Stonehouse

No idea if it still works but http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=9329 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=20390 Sounds like you'd need to make a single mission campaign.

Not 100% sure if the bug still exists but looking here http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147792 it looks like the lua predicate is not working in 1.5 yet.

I'm guessing you are trying to avoid mods but there is also a flak 37 and M16 halftrack out there that work correctly if that is of any interest?

Probably want to put up your time zone or general location eg east US etc to help people decide if it's feasible or not.

Question for networking gurus. I have a 100Mbit down (reliable) and 1.8Mbit up (averaging but usually at least 1.7). What should I set to (a) improve my own MP experience and not cause issues for others and (b) host online coops for a small group of pilots - say 4 and maximise my performance as host? Note that I would be flying in these coops too. Can I do down = 12800*1024 and up = 218*1024 ? (ie 1M up is 128 so 1.7 up is 218 ) Any recommendations would be welcome. Thanks, Stonehouse

I would suggest changing from the addtgt style flak to the vecflak style unless it is a critical target for the side. Vecflak even with 10 guns will be more forgiving as it will not focus all ten guns on the one target unless you are very unlucky or on your own. Of course I am assuming you are using the addtgt style flak - that's what the youtube clip seemed to be.

Did a Bismark v's Hood experiment. Hood lost so I guess your modelling matches history. Was very interesting to watch and the damage modelling looked great.

Sorry Pikey, completely missed seeing your post. Pretty much the instructions are in the header comment block of the script and the demo mission uses each flavour of flak so you can see how to do each one. I've recently seen youtube movies http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=159870 and that made me rethink usage of the addtgt function a bit. I now tend to use more vecflak and only use addtgt on heavily defended targets. Give me a yell (probably a PM is best) if you have questions or problems Cheers, Stoney

Looks really great. Will try to see if I can persuade any 457 pilots to participate.

Apologies you are correct, it was late one night over the long weekend and it looks like I grabbed the wrong file from the dev branch by accident.

I've had voice attack for quite a while now for Elite Dangerous and I'm finally getting around to trying out Vaicom. However I noticed immediately that the static ATC mod which is listed as a must have is - according to it's thread and recent comments there - apparently not working under 1.5. Is that the case? Is it still required? Thanks, Stonehouse

Usual dcs.log I believe although could be wrong. Mind you the error you were getting was a call to the error logger so beyond seeing that call failed in dcs.log you might not see much more. Can only suggest that beyond checking that the parameters in the script match the trigger zones etc in the mission and that the template aircraft are present in the correct numbers and are correctly named that you post the mission up as an attachment here and likely someone can then help you. Except for listing things to check it's difficult to give useful help to you without seeing the actual mission configuration.

He's basically saying as early as possible. I think from memory the init script file runs first and then mission start and then everything else is later. I use a single mission start with multiple actions and the first is always mist and then other scripts like flakmgr or GCICAP follow.

shamandgg you need to use a particular version of mist. Unfortunately I found that simply getting the development version wasn't good enough because - as development versions do - it has moved on from where it was when lukrop published RC5 (he is not using the stable version of Mist) and my experience is that it doesn't work any more in conjunction with GCICAP. I think the attached is the correct version for RC5 but otherwise check back up the thread for a post with a mission attached by I think Pikey and you can unzip it to get the correct version of Mist to use. mist_development.lua

Yeah agree absolutely Davis. It definitely would need the GCICAP script to act as the overall air defence CO and if one field was out of supply to use one that still had aircraft. Which comes back to how accessible DCS warehouse numbers are from within a script. Maybe the easiest is to choose the closest highest supplied base to spawn from assuming you can get number of aircraft available from each GCICAP airbase warehouse. Again you'd be looking for the warehouse in the airfield trigger zone so presumably that would help things along. <edit> big chunk of stuff around airport warehouses in _G.lua, no idea what the numeric index represents however. Anyone from ED or near ED seeing this post some general pointers would be nice thank you.......... <edit> maybe the numeric index was the red and blue airbase IDs that were active at the time I generated _G.lua???

