WildFire

They stated that you would be able to fly A-10, P-51 or KA-50 in the game so I would assume the beta would have to be. As far as I know it was said somewhere that everything coming out from this point on would be a DCS:World module.

I just played this in the dcs world version. Had a lot of fun in A-10 playing it so I figured Id give it a shot. Late at night by myself. I was assigned the task to take out the SA-3 launchers and was given my tasking. As soon as the coordinates were given error message 1 popped up. About 5 mins or so after that the error 2 message came and then repeated for the entire mission. I killed everything at the site but there was nothing I could do to get any other messages to come up. Getupdate didnt work either. Oh doh, of course getupdate isnt going to work. Narf, Im retarded.

While I agree that ease of use is something to be hoped for, I also think about why they dont logically. Most people already use TS and therefore using TARS is your own option, as well as TS as a whole. Its everyone's choice. Another reason is TS has very little overhead when it comes to using cpu resources which makes it optimal. Related to this is the amount of data added when integrating the voice in-game. If it were not able to be created in a separate core then the cpu would have even more resources forced upon it. Needless to say since most of the game runs on a single core it is true that the cpu is always going to be the bottleneck for this particular game. Anything they can keep out of the engine to minimize cpu usage is ok in my book. So while it may be easier to have integrated comms it is most definitely not the best option, especially when you can run TS on any core using affinity. Perhaps when this game becomes multi-core fully capable it'll be the best option, but as of now I just cant see it being so.

I would kill to fly a hornet in this engine. Your pretty pictures make me sad I cant do so.

The moderators* are probably gonna come on and tell you two things: This question has been discussed and mostly answered, they dont like it when you start new threads about the same thing. Secondly use the search function. In the case your answer was on the first page of DCS:CA but if it werent there you could have searched and found it. The search function is on the top toolbar next to quick links.

I dont know the answer but I can guess... Maybe because in order to model the vehicles perhaps ED gave away some of the handling/speed/movement characteristics that the military wanted kept secret. A lot like the jamming systems on the EA-6B I worked on. Most of the radar system were not classified. However the one thing that was, which was funny to me is a very small part of it, I cant say of course.. It seems to me that the whole system would have been highly classified but it was not. Military's are funny about such things. But for good reason, if the enemy knew what I know about the radar system of the EA-6B they could easily render the entire platform useless, and that is one of the most important platforms the entire US navy has. Still at the fore front today. As for spawning, perhaps since it wasnt an intended feature to add it later would give the consumer market more capability than the military market and this was not allowed? Or perhaps there are some security issues with spawning vehicles concerning the code, like the possible intrusion they found with the print(?) function that put a halt on speed' work there for a minute? We've already seen people jump into server with a hack to add vehicles at will so perhaps just keeping this function completely out is safer? I dont know.

Yeah I think Eddie only said July's idea was not preferable only because of the idea, not the practice. In theory we dont want just a gigantic furball. Rather we would like squadrons with missions and frags and purpose/objectives. Anyone can furball in a pub, but were looking for so much more, in a world where we all have jobs to do. No disrespect inteneded. I am very happy to hear people in other squadrons interested in this. I dont care if the 476th is running the show or just along for the ride, but you can guarantee that like vHawgsmoke, if the 476th is planning it, than its going to be very heavy in the professional department. Keep in mind that doesnt make us any better or worse than anyone else, its not meant as some kind of token or trophy or bragging right, its simply how we enjoy flying.

Well then get TARS, cause its already here. The TARS folks are the Einsteins of TS radio. They went all manhattan project on us and well if your at least open to the idea then you should give it a shot or join a squadron that uses it. The added dynamic makes this game easily more captivating and far more realistic. Its not a dream its already here. Fly BVR and drop below some mountains and listen to the static. Go 60 miles out and listen while your wingmen just snap crackle and pop when they talk. Get a live AFAC with multiple tasking flights in the air and listen to the comms go nuts while talking to your wingman on another channel. Learn to listen to two voices at the same time, all while still using all the avionics available. On a related note though, yeah pbishop your right, all we need is a simple interface to change stations, something for the teamspeak plug-in to actually plug-into per se. Since wags already said what we have now we'll just have to hope or have some third party come along and get'r done.

