Ripcord

Suppose one develops a very large, extensive campaign with a huge number of missions, stages, etc. This really just consists of a set of missions (.miz files) and a campaign file. There could be some PDF files to go along just for reference I suppose. Initially the package could be downloaded as a simple intaller that unpacks all the missions and files and places them in the correct folder within DCS. I understand what they might look like, but here is my question. Once installed, what would prevent a customer from simply copying and redistributing all the missions and the campaign file? After all there is no software exe file that would check for an activation key or something of that nature.... it's just a bunch of content files that is being sold, not any software itself. Once that first person orders the payware campaign, I don't see anything to stop him from sharing it with his buddy.... it would not be long before it is essentially 'out there' and available to all. Is there a way around this?

Please explain for us former Navy guys what you mean when you say US op order.... this is a reference to tactics?

I could probably manage that, if there is indeed any point in doing so. Although I would prefer to have a contact in ED in order to ask questions about technical specifics -- sometimes hard to translate when you don't fully grasp the idea yourself.

Hmm. OK then I guess it was just me 'misremembering'. Thanks for testing this on your end.

I seem to remember these SA-10 sites being waaaay more effective at a longer range in earlier versions of DCS: A-10C. Now I'm setting up some missions in DCS World 1.2 and the S-300 / SA-10 site seems to be content to let me get within 21-22 nm before it fires at me. Tested it at 3 locations, flying over flat terrain. I am well inside that inner firing range ring on the map. Is it me or have these ranges been reduced?

Good questions, particularly the first one. I've not played MP yet, so I am looking forward to seeing responses from others on that. I will say that I've not seen a JTAC in SP use more than one radio, but that doesn't mean that they couldn't use more than one. Why would you want that or need that? What do you have in mind? You can send an audio sound or message to coalition or to all -- not your question I realize. And there is a way to send it to a group, though I'm not sure if it is possible to send to a specific group, or just one's own group. One item that is interesting is RADIO TRANSMISSION, which is an action in the trigger menu that allows you to send a sound over a specific frequency that you can define. So if you have a freq with ONLY your JTAC on it, then yes, you will have sent a message ONLY to your JTAC client by issuing this Radio Transmission command. I can think of several ways to let a human JTAC or any other MP ground unit activate a flag in game. One would be by adding a ADD RADIO command, another might be by using a script of some sort.

Some very cool scenes in there, thanks for sharing this.

If you have DCS World installed, then your stock missions are probably still there, over in the DCS Warthog folder. Not certain here but worth taking a look.

I would say the EXISTING STOCK campaigns are linear, or just a series of missions, as you describe. I've not played them but I've looked at them in the campaign builder and studied them, and I agree with you, it seems to be the case. I would make the point here that the campaign engine/builder is capable of much more than that -- given a lot more effort and thought, and certainly more and varied missions. But AFAIK it's not been fully utilized to its capability so far, for whatever reason. I believe the biggest reason is that this whole thing is growing, developing and changing so quickly that prospective mission/campaign builders cannot keep up. We've seen so far that features come and go, get broken, etc. (eg, Speeds work with the scripts), and so each time a new release or module or even a patch comes out, all the hard work the mission/campaign builder has put into his project is lost. So IMHO the best and the brightest out there are just standing by waiting for some sort of stable standard to be established. At least that is the impression that I get from just observing. Might be awhile yet, but I think now with DCS World and CA and the rest, we might be getting closer. Didn't mean to hijack the thread with all this, not my intention. Wags did post something that he was going to try to re-release some of the stock missions to bring them up to the latest standards. Not sure if he meant only the CA missions or the DCS A-10C campaign missions as well.

I noted that every NATO country has, at minimum, SAM stinger missiles available as ground units in the mission editor -- but not UK. That must have been an oversight, something that simply got overlooked. Anybody else noted this?

Hmmmm, that is a bit odd. Same thing with the LVTP-7. Goes right to the bottom. And it happens immediately too, it doesn't even wade in a couple feet -- it is almost like every shoreline is a 100 cliff drop-off.

Grimes, this is very cool -- tons of work you did here on the triggers, very nice. I am new and I haven't done a proper job of RTFM yet, but the first thing I noted is that the red side doesn't move to take any objectives. They certainly fire, no problem with that! I suppose this is meant to be played as a MP mission and without setting up the red side to advance in the mission editor, they won't advance, and that's all there is to it. But once again, you spur the imagination of the mission building community -- I like it.

