I don't see the point of Iwo Jima, anyway. There's no Japan to fly to, from there. And there aren't any Japanese planes to fly against if there was. So you'd be left with taking off from the airfield on Iwo, fly a few feet away to a target on the island, drop your bombs, strafe a bit, go back and land. That would probably get old in about 45 minutes or less.
The answer for this is from the other thread:
Quote
They maybe interested in an aerobatics server using the Normandy map, but that would have need for the WWII Assets anyway, so there will be no conflict.
So there **IS** a point to making the Iwo Jima map.... in case someone wants to do aerobatics over Iwo Jima
Originally Posted by leaf_on_the_wind
How do you stabilize "stuff"??
You increase the center of gravity kinda like this .... put extra wheels on to help keep it upright like this
Does that come with both LEFT and RIGHT training wheels together as one package? Or can you just buy the LEFT or just the RIGHT training wheel? People need to have options and the responsible seller should give the customer the freedom and the responsibility over his purchases....
Heat2151 USN Retired '08 "Mr, We could use a man like, Ronald Reagan again, those where the day's"
My World is simple, I answer to the CINC House: My Wife, my Kids, my troops: 2 German Shepherds. I just love Flying Flight Sim's, and driving my 2017 Challenger SRT .
My Dark Blue Beast. Cooler Master HAF X Blue-Liquid Cooled Windows 10 64 Bit Intel i7 6950X 10c@4.0 Ghz Asus Rampage V X99 Asus GTX 980 GDDR5 4Gb Corsair 64 Gb DDR4 (8x8Gb) Corsair AX 1500 Watt P/S 2 SSD's (1 Tb) 2 WD Velociraptor's(1 Tb) 2 Spin point F4(2 Tb) 2 WD Green(6 Tb) Track iR Pro, X-55 HOTAS & Pro rudder pedals.
Hang on, didn't they already go through personal conflicts, delays and splitting while originally developing the Mig 21? If they're going through that every time they develop a new product I'm going to find it really hard buying their modules, especially considering that they release early with a lot of remaining work to do (just look at that mig 21 state...). A shame, I'd love a good F4U and the F14 but I'm not going to hold my breath (and shell out the money before any module is fully finished)
Heat2151 : USN Retired '08 "Mr, We could use a man like, Ronald Reagan again, those where the day's"
Last edited by heat2151; 03/18/1705:38 AM.
My World is simple, I answer to the CINC House: My Wife, my Kids, my troops: 2 German Shepherds. I just love Flying Flight Sim's, and driving my 2017 Challenger SRT .
My Dark Blue Beast. Cooler Master HAF X Blue-Liquid Cooled Windows 10 64 Bit Intel i7 6950X 10c@4.0 Ghz Asus Rampage V X99 Asus GTX 980 GDDR5 4Gb Corsair 64 Gb DDR4 (8x8Gb) Corsair AX 1500 Watt P/S 2 SSD's (1 Tb) 2 WD Velociraptor's(1 Tb) 2 Spin point F4(2 Tb) 2 WD Green(6 Tb) Track iR Pro, X-55 HOTAS & Pro rudder pedals.
They don't have a texture artist after all this time? Tom, there's a job opportunity there.
DCS Kickstarter Wags July 2014 "In this July 2014 update, the primary news is in regards to the restructured backer rewards. After a careful review of the older system under RRG, we found it financially unattainable." Wags October 2017 "the investment vs. generated revenue has been excellent for the World War II aircraft. In fact, the P-51D Mustang has twice the cost effectiveness of the A-10C Warthog."
I textured and built the entirety of the MiG-21 cockpit (and some external parts), and the entirety of the AJS37 Viggen cockpit and external. I think we're fine in the expertise department.
I textured and built the entirety of the MiG-21 cockpit (and some external parts), and the entirety of the AJS37 Viggen cockpit and external. I think we're fine in the expertise department. The F-14 is simply not done yet.
And you did a fantastic job with the Mig-21! I would have thought the F-14 is not finished with modeling yet, so it probably makes no sense to make the textures right now. Right?
The 2D and 3D art of the MiG is absolutely fantastic.
As is the AJS 37 Viggen, just stunning and a joy to live and work inside (until an SA-6 makes you move mud in another way than planned). One thing Heatblur doesn't need is another artist, honestly.
I textured and built the entirety of the MiG-21 cockpit (and some external parts), and the entirety of the AJS37 Viggen cockpit and external. I think we're fine in the expertise department. The F-14 is simply not done yet.
And you did a fantastic job with the Mig-21! I would have thought the F-14 is not finished with modeling yet, so it probably makes no sense to make the textures right now. Right?
Thank you!
Correct. In fact; we've just spent the last couple of weeks entirely remodeling the fuselage. The one in the screenshots is still the older variant. That's going to be the fourth and final rebuild. We're doing similar things with the cockpit; plenty of reshaping going on before sculpting and texturing continues.
We can take the time to do things like this as not having final graphics in place while systems, avionics and FM are implemented is not an issue. (except that it's more difficult to show PR stuff)
Perhaps this is an obvious question, and it applies widely to all sims as well as DCS, but why all this hassle with 3D models? Besides poly count, where you try and find that sweet spot that is detailed enough without crippling most systems, aren't these things set?
I mean using this as an example, the F-14A has one shape. You make the 3d model match that. What's the deal with needing to redo it? Are approximations made for poly count or something that make them look wrong in certain spots? Are there details missing that require a total do-over to put in? I've never been a rivet counter and I've rarely noted anything wrong with 3D models in sims over the years, but part of that might come from having started with F-15 Strike Eagle, where you flew a triangle against black enemy triangles while bombing brown enemy triangles. By the late 90s I thought we'd reached the pinnacle of 3d design, and while I've certainly noticed improvements in textures over the decades I've not really seen a big difference between the 3D models in say LOMAC and DCS World today.
It always seems to me to be a case of chasing the tail of diminishing returns, where you have to add 20% to development time to get a 5% improvement in appearance, while we still have to deal with things like reversed rudder inputs and other bugs that actually impact the flying experience way more than if an IFF bump is the wrong shape or something.
Half the time I see people criticizing WIP shots for this or that I'm just sitting there thinking "WTF?" because they look fine to me. Low res textures or screwed up shadows, yeah, I notice that instantly, but the underlying 3D shape itself...unless it is egregious like the old A-10 model that was too short forward of the wing I never see it.
The Jedi Master
The anteater is wearing the bagel because he's a reindeer princess. -- my 4 yr old daughter
@Jedi, the 3d models we have now in DCS world (and the new F-16 model by JanHas for BMS) are so good that I can spend considerable time just doing virtual walk-arounds. The Su-27 in DCS for example, I noticed shapes and details that I would have never seen in the pictures that you usually find on the net. So they're great IMO.
Then if you ask me, priorities are like this:
#1 Flight model #2 Avionics #3 Cockpit 3D model and textures #4 External model
![[Linked Image]](http://crosscountrycycle.com/merchant/228/images/site/lilhoney_pink(r).jpg)
: 
