Ripcord

I would open a ticket but the last time I did that it took 4 months to get a response.

I did save all my Users\NAME\Saved Games\DCS Warthog folders. If I copy all that over, will it help?

I had purchased A-10C way back during the Beta days. Got all the old setup files and patch files and all that. Then DCS world came out and I added CA and BS2 and Lockon3 and all that. Everything seemed to be fine. Now I have a new computer. Totally new registry, everything. I got back into my account at DCS and I don't see A-10C. I see Combined Arms, BS2 and all that, but no A-10C. Wondering now what to do.

I remember being a young sailor on watch, reading Red Storm Rising right when it first came out. It was almost like required reading in those days.

How to deal with tanks? lease them until the warranty period expires, then return them and get newer model units.

FSX is great for what it does. Not like you are going to get into your Yak-40 and fly regional airline routes from Tbilisi to, er... Batumi? Sochi? Min Vody? Nowhere else to fly really. And no need to disparage VRS for what they have done - no they haven't created a whole new sim out of it, just because there is no good tool to place opfor or other threats/objects to go against. I love it, but yet I really never fly it. Kinda hard to explain -- except to say that it is just not done. Gawd I wish we could merge FSX and DCS. My wife would never see me again.

Wild Bill, PM me. I got them.

Yes this works beautifully, I just did exactly that. I had a 1TB HD as my C: drive and ran ED DCS from there, same as Win 7. Took it out put in a 500GB SSD and copied over the whole drive (imaging). Computer ran perfect right off when I restarted.

Just make them move very very slow, set them to 1 knot. Doubtful they would come to a full stop anyway, less in port.

Just use triggers and award points as condition of each trigger event.

Let me answer this question another way It is more than 1 game it is 2 or 3 games in one. You can MP online, and there is plenty of content around to get a good understanding of what that is all about. You can enjoy this playing single player as well, but you need good mission content for that (also available). Lastly, it is enjoyable for me just playing tank commander as the ground forces manager. If I am not in the mood to fly a simulation in first person, either as a ground forces driver or a pilot, I sometimes enjoy playing armchair general and just deploying my forces. It reminds me a little bit of playing Fleet Command, in that regard. You might not be that much into this kind of thing, or maybe if you are like me you can enjoy it from time to time, but it is, in my view, an added bonus that is fun, as a diversion.

We are seriously lacking in available callsigns for air units. I am quite pleased with the selection we have for JTAC units and AWACS-type call signs. But with all the tactical jets we have, there is really not enough callsigns there. I want to ask DCS to seriously consider adding more (doubling the number). Hopefully we can still get access to the same voice actors that did the first batch.

How do they look when they shoot their approach to a FARP? Any different?

Slow your approach and make a gradual decent by adding more waypoints. It has been a while since I have messed with the AI helos but that might help reduce the sucking your monkey's package.

In the meantime, work on understanding the campaign engine, test some scoring outcomes and just be sure that your next mission in the campaign will be the one you expected and planned for, based on the mission outcome. In short there is a LOT of testing to be done, just of all the little individual parts, before moving on to the big enchilada.

Ability to create 'template units' on the map, for use in campaigns. Meaning there should be something that checks the previous mission results to verify the status of specific units. Need Damage Tracking that is persistent throughout a campaign. You could do this several ways. USER DEFINED -- In the ME, you could create a check box for each unit and give it a logical name such as 'campaign unit' or 'template' unit or 'unit status tracking' or 'damage tracking'. So those units would again show up on future missions in the same campaign series. This way they could be moved slightly. AUTOMATIC -- Just do this automatically based on the type of unit., eg fixed SAM sites, radar/EW sites and naval units, along with fortifications and fixed structures, etc. If you set that Patriot Battery and FARP in mission one, then allow the sim to track the damage to that same FARP and Patriot Battery in missions 2, 3 and so on. If it gets killed, then it's still there, just it is a burned out wreckage. Of course naval units would be sunk, so nothing there but perhaps an oil slick or somethng. WORKAROUND SOLUTION -- just let us do it ourselves manually as Mission Builders, guys. Give us the ability to write STATUS or write some kind of variable, even a 0 or 1, that can be read by subsequent missions. How hard is that? Even just something like save FLAG value on Exit or something, so that we can set units in campaigns to appear based on some previously written FLAG value. We really should already have this by now.

