Ripcord

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.

Here it is.... I keep forgetting this myself : ) page 122 of the DCS World manual.

Yes, thank you for the comment on this, Eddie.

What post were you reading? I said that the ME has been used well, but the campagin engine so far has not. There is a lot, I believe, that can still be done there. I am not an expert in MP, but neither was that the topic of this thread or my post (hint: it was offline campaigns). If you are going to call my opinions/comments drivel, at least read them first. The point of the post is that there is more than one reason why we don't see more offline campaigns. Lastly, I'm not promising any huge mega-campaigns. I'm working on a template at this point, and just contemplating it while I learn and build my skills. WBK, thank you, this summarizes the discussion here pretty well, I would say. You also make another good point here, regarding the nature of the campaigns. Many of those that I have looked at have only one mission per campaign level. So we call them campaigns, but really they are just a series of missions played in a sequence. There can be a great deal of random events built WITHIN each mission, but I've not seen any campaigns yet that give a number of varied/different missions that can be selected at random at any given level of a campaign ladder (surely they are out there, but I've not seen them myself).

Speed, this expanded set of scripting functions that you refer to -- is it the MIST project that you just released, the one in your signature block?

I am sorta/kinda working on my template for building a campaign. But I am doing it very slowly, ooooh sooooo slowly. The concern that ED will break something is part of the trepidation, that is true enough. They are also fixing small things and adding the occasional feature here and there, and there are a few key items that I am really waiting for (like the ability to save & read persistent variables from mission to mission). Then I just get to the point where, like you, I start to think that it is stable and this going to be pretty much what we have, and then they release something major, like FC3. So I'm fiddling with it, watching and learning from others, while experimenting with triggers and techniques and what-not to better understand what works well and will be reliable. The ME is powerful and keeps getting better, and the community has done a lot to unlock the random events and replayability for each INDIVIDUAL mission. I will say that the campaign editor and structure is powerful enough that it really has not been fully utilized so far, at least not that I am aware of. By using a large enough array of missions for each level of the campaign ladder, a good builder can release very compelling and very replayable campaign, given enough good content. Right now I am exploring a number creative ways in which we can link missions together and create plausible/playable transitions from mission to mission. If/when I do release something I want to do it big and do it right.

Chickenhawk, I read that when I was a kid in school. Great book.

I would appreciate even some gradual improvement as they continue to develop this series of sims. I agree with you Jona, that we need them to be able to get in and out of helicopters, for airmobile operations. Paradrops would be a nice additional also. It's sorta OK now, at least they can run and move and those guys that carry the RPGs and stinger/igla IR missiles are still dangerous enough that the adversary must account for them. Good enough for now, but without question I think we can all see the potential!!

Probably that is the reason, Joey. On that subject, I will give my opinion that I'd rather have a reasonaly likeness, something at least in the realm of reality, than have nothing at all -- kinda like all the other great modern warfare sims have managed to provide. If we can get close and approximate with combined arms, then I think we can get close and approximate with standoff jamming capabilities.

I see that some aircraft have defensive ECM pods but I have found none that perform active stand-off jamming of enemy radars, al a EA-6B / EA-18 using jamming pods. Is this SOJ function simply not modeled at all in this sim?

This is interesting, I did not realize this was possible in FC2. One thing I did notice is the armed houses in DCS World are really stout. I sat in a Challenger IFV about 10 meters away and pumped 30mmHE into an armed house and did not destroy it. Evidently it can withstand the 30mm fire and requires heavier ammo to kill it.

I was agreeing with your comment. I used 'be critical' to mean 'complaining about the price'.

Exactly. They have a right to their opinion, but why be critical?

I heard that. I used live over there for almost 11 years. Most of the time I lived out in the Russian Far East. You almost cannot avoid running into military units there, they are almost everywhere you look, but you need to give it a good try, just in case. I was pretty aware that I was potentially a walking promotion for some counterintel officer with a well-developed imagination, so I really did my best to steer clear of shipyards and airfields and the like. I damn sure didn't carry a camera around. One time I was on a business trip heading out to see a forestry/logging company, out in a remote area, and we stopped in at a hotel in Arseniev to get some sleep on the way. I was not allowed in, since I did not have special permission to be there, in that town, for any length of time -- it should be noted that this is the small town where the PROGRESS aviation factory is located, which builds our KA-50 Black Shark helos. So you kinda get the impression that they take their secrecy pretty seriously. Anyway, we drove all night and slept when we got there. All this was BEFORE the new laws came out, but I don't think much changed for foreigners living/working there -- they kept tabs on us pretty good anyway.

That is a nice first post, in any case. Welcome.

How many aircraft and ground units did you use on this most recent experiment?

What you say is surely true, but cost is cost; it has no bearing on market demand. If you can build these for $2 per aircraft and charge $60, then do it -- if that what the market is willing to pay. If it costs $100 per product, that doesn't mean you can charge that much -- it means you cannot efficiently (cost-effectively) produce the goods. Mananging these costs is critical in their business, clearly, and I suspect ED is very good at leveraing gov't contracts, etc., to absorb much of the initial development expenses. Many here suspect that is a major factor in deciding which aircraft to produce next. Remember the 4 P's of marketing: Marketing is coming up with the right product at the right price, and placing it in the right distribution channels and then promoting it. Choosing what to make/build/sell and how to go to market with it is probably more important than the pricing policy, but we can debate that. Not everybody is going to have the same demand curve for the product, which means even at the optimum price point, you won't reach everybody who might want the product. Just the way it goes. Let's also remember that we all frequent this forum because we are all fans of the product, and we are generally happy to pay the market price -- but it doesn't mean that applies to literally EVERYBODY out there. EDIT: On the subject of cost, I will add this short comment. ED was very wise to open the sim up to third party developers, and in time, we will see which of them turn out to be cost-effective in bringing a quality product to market. I suspect we might see several promising projects drop off because of cost-overruns.

Funny I don't remember seeing these guys when I was in. :D