WirtsLegs

Currently when you give a unit a target there will be a delay before they fire, basic example go try fire at point with any artillery or MLRS unit, it will take about 3 min before the first round is fired. Having a delay by default makes sense, but having an option to shortcut that (like a checkbox in fire at point and attack unit/group tasks) would allow us to simulate presighted/planned engagement. Further in the event that a unit is attacking a point already and you give it a new point VERY close to the first it will still take them 3 minutes to adjust and start firing again, this option would allow us to simulate shifting in fire, creeping barrages and any number of other things

Sorry are you saying it disappears when too far or too close? Nevermind just fired it back up and yup, draw distance is it, thanks Flappie! Just seems when i first did it i managed to pause in a spot where my cockpit FOV made it not render but external it did

SO I remember hearing about an issue where spotlights pointed directly at you the beam would disappear sometimes, this is a bit different It seems the spotlight beams are not rendering at all when in F1 view, here a few pics to demonstrate what I mean with labels on and gamma cranked up to help show the situation First from in the cockpit: Ok now from external: Simple miz i used to get these images is here: SpotlightsBugged.miz its basically just a player mossie and a AI mossie ahead and above the player to draw the light's attention

Would be nice as well if all the of weapon in zone triggers would get options to only trigger on impact in zone, as the current ones are useless for detecting say bombs hitting a given area

The first noted issue is that the tanks are engaging targets that are beyond their denoted maximum range (red circle on map in editor and f10), so a small issue but can be frustrating, either the circle is not being drawn large enough or the tanks range is longer than intended not sure As for interception range, yes I've used it for SAM sites but given that it is available for groups with no AD units I figured the intent was to make that apply to all engagements by the group in question, if this is not the intent then that should be indicated somewhere, or ideally if that could be expanded as it would only give mission makers more control

Some ground units (specifically tested some of the WW2 tanks seem to be able to engage beyond their noted max range in the editor, further they seem to ignore the 'interception range' option. here is the test setup: Note that all the red tanks are set to interception range 15%, the blue tank is immortal and weapons hold and spawns 1 second after start to prevent potential issues with everything being there at start. All of the red tanks engage the blue tank despite being set to 15% range and despite the blue tank being outside the red tank's denoted maximum range I have attached the miz file to demonstrate this: engagementRangeBug.miz, just run it and watch So i guess 2 issues here: 1) Either the units ranges are longer than they should be or the value assigned to generate the circles is too small so they don't match and 2) Ground units don't seem to be respecting the interception range option

so currently through the scripting engine we can use: trigger.action.explosion(table vec3 , number power ) To create an explosion of some magnitude at a point, it works well for that. I would like to propose an extension of this function or perhaps a new function that allows the selection of explosion type such that we can trigger FLAK explosions at a chosen point and get the flak visuals. For context the specific use case I have in mind... For DCS WW2 or Korea era when bombers will be flying in large formations and FLAK will be a large threat currently it is quite taxing on the clients/servers to deploy a realistic amount of guns to create a realistic density flak screen (especially for WW2), this would allow some basic scripting to be a force multiplier for any flak guns on the ground, adding to the effect and giving mission makers more control over the effect in their missions as we could easily script flak screens that are guaranteed not to hit any bombers until a specific distance is travelled or script in some very close-calls for the players etc.

So bit of an edge-case but super frustrating one at times, Seems that with the right elevation difference or slope infantry units will decide to go alert state red, taking a knee to shoot...but then will never shoot getting stuck indefinitely or until something unsticks them. image here shows what it looks like i could set time compression on 50x and nothing will ever change I've also attached a track infantryLOS.trk and the miz file visibility.miz for your review

