Weta43

Add a % of time engaging (& evaluation period) option in the waypoint advanced options dialogue of the ME. Ground forces in DCS always engage as if they're kamikaze forces - they charge to the next waypoint at 100 % of their intensity & advance for 100% of the time they have a waypoint to reach unless actively aiming their weapons. it's both unrealistic, and means ground forces suffer very high attrition rates on contact with the enemy, making it difficult to set up ongoing ground engagements in the ME. I've resorted to setting switched condition triggers against ground groups to turn them on and off randomly ( like every 'n' seconds reset a trigger value for each group between 1 & 100, and if it's less than some number (eg 25) turn the group on, if it's more turn it off. A 15 second evaluation (n) gets a slower rate of change, 3 seconds something a bit more frantic), while it gives a slower, more staccato pace to the ground combat, setting that up with a set of triggers for each group is time consuming. Being able to set a % time active & an evaluation rate in the advanced waypoint properties for each group would make the whole process simple and make the ground combat more customisable & realistic - and all the building blocks are already in the ME.

I think conceptually it's a good idea - & perhaps a good start at that idea (is it easing in tech developed for the campaign mode?). At the moment it's a 'simple mission generator' rather than a 'quick mission generator' as (I timed it) it took me 6:28 to make a mission with a couple of targets, some AAA & some ground troops & set a loadout, and 11:05 to replicate that in the QMG (probably 2/3 of that waiting for the mission to generate) As the OP said, one thing that seems to be missing is the ability to add 'structures' from the static objects list That said, I do like how it always throws in a large building for A2G missions so you can find the targets without a full briefing

Came to post the same suggestion - rather than 'random', randbetween(start, end) - then you don't need a time specifier, you just make the start & end the same.

Or 2160 x 3840

LOL … say only the very small percentage of DCS player who can regularly carve > 4 or 5 hours out of their lives to fly a single mission without precipitating an end to their relationship & a custody battle.

Interesting - that would explain why it's not well described in the literature. Loved or not, it's still something that was available on the 9.12 but not on the 9.12A, which makes the 9.12A 'functionally downgraded'. Seems obvious at some level - if there were no functional difference there wouldn't be any point in creating an export version and installing that to Warsaw pact aircraft rather than keeping life simple & just exporting the original radar (/IRST/IFF) Unless 'EA' is the Russian acronym for "With Soviet Version of Tesla Kill Switch"

It says in the quote I posted at least 1 way it was downgraded; it's missing a search mode that the Soviet radar had : "N-019EA is the version supplied to Warsaw Pact countries. Lacks “SP” mode."

So you're sure Wikipedia*'s wrong when it says that : "MiG-29 (Product 9.12A) 'Fulcrum-A' Export variant of the 9.12 for Warsaw Pact countries which included a downgraded RPLK-29E radar, downgraded OEPrNK-29E optoelectronic and navigation systems and older IFF transponders." That's good news *& from elsewhere: "N-019EA is the version supplied to Warsaw Pact countries. Lacks “SP” mode." ("Mode “SP” (???): Free Search Information on this mode is not available. It is believed to be a high PRF mode similar to Encounter mode, only available on Soviet standard machines, with better ECCM capabilities.")

Looks amazing - I really don't fly A2A very much anymore, but I might make an exception for this. The little "No planes were harmed in the filming of this video" disclaimer at the end of the trailer cracked me up.

@BIGNEWYCould ED put them in (their own section of) the user missions section so people can grab them if they want them?

That "Clear Tkvarcheli" mission - seems the war and "economic efficiency" have done the job for us - just looked on Wikipedia & apparently it's now a ghost town with only 35 residents...

More would be better. Goats & chickens + 1 various civilian everythings - desperately needed. As has been said - currently everything on legs that moves is military. You can set objects to be from the neutral side, but from a pod or weapons' sight they'll still look like soldiers. Motorbikes are probably tricky - cars, trucks etc don't have to lean in the corners. I guess they'd need a whole new physics model. Cave / tunnel entrances is a good idea, as is a bit of disturbed earth to drop by a road to indicate that someone's been digging there. The explosives can be just triggered, but you need something to find them by. (I thought I remembered there being mines you could place already in the game?) For the others, an explosion on unit for any of the existing vehicles gets you fertiliser bombs etc...