At somepoint, yes, I think I can share your vision. New terrain has to come before this, along with the ability for third party devs to create even more new terrain. Driving/flying around Georgia and Abkhazia/Osetia is OK, it is a nice testbed sandbox to play in, but at some point in the foreseeable future, I think I'm done shelling out cash for various new study-sim quality aircraft (increasing spread out across an operational era spanning over 60 years) without some more content in the form of a semi-compelling region to fight/fly in. And Edge technology has to come before new terrain. So maybe the new edge technology will indirectly support this. It would be nice to see what Nevada shakes out to be, and to what extent it might support the level of detail that you are referring to here. Might it be enough? What I like best about DCS is that they have found a way forward and remained on track. They did the Black Shark thing and moved on to the A-10C thing and then the FC2 thing and finally managed to add Combined Arms. Now we've got aircraft from other eras in the P-51 and the UH-1, and we have third party devs hard at work on a range of other projects. One project manages to finance the next (or at least we can assume that to be the case) and keep the ball rolling forward. And FC3 and DCS Next Fighter and all that.... so it is happening. The one thing I hope and pray for is that DCS stays alive and continues to make wise decisions that allow for improvements in technology and does not go all MS ACES STUDIOS on us. So far so good. I think if that remains the case then we will get there. But we will have to see the new terrains to really know for sure. Right now we drive/shoot thru trees, but who can say right now what the battlefield might be like when EGDE (Nevada) finally sees the light of day?

Just read Wags update for 1.2.4.... now this sounds interesting: "Advanced options waypoint that allows air unit to fly to an assigned ground unit." What might this mean in practical terms? Sending helos to pick up or drop off units? Or sending them to provide CAS?

Yeah I have long wanted to roll up my sleeves and really bust out a major campaign, but I keep watching you, B, and others, and I keep coming to the conclusion that it's just not quite baked yet. Getting closer, but still not quite there.

Or we need 'blank' FARPs that are essentially little more than start points. Basically it would be just a plain flat area, with no landing pad or anything in terms of visible scenery. We could call it an LZ instead of a FARP, but it should behave more or less the same. This would be good because it would also allow for the ME to track the LZ as an objective that could potentially be captured by enemy forces, as well as function as a good place for AI helicopters to land and take off.

Grimes, please digress -- if Bagher doesn't mind. I'd like to hear that idea for yet antoher AI enhancement script. Bagher, I think your work-around solution is actually not bad. OK not elegant but still functional and not something that the player might otherwise notice either. Another method might be holding them somewhere behind a hill otherwise out of LOS, until the conditions are met and they are ready to move out into firing position and open fire. Of course all that depends on the terrain, I realize.

This is a really really good post for anybody building missions in the ME. Probably this explains a lot of wierd AI behavior in missions that many of us are working on, or have been working on.

By eccentric, do you mean wearing those funky-cool checkered ascots while flying? Only thing that I can even think of here that MIGHT be even remotely useful would be the speeds of the Mudhen flights at the various altitudes. Maybe they are having trouble hitting the speeds being assigned, at the assigned altitudes, or maybe the opposite is true -- maybe they want to go faster and cannot and therefore act wierd.

Matt Wagner was the producer for Janes F/A-18. He knows what carrier ops is supposed to look/feel like.

Remember also the forefathers of the naval security group, or crypotologists, who broke the Japanese code at Midway. Radio transmissions, callsigns, simple sitreps, all of those things are very minor but the sum total, when analyzed, can tell you a lot -- just like electronic emissions intelligence or sonar signatures can ID a platform. All of that is of course super crazy classified stuff, of course -- for obvious reasons. Still today that is the only 'sensor' onboard any ship or aircraft that can tell a commander what a potential adversary intends to do next or in the immediate future.