Ripcord

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.

Ugene, where did you place those files/folders within the directory? Did you put them someplace in the MODS folder or over in Scripts or someplace else? Here is why I ask -- I notice that the MODS folder consists of two folders -- one for aircraft and one called TECH, which contains Combined Arms (eg, ground units). Nothing for ships. Alex O'Kean refers to this in his sticky thread called How to Create Your Own Plugin from Scratch...... http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=89164 I believe you would need to modify the DB_Countries.lua file in order to add a ship to a particularly country. This file is in Scrips/Database folder, not in the MODS folder. This is a concern because it will be ungodly mess if each ship mod puts it's own edited re-write of this file....

Very nice -- we need some Royal Navy content in this sim. So looking at your zip folder, this just 'creates' a new placeholder, essentially it's just another Tico class CG at this point, but it DOES appear in the sim you say!!? -- well done.... you can add the new 3-d model later, I imagine, so this is just proof of concept at this stage. Do we even have any ships for the UK in the sim, other than the dreaded armed speedboat? Need to check... Nope, that's it, only HMS Speedboat for now. Please keep posting and documenting your progress, so that others will have a sort of roadmap to follow. Thanks for sharing this.

I would guess that it is less about computing power and method of rendering at various levels, distances, etc than it is about simply having limited resources. We want so many things -- new terrain, different theatres, more ships, more units, more/better AI, more features,.... basically just more..., all this is understandable, with each new module the possibilities just seem so much greater. So ED has to prioritize, and focus on the things that they can release and get out the door and charge for. Maybe this will improve when Nevada comes out and we get that new EDGE terrain engine? Not that there are helluva lot of trees in Nevada.....

Or maybe his supervisor put down his coffee mug and walked over to choke the *$% out of him.

Oh this sim is just SCREAMING for a harrier, too!!! I am so looking forward to that.

Thanks Speed.

Let's hope that FC3 will finally combine all these airfields and terrains together.

I will help you with the language request if you wish. EDIT -- it says on the download page that Andy_drive is STRAT. Better read this post here -- http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=86137&highlight=andy_drive Google translate won't help much.

Oh man, there are some really good materials out there on how to do this -- both for Ground FAC and for Air FAC. Let me search a bit and see what I can find. EDIT: Check the WIKI good write up here for placing ground units as JTACs. http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Mission_Editor:_JTAC_(Joint_Terminal_Attack_Controller) EDIT: Check the GUI Manual There is a section on setting up Air FAC units. Go to the section titled "Advanced Actions Menu (aircraft groups) and scroll down until you see FAC - Assign Groups. This should get you started.

Related question here --what if the mission builder used this ON EVENT setting to make the .wav file fire on this ON TAKE CONTROL setting? ON TAKE CONTROL. Trigger's conditions are evaluated whenever the player takes control of an aircraft. Would this apply to CLIENTS when they spawn into the MP mission? Or is this limited to a player hopping from one aircraft during a flight to another?

maybe set the trigger to check the CLIENTs group as being ALIVE and/or moving in zone or something that confirms that you have your CLIENT ingame and thus able to hear the message?

Hey great! Please share your results and tell us more about that ship you plan to add -- intersting stuff!

Excellent info, thanks! Hmmmm... this thread isn't intended to be an old testament scripture on how to add ships in DCS World, merely an informal exchange of ideas and helpful hints -- which is what Alfa has done here. Don't think he's made any statements of fact, he does not prefess to KNOW 100% that nothing has changed from FC to current DCS, he assumes that it might well be the case. No harm done there. At least offered this thought, which nobody else had done BEFORE him in this thread -- other than to suggest that overwriting is bad (we can probably all agree on that). EDIT: for the record, I was not looking to try and add anything major like CDG or another aircraft carrier. It makes far more sense to learn to walk before we try to run -- just some simple frigate or destroyer or something.

Hey man, I need to start this by saying I own your EA-6B and it blows away the other offering that of the same aircraft that is out there -- and for the msot part, I am a big fan of what Iris produces. I own a lot of IRIS add ons for FSX, but your EA-6B is the best out there -- enough that I am interested in and planning to get your A-6 and A-7 once I get more into 'flying' in that time period. That means I have a lot of respect for your work in FSX, as do many others, and I am really REALLY looking forward to these aircraft coming out in DCS!! But I gotta say, sir, you did go a bit over the top on this post regarding the VRS project here. Yes you were way ahead of your time in developing all this stuff for your A-7 product. But keep in mind that it isn't about dropping munitions and watching cool explosions on the ground -- there are a lot of mods that simulate that. It is about avoiding AAA/SAMs while doing so, getting in and getting out. TacPack (later versions) will allow for helicopters and MV-22s and transport aircraft to finally have 'tactical situations' where they have to fly missions around threats. All your points are valid and well-taken, but I wish you had made those points in a way that stresses the positives. Your products, by the way, are only going to be BETTER in the TacPack environment and I know that I am not the only one that feels that way. OK you don't need it, I guess, but you would be foolish to not embrace it when it comes out, or at least take a 'wait and see' attitude until it comes out.

I agree Trey, the sim would need a KC-135 or KC-10 or whatever with a basket to allow probe-to-drogue refueling. But that is just one aspect of naval aviation / carrier ops that is still missing. I hope that DCS tackles that arena themselves, be it the F/A-18C or whatever -- something that will pave the way for other carrier based aircraft, like RAZBAMs A-6 and A-7.

I suppose the answer would be something similar to what they've done here with the T-34 tank? http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=91493

Suppose I have a really good model of a ship in 3D MAX... and I want to add that thing into DCS World. Would there be a way to use existing entries for existing ships, say the Perry-class frigate, and then go back and modify those parameters to pick up the new model, new characteristics, weapons load, etc? Ripcord