MadDog-IC

I have some updated missions from the default game, at the address below, campaigns and single missions all have voice overs and mission complete reported when you complete the objectives. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?arrFilter_pf%5Bfiletype%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Bgameversion%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Bfilelang%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Baircraft%5D=&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&CREATED_BY=MadDog-IC&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC&set_filter=Filter Regards, Ian.

When this happens it is usually related to the detection capability of the fighters, they just aren't able to see their targets for numerous reasons. The lower the skill level set for an aircraft affects their ability to detect enemy at range, so I always use "Excellent" other wise the are dumb as a brick and may not detect the presence of the bombers. Find attach an example someone setup, set for AI fighters to engage bomber groups. Learn by example is the best way. Regards, Ian. Bomberformation and attack.miz

Good effort, I couldn't see that becoming best practice for takeoffs though.:megalol: This is the only reference to real life limitations I found online, not exactly definitive (Doesn't give enough details on amount of fuel or weapons and contradicts itself, by saying Max carrier T-O weight is 30,000kg, but is mentioned that is somewhere below that of a clean plane with full internal fuel at 100%). Weights and Loadings: --------------------------- Max military load 7,045 kg (15,532 lb) Normal T-O weight 25,000 kg (55,115 lb) Max carrier T-O weight 30,000 kg (66,135 lb) Max T-O weight 33,000 kg (72,752 lb) Max landing weight 24,500 kg (54,013 lb) Max wing loading 486.4 kg/m2 (99.63 lb/sq ft) Max power loading 131 kg/kN (1.29 lb/lb st) (source: Jane's All the World's Aircraft 2001-2002) In real terms, the SU-33 cannot take off from the Kuznetsov with a full load of fuel. So its maximum takeoff weight is somewhere below its "weight empty with full internal fuel" when operating from a ski jump. Either way, thanks for your testing, a bit further ahead of me and very useful. I have passed my concerns onto WAG's, stating I wouldn't be willing to modify the missions Su-33 fuel levels as I believed it to be more of a physics / AI problem. He has passed it on to the appropriate coders/testers to investigate our claims further. Regards, Ian.

Haven't come across anything of that nature.

Thanks for the good info, but on reading other material I would expect that any Su-33 should be able to carrier take off with a max load of 30,000kg (About 72% fuel and full complement of missiles)or (100% fuel and no missiles). Player driven Su-33 PFM with realistic physics, Blast flap, chocks and braking until engine to max thrust, emergency special extra thrust enhancement, Head wind assist and carrier full speed should allow a short take off with ease. AI driven Su-33 SFM with unrealistic physics, no braking until engine to max thrust, no emergency special extra thrust enhancement, no head wind assist and no carrier full speed would disallow a short take off. I would respectfully suggest that something is amiss or needs to be added to address the discrepency in the Max take off weights. The AI should simulate the emergency extra engine thrust for take off at the least. Kind Regards, Ian.

This is why I want to be sure that other issues aren't at play before I go and change 40+ missions. Seems to me that any AI aircraft taking off from pos 1 and 2 don't seem to leave the ramp at any different speed other than approx (132kph) whether the carrier speed is at 0km or 59kph, so that doesn't make sense to me, not changing plane thrust and wind settings and carrier stationary, then 132kph is generated by plane alone, if you you change the speed of carrier to 59kph, then plane will be traveling at same 59kph just sitting on the deck, when it rolls it should be able to generate an extra 132kph, giving at total of 191kph, or does the virtual wind created negate the 59kph of carrier ?? If you set the head wind speed to 50m/s (insane I know), but AI plane stays stuck to the carrier's sky ramp forward edge, shouldn't it at least be blown backwards or flip the plane. I did find a real life reference that indeed the Su-33 couldn't take off from the Kuznetsov carrier with a full fuel load and / or weapons payloads, findings below. Just trying to get the facts and figures to justify a change. Regards, Ian.

Yes this is most likely the case in the Sea Dragon campaign mission design. Not so much with the way Su-33 Heavy Sky campaign missions are designed: A lot of sorties are quite away from the carrier. You are frequently ambushed coming home to the carrier after an engagement. Sometime you have to attack enemy aircraft the moment you take off from the carrier. All of the above don't lend themselves well to putting in a refuel stop at the beginning or end of a mission, even though I did put a tanker into some of the longer sorties. I did a quick test with mission 10 of the Heavy sky campaign, and all AI in forward 2 positions crashed on take off with only 20-25% fuel load and existing weapons load, so not looking to good. Regards, Ian.

