Stonehouse

Thanks Mustang. Really nice work. One question though, towards the end of the ultra lua there is a line: switchoffFetchSmokes = 1; It seems to be a debug...should it be set to 1? Cheers, Stonehouse

Before I download 1.5 gb - did the version number change for today's update? On the 104th site I see a link to v1.21 April 2017 which would seem to be the file I downloaded earlier in the month. Thanks, Stonehouse

Thank you DOL, looks beautiful.

Might help http://www.mulberryharbour.com/ Aren't those objects on the beach? So they'd be more likely anchor points This project might help too https://www.3ds.com/dday/

The way it works is that adding a script or picture or sounds etc to a mission, DCS makes a copy of the file you nominate and includes it in the .miz file. The .miz file is essentially a zipped up collection of files and folders and if you use something 7zip you can actually unzip the .miz file and see what is inside. Long and the short of it is that DCS doesn't know about changes to these files and to get them reflected in the mission you need to refresh the copy DCS has made. Same as a zip file, if you zip some files and then edit the same files outside the zip the contents of the zipped package will not change automatically and you need to update things manually.

OK Thanks. Yep that was what I meant about markers. Cheers

If it isn't top secret I'd be interested in how you got the grass fields to work. Are you using the take off anywhere mission editor mod? Pics look like you've got markers for the runway?

If you are doing it as groups - does that imply you could create templates for particular bases?

In order for everyone to see the B29 or whatever they need to load the appropriate EDM (3D shapes) files and if they do that then they might as well load the mod rather than not. If they don't load the EDM files then they would possibly experience an error due to you essentially making a mod of the B52 or they would see the B52 not the B29. It's a bit like aircraft skins, if a client doesn't have the skin specified in the mission then they see a default stock skin. I would point out that the B29 is authored by a forum user with the profile DOL and that really to do anything with it you need to seek his permission.

Only reason I brought up the car analogy is that you wanted it simple. As a simplistic idea it does basically work but as I said it isn't really accurate and it breaks down for aircraft fairly quickly and things like constant speed props in particular. But it still does give you an idea eg if you are low throttle and the rpm lever is fully forward (1st gear) and you shove the throttle to max boost then just like redlining a car you'll likely break something and also the idea of engine braking by reducing throttle and increasing rpm (because it puts the propeller in fine pitch). If you are taking off then you need 1st gear - fully forward rpm lever and once you are up you "change up" by pulling back the rpm lever a bit, when you need acceleration you change down by pushing forward on the rpm lever and then the throttle etc etc. You are pretty much juggling the two to avoid over speeding/overheating your engine but still get the performance you want at that moment. If you want the full story then I agree with whomever posted about the pelicans perch stuff, they are definitely the thing to read. Unfortunately pretty much if you really want to understand it you are going to have to read up on it as there are limits to how much you can simplify things. It's one of the nice things about DCS - you can read real pilot education material and use the knowledge properly in the sim and it works. A lot of past sims fudged stuff like constant speed props and engine management.

I noticed someone having trouble with GCICAP on NTTR and it looked like it was due to the displayed airfield names not matching the internal reference. It'd be great if it could be changed to match but assuming that causes technical difficulties I would wish for a change to the mission editor so that you could see the internal references like name, class etc for whatever is currently selected. Be it airfield, aircraft or whatever.

Think you'll find the problem is that for NTTR the displayed airbase names do not match the internal ones. I'd hoped that it might have changed but don't think it has. See https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2958124&postcount=1150 and https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2958305&postcount=880 Hopefully that helps you.

Even though not a correct analogue the easiest way probably to think about it in simplistic terms is to think of it like gears and the accelerator for your car. Putting the RPM lever fully forward or in fine pitch is like first gear (putting it forward increases the RPM of the engine just like 1st gear) and as you move it back you are changing gear up towards 4th or 5th. The throttle lever (controls boost) is essentially your accelerator pedal. So take off needs 1st gear (fully forward) and you might change down (move the rpm lever forward a bit) to get extra performance for climbing (like a car on a hill) or acceleration (overtaking). However just like a car if you leave it in too low a gear (full forward RPM level) and belt around at full throttle (full boost) the engine will overheat. Obviously if you notice you are overheating you fully open the radiator intake (to improve the airflow over the radiator but this causes drag and will slow you down) and ease off on the accelerator (reduce boost) and change up a bit (move the rpm lever back) and cruise for a bit straight and level. You can also do the equivalent of engine braking for say landing by reducing boost - foot off the accelerator - and putting the RPM level forward - changing down. Once you've taken off, just like a car you change up by moving the RPM back and throttle back to cruise. The analogy breaks down in places for aircraft especially constant speed propellers but might help get you started.

