Tree_Beard

Imagine how convoluted their code must be if they need to "tune" the damage model for different weapons instead of the same bullet having the same general level of effect across all modules.

B17 Defensive Turrets sound like rotary cannons instead of MGs

Look, I get it. I too want maximum realism and in a perfect world I'd love to have a rich slate of red and blue side full fidelity WW2 modules with a ton of different AI to fight against from different theaters and timeframes in the war. We're simply never going to have that within a reasonable timeframe. (inb4 "but ______ plane releases in just 2 weeks!"). The Corsair has been in development for literally 8 years and its been what, like 2 years now for ED to re-skin an old B52 AI model? Maybe the people of the 22nd century will enjoy the game you hope for, but none of us will. I'm totally with Enigma on this one, especially when it comes to DCS WW2. Keep full fidelity flagship modules the centerpiece of the game and fill in the gaps with lower fidelity stuff.

Which is a mistake, in my opinion. DCS WW2 could really use a pack of FC3 style flyable planes.

Just trying to think of ways to make the world seem less empty when you aren't actively flying. This could add a lot of atmosphere to missions when you are down at low level (out of the cockpit) and there is supposedly a battle taking place around you. Place 1 object for sporadic bursts of fire, or overlap several of them for high intensity firefights in the area. Bonus idea: Allow the player to place a static object that generates streams of tracer fire from point A to point B that the mission designer can drag and drop. How about you can set the interval and number of rounds for each burst, and it keeps happening for the duration of the mission or until a stop condition is triggered. This way you could set up more cinematic/atmospheric missions where forces are concealed in cover and exchanging fire instead of stupidly standing in the open and dying immediately.

Thanks. I'm certainly not expecting you to drop everything and work on this, but if you could figure out a way to create a version this script that sets a flag active if those rounds land within a trigger zone, that would be awesome. Seems like that should be possible, given each impact location is marked and recorded? Thanks. Ideally I'd like to be able to not have this tied to a building's health, like for example what if I want to do a gun and suppress a tree line? But, this is better than nothing.

Hi, sorry to resurrect an old thread but I am trying to accomplish something similar and I am wondering if you could also help me out. I want to have a flag triggered by the player shooting their cannon either at a specific building or within a very small trigger zone on the map. The idea would be to allow the player to, for example, "suppress a sniper" who is "hiding" within that building. Do you know of a script that would work for that?

What I want to do is give the player the ability to use their cannon to suppress a sniper who is "hiding" inside of a building without having to place an actual infantry guy there on the ground and have him die to trigger the condition. So player flies in, shoots up the selected building (map object, whatever) and that triggers a radio message saying "good job" or whatever you want it to trigger. Is this possible?

I just wish creating liveries was more user friendly in general. Like how about an in-game livery editor like in Forza motorsport where you can paste shapes, text and designs directly onto the skin. Super easy to use and capable of producing really cool stuff. I tried getting into making DCS liveries a couple of years ago and managed to finish one or two of them, but it was so tedious and annoying to do that I never continued with it. A real shame.

I have not flown the Ka50 in a while and I am still using the old BS2 module. I used to be able to slew the shkval around using the HMD and the cage uncage button. Now, when I bring up the HMD, its some kind of night vision thing and will not move my shkval reticle around like it used to. How do I get the HMD to slew the shkval around like it used to?

So it sounds like you're running the boost lever disconnected from the throttle always?

I take off and close cowl flaps, interlink boost and throttle, and then fly similarly to how I fly the BF109, which is keeping throttle around "mil power" (like 80% or so), until I really need a boost of speed, where I go max power for short stretches. I never unlink boost and throttle. My issue is that the engine eventually stalls out on me like almost every flight, so clearly I'm not doing something right. There is a lot of scattered, conflicting info out there, so I am hoping someone can give me a short how-to on what I need to be doing instead of what I am currently doing. Thanks.

So we can quickly and accurately see how out of balance the loadout is.

Does this mod include the S400? If not, where can I find the S400? Thanks.

Thanks. I haven't been able to jump back on for more trial and error since I posted this, but I think my AI flights are all set to take off from runway and then waypoint 1 (30k feet) is probably a good 40 miles away with the airspeed set to I think 250kts. These are BF109s and P51s with external tanks, which I would assume should both be able to get up to 30k in such a configuration since that is the altitude that heavy bombers would be flying. Is there a good general rule of thumb in terms of airspeed settings for warbird AI climbing?

