arteedecco

Lots of info / discussion on CBU submunitions in this thread I started a long time back about CBU-105, here.

You cannot do this exactly as you want... Oznerol256 has the solution pretty good. (quoted below). However, you may be able to use the scripting engine (MIST, search forum for that [EDIT]here ya go: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=98616[/EDIT]) to change a Unit's fuel and armament state, but I've never done this myself. The best I have done is had a chopper land and hold for X number of hours, minutes, seconds (even days if you like) then takeoff again. But rearm / refuel.... not yet... Again... you could spoof it with two identical groups. This is probably your quickest way to achieve your desired effect. Makes triggers a little confusing, but not terrible if you use good group name schemes. He wants these AI choppers to land, shut down, refuel and rearm, then takeoff again.

Who would ever want to have to take 5+ minutes to click all the buttons and press all the switches to simply get the A-10C started up and ready for takeoff!? What a drag!!! (sarcasm) See my point? Yeah a little different, but as others have indicated... it is really fun to play the other positions. Just a few examples: 1. COD4 - introduced a mission where you were gunner in an AC-130 and were using the 105 and 40mm to take out ground targets. It was easily one of the most popular segments of that game http://youtu.be/iVaWOPSoIZY?t=1m 2. BF2 / BF2143 - Su-34 or F-15E WSO position where you could fire guided missiles... seems lame... wasn't. Sure, you didn't fly in that position all the time, but... you ended up doing it more than you would have thought and it was fun... could have been a LOT better as well... read: DCS FTW 3. Pacific Fighters - Endless hours of fun creating missions and flying as gunner, while friend tried like crazy to get us over target area and back home in approximately the same number and organization of parts / pieces we started in while I'm yelling at him about bandits and break left / right etc. Great great fun. And... F-4 ... F-14 << uh.... yeah... getting choked up just thinking about it. And... now think of choppers: AH-64, AH-1, Mi-24, etc. etc. Startin to see the picture? :) It's fun to simulate the battlefield... heck... there's even an FAA controller simulator that integrates into Flight Sim... who would EVER think that's cool??? Turns out... lots of people... and the more vehicles and positions we can participate in... the more authentic, realistic, and rich the experience... DCS is on a mission to simulate battlefield operations. This is the precursor. Think big!

In that radio interview Wags did a while back (mentioned earlier in this thread), he mentioned continuing to support FC and the SFM aircraft to help get people into the genre who would be dissuaded by the complexity of DCS fidelity aircraft. My belief is the 6DOF pits and skin updates were essentially "cherry picked" due to dev work being done towards DCS fidelity modules of those aircraft. I'm of the opinion that to maintain product differentiation / value, 6DOF pits should only be for DCS fidelity modules, which would stop the whole varying standards debate. Either way... it is what it is. I'm ready for more important things like new aircraft and serious updates to ME. And yes, Huey release is dependent upon 1.2.4 which allows many things the UH-1 module depends upon, including multiple seating positions, here. Much of the 1.2.4 changelog is encouraging... sling loads... multiple seating positions (hopefully translates *soon* into multiple-human playable positions.... AH-64, Mi-24, F-15E, etc.).

Yeah, don't put arty or MLRS in your missions that actually engage anything... and don't look in the direction of where a jet with rockets is attacking an enemy column... all same... major fps drop to point of nearly being unplayable. [EDIT]Nate and Wags acknowledged the CBU-87 issue... hoping this translates to all the others I mentioned, arty, MLRS, rocket strikes (e.g. Mig-23 rocket pods attacking a column of ground vehicles)[/EDIT]

+1 You nailed it. Difference between a polished product and one that is not.

Thanks for the response @ENO, but mission still keeps on going and never quits. Wonder if it's some of the ME mission options, like Crash Rcvr? I dunno. Re-attached updated .miz where I added in your version and added the mission goal to BLUE update you recommended. Plus I made the plane a little lower and slower to start, to make it easier to get setup for landing. Any other ideas... @Grimes? _apd_test_mission-goals_v2.miz

FYI, you're not alone @upyr1 http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=100681

See attached FC3 .miz (very smiple). The goal of the mission is to land at the little (closed) airstrip and stop at the very end of the runway (the far end from your starting point). I'm trying to figure out Mission Goals for multiplayer. Primarily, I want the mission to end when you've hit 100% mission goals. So... I looked at some of the A-10C multiplayer missions. They set flag 1 to true when the win victory condition is met. Then they set the Mission Goal to 100% for "OFFLINE" (that part confused me) when flag 1 is true. However, I can't figure out how to: 1. Broadcast the mission goals score to players when mission goals are achieved (I thought it was built in to the goals system, but apparently you have to use the trigger system and a message like I have in that .miz?) 2. End the mission and present the mission goals score outcome to the players Is this possible w/out Slmod? If so, how? Thanks all! _apd_test_mission-goals_v1.miz

^^ Yeah, that one got me too. It's almost too obvious in a way where everything else about the ME is sorta... not as obvious.

^^ Ah ha! You da man @shagrat! Thanks!