Ok so you are using the warehouse objects placed in the mission editor in the port, makes sense and as you say are destroyable. Yes I used AI flights to represent delivery flights too and used a mission trigger to update the GCICAP logistics count but I assume from what you say that landing an AI flight will top up the airframe count at the airfield warehouse. So it sounds like except for being able to destroy the convoys moving supplies from port to airbase warehouse or the supply convoys to the port (thinking of a Malta style situation where supply convoys to ports are primary tgts) from wherever a lot of it is covered and if you set up the airfield warehouse to match the template aircraft allocated to the base that works already too. Really interesting - I will have to try to spend some time playing around with the DCS supply system some more, hadn't done so previously because I thought it didn't really work too well yet. It'd still be nice to be able to somehow make the distribution part of the supply chain attackable (ie trucks and ships etc in the mission rather than virtual). Thanks for the info Rob. PS - Could you turn off the airfield warehouse and use a warehouse object placed at the airfield instead? Perhaps set supply levels to zero in the virtual one and have a zero resupply time between the placed warehouse and the virtual one? Thinking that then makes the airfield part of the supply network vulnerable too. I guess then if you were simulating a longer period you'd be looking to spawn a replacement warehouse after a certain time to represent it's "repair" assuming that is possible. <edit> yes it does seem you can start with a zero supply level at the airfield and place a warehouse on the base with starting stocks supplying the base and set the supply periodicity to 1 (not sure if 0 means never supply or no time taken) min and 100% efficiency and highest possible speed and the initial spawns come from the warehouse to the base and spawn ok. Only downside I can see is that when the aircraft land the stocks of the airbase are increased rather than the warehouse placed at the base so you still can't directly attack the airbase supply levels. However by putting the placed warehouse on the base you make it that destroying that warehouse leaves the airbase with minimal supplies that would presumably be depleted quickly. So if you had an ammo dump for ammo and a fuel tank for POL and two warehouse buildings - one for airframes and one for equipment placed at an airbase you create four destroyable targets at the airbase and the loss of any one will mean reduced capacity if you set up the supply links correctly. More tinkering required ;D

So just to be sure it is just the lua in the Navy folder? All the other stuff in BismarkSounds.zip can be ignored? Cheers, Stonehouse <edit> don't worry I just saw the new Bismark download package in user files http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1827354/

Ok if the DCS internal supply works then that simplifies things a lot. Although it would then be nice to know how to have a visible (read attackable) supply mechanism to add supplies to the warehouse. I'm not sure if you can directly manipulate warehouse counts or not. I know with the old script it was quite easy to put in a resupply mechanism as all you had to do was to increment the global count for a side via a mission trigger. My post up above was thinking along the same lines but to increment the airframe count at the base and template (aka squadron) level. Have to do some reading through Mbot's campaign thread as he must have already thought about using the DCS warehouse system.

Another thought/enhancement idea for when you get around to sorting out logistics Lukrop. Since you no longer use the trigger zones around airfields to clean up things and now these are purely a way to designate a GCICAP airbase the size of the zones doesn't really matter so you can set them to a radius of convenient size so it's easy to place one or more template aircraft inside the airbase zones and have the script choose the spawn base, scan the zone for template aircraft and only use those types for spawning CAPs or GCIs from that base. Additionally change the logistics tracking to keep track of each airbases total of each type of template aircraft and insist that the airbase level templates are used when logistics are active (perhaps making the logistics switch also control whether the script scans for airbase templates and avoiding the need for a new control variable to control whether global or airbase templates are used). A way of nominating number of airframes per template "squadron" would also be needed - not quite sure how to make that user friendly. I suppose a manually configured table would work but that isn't nice for users. Maybe place a number of static aircraft of the same type as the template aircraft at the base and each static aircraft represents x airframes? The value of x could be a new coalition level multiplier perhaps? eg have a trigger zone at Batumi, place two template aircraft in the zone say an F16 and an F15. Have the x multiplier set to 4 and have 4 F15 and 4 F16 static aircraft placed in the zone around the airbase so there are 16 F16s and 16 F15s available at Batumi at the start of the mission. When the spawn is to occur at Batumi, get the template aircraft in the zone, check the available airframes either by the static aircraft method or whatever you decide, subtract those already in play and if you have any planes left spawn the CAP or GCI. Possibly if one type is not available spawn one that is. Possibly you could actually then make the static count get evaluated every time so destroying a static aircraft reduces the available airframes and shuts down the base if enough get lost. Possibly in the longer term resupply due to in mission actions like ships arriving in port etc might trigger spawns of new statics at a base rather than just increasing the number of aircraft of that type at the base?

