Ripcord

+1 Not sure I see any cons. Would be very cool to fly this in a combined arms mission.

Speeds, thanks for this. Is that 700-800 units within a relatively small radius, say along the front line? Or just 700-800 units period, even those that are far far away from the hostilities. What if I had 200-300 units spread out literally all over the map -- primarily in the form of SHORAD and AAA/SAM units -- near FARPs and airports, plus 400 or so combat units that are actually involved in the fighting going on at the front. As long as nobody in MP goes off way outside the intended battle area, then those 200-300 units would never actually DO anything. I just didn't want a situation in MP where a human flight could just go fly off over bad guy territory and go totally untouched just because he had managed to avoid the front lines and all the combat engagements going on there.

Hell, maybe it is the neighbor -- hey buddy, I'm kinda tired of listening to your dog bark all night!! :D EDIT: this reminds me of when we lived in Moscow -- I really really wished I had a good RPG to take out that $5000 pile of $&*t Lada with the $1000 car alarm that ran all freakin' night long. That a$$-hat neighbor would just let it run, never turn it off -- to hell with the 4000 other residents living in the half dozen 16-story apartment buildings surrounding the little courtyard it was parked in. Bastard. Great country with a lot of super people, and I got zillions of great memories, but that wasn't one of them. OK, sorry for derailing thread.... but damn this is a cool sreenshot!!

http://en.rian.ru/mlitary_news/20090804/155720998.html It does appear that Russia has some capability here -- would be nice to see something similar to the Predator (make it reasonably accurate) added here for the Red side. Looks like the Israelis have sold them a few UAVs in addition to the DOZOR series and others that they have developed themselves. Here is that TIPCHAK system -- pretty cool.

Yes I have played with templates a bit, back in beta phases of A-10C. I've also messed around a bit with the mission generator files, to try to add goals, triggers, etc. into the MG missions. My goal was to mass-produce enough missions to build a very very large campaign, but the missions would need to be 80-90% ready to go -- with goals and triggers and all that, so that I would not have to spend a lot of time editing each one later. Was partially successfull, but not enough so that I could achieve the goal. Some things would need to be added by hand. What I could not do was create static items, such as EW and SAM sites, that would be in the same place each time. You could add them using templates, but you would still need to adjust their location. But if you are just wanting to use it to build a mission or two, then MG is fine for that, if you don't mind going a bit of editing.

amen to that. We are, after all, in uncharted territory here. Nobody has done this before -- somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this. Name me another sim where you can fly the aircraft, or an opposing helo, or tanks/artillery on either side, or SAMs on either side. Not to mention the JTAC. To your point, they could have left the Tunguska out, and not allowed it to be human controlled for now. But I suppose the advantage to putting it in is they get the benefit of us humans out there testing it (for what it is) in the beta-stage.

Nice tease -- sounds interesting.

So far as it is described here, this mod adds the new ship as available to all countries, just like the armed speedboat. In order to limit the ship to specific countries, it would require us to edit other existing files.

heh heh.... only people that lived in Russia/CIS will understand that humor. :smilewink:

Yeah, probably so -- just spoking thru these files, trying to see what I could fine that relates, seeing if I could learn something. I think the tricky part of this is going to be the 3d model aspect, getting the model converted. That is a whole art form in itself.

Hardly so. But I did start this thread. If you don't mind I'll continue to participate in it...(sorry, being a smart-ass there). ;) Really though, some good stuff going on here and I pulled up some Russian commentary in the lua files -- figured I'd share them, just in case they were revelant. Maybe they weren't. I had been messing around looking at these fixed objects, trying to figure out some way to add them to the structures that can be placed in the ME, and in doing so I came accross the 'boats' object and realized those are the little sailboats. So I had some idea that perhaps those were fixed objects (even if they do seem to move) and thus they might behave differently. But certainly I had never observed them in contrast with the mobile ship objects -- good eye!

I sound like a bad mixture of beavis and butthead... really not what you want for your mission. I like the plan, however!