That Veliky is truly great (ha ha) with a ton of firepower, and no doubt it would inflict a helluva lot of damage on the US battle group, but damn, no way it is going to take out the whole task force and sail away from it intact. I don't even care about the air-to-surface units, put those aside. Those Aegis class cruisers are pretty advanced. I think I agree on the national pride comment -- I'll set aside my comments about the material readiness of the Russian navy and how often they actually leave the dock and go to sea. Nobody trains like the US military. Nobody does. Nobody spends that kind of resources on just going out and running exercise after exercise and burning gas like the US. That's all the US armed forces, not just the navy or the army. Russians have had a nice resurgence of late, and I'm glad for them because their national pride had been suffering a bit thru the 1990s and early 2000s (I lived there 10+ years), and it is nice to see them getting back into the swing of things, training again, etc.,.. if nothing else than for their own safety. But still, even with all those petro-dollars pouring in, they just can't allocate the cash the way we do. So if you wanted an accurate sim, you can go ahead and reduce those compentency/skill levels down a notch, because they aren't nearly as trained or engaged as our guys. My wife is Russian and I hear the stories of my brother-in-law serving in a rocket forces unit in the Far East, where they are out there brewing their rocket fuel into moonshine. This was a good 13-14 years ago now, but how much as that really changed? Then take into account things like the quality of their engines? Or their tank tracks? Are they as good as ours? Ever seen a Russian bulldozer? Ever compared that to a quarter million dollar Caterpillar dozer? Yeah.... sorry. They probably make great radar and missile technology, I'll buy that, and their newer ships are advanced as well, but I question their ability to manufacture CONSISTENTLY to the same tolerances that we do. It's not like a ship where they make one or two a year (still gotta give them their due), I'm talking about just good old QA tolerances for engines and undercarriage and things like that. Would you rather go to war in a hummer or an UAZik? So sure, the sim models all the equipment to work just like it says in the manuals and in the technical data, just as it would the day it rolls out of the factory, in optimum condition. Nothing wrong with that.

Guys, Grimes posted in another thread that this was a known issue and it would be addressed in the next patch. So no worries....

Like hell. Only one sensor can tell you what is going to happen next, or in the immediate/near future. And they are on most often found on a recce bird, drinking crappy in-flight coffee (unless DCS wants to start modelling satellites). EDIT: Obviously you are referring to unmanned aircraft -- yes, in that case, I agree they are a heckuva lot more expandable than a recce bird. Guess I am just gettin' old!! I'll go back to my cave now!!

And those three words are....? ......"when it's done"

FF, DCS World is free, bud. And you even get the Su-25T along with it, also on the house. You just install that first, then you install the A-10C module for DCS World, which is version 1.2 as you have already noted. It is also a free download. It reads your drive to see that you have A-10C installed with a valid reg key and voila -- you are all set. You then just hit a FAST MISSION and fly a quick one in the A-10C and you are all set. Really very easy -- I did it without any issues whatsoever.

OK, I thought it might be a known issue -- certainly not a super critical problem, but should be easy enough to resolve. Thank you for this heads-up, it is good to know.

Just got DCS World and CA, and.... no more Armed House. Kinda bummed, could have used those.

And some of the less common ground AI / structures might be missing in DCS World, such as Armed House... (this worked even as a JTAC in A-10C 1.1.1.1.). So if you had missions with some of these obscure units on your map, then it might not work.

OK found a couple of those old links -- would like to know whatever became of those projects. Afghanistan http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=45658&highlight=afghanistan Manchuria http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=50244&highlight=manchuria

Remember this "road map" annoucement from Wags (from Nov 2011): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=81589&referrerid=65507 Certainly everything is subject to change, as Wags never fails to point out..... but it is interesting note here that the Nevada terrain will be compatible with A-10C and FC3. I'm kinda wondering if the Nevada terrain is pretty close to being ready to go now, and maybe they are in a holding pattern while they get FC3 up and going -- just to ensure that it is all compatible.

Sorry, I guess we got a little OT there, with the naval/carrier ops thing. I have looked at this wiki, but today I revisited it and there does seem to be some pretty good instructions here. I wouldn't think that the process would differ much, at least the initial part of the process, for setting up the terrain, DEM, etc. As several have pointed it, it is not clear how (or even if) a new terrain could be put into the game at this stage. And there was a couple groups that were working on other terrains for FC2 at one point -- one guy I remember had gotten pretty far with his afghanistan terrain. Another group was working on the Russian Far East - they called it Manchuria. Both had videos up at one point showing them flying around over their theater terrain. Maybe I can dig up some links

How awesome would that be? It would be one helluva an SDK tool, though, to allow a user to clip an area of terrain like this.

Hmmmm.... pretty sure there are some brown shirts in there. I think the White shirts are safety-related. I always thought the brown shirts where the crew chief/plane captains -- always seem them walking around on deck with their tie-down chains. Never was a carrier deck sailor, so I could be worng.