arteedecco

F14D, F15E, AH-64D, Su-34 Would all be awesome. Still need ED to support multi-human support in one vehicle, which isn't there today, though UH-1 will have multi-seat (multi-position) capability, but only for single human. It's coming, but roadmap specified is: FC3 / CA released, then DCS Fast Mover (Fighter)

Would be a nice touch to have an customizable scoring system with a little more depth. Lose points for ejecting Lose points for firing missile (varies with type) / firing guns (less point loss), but.. Get points for kill, more points for guns kill Present hit percentage in scoreboard Make it customizable Make standardized screen on server so players can see which scoring options are set For that matter make a server setup summary screen that also allows admins to set weap availability, which is available to players... not unlike the in-game spam message workaround used by many servers for simulating Cold-war era limitations using Slmod. Would be nice to have it built-in to server (... dedicated server!).

Yeah, tasted the forbidden fruit with FC3, but also dying for hardcore DCS AFM, clickable cockpit, fully decked-out and modeled systems of Fast Mover. I gotta say though, sometimes it is nice to hop back into the A-10C and just maul stuff on the ground.... I just make missions where it's a very short hop to get to the targets and I start airborne now! :) Stupid fighters... stupid gobs and gobs of full a/b!!! I feel the need! The need for speed!! Good news is I've been able to learn a thing or two about fighter operations from FC3 in the interim.

LAUGH! But you couldn't have a beer while you flew... ;) technically.

In the forum summary (this view: http://forums.eagle.ru/) it would be awesome if you could highlight it when a rep from one of the 3rd party devs replies to a thread, so you know when to check back into that thread. Those threads get chock-full of posters stipulating, fighting, demanding updates, theorizing, etc. Mainly, I just want to know when a rep from a 3rd party has posted an update. Yeah... I could manually go through and tell the system to ping me when a specific person posts, but... that's not as elegant a solution and is very prone to not working and flooding me with emails / notifications. Thanks for the consideration gang!

Yeah, I think they're working on it. I mean a lot of people are clamoring for MP to have multi-human player support for upcoming 3rd party modules like F-15E. I am a little shaky on whether or not the sim accounts for it already, or not because I thought I read somewhere that the upcoming UH-1 can support multiple human players at once, but... can't find it anywhere. Anyhow... I think ED is aware of all this and working on it, but first they are targeting getting FC3 and Combined Arms released. Then they're gonna focus on getting the DCS Fighter out the door... theeeeennnn.... we'll see what starts developing. The good news, is that DCS is such an awesome platform that there really is a ton of different directions to go to make it even sweeter. I would like them to put more effort into improving the Mission Editor (scripting) and platform in general after they get the DCS Fighter out the door as opposed to modeling new aircraft. I tend to think that's their intent because of the launch of all the 3rd party modules we saw this past year. Now that there's a platform... let other ppl dev up new aircraft.... similar to Flight Sim paradigm it seems. So... you better start getting your DCS Heavy team put together!!! Once you get a super demanded module out the door you can probably leverage ED to get support in there for other features like we've been discussing (vehicle transport, slinging, etc).

^^ seriously :) It's gonna be 3rd party devs (read: community) that make DCS even better. Blaze... do you have any info on time (cost, resources required, etc) / value for developing a new aircraft module for DCS? I mean... is it even possible to make any $$ making a module for DCS? What's the reality? Also... in all seriousness... we are at the mercy of ED for multiplayer, multi-human vehicles at this point, since it's not written into the sim (as I understand it), right? And we'd need ED to update their code to allow for slinging equipment / vehicles and loading vehicles / equipment into aircraft. It's not possible at current state, right?

Loved BF2.... despite it's super comic-like vehicle modeling... once you learned the paradigm it was a fun sandbox. Since then.. borked. They've sold their souls to the console and have lowered the air vehicle modeling to near-rails with nice looking models. I imagine their version of "sea" will be the same. EA is into the rinse / wash / repeat mode for this series and has killed it for me... which is why I love DCS... which is realistic. I suppose each has it's place and based on sales EA is killing it, but... they just go for more and more visual stimulation and violence versus RL modeling. They are making (IMO) movies you can play that have RL looking technology but which has almost no connection to the reality of that technology and its use. DCS is so much more rewarding. Sure... if you want to get off work, drop in ... virtually shoot up a bunch of screaming / swearing 12 year olds, console gameplay is great. But I am soooo thankful for DCS for bringing back SIMULATION where I get to learn the real systems, learn how to actually fight with an F-15C or Su-27, etc ... the richness of the experience is so much better. DCS is a platform whereas BF is a "blockbuster"... a one-off ... it's Madden 08, 09, 10, 11, blah blah blah... new shiny cover... some ads... new skins... for the drones of lemmings out there IMO. Too bad we can't integrate the air from DCS into the FPS / ground of BF. THEN... we'd have something perhaps. Oh... and Supreme Commander for Combined Arms battlefield commanding.

