aaronwhite

I started work on a MiG-21 livery for Abkhazia, since they didn't have a default skin and I wanted to have them in my mission I was creating working with Russia. I'm trying to script it to where they will dynamically spawn and take off for some CAS sorties and intercept missions, but naturally, derailed myself creating the livery. I'll probably create a more worn version as well. This one is the hypothetical version where Russia is helping them build their air force up with repaired and repainted MiG-21s.

I think you can change it mid-mission with scripts, unless I'm misunderstanding. If I remember right, the RotorHeads multiplayer server would run some script that pulled real world conditions, which could be a bit of a pain at times. When the Mi-24 first came out, the de-icing system wasn't fully implemented yet, but the server was configured with the real world weather in Georgia, which at the time was some miserably visibility and icing. Needless to say, I found out about the de-icing system mid-mission, as I was suddenly underpowered and slowly losing lift. But the other issue was that the weather might change in the middle of the mission, and you would go from decent visibility and no winds to a really low cloud layer and higher winds, which could potentially be a little heavier than you could handle. It's been a few years now, so it's possible I'm remembering it wrong.

I would have to imagine that Russia and China will pretty much be hard to develop anything remotely modern for, since both countries have a pretty tight grip on what kind of information they allow out publicly. Russia seems to be tougher for ED because of how much of the company itself is in Russia, and obviously wants to play it safe with the Russian government, but then China has the dual difficulty of being a country that is also very protective of their military data, but then has the added difficulty where a lot of the publicly available information that does exist is likely not translated for the outside world. Deka might be the best to ask about these types of things, as I'm sure they had to get pretty into the weeds for the JF-17. But I imagine it might be extra difficult for a team largely based out of Russia to access and understand the documents we would need for a plane that isn't even fully out of the development stage yet.

I didn't see anything in the User Files for the Royal Navy. Someone did make some RAF ones if those are of interest: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3339149/ Maybe I'll try and crack off a Royal Navy F-4 later this week if I can find some free time! I haven't tried any F-4 skins yet.

Stumbled on this and figured I'd share some in case anyone's interested. I don't know what steps there are for DCS to officially include skins, but I'd be happy to toss my stuff in the default game if it meant more people got to enjoy them. I made an IRIAA Ka-50 III Skin a little bit ago, based on my first ever DCS skin that was for the original Ka-50. I also made a digital IRIAA skin based on their AH-1W and AH-1 skins: Then my final Ka-50 III skin was one for the Ukraine Army Aviation. It's based on the default Mi-24 UAA livery in the game.

Beautiful work! Gotta love a filthy Phantom.