Wags is pretty good about messaging around releases. Now that he put out the changelog, he'll probably provide a weekly update if there are delays in the release for whatever reason. Think of it this way... it gives the UH-1 Beta more time to "bake" as well, which means better product on release. We're on the final stretch for sure, as they've indicated.

^^ Thanks @cichlidfan Consider this a "bump"... It's frustrating to look at preliminary changelogs and see tons of "meh" type things but not things like this that have "...been in the wish list for quite some time." I really don't care about Il-76 "shimmering" as much as I care about getting the ME working way better. Thanks for your reply.

^^ Look through the previous threads for the other releases. That's how they do it... in other words... they are getting close, but are wringing out final testing, etc and will probably have more updates before final release to the public. If memory serves, for 1.2.3 we went through about a month between Preliminary changelog to eventual release. There were a couple weeks with no updates where they were tackling some latent multiplayer issues. 1.2.4 looks to have even more "meat" to its changelog (just my opinion), so I am not expecting it for another two - three weeks. Remember UH-1 is tied to release of 1.2.4

When using Mission Editor copy/paste of aircraft you cannot adjust the flight element numbers. For instance, create an A-10C, set callsign of "Tusk"... defaults to 1 - 1. Copy / Paste that aircraft. On pasted aircraft try adjusting number to 1 - 2.... save mission... click on pasted aircraft... note it has reverted back to 1 - 1. Additionally... it should be possible to add multiple Client / Player aircraft into one group... so you can build a flight of Human-playable aircraft that share the same waypoints... making mission creation / editing much easier.

A-10A always starts with nosewheel / rudder at full deflection, both in-air and on ramp start (have not tried hot start). Note, I disabled twist for X52 joystick and just use X and Y. [EDIT]Similar to A-10C module, except with A-10A there's no "nosewheel steering" to turn on and center up the nose gear. Doesn't happen with other FC3 aircraft and I doubt that the A-10 nosewheel goes to full deflection when hydraulics are shut down IRL.[/EDIT]

^^ I don't think so... I think the holdup is with the 1.2.4 release. Historically ED seems to be following a weekly release schedule. Not scientific, purely my own perception, but I think we will only see this released around a Monday. Now they'll prove me wrong, just for saying this! :)

Understood. Take a look at the Mission Editor portion of the DCS World Manual, or the DCS A-10C GUI Manual (here: ftp://ftp1.files.eagle.ru/dcs/manuals/DCS-A-10C_GUI_Manual_EN.pdf). It takes a little learning every time I make a new mission. Just keep after it!

Aircraft crew, equipment, marshal, etc. for realistic ramp operations. Someone else has posted to this effect as well for carrier operations. I just spent a weekend crafting all this in the ME and it's not portable, so if you change airports or parking positions it becomes impossible. Vehicle routing, collision detection, route smoothing all needs to be managed better. In ME there needs to be an object outline for whatever you are clicking on or placing to help plan routes up to and around it. For example... if you want to have a truck drive up to a helo that has landed and drop off some troops, it is very hard to know where that helo's borders are and if you have placed the waypoint for the truck within the boundary of the helo. IF you do happen to get it wrong and accidentally place a waypoint within another object, the AI doesn't know what to do and just drives around erratically. Would be nice to see this addressed.

This module depends upon some new features that come with 1.2.4 (multiple seating positions, for example). Also, this is the first 3rd party module to be released, so additional new territory. Based upon what we saw in the 1.2.3 release, which took several additional weeks after they thought it was ready for release... I don't expect anything this week (happy to be wrong of course). Just keeping things in perspective. I know that ED and Belsimtek are working hard to get this out the door (and are probably as excited as us), but most importantly... getting it done right. It's a Beta so of course there will be some issues here and there, but lots of us are very eager to get our hands on this module as soon as possible.

^^ What ENO said, plus you may want to add another Advanced Task in the Mission Editor (ME) for that aircraft that changes its use of countermeasures, so it does not dump flares/chaff or use ECM (though previously ECM could not be disabled in the AI - wasn't working... thought 1.2.3 fixed that, but could be wrong).

Make sure you get your APU all the way on and it's generator ON before switching OFF your engines OR switching OFF the engine generators.

Hey on an upside there are a lot more posts in other threads as a result of everyone saying to themselves, "well... I'm already here on the forum, so I'll just read some of these other posts for a sec (F5, F5, F5... drat)." Course this gives me time to figure out if I'm screwed on my US taxes or if I am getting new rudder pedals! :)

Just add a ")" to that URL posted by Grimes above. His link didn't have it. Here it is, in its correct form: http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/DCS_Mission_Editor_(ME)

There should at least be a choice, like in Il-2, on which a/c to choose. Or a feature similar to which external views are available where you have a ratcheting feature for each aircraft spawn. So for each aircraft spawn as the mission designer, in the ME you can select... "allow any aircraft", "allow only CAS aircraft", or "allow only X, Y, Z aircraft", etc. Doesn't matter if it "doesn't make a lot of sense" in all cases... let the users have the flexibility. A lot of times it is great to build a sandbox type mission like the Dynamically Generated ones and you may want to change a/c depending upon what you want to do.