Take a look in C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Scripts\Database\scripts and open GT_t There are settings for teetering/swaying/rocking of CARS along all three axes, but nothing for SHIPS. -- номера аргументов анимации для машинок generic_vehicle.animation_arguments.body_swing_pitch = 20; -- качание при движении по тангажу generic_vehicle.animation_arguments.body_swing_vertical = 21; -- качание при движении вверх-вниз generic_vehicle.animation_arguments.body_swing_roll = 22; -- качание при движении по крену generic_vehicle = generic_vehicle; But this would make sense since the sailboat is treated as scenery and not a mobile/placeable object that reads these metatable settings. Maybe the naval ships, mobile units, just don't have these parameters?

These are comments in db_units_ships.lua file: GT.MaxSpeed = GT.max_velocity * 3.6; -- *3600/1000 м/с->км/ч поле для ограничения скорости унита в редакторе Translation: m/c = meters per second км/ч = kilometers per hour поле для ограничения скорости унита в редакторе == field for a unit's speed limitation (max speed) in the editor. so then, is this suggesting that GT.max_velocity is being multiplied by a factor of 3.6 to covert from meters/second to kilometers/hour? I suppose that would make sense, since there are 3600 seconds in an hour, and 1000 meters in a kilometer.... crap, I was never good at story problems!! I guess this would also indicate that the mission editor max speed is given in km / hour....? Oh no, wait we have the choice of using Imperial units or Metric units for the mission editor....

Are you comparing your new ship with another ship of similar class, or comparing with the sailboat? Not being a smartass, just I think I'm missing something in the question. It might be that sailboats, being 'fixed objects' (I see them listed along with houses and kindergartens and bridges) would very well have some attributes or animations that the mobile user-placed objects do not have. Is that what you are suggesting? EDIT: damn this thread sure has come a long way in the last 24-48 hours. great stuff that people are uncovering!!

You might need to update your campaign for CA then!

Yeah, I suppose. Philosphical discussion I guess at this stage, but you might be right. Certainly I see no reason why we would risk a thread-lock to discuss this objectively. I wonder how the crew at Vergeev Group handles it.... Not a shark pilot so I'm not really in the market for that campaign, but maybe it is worth having a look.

Hmmmm, I dunno. I think you score missions 2 ways. EITHER you set bonus points for whatever (you set your parameters in the ME), OR you just leave it blank and it scores your mission for just what your and your flight manage to kill. They are mutually exclusive scoring systems for the purposes of advancing or not advaning along the campaign ladder -- or at least this is what my testing in SP has revealed. What you describe might well be feasible in MP, haven't gotten to the point where I can realiably test for that yet.

Even if it does work, the mission would still be flyable, and therefore the files could be disseminated freely. All it did was prevent other mission builders from copying/modifying your mission. Even with Maple Flag's DRM method, once purchased and activated, there is nothing to stop a paying customer from copying the files and sending them to a third party. Just drop them in the right folder and they will work fine.

Yep, that did it! Needs to be Type_45.edm but it worked. Appears in game, and the SH-60B lands on board. Shows up as Type-45 Destroyer, for every nation. Anchors Aweigh, by man! Nice job.

Sorry to dig up and old thread, but I thought it would be better than asking the same question again. Thanks Druid for sharing this link. There does appear to be a way to add the existing structures so that they can be used in the Mission Editor. This fellow FCS Heater even provides a nice little 'how-to guide" in PDF. The question then becomes this -- if we have to modify three database files, pretty important files, then would we want to do this? DCS World will have updates from time to time, and I would assume that ED will overwrite these files. Plus another player, particuarly in MP, would also need to have the same version of these three files. I would really really like to be able to add some of these structures, bridges in particular, to my map in ME, but is it worth it? I would much rather see ED sanction this effort, even include it one of the future releases, than have it floating around there as a hack or a mod.... just now sure really how to go about that. Ripcord EDIT: The little guide provided by FCS Heater for A-10C is already no longer working -- at least for me -- in DCS World. Anyway maybe this is for the better -- but this is still a valid question. Would be much better for ED to just include more of the default objects and allow for users to add new ones thru the MODs folder.