Taking notice of recent developments and solutions, will be correcting Su-33 Campaigns when I formulate a plan. In the Su-33 Heavy sky campaign I updated recently (Was to co-inside with new Su-33 PFM) how ever I had no way of testing it until now, nearly all carriers where set into the wind and to cruise at max speed, but the speed of the wind was not altered and may need increasing and also the distance that the carrier travels, to make sure it is at top speed on launch of aircraft. The Su-33 Sea Dragon campaign is another kettle of fish, it is an unknown when it comes to what the carrier speeds were set to and was it into the wind, what strength the wind was set at. I really don't want to drop the fuel or weapons load if I can fix it other ways. I don't know real world stats for the carrier take offs and such, but I have to agree that the AI driven su-33 aircraft just doesn't seem right on how to take-off from the carrier. I know that counts for nort, but as WAG's dropped me a line tonight about all this, he must be confident that the physics are correct and asked for fuel load change in the aircraft. Thank you for your reports. Regards, Ian.

Most likely this will be done, but hard to have a tanker running around in battle zone without it getting shot down (don't like immortal either) and even harder to refuel whilst in a sortie with the enemy. Solutions are being looked into. Regards, Ian.

Will be getting looked at ASAP to see if a simple solution can be implemented, it might be a little more complicated than it appears on the surface. I know I want to retain as much ordinance and fuel as I can get away with and still take-off. I am not fully aware of true stats for carrier takeoffs as yet, I have seen 27000kg (Forward Take-off position) and 33000kg (Rear Take-off position) talked about in the forums. Regards, Ian.

Had a quick look at this issue last night to see what it was all about, as it has just broken all FC3 Su-33 campaigns (Back to the drawing board), I quickly let the AI fly off the carrier with different fuel loads with their current weapons payloads and they could only just get airborne from the front take off positions with a 20-25% fuel load (carrier and wind conditions not taken into account). This seems on the face of it, to cause of a lot of headaches, because in some of the missions, the planes were already crashing (due to lack of fuel) before getting back to the carrier or even the refueling tanker after the sortie. Your idea seems to the most logical, make sure the carrier is driving into the wind at max speed and have one hell of a head wind also. I will have a more thorough test for the best solution when time permits. Regards, Ian.

Far for an ugly duck, whilst I hardly fly any DCS these days, I still have a great interest of all the russian aircraft, and hope in the future the game engine returns to its former glory of fault free and a be a sight to behold. I wouldn't take silence as an indicator of interest, as I hardly ever comment on aircraft or good missions, but I certainly do stockpile them for playing later on. To me common sense would dictate, why even put an indicator light on the dash for the speed brake, if you weren't going to implement it to show its state. So I am all for it lighting when the speed brake is extended. Regards, Ian.

Yes I see this all the time with most AAR refuelable aircraft, just done testing the Su33 Heavy sky campaign, if more that 2 planes in flight, most will crash and burn before they get there turn to take on fuel. I checked the real flight range of an Su-33 which was 3000km, but in game they are lucky if they can have a sortie of 200-300km each way and a little loiter time in an extended encounter with enemy flights, before they are running empty and disengage to go back to carrier or the AAR refueling plane and die before either landing or refueling. It would be even better, to be able to specify how much fuel should be allowed or how much time they can stay connected, in the advanced refuel command itself. Either way it needs a serious fix. Regards, Ian.

No problems, enjoy. Look forward to hearing your thoughts, as you have played it before. Is the game play harder, the same or easier than you remember ?? PS: Recent news is that this campaign will only be considered for restoration by ED once DCS v2.5 is out with the new Caucusas map. Regards, Ian.

Roger that, just tested myself, comms is broken as you said.

Game isn't respecting the Invisible option by the looks of it, JTAC is suppose to be invisible to everyone, but obviously the enemy tanks can see it and kill it.

Within a few hours usually, some times a day. Would depend on their office hours and when you post it, I suppose.

Please re-download the newer version available now and retry. ED fellows want some reviews from the common foke:music_whistling:on how they are working, I need to know about any issues, so would appreciate any constructive feedback from as many players as possible. Known stuff: Cheers, Ian.

