Ripcord

ndp, I was having the same issues, I will try that control + / also. Thanks

Not finding what you are referring to, Bahger. Please elaborate.

You know Mower, it does strike me as a little odd that we have F/A-18A and C model legacy hornets, and the F-14A, but we now we have the E-2D...!? Why no F/A-18E or F models?

Ever seen a soviet era asphalt machine? Go spend some time driving on a Russian highway (you'll need a 4x4 if you plan to drive it very far), and you will understand why they go with the cement blocks. They use these a lot, for town squares, in front of schools and major buildings, central areas, where we might pour concrete or use ashpalt. It's not so much a clever military decisions as it was basic practicality. Heck, they use cement blocks for their fences! I won't attempt to explain that. Ripcord

Azincourt, I am having the same problem and I'd like to know what you did to solve it. I have tried 3-4 for different missions and I get no response at all from ATC. Have watched videos and read tutorials. Flying version 1.1.0.7.,. using regular comms (not easy comms). I am able to transmit the message now, but no response. Ripcord EDIT: OK I got it, I was simply using the \ button for pulling up the comms menu, and that was my problem. Needed to use the HOTAS mic button, specifically the LAlt and Num +, IIRC (HOTAS Mic Switch Forward). This way I got the tower to respond and give me permission to start engines. Worked in two different missions.

For FC3, what about some new theaters? Could add perhaps a couple new features, maybe some that exist now in A-10C, IF they can be easily/cheaply implementd. I'd pay for that. Ripcord

Good stuff, I need to try this. Do these navpoints work with both JTAC and AFAC? Will both of them reference these points?

I am too lazy to sit and translate text but I help you decifer a few sections -- if you run into any sections that the google translator can't manage to translate to your satisfation, please post it here and I'll help, or somebody will I am sure.

face what?

Thanks for the response. So it could be done, but it just hasn't been done. I agree completely that it would not work well simply modifying the existing campaigns. It would require a totally different set of goals that aren't pilot-specific, and really a different structure in general. Would a MP campaign be of any interest if it had only two players -- one host and one client? Or would it have to be 3-4 players or more? Doing a bit of experimenting here. Ripcord

Guess there are none? Figured somebody might have made a comment on this....

You might spawn enemy units based on the condition of friendly ground forces advancing into an area (reaching an objective). Or using your mission scenario, find a way to set a user flag when the ship and/or cargo planes reach the area of their destination. You will need to create a destination area for these units. Then create a trigger that spawns your enemy units, based on the condition of that user flag being set. In the case of the cargo plane parking, the area objective might not be best, as it will set the flag when the plane flies over the airfield during its approach, or as it enters the pattern. If you don't want the flag set until it actually parks, you will need to add a second condition that the cargo planes is (1) inside the area and (2) speed is near zero. Ripcord

Thanks guys for the responses.

I've done a couple searches but I don't seem to see any kind of real campaign for MP for DCS A-10C. See plenty of single missions for MP however. Am I missing any? How would a MP campaign be played, anyway? I guess the campaign would be played on the hosts computer, and the clients just join in? Ripcord

Great, thanks Druid. Sounds like a bit of testing might be in order.

Interesting. This lists all the events and flags from the previous mission, it appears. So we could, in fact, build a template that allows for damage tracking of certain units by using this debrief data. Of course the mission/campaign builder would need to learn how to make the ME refer to this debrief log at the start of each mission. I will need to experiment a bit with that to see how that works. Do the trigger conditions allow for that? Ripcord

Bahger, I have not yet gotten to fly this baby in MP and really the only sim I have flown at all online was Janes FA-18, and I enjoyed that. I did fly a few times with some squadron guys that tried to fly the missions cooperatively and in an organized logical manner, which was a lot of fun for me. I will at some point try to do the same with his sim. But I do like to fly just plain ol single-player, given some good content. And so a couple questions to the group, if I may: For those folks that fly MP, do they generally try to work their way through a campaign together? Are there any good campaigns for MP? How many people fly SP as opposed to MP? Do more people fly MP? I get the feeling that probably a few more people fly MP more often than they fly SP, but my guess is that those that DO fly campaigns probably do so in SP. Wondering if others agree or disagree with this view. Ripcord