Currently objects in the LUA scripting environment have a getDesc() method that returns various information about the object in question. In the case of Units I would like to propose an additional attributes, specifically the units maximum engagement and sensor ranges (the numbers that inform the red/yellow circles on the F10 map/in the editor basically), enagement range information is somewhat available for missiles through getAmmo() but the same info is not present for ballistic weapons, and in the case of detection range getSensors() works for specific sensors but returns nil for any units that dont have any sensors beyond the mk1 eyeball. This would allow much more dynamic and interesting behaviour from scripts without having to independently maintain this information or load it as part of the scripts in question

I would agree in general, I figured reach for what felt like more low hanging fruit at first, as a bit of a catch when going to specific ammo/weapon types it would need a fair amount of work around the Lua API to be able to use properly as now the options are different for each unit(I think would still need to retain good generalized options), and the list could get very long when you factor in groups with multiple different unit types each with different weapons.

Currently with the fire at point task you can select from a few options for which weapon to fire, these are: Auto Unguided Shells Conventional Marker Smoke Illumination Rockets Guided Missiles ASM ATGM Cruise Missiles I would like to propose one (or possibly more additions), I would like to see the shell sub types split into the various weapon types, perhaps aligned with how they are defined in unit definitions, so that we can task cannons and machine guns and other distinct weapon-types explicitly. Specific use-case I have in mind is being able to give a tank a fire at point specific to its machine gun(s) and not its main gun, or vice-versa. This could be useful for naval units and in other situations as well.

nope (helis are set takeoff from ground and uncontrolled, so engine not running and not in the process of starting)

Basically the title, seems the 18's radar can see and lock parked helicopters from 80nm+, see mizF18Radar.miz Just slot in, throw the burner on maybe climb a bit and you'll start seeing the parked hueys on radar around the 80nm mark

sorta? I would like the option to have them not react on their own (not disperse). So right now infantry in a firing position, not moving will just disperse and run in circles w/e when fired at regardless of if they have disperse under fire toggled off (they ignore the setting) Example usecase would be placing infantry in the trenches in Normandy map, soon as they are fired at they run out of the trench like a headless chicken, other examples would be I have some missions using fire and movement I control and I want them to do what i tell them (not auto-disperse). Anyway point of the bug report is the infantry currently completely ignore whatever settings you have for disperse under fire which I figured was a bug?, and since they don't really understand cover (I don't really expect them to) they will bolt from a perfectly good firing position into the open when fired at, or abandon orders that would move them to safety to instead run in circles and die

So partially right, I noticed the dive into the ground behaviour in a mission setup, then went and fiddled to try and recreate it and sus out the cause, I found that the location of the waypoint where they get the task produces very different results even when they still have say a mountain between them and the target in all instances. I have since re-arranged things in the actual mission I am working on to make them behave (there is a specific reason for them coming from the angle they do in the real mission), but thank you for spending the time on it you did to offer alternatives, it is very much appreciated! Anyway in this particular case I would expect them to go over the hills but not continue to climb afterwards (behaviour that occurred did so despite an alt set in the attack task, and despite reaction to threat set to none), so I am not sure what is causing them to freak out and do things like lob rockets from behind the hill with no hope of hitting, or climb as high as they do to then either orbit around or dive to their deaths. As I said the behaviour didn't change regardless of reaction to threat setting so its not a case of a threat causing it (unless the issue is in reaction to threat?). So I do feel like there is a bug here though I really am not sure if it would be in the logic for how the helis run their attacks, or maybe the reaction to threat settings have issues, hard to say, but any situation where they will commit to a unrecoverable dive as part of their attack clearly has something going weird. at least they can be convinced to behave with some fiddling

So Helicopters (or atleast the Huey AI) seem to sometimes break pretty badly depending on the exact location of the waypoint where they are told to attack a group/unit, seems elevation differences maybe a factor I'm attaching a few samples, just open them up and watch the hueys do their thing. 1)HeliAttack_earlyShot.mizThis one they just toss rockets over the mountain which seems unreasonable 2) HeliAttack_flyHigh.miz In this one they seem to want to go to space then eventually orbit back down to attack 3) HeliAttack_crater.miz Here is the most amusing one, they go for a pop-to-dive I guess? anyway they dive way too steeply, smashing into the ground without ever firing any weapons. See below for gif of this behaviour