No problem

That's ok FC Pikey and I are just nattering. It's not an argument or even slightly heated discussion. You are correct though it is really just having a chat rather than advancing things much although from what I've been reading Pikey is doing excellent out of the box thinking over in autonomous ground force tasking land. Meant to say that was clever work there Pikey by the way!!

lol tempted you hey? I agree with what you say and really the main thing is the EWR issue - as I said particularly for WW2 scenarios. However also GCICAP is a module in itself so for people not up on scripting and using frameworks adding it to a mission in it's simplest form is just adding a few trigger zones without any other attached triggers or complexity, sticking in some template aircraft, adding a mission start trigger to load mist and GCICAP and you are done. You might need to set some parameters in the script header if the defaults are not what you want. The last bit is definitely not ideal. The ideal would be to have a way of telling the editor that the GCICAP module (or the Moose equivalent) is in the mission - perhaps represent a module as an editor placed object - and being able to double click on the module or select it some way to bring up a GUI dialog to allow these parameters to be chosen in drop down lists, tick boxes etc. This of course is very much the ideal but would make it much easier for non technical people to create complicated missions using combinations of drop in modules. If you could encapsulate everything you've done so it was a simple plug in for people and eventually Flight Control adds EWR guided intercepts and borders you can chuck GCICAP in the bin of history. Actually even without the EWR and borders it would be ok for modern scenarios.......the thing you need to do if you want to open up mission building to the masses is avoid all the learning and tinkering you've had to do. This thought was behind most of my changes to GCICAP eg putting a zone over an airbase to designate it as a GCICAP airbase. Before that you had to hand edit the script. Ditto with template aircraft, loadouts etc. Before I added that it was all hand editing and getting CLSIDs right. That sort of thing is a huge barrier to people using these tools to build missions. The sort of concepts I have in my head are from my experiences with the Arma series of games and one of the best representatives for an equivalent of GCICAP in Arma3 space (although it's much bigger and more powerful in terms of functionality) is http://alivemod.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page . That's the sort of thing that would be good to have way off in the future if it was possible.

Overall differences explained https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3032772&postcount=409 Basically at minimum means you need more CAP groups with MOOSE than GCICAP to achieve the same coverage due to lack of EWR guidance. Particularly large impact for WW2, Korean, Vietnam era. Even to some extent modern scenarios as the EWR detection range greatly exceeds on-board radar in most cases I think. Interesting you mention ROEs etc for template aircraft. My last wip version of the old script which I didn't release had that (red and blue parameters that could be set for CAPs and GCIs individually) and I thought lukrop had included it. Guess he never got around to doing so after all from what you are saying. It isn't a difficult thing to implement if he was willing to do so.

Yep caps starting airborne should head to a nominated GCICAP base when they are low on fuel and/or ammo. New ones should take off to replace them when this happens. One bit of advice when building a mission with GCICAP, build in layers and do GCICAP early and confirm it is working before adding the next layer of complication. On the documentation........are you using the notes lukrop included or the pdf I wrote for the old version of the script? I think lukrop links to my pdf but hasn't really done much himself. The pdf definitely mentions putting a trigger zone over the airfields you want GCICAP to use, note though that lukrop's version is different to the version that the pdf is written for so there are small things that are different now and in that regard the pdf is out of date. Still probably useful as a general guide though and it walks you through the process of setting up GCICAP with screenshots etc.

So at a guess (and from memory so apologies in advance if I get it wrong) you haven't set up a zone for each blue and red airbase you want GCICAP to use. The EWR units need to be those the script knows about. 55G6 EWR, 1L13 EWR, Hawk sr, Patriot str are the ones it knows by default.

Yep definitely agree FlightControl. In the long term I think MOOSE will give the overall functionality of GCICAP even if it gets there in a different way. For now GCICAP brings a certain combination of things to a mission, MOOSE for now gives some of that. For now pick the one that suits the mission being built is the message. All I was trying to say was that you'll get different results from MOOSE to GCICAP and you need to factor that in. It isn't yet a direct plug out/plug in. MOOSE is definitely growing however so it is worth trying to see what you (the mission builder) can do with it.

Yep well aware it can do most of GCICAP but still for some it is too much. This one was reasonably simple to set up from memory. Anyway for what it is worth https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=106323&highlight=GCI-script

I think Flight Control is pretty keen to end up with all the equivalent functionality of GCICAP in MOOSE. I do wish that something along the lines of ARMA3 modules (thinking the A.L.i.V.E. stuff here) were available in DCS so a user could drop a say GCICAP module onto their DCS map. Link a few airbases from each coalition and some template aircraft to the placed module and then set some module parameters and the rest happened under the covers. It would help a lot of people who are not at ease adding scripts or dealing with lua make high quality missions. It would take some big editor changes though so even if it was on the to do list somewhere it would be down near the very bottom, quite understandably considering some of the other stuff in development. As an alternative having the full GCI and CAP functionality in a framework like MOOSE is the long term way to go. Just be aware though if you go with the current MOOSE functionality that there are differences (see posts about this in MOOSE thread) and the experience you get in mission will not be quite the same and will require a different set up as far as where and how many air groups are placed to get a similar effect. Particularly for pre on-board air-intercept radar era scenarios (eg WW2, Korea).

Ragnar Da (I think) had quite a nice simple CAP script that relied on aircraft already on the map - so depending on your viewpoint - was actually better for small co-ops than the infinitely spawning GCICAP etc as it didn't knock your frames around so much and also the player group's kills made a real and fairly immediate difference to the mission outcome. Do a search for safe harbour or perhaps safe harbor as I seem to recall that was the mission name.

Ok Double D. Been talking to Markindel about the B26 (it is his mod after all, I'm just helping with the lua) but we haven't seen anything obvious in the slightest. It's very odd indeed. That's why I was seeking help from my peers. If you want to flick me your mission I'll try to look at it over the next few days and see if I can spot anything to sort out the issue you are seeing. Maybe it will help me with the B26 who knows? I wonder if it is something that has changed in DCS. Maybe I should recheck all the other mod bombers and see what they do........... Cheers, Stonehouse

No one has any ideas or theories? I really don't want to revert to a B17/B26 hybrid just to make the bombs work reliably.