Many good items in this list. Need DAMAGE TRACKING for certain kinds of units, such as structures and SAM sites, EW sites, and ships. Something that will enable a campaign mission to recognize that a structure/ship/unit was destroyed in the previous mission. Not necessary for every possible type of ground unit. Need ability to EXPORT DATA/VARIABLES from missions, to write to some database file or lua file, etc that can be referenced again later by another mission. This is HUGE for a good semi-dynamic campaign structure. Imagine being able to write the lat-long of your units to this file upon mission end -- that would change the sim completely. Even better, imagine that it would write the alive/dead status of each unit within the group... Several mentioned the mini-FARP or helipad. Can't agree more, we need this. Could even be an invisible flat area, just some place where an AI helo can start/stop. Need AIR MOBILE capability -- for ground infantry units to be able to get into an AI helo and get out of an AI helo. Particularly JTAC capable ground units... huge. In similar fashion, need PARADROP capability for ground units -- to drop in from a C-130 or something and then be functional/operational once they hit the ground. Need AI SAR helos as well, a feature where AI helps can perform a SAR function and go pick up a downed pilot that has ejected. Many have mentioned this in other threads, and in fact, Janes FA-18 kinda modelled this at least a little bit (Wags was the producer of that sim as well). This is an easy one -- give us BRIDGES as structures in the ME. Something that we can place and destroy within the context of our mission. Need ability to use CAPTURE STRUCTURE in ME the same way that we can use CAPTURE AIRBASE or CAPTURE FARP. Will make it easier in ME to score one side reaching an offensive objective, vs simply checking to see that specific enemy units are dead or removed from zone. Instead we just place an Armed House, or Ammo Dump, or Checkpoint/BlockPost, or Command Center or Comms Relay Site.... the list goes on. Go capture that objective and award victory points. Plop a basic garage in the middle of a village, and then you have a way to track that you have captured a village. This could really be cool if we could use this with bridges. Need MORE SHIPS!! ...particularly amphib capable.

Right, the ability for the ejected pilot to talk on the net using his survival radio (it was a PRC-90 when I was an aircrewman) would be limited to just a couple of frequencies, and he would be talking pretty sparingly. Clearly his focus is evading and getting to an LZ where he can get picked up. If he had to talk some friendly A-10s onto a threat TO HIM in his immediate vicinity, I'm sure he'd be more than ready to do that -- but no binocs, no laser, none of that. Just talking them on. If ED devs wanted to enable the poor guy to move around on the ground on foot and allow him to get out of sight and hide, and talk on a radio on specific SAR freqs, then that would indeed be cool. It would also be cool to allow AI helos to come get him -- Wags will recall how this was done in Janes FA-18 (since he was the producer there), where AI helos has a SAR function that they could be assigned. They kinda just flew around until a pilot ejected, then the closest one would respond to the downed pilot. None of it was scripted in the mission builder, other than placing the SAR helos. The pilot could not move, but he would be standing there with his little revolver in his hand, waiting. Once the helo arrived, the downed pilot disappeared. Something like this would be extremely cool in DCS. Even better if the SAR helo were human-controlled, and I think eventually we've have a number of flyable helos. Another feature his sim is just crying out for is air mobile capability - to allow AI helps to move AI ground troops from place to place -- similar indeed to modelling SAR ops.

They are making some steps in that direction. We saw the mission generator appear. Now we see the warehouses show up, although not yet functional -- still WIP. So maybe soon we see damage tracking? Or maybe the ability for a mission to write results or variables to a file, which can then be read by another mission...(eg, last location of naval units & ground units). There is a lot that can be done, even with that we have now -- it just requires a lot of work.

What is the name of that river in Tbilisi? Is it the Mtkvari River? I was working on some mission templates involving this city last night, and I came to the realization that there are only 3 bridges across that river within the city itself. There is a bridge on the north end of town at Zages, which is a fourth bridge and really outside of town. And you cannot cross the river in an APC or other vehicle, not unless you are about 3-4 miles SE of Soganlugi airport. Imagine a scenario in which you are a NATO force defending against a Russian offensive force pushing south into this city. With only 3 bridges on this map, right in the center of town, near those big stadiums, you would damn sure what to defend those (in reality there are at least 10 bridges -- according to Google Maps at least). You would want to be damn sure you are able to get to and from those airports, as well, in order to defend those. Very intriguing tactical situation. Also noted that the US Embassy is located way up on the NW side of town, on the west bank of the river, in Digomi. That might be tough to defend as well. I think this would be an incredible artillery battle, given all the high ground surrounding the city. Units moving into the city itself would likely get pounded by arty positions in the hills. That might be a fun and challenging scenario for both sides to play in this sim.