MP scoring has improved with 1.2.3 patches, but it still does not: 1.) Give a loss for ejecting 2.) Give a kill / credit to the shooter for causing other player to eject IF you switch aircraft before the one you ejected from is destroyed. Just like in other MP games, person who does the most damage should get credited w/ the kill, not just person who caused the final destruction of the vehicle... or at least this should be a scoring option. People get frustrated by getting kills sniped by other players not on comms or with poor SA, this could help resolve partially... and/or give credit for assists. If this is a dup post, please pardon and mods feel free to move to appropriate thread.

Connection interrupted issue much better since latest 1.2.3 patch, but still quite common on MP.

Please tell me if this is already noted... this is getting to be a huge thread. At least in the F-15C (I *think* this is true in all FC3 aircraft), the heading tape moves when you roll the aircraft (not just when heading actually changes)!!! Super annoying and makes it almost impossible to roll out on a desired heading precisely. The little tiny tick-mark on the heading tape that indicates your current active waypoint reacts really terribly when approaching a waypoint, dragging off to one side or another, regardless of the direction of your next turn. And this little tick-mark does not seem very true to RL F-15C HUD symbology (I don't have anything to back that up with, so yell at me if I'm off base). That tick-mark also goes full deflection on the HUD heading tape sometimes when maneuvering (even mildly) if your next waypoint is near 360 degrees (North)... probably within 5 degrees or less. It's pretty awful to try to follow the Nav indications really. Nevermind lack of bullseye, lack of moving map, etc. Pretty much just flying around visually up there w/out a map. Love the sim... love it, just want to help make it better.

Hmm.... C-17 or C-130 that allows for loading / unloading troops (think paratroopers jumping out the back to forward deploy)... low level, canyon ingress using NVGs... in formation (fasten your seatbelts). Imagine playing Combined Arms as commander and calling in flights of C-17s to dropp troops / arty / gear. What about slinging loads under CH-47D, etc? Would be neat to be able to use Combined Arms to drive an M1 onto a C-17, or 10 and then fly up to and drop off at a forward airbase. Um.... we're gonna need bigger maps! --> EDGE I'm imagining: :) At first when I read DCS Heavy I thought, "bleah!!!!" Then I thought of all those things above and changed my tune. Still... not willing to sacrifice the fighters coming down the line, but hey... ARMA can do it!!! Why not DCS!!! In fact... wish we could merge the two systems so we could gain the FPS portions of ARMA and some of its abilities while integrating the totally amazing DCS flight modeling. Oh yeah... AND a big one!!! ARMA supports multiplayer vehicles with multiple humans per vehicle. <<--- game changer. Go ED go!!! :) Plllleaaassseee!!!

^^ So, yeah, I usually do come down some. Normal attack profile is drive in hard at 20-24K feet MSL, 550 - 600 KIAS (full a/b, Mach 1 +), acquire bandits in RWS, switch to TWS, as close to Rt (like @KLR Rico) as I dare... though I don't know why I'm worried about R-27 shots at all... I fire on both bandits (dot centered), then crank to break lock. When I do break their lock and see them going defensive, I turn back into them, switch radar into RWS (is that the right acronym for default radar setting... can't remember?), and I dive after running target in a descending drag race. Bandit (usually lead) hits the deck and just hits full a/b. I sometimes reacquire and just never get w/in launch params for AIM-120, meanwhile bandit wingman comes round and snipes me with EOS shot. Bastards. So... not sure how crank, descend profile helps me with my SA? Why does descending help? Cause now I'm not in as drastic a look down radar profile? I guess keeping a little distance from bandits to keep it BVR could be good especially if my "awesome" F15C radar could pick them back up (again, maybe descending to closer to their altitude helps with reacquiring?). I just figured staying high meant I would have the energy advantage, which would be good if I could get my blasted radar to find the badguys. Guess it's a balancing act, eah? Any tips for what radar settings to use once targets start maneuvering? Like: 1.) Switch out of TWS to BVR 2.) narrow the beam 3.) set PRF Med From what I've been reading using interleaved Hi / Med PRF is "fine" for maneuvering targets but I just cannot pick them up as quick as they get me locked up even with that lousy Mig radar. The other area of radar where I just suck is with the altitude search band. Any tips here based on the profile I'm describing where the lead bandit is on the deck running? Seems like no matter what I cannot pick him up. I've done a lot of blue on blue intercepts between F-15Cs and it seems that the radar is excruciatingly "exact" when it comes to it's detection beam. Seems oddly difficult to pick up the other aircraft and see that little dot on the scope. I've been flying WVR where I know he's w/in 60 degrees of my nose, same direction of flight, but a little higher (under 1000 feed delta in alt) and nothing on the scope. Is there a known bug in this portion of the F-15C radar? Thanks again! Cheers Rico! :) glad to hear I'm not the only one. Looking forward to blasting you again soon ;)

