once and then add it to whatever model you're working on).

 

It's largely just copy and paste the existing model and edit it. For instance our current Arleigh-Burke model is a hybrid from various early and late Flt. IIA 5"/62 ships; it has 2 Phalanx CIWS (out of the Flt. IIAs the only ones that have both are DDG-81 to DDG-84, rest of them only have the aft Phalanx), the funnels however depict DDG-89 and onwards. We have the liveries for DDG-101 to DDG-116 (so the later 12 of the Flight IIA 5"/62, all of the Flt. IIA 5"/62 restart ships, and the first technology insertion ships), however on the DDGs 103, 104, 113 and 116 there is an additional port on the stern for a towed array SONAR system which isn't present in DCS.

 

The solution is not to start all over again for each subvariant, but to take the existing model and copy and paste it, then edit it. So remove the forward Phalanx for DDG-85 and onwards. Add in the different funnels for ships preceding DDG-89, and add the port for the towed SONAR array in appropriate ships.

 

So the workload is basically identical from the 3D modelling side - in fact it might even be more work to have this as something configurable by the user, as that mandates developing functionality for ships that currently doesn't exist (but arguably does exist for aircraft).

 

 

I was referring to the end-user, IE, us. On the side of ED, when you're making a bunch of 3D assets, and only have those resources on your computers you need and nothing else, you aren't as worried about space as the average consumer might be. Remember, some people are playing on systems that barely have the space to fit the game as is, so if (using the Perrys as an example) ED went tom add that variant to the game, on their end, yeah, it's an easy modification to make, but, it's still exported as a completely separate 3D Asset that goes into its own file folder, and that would be (for example) USS Rueban James. If they added one of the variations, it would go into a new folder titled "TCG Gemlik", and all of its assets would be needed. What I'm proposing goes:
Perry Class Frigate
|           |                   |
V         V                  V
Hull    Weapons    Systems

And the relevant bits go into those folders. I can create a mock-up of how I think it would look in game later if that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

 

I was referring to the end-user, IE, us. On the side of ED, when you're making a bunch of 3D assets, and only have those resources on your computers you need and nothing else, you aren't as worried about space as the average consumer might be. Remember, some people are playing on systems that barely have the space to fit the game as is, so if (using the Perrys as an example) ED went tom add that variant to the game, on their end, yeah, it's an easy modification to make, but, it's still exported as a completely separate 3D Asset that goes into its own file folder, and that would be (for example) USS Rueban James. If they added one of the variations, it would go into a new folder titled "TCG Gemlik", and all of its assets would be needed. What I'm proposing goes:
Perry Class Frigate
|           |                   |
V         V                  V
Hull    Weapons    Systems

And the relevant bits go into those folders. I can create a mock-up of how I think it would look in game later if that helps.

 

Need build all,
- Any 3D hull variant, superstructure and hull modifications
- Any weapon as unique (none to do with the ship), and add them to databases with associate systems and ammunition.
- Systems implement and add all variants to databases and funtionality.

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Tank50us said:

I was referring to the end-user, IE, us. On the side of ED, when you're making a bunch of 3D assets, and only have those resources on your computers you need and nothing else, you aren't as worried about space as the average consumer might be.

 

The various models and textures for ships are absolutely nothing compared to real heavy hitters - such as maps.

 

The entirity of the supercarrier CoreMods -> tech -> USS_Nimitz folder (which contains all the assets, the database etc.) is 2.65GB. The entirity of the shapes folder (which contains all of the 3D models, including the personnel and the static vehicles) is less than half a gigabyte. And these are aircraft carriers and incredibly detailed ones at that.

 

To put that into perspective my entire core DCS folder is 209GB. So we're talking about 1.2% for the whole folder or 0.23% for just the shapes folder. In terms of space it's absolutely nothing.

 

I mean just the stock textures for the F-14A-135-GR is 1.8GB and that's just 6 liveries, and yet it's nearly 4x the size as the shapes folder.

 

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

 

The various models and textures for ships are absolutely nothing compared to real heavy hitters - such as maps.

 

The entirity of the supercarrier CoreMods -> tech -> USS_Nimitz folder (which contains all the assets, the database etc.) is 2.65GB. The entirity of the shapes folder (which contains all of the 3D models, including the personnel and the static vehicles) is less than half a gigabyte. And these are aircraft carriers and incredibly detailed ones at that.

 

To put that into perspective my entire core DCS folder is 209GB. So we're talking about 1.2% for the whole folder or 0.23% for just the shapes folder. In terms of space it's absolutely nothing.

 

I mean just the stock textures for the F-14A-135-GR is 1.8GB and that's just 6 liveries, and yet it's nearly 4x the size as the shapes folder.

 

 

The Shapes directory only have the EDM, not the 3D model textures (4,7 Gb). Aditionally, have some 3D models directories outside of the Shapes directory, as the Coremods / Tech, with great quantity of Supercarrier, and other stuff, simiral to the Coremods / WW2 units.

In fact the "modularity", has present on aircrafts and helos. Need build a ship as same detail level and complexity.


Edited by Silver_Dragon

More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

The Shapes directory only have the EDM, not the 3D model textures (4,7 Gb). Aditionally, have some 3D models directories outside of the Shapes directory, as the Coremods / Tech, with great quantity of Supercarrier, and other stuff, simiral to the Coremods / WW2 units.

 

That additional 4GB is still absolutely pittance compared to the rest of DCS, especially if you own most modules (like I do).

 

5 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

In fact the "modularity", has present on aircrafts and helos. Need build a ship as same detail level and complexity.

 

Yes, and frankly I'd take any improvement to ships as the current situation is quite dire, but out of the scope of this thread.

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

In fact the "modularity", has present on aircrafts and helos. Need build a ship as same detail level and complexity.

 

Technically it doesn't need to be done to the existing ships, create an entirely new one that will fit the bill, heck, you can use one of the other Nimitz class ships to save on time and resources (no need to make another model just for the sake of an experiment), remove the Island and weapons, and go from there. USS Nimitz herself should be the perfect Candidate for these experiments as she's seen several refits, and at least one refueling since she was commissioned.

 

If done properly it should at least be good ground work for when you guys start making more WW2 ships, since many of them underwent several complex refits throughout the war, CV-6 USS Enterprise being the queen of examples here, and then there's the Essex and Fletcher swarms.

 

If it doesn't work, fine, case closed. But if it does work, it would most certainly make adding future ship classes easier on us, and still give us massive variety to work with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Supercarrier has center on build the first crew able module with other key technologies on testbed to send all to trash now. Has better start to other more small project if ED like check them.

Enviado desde mi RNE-L21 mediante Tapatalk



More news to the front

Wishlist: ED / 3rd Party Campaings

My Rig: Intel I-5 750 2.67Ghz / Packard Bell FMP55 / 16 GB DDR3 RAM / GTX-1080 8 GB RAM / HD 1Tb/2Tb / Warthog / 2 MDF / TFPR

 

DCS: Roadmap (unofficial):https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

DCS: List of Vacant models: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4076891#post4076891

21Squad DCS: World News: https://www.facebook.com/21Squad-219508958071000/

Silver_Dragon Youtube

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...