Stonehouse

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.

The axis of the racetrack is controlled by the position of two waypoints - one at each end of the oval. There are no other "positioning" controls other than alt and speed. So in terms of GCICAP it's all about where the two waypoints are placed in relation to each other. For the old version I was working on I simply placed two random waypoints in the cap zone but the waypoints had to be inside a doughnut shaped area within that zone to prevent the track being too big or small but still allowing each cap zone's cap to fly a different race track inside their zone. The big issue is that aircraft don't always stick closely to the plotted waypoints for some reason and can drift off for a while and then come back (possibly starting a war while away however the race track was much better than having them fly a series of 10 random waypoints). This was one of the issues I was chasing. A simple circular orbit seems to make them stay in place better but you have no control over the radius etc and it looks a bit stupid having all these groups doing the exact same neat little circles inside 50-100km cap zones. Your error sounds like lukrop is passing a table to the scheduler and is expecting it to be populated and it isn't in your mission due to it's config. Only a guess but do you have any CAP zones placed? If not add some and see if it then works. Not CAPs just the zones.

Increase the move timeout to avoid the spawn/despawn? As I've said before a number of times mission builders need to be careful with this sort of thing as quite a few of the airfields can be extremely slow to allow a full flight to launch - Beslan for instance can take up to 15 mins for a four ship to get airborne so the current default 300 secs interval - as I understand the code for garbage collection and I believe it is in concept quite similar to the stuck aircraft logic I added - will be no where near long enough. I used to use 1080 secs (18 mins) as a default for this reason as by experimentation over a long period this gave a good balance for most airfields to launch a "good" flight and removed a "bad" flight (or individual unit in some test versions of the old script) soon enough to keep things moving ok. Additionally if it's busy over the front and lots of intercepts there will be lots of spawns and so a slow airfield or even one which normally isn't too bad can easily become bogged and you'll have whole groups despawning. So I suggest the mission builder needs to play test this aspect thoroughly and tune this value accordingly to get the best through put for the chosen airbases when they are under load. Possibly it might be better to try despawning just the stuck units as an experiment rather than the whole group to see if that is better from a mission building viewpoint as I've seen it happen that you'll get half the flight airborne and 3rd guy be taking off and the last guy waiting and the flight will despawn and then because a CAP or GCI is still needed a new group spawns and the thing repeats and you end up with no CAPs or GCIs because they never all get off the ground. ie from the mission builders viewpoint it might be better to allow the odd partial group and just pretend the one that despawned was unserviceable. If there is a serious issue on the taxiways then you'll still despawn the whole group (one at a time) anyway.

Only a guess off the top of my head but possibly this scripting bug is to blame 31682 - Client groups not accessible in multiplayer. If you don't actually want to include clients in the script's processing then you could sidestep the issue by adding a condition unitra:getPlayerName = nil just prior to your check for isActive perhaps? fyi thread mentioning script bugs - sorry I have no idea what the status of each is though. Grimes may be able to tell you http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147792

Forum member called DOL created it, quite a few threads over in mods & apps sub forum including his tips for new skins (I'm hopeless at that stuff so am stuck with the Enola Gay skin DOL provided initially - it be nice if someone could make some more skins for it). In any case to save you time zip attached jsgme ready. It is a little different from the original one DOL released as I've altered the bombload to allow 40 500lbers and tail gun up to a 20mm cannon as per what I understand very late war and Korean era versions had installed. All DOLs work though and credit to him.

Ironic, I saw that you were using table remove on a table and also the syntactic sugar #table for the same table elsewhere the other day and wondered about it because I'd always thought that if doing that style of table processing you couldn't delete an entry because once it was sparse it screwed up the indexing and believed you have to process sparse tables differently. At the time I just kind of shrugged and thought I must have misunderstood how tables worked and made a mental note to review the lua references again. Next time I'll point it out instead as it might save time and effort :music_whistling: Worse case even if I'm wrong I'll probably learn something :lol: in the ensuing discussion.

1.5.3.1 Changelog Crash when attempting to call Object.destroy() in landing event handler is fixed. So you no longer need to schedule the despawn - wonder if that may solve some of your issues?

Better yet - report the issue to Grimes and how you resolved it and more than likely he'll incorporate it into the base Mist build. One thing we really don't want in my honest opinion is 50 different flavours of the community base scripts - think CBA in Arma3 it's big strength is there is only one CBA version current not 10.

Think the roller coaster flight path is either using radar alt on the waypoint or when the script builds a waypoint it tries to figure out a height which will clear terrain at the point or perhaps a combo of the two. So the plane will climb and dive according to the resultant waypoint heights along the path. Perhaps try raising the min alt value? The old script used a different method to build the waypoints, less efficient code wise but less prone to big alt changes. You could perhaps have less waypoints which would tend to smooth out things but also increase the risk of terrain collisions between any two points. Almost needs to work out the highest alt required along the path and climb to that soon after take off and stay there.

