MadDog-IC
-
Posts
1192 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by MadDog-IC
-
-
Haven't got around to flying the new Su-33 as yet (I will soon), but I would like to say a big thank you also to the ED team for the update to the flight dynamics and for the extremely quick fix to the AI's carrier take-off issues, that really did make my face light up this morning.
Well done all concerned !!!!
Kind regards, Ian.
-
Thanks for taking the trouble to explain that. I've been doing the training for some time, so I guess I figured it would say "you can end the mission now" if I'd completed everything, and the absence of that would indicate I'd missed a step at some point. Now I know to expect differing structures, much appreciated.
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.
Regards, Ian.
-
Hi guys. This is driving me nuts. I've spent hours and hours trying to get a couple of German fighter units to attack a US bomber group on the Normandy map for a mission I'm making. The trigger spawn in zone is working great, but they just won't attack. Any help please?
Here are my settings - they seem logical to me but just don't work:
TASK - fighter sweep
WP ADVANCED
1. Fighter sweep - a
2. Formation - finger four
3. ROE - weapons free
4. Search then engage - bombers
(see image)
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.
- 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.
-
I haven't attempted it with a 30,000 kg gross weight but this is one from yesterday using 29,500:
And something is definitely amiss. I attached the track used to make the video. The 2nd identical track has the AI in control (opened the track in the ME and changed my aircraft to AI). We leave the ramp with two very different airspeeds. And, yes, it's not a walk in the park but the AI doesn't stand a chance.
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.
-
Btw, is this because in real life Kuznetsov could not gain its maximum speed due to some troubles with engines (as i've heard, it was the case in the beginning of 2017)?
Haven't come across anything of that nature.
-
You can get the AI to takeoff successfully with a total weight of 25000 kg. So 35% fuel, sorbtsiya, R-73*2, R-27ER*2 and R-27ET*2. But the carrier needs to be steaming at full speed. A human can make it off the deck from the forward position with a total weight of 27000 kg without a problem. But, again, the carrier needs to be steaming at full speed.
And it helps if there's also a headwind (for human pilots-the AI seems not to care). This morning, when I tested, I used the real time wind in the area at both sea level and 500 meters. Takeoff was a walk in the park. But, again, with a weight of 27,000 kg.
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.
- 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 doesnt use the PFM
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.
Weights and Loadings of Su-33:-----------------------------------
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.
Just trying to get the facts and figures to justify a change.
Regards, Ian.
- 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 ??
-
A quick fix would be to open the mission editor and set 50% fuel to every su33 flight.
I have only played a few mission, and it looks like the conflict zone is small enough there is no need of more fuel.
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.
- A lot of sorties are quite away from the carrier.
-
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.
-
Yes it did- which is why I said maybe just the missions need to be updated to lower fuel and add tanker
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.
-
Hi,
Well, the update to the SU-33 is very good, but with it came one problem in the campaign of SU-33: when the second plane tries to take off, it just lands on the sea (the same would've happened to my plane if I hadn't taken out part of the fuel [i think the wheels still got wet with about 50% fuel]).
cheers!
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.
-
IDK. I just took off from the forward position at 62,700 (28500 kg) from the forward position. Of course I had a 50 km/hr wind coming over the deck at the time.
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.
-
1
-
-
I had an F/A-18 refueling off an S-3B tanker,but it kept coming off and on the drogue chute every minute or so. The other issue is how AI wingmen will follow their leader even till the run out of gas and crash. That's what the idiot did waiting for his Lear to finish refueling. They should get enough fuel to keep flying then let more fuel critical aircraft refuel so none runs out.
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.
-
Thank you very much MadDog, you rock. As soon as I can I´ll give it a try and then come back to give you a feedback.
Cheers.
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.
-
Hey MadDog! Your modified version was one of the first things I tried, but the FARP comms problem is still there.
As I said, it's not the comms are misconfigured; I'm able to call for aborting take off, and the FARP acknowledges the message. It's simply that once you are airborne, the "Abort takeoff" command never dissapears; so you can't do nothing but that.
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.
-
How long does it usually take, that a file gets approved?
Within a few hours usually, some times a day.
Would depend on their office hours and when you post it, I suppose.
-
Thanks a lot .. will try them out, as I'm practicing the Su-33 a bit in anticipation of the new version. Will give feedback if I find anything unusual.
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:
- The final mission #25 which has a refueling stage that you must do to get to your destination, it needs some extra work that I can't figure out how I am going to do it. Currently mission requires you to dock with the refueling basket once and once only for a complete refuel of at least 3 minutes before a disconnect other wise the logic is most likely not going to work correctly. I don't want to use MIST and script to check on fuel quantity that flight takes on to make sure player is Air to Air competent.
Cheers, Ian.
-
I started the deployment Campaign (about time!), and I noticed the FARP comms might be broken...
Has anyone experienced this? Is it just the campaign or does it apply to all FARPS?
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.
-
Anything we can do to help?
This bug is breaking many toys in my DCS sandbox for quite some time now.
+1
Just testing the Su-33 campaign Heavy Sky under DCS v1.57x and the speed issue has stuffed all the timings of voice overs, etc and looks like $#@$ when you see AI planes flying at ridiculous angles of attack and slow speed.
But as noted by others, it doesn't do it all the time or for all missions, I could see that this would be a hard one to nut out.
Hope ED fix this ASAP.
Regards, Ian.
-
Thanks a lot for the detailed heads up :) ... I find it amazing that this old campaigns had so many missions (25); quite a contrast with the usual 10-12 missions of the typical payware Campaign.
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.
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.
- 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.
-
Best resource I've seen on understanding WW2 flak.
Thanks for sharing, who knew there was a science to evading flak.
Cheers.
-
Hi, I'm on the 6th mission of the Georgian Hammer (with CA) campaign, and DCS World 1.5.7 crashes when I attempt to enter the cockpit. The relevant error seems to be: Heliport "188" parameters are not consistent. Heliport was not created.
FARPS in mission don't have any name or frequency allocated to them, that is why the error:
Addressed with edited missions here:
Su(bmarine)-33 campaign bug :)
in Su-33 for DCS World
Posted · Edited by MadDog-IC
Even more excellent is that it has been fixed already in the dcs v1.57.10175 patch today 30-09-2017, so long as the carrier is steaming at 50km/h.
Got to love those boffins at ED.
My first take off and fly around, I tore both wings off, oh well.
I have checked the Su-33 Heavy Sky campaign and made a few alterations to some missions, making sure the Kuznetsov is steaming at max speed into wind and that all missions are playable (Uploaded updated campaign files onto the ED DCS files section).
Will be checking and updating the SU-33 Sea Dragon Campaign in the near future for compatibility also, I suspect a little more work with that one, as I never played with carrier speeds or wind data last time around.
Cheers.