Spudknocker has some general videos on using the Mission Editor which are a good starting point for learning it (The ME has received some updates, so some things in the video may have changed). Honestly, you can get pretty far with just playing around in the mission editor. As far as the basic stuff like placing units and configuring them, that's all pretty self explanatory once you find the things in the menu. If you want an easy route, SEDLO who creates a lot of great missions for DCS has a Basic Fighter Maneuver mission that I haven't personally tried before, but if it's anything like his other missions, will be a great resource that he's created where you can spawn in and choose some options to practice your A2A. One thing I'll do that's pretty easy is just create some basic targets for air and ground targets, and then give yourself waypoints that are pretty much right on top of those locations. To make it really easy, you can configure your plane as an air start, create the first waypoint as your air-to-ground targets and then your second waypoint as your air-to-air targets. The easiest method is just to place a bunch of unarmed vehicles that you don't have to worry about shooting you down and then if you want to make it easier to spot from a distance, you can put a smoke marker on the location. For the air-to-air I will usually start with a bigger target, like a C-130 or some other big aircraft and I will just give it a bunch of waypoints to have it fly around a designated area. Alternatively, you can also play with using the "loiter" waypoint setting to give the plane a set amount of time to fly over the designated waypoint. From there, you can start to get more advanced if you want. Here's what I do to create myself some fun little missions when I'm wanting to learn new modules. To start, I'll create a variety of mission types. What I mean is, I'll create something like "CAS-F4-Hot Start" which is where I'll take the F-4, plop it on the map at a parking space and then set it to "Client" which essentially means the unit won't spawn unless it's selected by the player. This way, you can essentially create a variety of pre-configured loadouts and hot or cold starts. That way if you want to just load up the mission and take off without fussing around with the startup, you can select Hot Start. But if you want to get the startup process down, you can select Cold Start and then make sure you learn the proper startup procedure, as it can be really useful for multiplayer where a lot of servers need you to start your plane up. But then, as the CAS prefix indicates, I'll create the loadouts with a bunch of different mission types. I'll create some SEAD missions, where I put waypoints in the area of known SAM threats, CAS missions with waypoints that are near enemy troop concentrations or points of interest. I like to challenge myself and make it challenging and semi-realistic, so I might put a waypoint for my AH-64 waypoints on a bridge in a town. This would get me a waypoint that I can select and then I'll at least have a rough area to look for enemies at. For my missions I'll usually do hot/cold starts each for the planes I want to fly or learn, so I can just load up my mission and say "I think I feel like doing some SEAD in the F-16 today" and just select the hot start SEAD mission and take off to try and knock out some SAM threats. Then I'll have a clear path for selecting the CAS or Strike missions to come in after and try to light up some ground targets without worrying about the SAM threat. As far as enemy targets go, you can play around with the different waypoint types to make a lot of things happen, and Youtube is really your friend in figuring some things out. Once you get comfortable with the basic mission editor, you can start playing with things like triggers and even diving into things like MOOSE DCS scripting tools that can let you make your missions even more complex and alive. But at a basic level, what I do is configure things to make a semi-realistic battlefield where I have lots of potential targets for any of my flights. I might start on the Caucasus map and have a group of tanks and APCs drive from the north down south to a town like Gori. Then in support of those tanks I'll have some artillery setup to fire at certain areas around the city hitting the friendly units I have setup at the edge of the city to help create a little action as the ground units start to engage each other. Naturally, all of these units need air cover, so I'll add some smaller air defense units like MANPADS, Shilkas and Tunguskas that can provide some better protection to the ground targets. I like to scatter smaller anti-air units in and around my ground units so that I can't just easily sit and fly around at 300ft picking targets off. I've either got to fly above their reach with the jets, hide behind hills and pop up from behind cover in the AH-64, or come in with the SEAD flights in the F/A-18 or F-16 to engage and pick them off to clear a path. All of this to say, start simple. Place some units and get used to the mission editor. It's pretty intuitive, but then also has some pretty incredible depth for making missions. Things don't always work as intended, and patches can sometimes break things, but for the most part, it's a ton of fun and can be as simple or complex as you want it to be. I've been playing since the Flanker 2.5 days, and I've only done a handful of multiplayer missions, and never really done much of any campaign outside of some of the really great SEDLO campaigns and missions (Another thing you can do if you want to learn more about how the mission editor works is to open other people's missions and see how they configured stuff). Usually, I was only able to sit down for an hour or so to play, so doing full missions or multiplayer sorties was kind of tough to swing. My own created missions have been a source of fun for over a decade now.

I think these are two separate issues though. There's the visuals and then there's the optimization. Obviously, we want the game to be as optimized as possible. But optimization isn't the same as the visuals themselves. If the game ran incredibly smooth but still looked like Flanker 2.5, it's likely not getting as many people playing it as it does with the graphics we have now. Sure, they would still probably have fans, but a lot of people are very much going to judge a game on the graphics the game has, and they do increase the realism of enjoying the game to a degree. So yes, they should work to optimize the game, and they do. It's not a one step process, but one that constantly evolves with technology and changes in systems. My bigger point was that you shouldn't sacrifice on visuals for the lower end systems all the time, because eventually, those systems will be replaced and obsolete anyway. Absolutely. Like I mentioned in another reply, optimization is a constant process and one that should and is being worked on by ED constantly. But it's also going to be a lot of work for them on the backend, as they are trying to make the game work with technologies that likely didn't even exist in commercial hardware when the engine was made. I know there's more that could be done, but I also think ED should get some credit for how good they've been able to make the game look while working with an older engine.

To future proof it, to a certain degree. Some people may need to turn down their textures for now, but handicapping yourself because of the lowest-end systems at the moment just means you'll be recreating work sooner in the future. Look at all of the legacy models. From the ones that looked to be ported over from Flanker 2.5 to the stuff that was added in the Lock-On days. Even just looking at the 3D models and old textures is pretty mind blowing. Doing texture work on the original DCS Ka-50 was comparatively simple. I think it was 2 or 3 texture files and if I remember right they were 1024x1024. Now those textures on the new Black Shark III with the new model are wild. I think it's 5 or 6 4K texture files. They are massive by comparison, and there's so many more details that weren't included before, like interiors showing the internal systems, engine details that are hidden behind panels most of the time, other electronic gear and things like that. At some point you've got to rip the bandaid off and start moving forward, and people can either upgrade or lower their settings. I have to imagine DCS generates enough data for ED to look and see what kind of systems people are using and craft the game engine and textures to be playable for the majority of those systems, while still having an eye towards the future and developing things that will be cutting edge.