Were not asking anyone to reinvent anything. ED already knows how to build a virtual radio. You know its in every platform so far for DCS.

Well you know Im already with you and Im sure the rest of the 476th is, I just want to see what the rest of the community feels. I know Hawgsmoke once it gets rolling will be a wonderful success and there is already a lot of community wide interest so perhaps this isnt as far away as were hoping.

Just kind of tossing an idea around in my head. Does anyone besides me think it would be cool if we could have multiple squadrons participating in a single server? Say three squads are invited to participate, then you could have operations within the scope of CA. Each squadron has their own strike package and callsigns and briefings. And anyone qualified within all three(or however many are participating) squads to be a JTAC could be. Tossing this around seems really exciting for a couple reasons: 1) adds a very real feel to the gameplay regarding working with NATO forces where a FAC might have to communicate with English, US, or any other country, say Egypt or French.. Squadrons involved could also be based around the world to reflect this mix of Nato forces. We'd have to work on the language barrier and such but to me this says "real world ops" considering a citizen never chooses who his allies are, regardless of race, nationality, or language he must work with them. 2) Another reason is the lack of communication. This sounds crazy right. But just stay with me. You get on a server to play with your buddies. 3 or 4 of you are ready to go up. Now it would seem to me to be really cool if you jump in the server and at the base your operating out of there is another squadron who you dont personally know that is also operating there. You dont really have to talk to them besides taxi, takeoff, landing movements and occasionally whenever your crossing flight paths, or entering the same range or AO. Otherwise they do their thing, you do yours. This also says "real world ops" to me. The problems I can foresee: 1)There are servers capable of having 16-20+ clients that I have seen. We may require something better though. 2) A common teamspeak, although this isnt really a problem. Were all pretty friendly around here and I wouldnt imagine anyone would have a problem with opening their ts to another squad or group. The only problem would be if this were a full time thing then both squads would have to come to some kind of agreement on splitting the pricing for a shared ts server. 3) Common language. Although another squadron could typically be from another country the squads involved would have to agree on a common language (sad to say but we already know which one that is) and a common use of brevity and communication guidelines for operations. Snoopy already has this kind of manual and its readily available on the forums I believe. (Give him rep he deserves it). 4) Common JTAC training for anyone wanting to play this position. It must be approved through all participating squads and administered by approved parties within those squads, with some kind of qualification. It must be seriously and formally administered since the operator will be required to communicate effectively and professionally with any flight that enters his airspace. So basically like Hawgsmoke but full time I guess. Any thoughts? Keep in mind when Hawgsmoke happens it will expect the pilots involved to be very professional and follow procedures. With that being said this is not the kind of thing where a couple pilots can show up drunk, fly around and cause trouble, shoot down tankers and friendlies and expect to be welcome. This idea is more of a highly realistic idea of real operations in a NATO environment where everyone is expected to be at their very best, basically like RL pilots, joint exercises, and RL operations. I think it would be pretty awesome.

Looking forward to checking this out. Thank you.

If the vehicles dont have a single radio of some type TARS wont have anything to plug into. Hopefully they have included something cause it seems like most of the serious players are using TARS, I know I love it. But if no radio of any kind is included then well just have to go back to using typical teamspeak. Im sure if this hasnt been taking into account that after the outpour of people wanting some kind of radio interface to use with TARS, ED will remedy the situation in some kind of fashion. They are pretty good at bug fixing and adding stuff we ask for that seems pretty relevant. And Im pretty sure a FAC needing a radio is relevant. They dont use sign language on the battlefield, after all. And if you check the TARS thread, headspace has said they have already begun development for a version of TARS to be used with DCS:CA.

lol. Good catch.