I have the same question and I did not really understand the answer here. I get that only one plane in any given flight can be human. Can we have a flight of 2, with one player being human and his wingman is AI? If so, can I have two more flights like this? Or do each and every flight have to be single A10C human with no AI wingmen at all? Thanks for your patience. Have not gotten into MP yet? Ripcord

Can we write these flags to a file or something outside the mission, that can then be referred to later in subsequent missions? Eg. Set flag 10 to value "5" and write to a LUA or something? In FC2 the only value that would carry over from one campaign mission to the next was the previous mission score, used only for selection of the next mission, and nothing else.

Well, let's not derail this very useful and interesting thread by comparing those two sims and reviving the DC debate. There are dozens of other threads that have done that ad naseaum. The DC is cool and we all love it and respect it, but this campaign engine is also pretty robust -- but ONLY IF THE MISSION DESIGNERS TAKE ADVANTAGE of all the cool features in here, much like Grimes kindly pointed out when he started this thread. So far I've not seen that, but I suspect there are handful of enterprising creative types (maybe even like yourself) that are more than capable. We did some very cool campaigns in Janes FA-18 that were semi-dynamic (same producer by the way) and I will say that the possibilities for this sim are way bigger with the tools we've already been given. The beauty of it is right there in the ladder concept. The campaign builder can easily let us 'move the FLOT' up and down as forces advance or fall back. We can have any number of very cool 'kinda dynamic' campaigns in this sim, but it will take a crap load of missions with a great deal of randomization built into them all. It can, however, be done. Ripcord BTW, I am also from WA state. Grew up in Kelso, went to UW, lived in Seattle for a number of years. What part you from?

Mastering the mission editor and creating good content is for many another hobby within a hobby. I was big into that in Janes F/A-18 and it was a real creative release for me. Evenutally I hope to do some good things with this one, as it offers so much. @AKA Clutter -- another way to approach this for multiplayer is to score your missions based on who wins on the ground, eg. in a defensive scenario, do we stop the bad guys from reaching point X, or overruning our forces someplace? In an offensive scenario, did our allied ground forces succeed in pushing the enemy back out of some town or village, or crossing a bridge or capturing a FARP or something? This is a bit more of a Falcon 4 approach where you are really just a particpant in a larger war, and not being graded just your own actions -- though the goals should require effective intervention on behalf of the player(s) in order for the guys to win. I would think that for goals like that, it would not matter so much how many human players flew in the mission (well, putting aside all the 'stupid AI' observations, of course). There again, all the fun is in the creating, and not arguing or defending your logic -- there is no one right way to build this content, after all! Ripcord

That is a good translation. You might also translate it as Azimuth Scan Area (zone).

Iran would be awesome. Though I realize most of us are F4 vets, I have to say that I would also like Korea for this baby, since there is still plenty of potential there for RL conflict and pretty robust enemy to engage in the North.

This is very good gouge here, Speed. I did not know what those script boxes were for. Thanks for this. Ripcord

Speed, I am very interested in this project. I think it has a lot of merit and it is very similar to the concept that I tried to describe earlier in this thread - except that your are attempting to build the mission 'on the fly'. I would think that there should exist a program of some sort that analyzes the tactical / strategic situation, runs a series of calculations and returns with a certain TYPE of mission - eg, CAS, BAI, AFAC, all the things you mentioned. Mission templates would need to track the advance of friendly and enemy troops, using a series of zones inside mission, located at various places along the front line. Units would need offensive and defensive objects. The program running in the background (or running before and after the missions) could also keep track of the Order Of Battle for all combat units in theatre, and keep track of their combat condition/status in order to determine which units should be placed on the map and where -- not unlike what we see in the mission generator tool. A lot of the work would be just sitting down and deciding what data to track and store and analyze. I wish I knew more about programming -- I'd join you in your quest. Keep giving us updates Ripcord