It was a (dead pan) joke. DCS is slowly becoming DCSUST. Aghanistan was supposed to be a map suitable for both the Soviet conflict and the US led one, but landed fleshed out with exclusively US/NATO airbases and equipment. The Iraq map could have been set up to allow both the Iran - Iraq war and the Western coalition’s campaign/occupation, but there were no F-18 or F-16 in the Iran-Iraq war, so there’s no point in facilitating that conflict.

Perhaps (I was trying to place Soviet troops when I wrote this), but: You can’t place it as a prone figure in the green state (you can’t make a ‘nest’) It’s got the most eye-wateringly ugly Lock-On era model and texture. There’s no Red-For equivalent. FATI… The “dispersal off” switch isn’t working, but it is possible to set the dispersal time to zero, which has the same effect.

I don't understand your question - There were no Americans fighting in the Iran-Iraq war

Side-note.. It's an interesting question - who gets to decide what the English version of a non-English place name is. Here in NZ we're dealing with it as a question quite a lot at the moment as more people learn Māori - as an example close to me there's a suburb (where my grandmother lived) and (just around the corner) a street that have always been written as "Epuni" in English, which was a transliteration of the Māori name. But the actual Maori name was Te Puni, which means "the camping place in Māori, while Epuni doesn't mean anything in English or Māori. Do you leave the street signs as "Epuni" because a generation of English speakers wrote it down wrong, or do you change it to "Te Puni" because the 15% of the population that can speak some Māori (& the descendants of the original inhabitants) know the transliteration is wrong? At the moment the suburb remains "Epuni", while the street name (as of about 6 months ago) is "Te Puni" Same with the word Maori (how I spelt it growing up) or Māori (how it's actually spelt in Māori) ? Same as Calcutta (how I spelt it growing up) or Kolkata (how it's actually said there)? Peking (how I spelt it growing up) or Beijing (closer to how it's actually said there)? Canton (how I spelt it growing up) or Guangzhou (closer to how it's actually said there)? Maybe a local would tell us how ګرِشک looks in English For Anyone That's Interested... Weta Studios - Lord of the Rings etc, is named for the Māori name for a ground cricket that's always been called 'Weta' in English (I think I took that name for the forum because I'd just been an extra in the first film.). Except the actual name of the creature is Wētā - Weta means filth or muck , The studio got to re-brand, but I'm stuck with the old spelling Me in the back with long hair in LOTR

Interesting they don't match, but it probably shouldn't be written as either... The population of Grishk is primarily made up of Pashtuns, so according to Wiki it probably should be "Grishk" Grishk (Pashto: ګرِشک, romanized: Grishk; Persian: گِرِشک, romanized: Gereshk), also spelled Gereshk (...) There's a few places with interesting spellings on the map. Girishk is probably the Russian phonetic of the Pashto turned into the English alphabet

An immobile (but animated :-) prone Red-For & Blue-For medium machine gun/gunner behind a sandbag to provide cover / defend an area. Something that can just be dropped somewhere - by a tree or maybe on a rooftop - has a small hitbox, doesn't get up and wander off under fire, and doesn't stick out like dogs' blocks. Currently the nearest things are the bunkers and armed buildings, but none of them are subtle and they're also old & ugly Lockon level models. Even if the 'no dispersal' switch worked, the infantry if set to stay & defend somewhere will still stand up & wait to be shot...

Neither side has a prone 'static' medium machine gunner to place for covering / defensive fire. At the moment you have to place something like an APC or a technical, but they're 2m tall and easy to find/have a big hit-box. Something small and close to the ground with a small hitbox - & maybe a sandbag for protection - would be very useful Like:

First thing I looked for on the map...

Strange combination: so careful about critiquing others work, so careless about formatting the post's text... You know you can hit 'edit' and remove the unwanted 'null' entries, don't you? You are of course right. The rims of the road wheels on the model (a part of the real tank that can only be seen by crouching down close to the ground just in front of and beside it) are slightly narrower relative to the total width of the wheels than the rims of the actual tank. Obviously the fact that if you position the camera in game in such a position (on the ground very close to and at 45 degrees to the tank ) & you pause the game and happen to have a drawing of the actual tank handy to compare to - you might notice this - renders the model completely unsuitable for use in a combat sim where that you normally only get to see LOD2 of the tank model anyway. You've inspired me - I'm off to check the width of the flanges on the wheels of the steam trains in the WWII maps.

Oops https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/29/fighter-jet-falls-off-aircraft-carrier

It looks like it would start like this: I quite liked this scheme when I drove past it Monday

FF Su-25A surely needed for CW Germany map...timewise,

Use the empty revetments for AAA ?