ROEs were being added/partially present in the old script and were mentioned in the handover list to Lukrop. Some really should be set and not modifiable due to CAP and GCI role requirements but all the others could be picked up from template aircraft as well I believe.

looks like the ability to specify a formation for CAP and GCI has gone? or did you not get around to putting it in? Anyway I was thinking that when you re-introduce it probably picking it up from the template aircraft would be the nicest way to control it rather than the variable for red/blue CAP/GCI. That way each "squadron" run by GCICAP could have its own style. PS also appears to be an intermittent issue with CAP waypoints and altitudes - Had a CAPGCI base at Senaki. 2 x 4 ships of P51s as CAPs and the only blue cap zone was at 43, 19, 11 N and 41,4,51 E and the min cap alt was 5000 m and max was 8500. Start airborne was false and all aircraft started in parking. The behaviour I observed was that both groups flew up the coast to the cap zone at around 2400ft or approx. 800m height before going to a maximum rate climb just avoiding high terrain by good fortune. If I had place the CAP zone a little further into the mountains they all would have crashed. The distance is about 76 nm from base to centre of zone so I would have thought that they would climbed earlier to something at least more than the min cap alt.

Thanks Markindel! Straight off to download it. :D

I could be wrong but I would think that something along these lines would be needed for the WW2 Normandy map as many (most) of the initial Allied airfields during the period after D-Day were temporary landing grounds. I suppose they could just research the locations of the historical temporary LGs and place a "runway" zone but I believe they moved around quite a bit as the front lines moved away from the beaches so an object able to be defined in the mission editor would be much more useful and sensible if the map was to be representative of more than just the first few weeks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Landing_Ground#Runway_types Absolutely correct though that it would make it easy to have "blank" style maps where the mission creator adds tactical airfields. Although I have seen live real footage of Mig21s operating straight out of farm fields which is really quite amazing. It makes you understand possibly why they made the undercarriage lockable in the down state.

Up to you but from what I have seen and again Beslan is one of the worst cases the aircraft will actually queue stationary at times - particularly with multiple groups waiting to take off - for a long time. I was absolutely serious that it takes ~ 15 mins for 4 aircraft to take off and the minimum wait time for each while the one on the active taxies to the far end, turns and takes off is around 5 mins when it's a single flight. I spent about 3 - 4 weeks on and off experimenting with this aspect trying to tune things. Additionally the order the flight members are placed on the ramp positions has a big impact on how well things go once the group starts to taxi because the group always taxies in numerical order. ie if #1 of 4 gets stuck no-one else moves. I don't think the script can do much about this however.

Yeah the taxiing issues was why I'd moved away from despawning the whole group and moved to unit based logistical accounting and just despawning the individual aircraft. Also was careful to make aircraft despawned due to getting stuck on the ground not count as an aircraft destroyed for logistics. I believe from a mission designers viewpoint it is better to get some of the flight than none due to taxiing issues and also unit based logistics is much better from mission design and playability as it means that you'll start to see partial flights as you wear the enemy down and allows you to do stuff like have cargo ships resupply say 8 airframes but your side actually needs to have 10 to field full groups. If the logistics is at the group level this type of thing cannot happen. The whole limited logistics side of things had some very exciting aspects especially for a dedicated server running for several days and trying to simulate a short 3-7 day war.