From memory you see them only in a mission in autumn. Could be wrong about the exact season but definitely there is a specific season for the mod to appear in game.

Interestingly although slightly o/t I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary about the Tornado crew shot down during the Gulf War and I think the pilot wore hard contacts and carried glasses and one of his first activities on getting to the ground was to switch between them. Might be mixing it up with the navigator but one of them definitely had contacts. It was also a concern when they underwent interrogation on capture. Perhaps the entry requirements specify good vision but if your eyesight degrades after the system spends a lot of money training you the regs are more lenient. I can remember taking particular note of it as vision that wasn't up to standard was the reason I never entered the RAAF when I left school so I was surprised he was able to make it in the RAF as aircrew in something like a Tornado.

Strange this weather mini guide seems to have gone awol - Does anyone know where it moved to please?

Probably the answer is depends. I can remember reading a book written by the RN pilot shot down in Bosnia doing low multiple passes in his Harrier as he had trouble visually acquiring tanks even with help from an SAS FAC. He got hit by a manpad so had to be much lower than he should have been and from memory he did two or three (which he admits himself was a bad idea but the friendlies needed the tanks removed quite urgently and he had a systems issue preventing a radar lock on the target) flyovers before seeing them and then got hit while running in.

I had some marginal success by assigning escorts to the individual B29s with orders to intercept bandits (escort task) out around 12-15kms. It seems to mean that the escort peels off and engages the enemy before the B29 AI gets spooked and starts evading. It does just delay things as if enough enemies attack then eventually the escorts are already engaged and then the B29s begin to take evasive action when the enemy gets close. The escort task itself takes a bit of fiddling to get the x,y,z offset right so be prepared to be patient.

Just wondering whether people notice the same framerate issues in external view? My thought was perhaps certain aircraft cockpits might be worse fps wise than others with 1.5.3? I can remember for instance when the P-51 hadn't been out long and probably wasn't optimised fully that a friend saw a significant fps drop sitting in the P51 over an A10. Has anyone tried testing different aircraft/external F2 view to see if it is uniformly a problem regardless of aircraft/perhaps related to cockpit view interacting with the outside view? ie Does the terrain cause the same effect of big drops in fps in F2 view?

If you don't mind making the mission mod dependent then Lilkiki's fire objects are possibly better than infantry units http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2545192&postcount=39

Hi Letchik, No sorry I'm not particularly good at creating videos and doing voice overs. There is an overview in the lua itself and a demo mission that gives an example of each type of flak and how to set it up in the zip........you said Mist but I am assuming you meant to say the flak manager script??? If you actually wanted Mist info then there is a large stickied thread at the top of the mission builders sub forum where you can get info and ask questions. If you have questions about getting flak manager to work I'm happy to try to help with them.

lukrop I noticed you have updated the master branch again and that one of the issues mentioned in the code comments is that "takeoff" is not recommended at this time because of tasking timing issues. Have you thought of making any ground launched CAP or GCI head to a random point say 10-20 kms from the airbase ie have a random first waypoint somewhere 10-20 kms from base climbing to CAP altitude and then reset their tasking and route to be what you need? That way you could test for being airborne and perhaps a certain distance from their take off base or even wait until they have reached waypoint 1 before doing the tasking etc. I would think this would solve your issue. It would probably happen this way in real life to a degree anyway as unless it is an extreme emergency aircraft don't tend to just blast off through the base traffic pattern in a bee line to their mission destination. Even priority traffic might need to make a bit of a small dogleg near the base to clear traffic already in the area before heading out on their mission heading.

The problem seems to be this error DCS: Error running Scripts/Database/db_main.lua: [string "Scripts/Database/scripts/utils.lua"]:31: bad argument #1 to 'pairs' (table expected, got nil) PS I noticed that lots of sounder lua's are duplicated by this mod. Almost a complete copy of the DCS Sounders folder in fact and that due to patches some of the files in the mod were out of date. I don't think it would cause DCS to crash as above but am no expert so who knows. I do believe that it's probably not needed and probably makes the mod bigger than it should be and could lead to problems if ED updates these files and the mod doesn't keep in synch as it will overwrite the ED files with old info.

lol sniped and no problem at all happy to assist

You might be able to get it to work if you change your JSGME mod setup so that \Bazar\Terrain\ becomes Mods\terrains\CaucasusBase Haven't tried this one yet but that is the main change and if nothing else needs to move around then it should work Same for his other mods like the Desert one <edit> yep works fine it seems so far. To clarify: In your JSGME folder for this mod locate the folder Mods, create a folder within it called terrains. Within folder terrains create a folder CaucasusBase Go to the Bazar\Terrain folder, locate the vfstextures folder and move it and it's contents to Mods\terrains\CaucasusBase. Then delete the folder Terrain from the Bazar folder. Hope it helps, Stonehouse