Ripcord

So if Russians don't have UAVs, what do they rely on for good battlefield recon? Is it all just ground spotters doing recon from their UAZ jeeps? Flying helicopters over the front line is one way -- but it is also a good way to get your helos shot out of the sky as well. I've been testing this in the ME with fog of war settings on, and they aren't real super effective. But they are a HELLUVA lot more effective than the AN-30... which found nothing at all. I guess we need to rely more on the su-24mr and other fast mover recce aircraft to get a decent picture of the battlefield?

heh heh, sorry mate I wasn't referring to your question, just popping off with a bit of levity. :lol: Didn't even notice it in fact, so sorry if you took it as a response. Your question is valid, certainly. I would have quoted your comment if I were responding to it.

Not true -- real 'dynamic weather' thread to learn more. Inputting the weather setting parameters to get a desired effect just requires some knowledge of meteo and so it's kinda complicated for regular blokes (like me). But read what others have done and you get some great ideas. EDIT -- here is the link to that dynamic weather overview thread. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=69481 Here is another very good thread.... http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=82610 It gives several sample .miz files to show how they managed to accomplish some effects.

Will it simulate Elvis impersonators on the strip? Can I hop in a hummer and go play some slot machines?

Aha -- this is a pretty important detail. Thanks Speed!

Hey, I like it. Thanks Speed! I have, for instance, 200 or so units in around Tbilisi, at airfields, at FARPs, at various posts and camps and locations and another 100-200 units up in Russia proper - again, many of them are SAM sites and SHORAD units - that simply WOULD NOT get involved whatsoever in a mission where the battle is in an around the central valley south of Tskhinvali or the Pankisi Gorge or Abkhazia or someplace. I want them there in case some nut MP pilot goes off on a wild tangent just to see what happens. I suppose there would be no trouble ACTIVATING them again should some flight get within range, eg,. enter a big trigger zone. EDIT: If I really do not require the random aspect of selecting which units need to be deactivated, would I even need to use a trigger at mission start to deactivate them? Any reason why I would not simply just deactivate them from the beginning and use the trigger zones to activate them later during the mission if somebody gets close enough?

well, no, you GET to the buy the beta if you want to -- this way you get it sooner and (sometimes) you get a bit of a discount. Not sure what the final product will cost in this case with CA, so don't hold me to that, but generally that is the idea in many cases.

Poor mission design is all that is. Or are you saying that you are joining a missions that is essentially 'over' and there should be some mechanism to prevent that, eg., only allow players to join missions that just started?

+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.