@///Rage I've been doing a lot of A2A testing as well because I wanted to know why I was utterly worthless in Su-27... (yeah yeah... pilot is lowest common denominator, I know ;) Anyhow... I wonder what your test results are with ER's when in closer, say 20km, 10km. I've noticed that ERs are utterly worthless unless the target is a blimp at 30km as well, but it *seems* that they actually hit things (even maneuvering / chaffing things) when in much closer. I agree... it's not kinetic, but I do wonder if there's something to do with their filtering algorithm against decoys directly related to range. May be a little over-done at the moment... seems to be what everyone is noticing / saying. Thoughts?

Hopefully some of you can shed some light on this for me. I've got woes with the radar usage in general. I have been trying to eliminate variables, so I've been sticking to the F-15C because its radar is the "best" and most straightforward (IMO). I've been flying 1 v 2 (AI) Mig-29A with 2xR-27ER (maybe just R-27R) 2xR-73, 2xR-60. My results are not what I'd expect. I was hoping after time this would be a no-brainier, but my results are not great. I have to say, the R-27s just don't worry me anymore, but I constantly get splashed by EOS shots with either of the IR missiles after we get past my initial TWS (1/3 way below Rmax, not yet to Rt) spoiler shots with AIM-120Cs. Basically, I fire a single spoiler (dot centered) at each bandit in TWS before the lead fighter shoots. I'm at 550 or 600 KIAS in full A/B. Usually after I shoot I crank. Invariably my AIM-120 goes pitbull and I see the lead Mig go defensive, notching. However, he usually stays a target on my scope beyond the 90 degree point, to about 110 or 120 degrees, then drops. At this point I'm hauling in and I run out of any idea what to do because I've lost my SA on at least the first bandit who's now running from me until he's defeated the 120. Then he breaks into me while I'm fiddling with my radar and worrying about his wingman. Then... I see an RWR 29 I cannot get my blasted radar to pick anything up even with it on PRF HI, narrow beam, BVR mode... just nothing... and I only have a matter of second then.. bang... R-60 or 73 and it's lights out. I feel like an idiot.. I mean.. I am at this point and need some coaching. What do you even call the point in the fight where I've got both bandits defensive? It's at that point and the second... nearly WVR fight where I just die and suck and get all pissed off. Any guidance would be supremely appreciated. I feel like the F15C radar just drops contacts super easy. Yeah, I get the notch, but it seems so difficult to reacquire once within about 15 miles... such a tight beam you have to get it just right or your radar never sees the badguy. If you zoom it out to say 20 or 40 miles and there are any other bandits then you just get confused looking at all the targets and the time it takes to figure which one is the immediate thread and get him locked up well... poof. Again, I know I'm doing stuff wrong, so please help. Any *specific* guidance is appreciated as I have done quite a bit of homework, read the manual, searched the forum, etc. Thanks gang!

ROFL! Not exactly detailed, specific feedback, but all the same I'm excited to check it out myself.

First, awesome! Glad to hear it. Wouldn't it be great if you didn't have to worry about that annoying "work" thing!? Couple questions @Speed / @Grimes: 1.) Because you're on the ED Testers Team, does this mean you have a little more certainty that Sim updates won't break Slmod / Mist? How do you battle this? I've seen a lot of posts indicating a lot of folks have given up mod'ing for DCSW because every release means they have to go refactor their mod again. 2.) Where do you get a comprehensive list (or how do I find one) of all the LUA functionality exposed? Would be very nice to be able to have a complete reference, or at least know which files to look at to figure it all out. It's very difficult to just hand sort through all the folders / files and try to make sense of what does what when, etc. There's gotta be a rhyme or reason right? Thanks again!