Another small update, since I made a mess I didn't catch the last time. I'd accidentally left one of the base detail layers unlocked and I guess trying to select something, moved the base dirt layer off slightly, so there was a weird line running down the nose on one side that someone was kind enough to point out. They also mentioned that the blue camo F-14's don't have the metallic leading edge, so I made a quick edit to the reflection layers to make it look a little better. Lots of fun digging through the random detail layers to find all of that stuff. I've updated the original one in the User Files: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3338211/

Small update for anyone dropping in here still. I updated my first F-14 IRIAF skin with the blue camo to include the better engine turbine blade warning stripes, air bladders at the swing mechanism and then just overall better stencils, markings and most importantly, the properly reflective tailplane surfaces for the tail that were missing on my first skin. I just included a lazy screen grab from the model viewer, but if you're interested in the update, the uploaded zip file should be here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3338211/ Thanks!

I could see them adding the features potentially someday in the future. But I wouldn't expect that to happen before they are finished with the Enterprise-type carriers and getting those fully fleshed out with the Super Carrier features. I do agree though, it would be great to have some deck crew and interaction with the Kuznetsov in the future. I know with the only carrier activity for the Russian side being the lower fidelity FC3 planes, it's probably not as popular, but it would be nice to see some deck activity added in the future. Similarly, it would be nice to see it available on the Tarawa, but I assume the legal issues with Razbam and ED already having a full plate of their own means that's probably unlikely. I wish I know how difficult it was to do that stuff, though I assume there's a healthy bit of programming and 3D model work that I just don't have the chops for. But it would be nice to be able to modify that stuff to work with other carriers, because that Super Carrier immersion with those guys on the deck and the whole line up and attachment animations (not to mention the future marshals on the deck passing you off to each other) is just so much fun. It's stuff I find myself missing when flying from land bases and other ships.

Yeah, I remember them adding the updated model with it. And I can't really fault them for not jumping on the crew moving around the Kuznetsov as it's much easier to focus on one specific implementation at a time (the US Navy version) and it makes infinitely more sense to do that with the country that actually operates carriers around the world and doesn't have one that's in port pretty consistently for repairs and maintenance. Not to mention the lack of accompanying high fidelity naval aircraft on the Russian side as well.

That desert camo splinter pattern...hooooweeeee. That's a skin I'll be creating as soon as the paint kit releases.

Congrats!

I think there was some bug in I think the FW-190 that only showed up after like...an hour or so of flying... I could swear I remember reading I think Bignewy or NineLine talking about having to just fly the thing to try and confirm the bug, which sounded just absolutely miserable.

Yeah, we have stuff we've been waiting on for years where I work dealing with legal stuff that we have to hold onto mailboxes and files on systems for, just in the event that it's suddenly needed in the case.

Sure, but if someone violates your contract you two have, and you don't enforce it, or worse, you try to enforce it and the other party refuses to comply...you're kind of stuck. If you just let it continue your contract is worth nothing. I highly doubt anyone wants to affect their customer base, especially with the F-15E being so new and so popular. But if there's legal issues, and the two management groups aren't able to come to an agreement, or there's no agreement that would even work within the framework of their contracts, then you're stuck settling it in court.

I think Steam usually lags a bit behind, since it's all beyond ED's control on when Steam pumps it out.

My point is that you can be critical without being insulting. No one wants to come and read through someone just dumping all over the work they dumped hundreds of hours into. No one, least of all Heatblur, are saying Jester is perfect or that their way of implementing it is perfect. People like to conflate "being rude on the internet" with stuff like "unvarnished appraisals" and it's goofy. You can be critical without having to belittle people. And considering they worked with F-4 crewmembers, I'd wager a guess that they have some idea of how crew communications may have gone.

That's a good point. I guess explaining all of that can be a bit tough in a written manual. I know it's tough to find time to do all of that, and wish I understood air combat enough to help out on my end!