Haven't checked if that is a current bug with the radio system, but that campaign you mention definitely has missions where the radio frequencies and or names are missing from the FARPS so would cause issues, and may not even have a command vehicle / building near the FARP to provide radio comms. I have a fixed version of it up on the ED user files section if you wanted to give that a try. (Fixed version has english voice overs instead of russian accent). https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1744245/ Except from changelog: --------------------------- Mission - DEPLOYMENT 01 (Fam Flight).miz --------------------------- - Triggers - Added Win and Loss messages. - Added English Voice Overs. - - Waypoints - Aligned - All (on road waypoints) for vehicles to actual road - - Fixed Airport Coalitions - Units - Moved - FARP-VETKA to align to support structures and added a SKP for ATC - Fixed - All FARP's radio frequencies to 127.5mhz as some were missing - HAD TO RELOAD FARP'S - Fixed - (Ka-50 Player) missing textures by reselecting skin - Fixed - All vehicles and aircraft Missing Skill levels - DCSW v1.5x compatibility - Works Fine ------------------------ DONE --------------------------- Mission - DEPLOYMENT 02 (Escort).miz --------------------------- - Triggers - Added Win and Loss messages. - Added English Voice Overs. - - Waypoints - Aligned - All (on road waypoints) for vehicles to actual road - All CAS aircrafts set to cas -a -x and Engage in zones set. - Added "Switch waypoint" commands to make all attack aircraft loiter around Battle area - - Fixed Airport Coalitions - Units - Moved - FARP-VETKA to align to support structures and added a SKP for ATC - Fixed - All FARP's radio frequencies to 127.5mhz as some were missing - HAD TO RELOAD FARP'S - Fixed - (Ka-50 Player) missing textures by reselecting skin - Fixed - All vehicles and aircraft Missing Skill levels - DCSW v1.5x compatibility - Works Fine ------------------------ DONE (Lot of working on message timing and ambush stuff) Regards, Ian.

Some campaigns are quality over quantity, some are simpler and numerous, this one falls into the later. With all respect to the the original author, this one was a real chore to fix, due to its repeative nature (in my humble opinion). Current progress: (SU-33 Heavy Sky Campaign) at 01-09-2017 Missions 1 - 25 are all working well in the old DCS v1.216 with AI logic for aircraft and vehicles, voice overs, balancing and briefing changes to make missions doable. Converted whole campaign missions to DCS 1.57x format. Corrected the F-15c pylon / Aim-120C missiles issue in all missions. Added extra advanced waypoint options to CAS, SEAD and BOMBER aircraft so they don't dump their ordinance when attacked, etc. Time Frame to finish (DONE): Checked each mission now to see if they still play the same and have the same "Time of Day lighting". All missions are finished and will be available initially on the Eagle Dynamics Web sites under the User files section within the next couple of days. Passing on to WAG or CHIZH to try and get it re-instated into the FC3 package again before the end of next month (September) to coincide with the release of the Flaming Cliffs SU-33 new flight model. Early released versions for anyone that wants to give them a go, If you have already downloaded previously, I would re-download them as I have now tested them in DCS v1.57x and made some very minor corrections for some issues. https://www.dropbox.com/s/gwhdrystpinsm6u/DCSW%20-%20SU-33%20Campaign%20-%20Heavy%20Sky%20%28Patch%20to%20Game%29%20%28v1.57x%29.zip?dl=0 or https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2873763/ 19-11-2017 Update: Finalized versions have been re-uploaded to both sights above, recommend you re-download if you have previous versions as Mission 25 works much better now, and there are some IL-78 tankers in other missions now. Regards, Ian.

FARPS in mission don't have any name or frequency allocated to them, that is why the error: Addressed with edited missions here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3213048&postcount=8

Definitely works, as I edited the mission and put it an actual landing sequence and also tested that it worked before posting, he now lands in the middle of the stadium. Moved the other trigger zone for "we have got him" a little more away from the stadium, because he tends to overfly the stadium before he lands. Cheers.

Problem is the two way points for the Mi-8 have it hovering at 9km hour when it gets to the stadium, and either the chopper is to close to the wall of the stadium and or the wind is so strong, that it can not move around properly, so when it is meant to fly on , it can't because the strong wind is blowing it around to face the wrong way all the time. Quick fix would be to edit the mission file for the waypoints 18 and 19 for the MI-8 and set to 30 kmh so that it has enough forward speed to counter the wind speed, it should just then slow down over the stadium, repel the make believe squad with out landing, and then fly on, and within a second or so you will get a message that you have the man you were after, fly home and your done. Cheers, Ian.

Enjoyed that little tale, thanks for posting, the classic DOH moment ;-)