@Grimes, when will you and @Speed be releasing the next "official" release of MIST?

@Speed... I wondered if we should start a github repository for MIST? I also worked over the weekend to make updates to messaging, creating simple, error-checking functions that make it easy to send messages with correct data to coalition, country, group, or everyone. Just thinking that there are a few people who like to contribute and if we could have a centralized spot for everything, may be handy.

Found a couple issues with the wiki documentation I thought I'd pass along. Coalition (coalition.side) and Country (country.id) enums, link to coalition wiki section, link to country wiki section Wiki lists it as: coalition.side = { NEUTRAL, RED, BLUE } country.id = { RUSSIA, UKRAINE, USA, TURKEY, UK, FRANCE, GERMANY, CANADA, SPAIN, THE_NETHERLANDS, BELGIUM, NORWAY, DENMARK, ISRAEL, GEORGIA, INSURGENTS, ABKHAZIA, SOUTH_OSETIA, ITALY } However, that's not quite it... that description (above from the wiki) leads you to believe that those two enums are numerically indexed arrays. Instead, when you iterate through the coalition.side enum you find it is actually a "dictionary" (associative array), where the side names are actually the keys, which actually are assigned values. (Maybe this changed in the most recent versions of the Sim???). To see it add the following to a DO SCRIPT trigger (run once with no condition) in a mission... BTW, sorry if my debug code is a little messy, feel free to recommend on how to streamline it a bit: print('(START) ***DEBUG OUTPUT of country.id global enum***\n') print('country.id = {' .. '\n') for key,val in pairs(country.id) do print(' ' .. '(' .. type(key) .. ')' .. key .. '=' .. '(' .. type(val) .. ')' .. val .. '\n') end print('}' .. '\n') print('(END) ***DEBUG OUTPUT of country.id global enum***') print('\n~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\n') print('(START) ***DEBUG OUTPUT of coalition.side global enum***\n') print('coalition.side = {' .. '\n') for key,val in pairs(coalition.side) do print(' ' .. '(' .. type(key) .. ')' .. key .. '=' .. '(' .. type(val) .. ')' .. val .. '\n') end print('}' .. '\n') print('(END) ***DEBUG OUTPUT of coalition.side global enum***') print(dbgOut) Run the mission then navigate to "C:\Users\{REPLACE WITH YOUR COMPUTER USERNAME}\Saved Games\DCS\Logs\dcs.log". Open up that file and you will see in the output something similar to the following: 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (START) ***DEBUG OUTPUT of country.id global enum*** 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: country.id = { 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)CANADA=(number)8 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)NORWAY=(number)12 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)DENMARK=(number)13 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)ISRAEL=(number)15 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)GERMANY=(number)6 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)BELGIUM=(number)11 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)SOUTH_OSETIA=(number)19 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)UKRAINE=(number)1 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)FRANCE=(number)5 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)INSURGENTS=(number)17 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)THE_NETHERLANDS=(number)10 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)GEORGIA=(number)16 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)ABKHAZIA=(number)18 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)USA=(number)2 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)ITALY=(number)20 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)TURKEY=(number)3 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)SPAIN=(number)9 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)UK=(number)4 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)RUSSIA=(number)0 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: } 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (END) ***DEBUG OUTPUT of country.id global enum*** 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (START) ***DEBUG OUTPUT of coalition.side global enum*** 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: coalition.side = { 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)NEUTRAL=(number)0 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)BLUE=(number)2 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (string)RED=(number)1 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: } 08242.602 UNKNOWN wWorld::initMissionScripting: (END) ***DEBUG OUTPUT of coalition.side global enum*** Cleaned up, you get this: country.id = { (string)CANADA=(number)8 (string)NORWAY=(number)12 (string)DENMARK=(number)13 (string)ISRAEL=(number)15 (string)GERMANY=(number)6 (string)BELGIUM=(number)11 (string)SOUTH_OSETIA=(number)19 (string)UKRAINE=(number)1 (string)FRANCE=(number)5 (string)INSURGENTS=(number)17 (string)THE_NETHERLANDS=(number)10 (string)GEORGIA=(number)16 (string)ABKHAZIA=(number)18 (string)USA=(number)2 (string)ITALY=(number)20 (string)TURKEY=(number)3 (string)SPAIN=(number)9 (string)UK=(number)4 (string)RUSSIA=(number)0 } ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ coalition.side = { (string)NEUTRAL=(number)0 (string)BLUE=(number)2 (string)RED=(number)1 } [EDIT by the way, if you didn't catch it in the debug code I added the key and val type to the output so you see what types everything are.. which I find helpful] Would be helpful to have the wiki updated.... not sure who has access or how to update it myself. Anyhow.. learning... there goes Sunday! :) Cheer!