I've found a host of comms problems flying the A-10 in World too. Had one instance where the JTAC didnt give me an attack heading so when I read back the 9-line only two pieces of info were only read and I never recieved anything after that... Just yesterday I tried in a different location and the JTAC gave me an attack direction and when I read the 9-line I was happy to have the voice read back all three pieces, however JTAC still didnt respond. Getting the JTAC to mark targets is still a hassle in womans pants. Seriously you could have a unit on the side of the tallest mountain in the dcs world and he'll be unable to mark targets at the bottom of the mountain right below him. By the time you finally find the position where marking works you'll have moved the JTAC and enemies so many times you'll have the layout memorized and you'll never want to fly it.

Nope, we've been wanting this for a while. I worked on a semi-dynamic campaign for a while. I had 23 missions with multiple paths and outcomes and I planned about 20 more. It had a pretty good storyline and heavily depended on success or it got exponentially more difficult. Depending on what had been destroyed in the mission prior, the mission would auto-load the next mission, provided the host had the missions in the correct directory and the auto-load triggers pointed to that directory. It also had a brilliant trigger system to verify that all the planes were taking part in the mission and would not end the mission until all clients were back on the ground. This was very hard to do taking into account clients connecting and disconnecting; however it was possible and working. At the time I was testing 16 of the 23 missions with two separate servers typically with 8 clients connected. So you can be highly creative and make it. Its possible. However after 23 missions a huge patch came out and all of them were not able to be imported after the update. I was broken. I have since decided not to attempt a project of that scale without some kind of certainty.

BTW, Cato and Binary did an amazing job on this video. I think Hollywood would be a lot cooler if these guys were in the biz. This will help with recruiting, so I hope everyone with their own youtube channel is faving and promoting.

These are sick. I wish so much we could have some German adversaries to rake on.

Yeah it had to be forward. As of now I leave the stick in the neutral position all the way down the runway. I hold it back on initial start only to make sure the prop doesnt pull the nose down. Normally she lifts off quite fine without using the stick until the last moment, but you have got to get the feel of the rudder really well. Like I said initially once im rolling I let go of the stick, the tailwheel will stay locked in the neutral position, and its one less thing to worry about. But I'll give it a go. I am a bit hesitant using the stick at all cause I dont want to introduce any dynamics I'm not used to, but we'll see what happens. ** Oh and crosswind takeoffs suck. Beyond infinity. Im still learning.

I said I probably wouldnt buy P-51 cause I was broke. But this afternoon I flew my first mission from ramp to intercept with a four ship against a P-51 three ship and returned home with all wingmen and only a couple bullet holes. Made a picture perfect takeoff, transit, and landing. My objection to any aspect of the awesomeness of whatever product ED puts out has been thoroughly extinguished.

I'll have to check that out. I've never used the stick to bring the tail up, always let her come up on her own. I'll try it out. And good page Joe-

I am pretty stoked also but I have one concern. Are we yet using multiple threads for AI? AFAIK multiplayer gaming is limited by the amount of processing the host computer can do. As far as AI goes its extremely limited. Since the host must control all the AI plus the information to/from each client on a single core. For instance our squad missions consist of 600-1000 stationary units before we start seeing loss of data and fps spikes. I can imagine if we had 1-2 hundred units all moving and engaging plus clients connected server capability would come to a crashing halt. Not to mention adding AI aircraft (even if sitting on the tarmac uncontrolled) is the equivalent of throwing a wrench into a lawnmower. For comparison an airbase with 30 AI aircraft uncontrolled was traded for 200 stationary units, heavily tested in multiplayer with at least 8 clients connected. Im praying to god that we are plowing away at cpu/code optimization. Or maybe dcs world uses it and I just havent looked?? If we have multiple cores running AI and such the possibilities will become exponential. Im very excited. With that being said regardless my money is already spent, keep it coming ED.

Yeah, once you get a feel for how it moves on takeoff and get the whole sway motion down using the BAI, transferring to heads up will be a lot easier. Its all about getting used to how she moves.

I was looking at CH again a couple weeks ago. Been watching the development on that for years. I've been praying like hell that ED would approach him and create some kind of deal to finish it off. That guy has done so much and its so far along it would be a shame for him to quit now. But money runs the world and sadly I'm sure this is how it will end.

-1