The WW2 spotlights look great at night, but they are currently somewhat frustrating to include in missions as they will laser across the treetops to illuminate a small fighter at low level and max "range" for the spotlight. This really isn't all that realistic or representative of how they were used in real life. Ideally they would eventually be given a sort of funnel engagement zone only able to attempt to illuminate low targets that are very close but retaining long range on higher targets, however I would propose a much simpler solution for now... Give spotlights the AA min/max altitude functions so mission makers can adjust their engagement altitude. Give them a fire at point function, allow us to trigger essentially a search in an area without having a target there. Make the light stay on when their current target is lost or destroyed but there is another target to illuminate already present, have it sweep to that target instead of light off then on again as if it fully shut down (looks a little weird). 1 and 2 feel like relatively simple compared to other potential solutions, with 3 being a bit of a larger ask i expect. Finally as an aside the spotlights are great at night but in dusk/dawn while its still dark enough for them to engage they look a bit weird (overly bright?) be nice to adjust as well but less of an issue.

Currently the fire effect on a destroyed vehicle (not the damage smoke) looks decent enough in isolation but it looks kinda weird when a lot of vehicles are destroyed in the same area, most with the same height flame and smoke, see pic for what I mean(destroyed vehicles here are Shermans and Panzer 4s): Some more randomness to this (smoke density etc) would really add to things

This is a general AI issue on the map, some of the trees don't seem to stop munitions (a good thing until we get tree destruction), but they also dont stop AI vision This means AI units will spot and engage each-other despite significant amounts of foliage between them, kinda renders the map useless for Combined Arms play as well as any vehicle you control will get picked off long before you could have possibly seen the threat.

F10 map when set to "Map Only" still shows neutral units and target points assigned to both red and blue AI units (such as for carpet bombing). I have attached some images showing the issue (one showing the mission editor setup, another showing what appears on F10 despite f10 map set to map only). Mission editor view: Visible in F10 during mission: have also attached the mission used to generate these images for reproduction, just hop in the F-18 slot and watch the map. to add, you can get around the neutral unit issue by marking them all as "hidden on map" (though should not be needed), have not found a workaround for the target point issue. map_visibility.miz

I've attached a mission in progress that tends to result in it, give it a try (just run, take spectator and watch it happen, maybe speed up time if you want, wont take long). If it doesn't work for you I'll try and generate a track first chance i get. pointduhoc.miz

Possibly limited just to WW2 infantry but issue noted as fixed is still definitely present with the WW2 infantry Example:

I saw some people mention elsewhere that there is a workaround using the hold action, but that does not work either. turning AI off seems to be the only way to stop them from scattering, which ofcourse stops them from shooting as well. This has become especially apparent when trying to place infantry in the beautiful trenches etc on Normandy, as the moment they are fired at they will scatter out of the trench instead of staying in place.

Basically the title, when given a fire at point task naval units seem to ignore the altitude and target the assigned point but alt of 0. attached is a quick demo miz with a few of the WW2 ships to show the issue given slightly different versions of the task (AGL and MSL alt values, auto and specific weapons to use) fireAtPoint.miz

The new incremental smoke on units frankly feels like a feature from ace combat the way it's implemented, having incremental smoke tied directly to unit health makes it a glorified health bar. Real life identifying the state of a vehicle (baring total destruction) is not easy, having the smoke being tied to health % and always the same (1) completely undermines what should be some ambiguity and (2) looks ridiculous when you attack a group of vehicles and they all start smoking identically. Ideally I would love to see it just removed, but I would propose a toggle for this feature in the same place as the current BDA settings, and or a change to make the smoke only have a small percent chance of triggering at different health values (so that it occurs only sometimes and when it does it is not a clear indication of the state of the vehicle).