Ripcord

OK, that is an item to test -- really got to learn to fly MP.

Related question, Grimes -- can we have a CLIENT or PLAYER flight with an AI wingman in the same flight? Obviously that works in Single Player, but I have not tested it in MP.

They added weapons. They did not add any AI. But generally speaking, I could not agree more. The work is nothing short of amazing, all things considered but it cannot be considered a combat simulator -- a good start MAYBE. If you aren't flying in MP, then there really isn't much to it. Hopefully FSX@war will make a difference, but without some kind of mission editor / object placement interface, I find it lacking. It is really a great training flight simulator, if you wanted to practice making training hops to and from a weapons range. I just don't care much for having to place my own SAM theats to evade, as player, in game. Not at compelling for me in its current state. Hoping it will continue to evolve.

There are wide open runways in a couple places in the Georgia theater that are inactive airfields. They could be used for helo ops, a bit like a large FARP. Here I am referring to two (one fairly large and another small strip) right in Kutaisi, as well as the cross-runway airstrip at Kobuleti. Please allow helos to park on the ramp at these locations and operate from them.

You use the term rigid. I use the term determined. They set a goal for themselves a long time ago, and they completed it. It took them longer than they thought, but they did it. I respect them for that. Does DCS World have a lot more to offer than FSX, in terms of modelling combat operations? Certainly it does. Like you I was also hoping they would eventually make this transition. But they are only 3 guys, so they have to remain very focused. I think for right now they have enough to keep themselves busy. This discussion makes me think of a question. I wonder how many folks purchased FSX in comparison with the number that have purchased at least one of the DCS World modules. My guess is that FSX is a much larger target audience -- though I could be wrong.

Transation is wrong. Doesn't use the word attempt.

Grimes, thank you for this. Is it possible then to have a campaign which allows for other clients to participate in MP? I'm thinking that I'll have a player (blue A-10C) plus a couple other blue flights, along with 3 red flights... all of which must of course be clients. So then my blue side attains a score of 90, while my red side attains a score of 60. How does the campaign engine treat that? Or does it do anything at all with it? Perhaps the campaign engine reads OFFLINE scores only? This I undertand and in fact I have used this approach in some of my missions. In the event that the campaign engine reads only the OFFLINE score and not RED/BLUE scores, then this might well be the cleanest, simplest and most elegant way to designing the structure of campaign missions that may or may not involve clients in MP.

OK, now that is just not right. :eek:

I see. So if I use just RED/BLUE scoring then I'll be in good shape even if played in SP. Is that a fair statement? BTW, I mean in terms of mission scoring used by the campaign engine. Easy enough to test this in SP. Thanks Grimes.

+ 1 here. That said, I'll take what I get and LIKE IT!!! Merry Christmas guys

My question pertains to setting mission goals. Lest somebody decide I would benefit greatly by being told to RTFM, I will post that section of the manual here: So now the question as given in the subject line -- Can we combine red/blue mission goals with offline goals? The ME allows us to do that, I realize, but do the goals work? Need to ask since I have never flown MP and I really am not at all sure how to even test this. I may need to ask for a little help from one of you later this week... For some context, I would like to develop some offline SP missions that CAN BE flown OPTIONALLY as MP coop missions (eg, some clients can join), but in doing this I need to retain the ability for the mission to be played and scored properly, both in SP and MP. For instance if I have an OFFLINE goal of 50 for all enemies getting killed within a zone, can I also add RED/BLUE goals for certain things -- and have them count? Or will it ONLY count the RED/BLUE goal if we fly the mission in MP, ignoring the OFFLINE goal? I am able to build the missions (I think) in such a way that will check for the presence of CLIENTS on each side, both red and blue. So if those clients never spawn, then this might change the number of OFFLINE goals that are taken into consideration. Thanks in advance, and Merry Christmas :xmas: -- s nastupayushim for those in Russia looking forward to the big New Year celebration.:holiday: Cheers Ripcord

"filmed on location in Georgia" Nice : )

Hope I am not too late -- happy birthday Ron. I'll lift glass or two in your honor today.

Yes this is indeed the case. There are a number of threads that cover this. You would use a trigger action to 'wake up' the AI flight.