I'll throw in my 2 cents. For me, the F-14 announced and I was like Eh, it's the F-14. Don't get me wrong. The F-14 is an impressive plane and it's an incredible feat of engineering. But it was primarily an interceptor and as someone that's never been good at A2A, the announcement didn't really do anything for me. But I followed the development, and as someone who always enjoyed the ground attack side of things, the Viggen was a blast to fly and was an incredibly fun aircraft that I wouldn't have expected to enjoy an early cold war strike aircraft as much as I did. But the Viggen was fun, and the work Heatblur did to make the thing feel alive, and to bring a really unique aircraft to life was too much to ignore. Following the F-14 development, I couldn't help but be impressed. The 3D model was incredible and the more I learned about Jester, the more impressed I was with the work that went into it. I figured I wasn't going to fly it a ton, but it could still be fun, and I wanted to support a solid developer in DCS, so I picked up the F-14 on pre-order. As expected, I liked the F-14, but I never did really fly it enough to learn the thing. Admittedly, the helicopter side of things started pulling me in around this time, so it was just tough to make time to fly the F-14 as I was awful at A2A, and the F-14 was primarily an A2A plane. Fast forward to the F-4 announcement, and I had a bit of a similar feeling. I never really loved the F-4 as a kid, didn't really read cool stories of the F-4 and just always associated it with Vietnam. But, as before, the more I followed Heatblur's updates on Jester, the insane modeling detail of the radar in game, the systems, hydraulics, all sorts of things, the more I was getting that same impressed feeling as before. I still wasn't sure if I would have fun with it, but I pre-ordered it again, because at worst I support a really good developer who constantly finds new ways to push the envelope in what's possible within DCS, and I'm sure DCS gets a portion as well, so three birds with one AIM-7 or something. When the F-4 did finally release, and I fixed my computer issues, I started having a blast with it. I'm still terrible at A2A, and the F-4 feels like even more of a dog than the F-14 where I can at least sometimes get behind a bad guy and lob a missile their way, but the ground attack possibilities had me intrigued, and the feel of flying the thing was such a fun challenge. I learned the startup right away, learned how to take off, and instantly fell in love with the way it feels to fly the thing. You really feel like you're stuck in an old airframe that rattles and has a cockpit setup for a world before what I'm used to. I don't have all of the supports I'm used to, like an easy to use radar that's super powerful and can pick multiple targets out and easily display them for me. I don't have the MFD's and the HUD to give me information...but I was still loving it. It was a lot like the Mi-24. What at times feels like an ancient relic, but also fun and dangerous enough that you can understand why they are still operational around the world. I've been working on getting good at landing for weeks now, taking off on my little self-created mission on Cyprus to bomb targets, or rifle off some Mavericks, then coming back to try my hand at landing, and as terrible as I am, I'm still having a blast. TL;DR: Even if you don't love Cold War jets, you might still love the Phantom. It really replicates feeling like you're actually operating an old plane, you feel like you have to work for everything, and nothing's really easily done, but at the same time, nothing's super complex. You have to do a lot of things to execute one simple thing, but it feels fun and rewarding. The flight model feels great. You understand why the F-4 was unlovingly referred to as a "Brick with wings" but you also appreciate the raw power of those engines when you dump your throttle all the way forward and rapidly climb until you're leaving a contrail behind you and leveling out.

This thread does make me wonder, and maybe I just haven't seen the pages in the manual since it's been a little while, but is there a good "Basics of using Jester in A2A" section in the manual? I briefly scrolled through the Jester section and the AIM-7 section and didn't notice it, but I admittedly haven't read in depth. It might be good to get a Jester Basics section for things like A2A engagements so we know how to handle the pilot portion, like what kind of angle to the target works best (ex: Do I need to be under a target looking up to give him the best chance to lock, are there certain angles that Jester struggles to get radar lock with?). I'm sure it's adding more to an already full plate, but I know one area I always struggled with in the F-14 was knowing where the issue was with getting Jester to do what I figured he should be able to, compared to what I was able to execute. That said, I do really appreciate the work that's been done on Jester. Even without being able to always get him to work properly (likely due to user error on my part) it's still so cool seeing all that he does still do. Even just the bogey callouts in combat are incredibly immersive.

I will say, your delivery could use some work. You don't have to denigrate the work to point out issues you have with it. Calling something "pointless development" because you don't like the word order is honestly a bit of a harsh critique that could be phrased much better, especially in a thread where the actual developers are working to explain things and why they are the way they are. Jester isn't perfect, but I think they've done a great job of making him act and sound more human. You may get frustrated at the phrasing, but the ARMA style of "Target, Fishbed, 7 O'clock" is likely less realistic than you're intending it to be, and even just watching streams from real pilots playing DCS shows you that they aren't always exact in their callouts, because things get tense and stuff happens. He isn't meant to be some all seeing personification of the RWR and radar from a modern jet, he's meant to be a realistic representation of the complexity of a multi-crewed plane flying in an engine that was designed before multi-crew was even really a thought in DCS. It's a tough tightrope to walk, and at the very least you could try to be a little less condescending towards the developers who are actively trying to explain how things work at the moment and take suggestions on how they can improve.

Watching Ditch3r's stream today, he was testing the reaction for the SAM sites to the ARM and I tried it out as well. He's got his testing on Youtube, but I was curious if there's some documentation on how it should work in the Mission Editor, and a list of SAM sites that can detect ARM's. The mission I tested was setting the ARM avoidance as enabled and then having an F-16 start outside of the engagement zone, with a high skill SA-5 site placed from the default template. The missiles fired but the radars didn't shut off on any of the test runs. Ditch3r did get the SAM sites to shut down on one of his tests, but then the SAM sites didn't appear to come back online. I assume it's a bit randomized in terms of the response they make, based on the skill level, but it would be good to see any updated documentation on how the systems are at least supposed to work to help sort out if it's a bug that's causing the sites to either not detect the ARM, not shut down for the ARM or then not turn their radars back on if they do shut down. Thanks!