I am trying to create a WW2 scenario and the AI will not climb past 1.7-2k feet ASL to follow their planned flight path. No reaction to threat is set and they have no mission task enabled until later in their route. If I have waypoint 1 set to 30k feet, the AI will take off and fly at 2k until they reach it, then they start trying to ridiculously climb from 2k to 30k as fast as possible. Also, setting intermediate waypoints at increasingly high altitudes seems to not make any difference in their behavior. Its like something is telling the AI not to go past 2k feet until the last possible second no matter what parameters I set. Surely I am missing something and there is a way to get the AI to smoothly climb to a given altitude, right?

The problem: If I create a mission where there are several EWRs in the region and maybe an AWACS too, its just a constant stream of awful sounding robo-voice radio calls that are honestly more annoying than they are helpful. The question: Is there a way, in the mission editor, to have my AWACS units stay switched on and feeding data to my datalink, but remain quiet and only give radio calls when I specifically ask them for a bogey dope? I'd even be happy if their radio calls were just disabled altogether, as long as I get datalink contacts still. Again, I'm asking if this is possible while keeping simple comms on and not messing around with changing the frequency of my radios.

As a true masochist, I decided I wanted to try to use the mission editor to set up a fairly realistic WW2 B17 raid, with fighter escort, across the channel to carpet bomb a rail yard in France. The amount of trial and error I've gone through up to this point to try to get the AI to do something close to what I want it to do is mindboggling.. like multiple days worth. At this point, I've got the mission to the point where my bombers don't all immediately collide at mission start and my escort fighters usually sort of form up with the bombers as they cross the English coastline. What they do next, however is generally a total crapshoot. Now my latest issue is that, despite the fact that I have every B17 group set to "no reaction to threat," as soon as they get within the threat ring of the German flak in Normandy, the entire formation of B17s (60 planes) makes a sudden extreme turn to I guess try to RTB, usually resulting in like a dozen collisions. Ridiculous. Also, no matter what I do I can't get my German interceptors to climb to altitude by the time the B17s arrive. This has been such a frustrating experience, I'm pretty much ready to give up at this point. Figured I'd post the .miz file here to see if by any chance someone knows how to fix this mess. I want my B17's to proceed south, link up with the escort fighter groups at the coast, fly across the channel, fight through the German interceptors, and drop ordinance on the target. I have some client slots already incorporated and would like to plug in a few more for the red side. Not expecting anyone to drop what they are doing and look at this but any help would be appreciated. Operation Argument.miz

Thanks this is great. Do you know of similar sources for fighter missions and CAS missions?

When you create a formation of more than about 40 aircraft, like for example a WW2 B17 raid, the contrails flash black and white in a really disorienting way that makes missions with even close to realistic formation sizes basically unplayable, imo. This does not happen if there are less bombers. It seems like it has to do with the specific number of contrails in view at any given time. Track attached. This is probably the kind of scenario that a lot of the people getting into WW2 for the first time will set up, so hopefully it gets looked at and fixed asap. contrail_bug.trk

title

One thing WW2 maps have going for them is that due to the slower aircraft you really don't need to model a massive area of land to still have great mission possibilities. I think a "Channel" sized map centered around the Ardennes in winter of 1944 and/or a ruined Berlin map in spring of 1945 would be perfect for the ETO modules that we currently have in the sim.

Part of my suggestion is assuming that there is already water being rendered on every map below the land anyway. Pretty sure that when you load into a busy server, for example, you see water below before all the land populates.

My understanding is that every map already has a flat ocean underneath the land model anyway, so wouldn't releasing an "open ocean" map take practically zero development effort? People will say " Well the Marianas map already has a ton of ocean." Sure, but the game is still simulating all that land in the distance so a map with no land at all would probably perform a lot better (right?). Plus, it would be great to have total freedom to plan out big carrier and naval engagements for any era without having to worry about keeping the units out of visual range of the Mariana Islands or adjust their starting positions to take the islands into account at all. Unless I am missing something here, why not give the community a performance friendly, small file size, open naval playground to work with in the base game? Whats the downside?

I think you are right. I was trying to record a track to post here but when I am double checking to make sure I have flaps set to "half" while on the ramp, it seems like my manual pre-launch trim adjustments do correctly reset to neutral when I flip the switch to "auto" after launching. I swear I was doing that before as well, but I guess not.