Ripcord

One thought -- could we not just create a mod of some parachuted bomb or illumination flare or something. Might be a good thread to start up over in the mods section. Since I lack any kind of mod experience, I would be able to ask the question and that's about it -- doubt I'd even understand the responses I'd get.

This by the way, would be an acceptable work-around. Let the objects jump out in their parachutes then disappear, ala Janes FA-18. We can use the mission editor to spawn the troops on the ground and go from there. In fact I have already built missions this way, with an IL-76 flying over a designated drop point, followed by some radio chatter, followed by the appearance of Russian paratroopers in the open field below -- but of course I am lacking all the chutes in the sky to really complete the illusion. Sure it would be better if this was preprogrammed someway, so that a squad jumped and a squad then appeared on the ground, but like I said, it is a better than nothing option.

+1 We really do need this.

^ this. +1. Air Cav!!!

If the Huey is really and truly on the way, then we do need some improvements in our AI infrantry -- both in terms of stance, appearance/texture, and to some extent, in terms of function. They need to be able to perform a few more tasks than just run, or stand there and shoot. Key among those will be get in/get out of helicopters, as well as paratroopers. Doesn't mean we need a full-on FP shooter grade infrantry combat sim, just that we DO need to extend the boundaries a bit.

Just make a really really good SDK for third party developers, and they will take care of the rest.

I never got the impression that job creation was a big issue in China.

Would like to see the A-6 Intruder in that list as well. I think it would have a good following, with all these aircraft.

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?