Oh and @Speed, just a friendly suggestion for tutorial missions like the ones you provided. It would be helpful if you used different group names from the unit / pilot names. Is there a particular reason you used the same names for both? << maybe I'm missing something? Please understand this is just a suggestion from a guy who struggled with this stuff for a while. I just thought think it would make your example easier to understand. And by the way, I am EXTREMELY thankful to you @Speed for being such an active participant and helping the "rest of us" figure out our arses from a hole in the ground on this stuff. Thanks man! Kudos!

NOTE: unitName is the "PILOT" name when you click the AIRPLANE GROUP in the Mission Editor (ME). It is NOT the group NAME. See attached screenshot. BACKSTORY: Okay, so I loaded up your second example mission "expression example 2.miz" and it worked as described ( awesome! thank you! :thumbup: ). Then I tried to use it myself with something very very simple. My test case was to create a new airplane group and use the new EXPRESSION trigger condition to simply display a message to everyone if the new airplane unit was being used in the mission. In other words... does this new unit exist? true/false... if true, display a message. Here's my code: do local unitName = 'F15C' local unit = Unit.getByName(unitName) if unit then return true end end Didn't work! :doh: Why!?!?!? It is the name of the "PILOT" that is the unitName in this case. With ground vehicles there actually is a field called "UNIT NAME", which is a little more intuitive. This is pretty frustrating as a newb scripter, so I wanted to pass it along to everyone else. My Commentary FWIW: I also recommend to ED that they standardize their naming. I see no reason they couldn't put a little sub-text next to the "PILOT" field for aircraft groups that says "(scripting: "unit name"), or something to that effect. Lack of standardization / naming scheme makes lining up the scripting reference and what you see in the ME a very time consuming bit of trial and error. Now.. with that said... it is awesome that scripting is surfaced to us for missions and I applaud ED for it! Thank you! This is what will perpetuate this community and game. I just encourage you to really strive to clear up the ME / scripting references and make it more standardized and documented. Cheers gang! Happy flying!

That is what he said in the interview, yes. However, he proceeded directly into discussing 3rd party modules, so it was a little unclear where Eagle Dynamics was responsible and where 3rd party's were involved. Based upon what I've read in the forums and the most recent DCS World promo vid, it all seems to line up that those 3 aircraft and FW190 will all be Eagle Dynamics. First priority, get Combined Arms and Flaming Cliffs 3 released. Next step will probably be DCS Fighter... the F-15C in full DCS splendor with the new AFM. He did mention as well that they would continue to support the simplified Flaming Cliffs paradigm with its reduced learning curve, while continuing to develop A-10C, F-15C, etc... advanced modules for those of us who love that. I believe the intent is to cast a wider net, while keeping everyone flying together online via the DCS World platform. Awesome IMO. I would have liked to hear about 1.2.3, but... then again... we know it's imminent, weekend by weekend, depending upon the successful resolution of various MP issues primarily. It would be cool to have a regular ED podcast hosted by you @Wags. BTW, you did just fine in your interview and your speech had a good cadence, was easy to understand and you came across as positive and in-touch with your customers.

Sounds like excellent suggestions @Speed. I'd like to see them implemented soon as well. Also, when your aircraft is lost the system should tally that as a loss. The loss system appears to only be when the pilot dies, though I'm unsure about that TBH. Just seems way to difficult to get a "loss". Is that something being addressed too?

And for that matter... there should not be the limitation of max 4 aircraft in a group. These artificial limitations are confusing and frustrating. My wish for the future is a major overhaul of the ME and addressing some of these inane limitations to give more flexibility to mission designers and to make it easier. Wish they'd make a web-based ME. As it is, I do enjoy making missions in the ME, so kudos to the team for understanding that the key to a solid community is edit-ability and customization... missions, mods, skins.... that's where a game goes from one-off to legacy. Cheers!