No, that is not what I meant. The Armed House is not something that the player can operate. It just functions as a JTAC as an AI unit, so an A-10C can check in with it and work with it as a JTAC.

Do you think it is a reasonable request, then, to ask that we have an 'in-game' trigger action to write/read flag values? Certainly we cannot demand it, or even expect it, but what an improvement it would be.

Did you use the fixed structure 'Armed House', or the ground unit version, under fortifications?

Interesting... So a fellow could create database of flags and write that data to an excel file, and then have another mission read that same database of flags? My thought is that this would enable a mission designer to do some rudimentary version of damage tracking for SAM/AAA and EW units/ groups, as well as for artillery and really any number of 'front line' combatants. So you could have a semi-dynamic moving FLOT from mission to mission. Suddenly building a proper ground-war campaign gets a helluva lot more interesting. EDIT: Let me understand this better -- if one were to build a mission that wrote data to a third file, as well as read data from the same file, what would that require in terms of this mod, Speed? Would it mean that that each user would need to have this same mod set up, as you have shown us here, with the lines commented out? Surely that would be heading a bit too far in the direction of a permanent mod, and ED might intervene and break this feature, should they perceive that it puts users too much at risk -- nothing prevents someone from making a mission that will install viruses/format your C: drive, etc when you run it. An ideal scenario would be to work with ED a little bit here and ask for a set up whereby ANY novice mission builder would have the ability to WRITE ALL FLAG VALUES (from Flag 1 to 9999) to a file, whenever triggered in the mission editor, as well as allowing the same novice mission builder the ability to READ ALL FLAG VALUES, again from 1 to 9999, from the same said file -- and to allow us the ability to do this NOT AS A MOD that opens the door to God-knows-what, but within the framework of the ME and the sim. Essentially WRITE ALL FLAG VALUES and READ ALL FLAG VALUES should be Actions that can be selected in the trigger menu. Wags will recognize the value in this, as they allowed for this in Janes F/A-18 years ago (campaign variables) as well as allowing for damage tracking. If I have derailed the thread I apologize -- but this is potentially HUGE.

You can also used an 'Armed House' as a JTAC if you prefer the idea better. I tried it and it works.

I like this. Where you the 3 lua files go? Into which folder? Oh wait, these files have to be used outside the sim somehow, did I understand that correctly? I like the remaming units idea, but I really am particularly interested in getting to this.

I like this discussion, great stuff!

This might explain why this feature is a low priority. I don't agree that it is a reason to not implement it at all. It might be unfair, but I often compare what I see in this sim with another great sim that Wags produced, Janes F/A-18. Tell me how the Janes F/A-18 team managed to implement at least something for the EA-6B, in terms of SOJ? Certainly there was not more information back then. It means that they 'guestimated' to the best of their knowledge. Most of us would say that it is better have some semi-accurate representation rather than have nothing. You are instead asking us all to just assume that US/NATO would willingly sent all these air assets up against S-300s and other SAM threats with no ECM/Jamming support. Of course that would not happen. Which is option is less realistic? The idea that ED will not model something like this because the community would challenge its level of detail/realism is just wrong, and frankly I don't believe it. I think it is a difficult feature to add, and so it is a low priority.

I wish I knew enough about their frontal aviation units and tactics to say something intelligent on this subject. I got to think they would HAVE to be talking to somebody on the ground if Su-25s were hitting targets that were marked by IR laser -- I think the answer lies in researching the IR laser gear that the Russians have (or don't have).

Maturin and Mouse, +1 to both. This sim was not designed to be a First Person Shooter, but the AI should act at least semi-intelligently, and have the ability to hide, evade, get in/out of vehicles & buildings, and perform some basic tasks. Great points that guys make here -- this should be essentially the vision for infantry in DCSW.

You know, this was a question that I had -- I just assumed that the JTAC was so well done and so realistically portrayed for US ground FAC ops, that it would not work at all for the red side. I suspect that they probably have their own version of the ground fac, or at least ability to check in with some kind of frontal ground controller, but I know nothing about it. Do Russian special forces even have the capability to user IR lasers to mark targets? Certainly they could mark with smoke, if nothing else. This is very interesting, I did not know about this. It would seem they are using a modified version of this Ka-29 in a role similar to that of our Kiowa Scout helo. Thanks for sharing this.