ENO

It's true that there are different advantages to both sides... the high fidelity programs are extremely capable and can be fine tuned easily by folks who know the systems while those in the FC3 aircraft aren't given a free ride since they need to know how to apply their simplified systems properly... not to mention while maintaining awareness of what's going on around them. One area where I'm hesitant to implement head to head is the Su-27 SFM versus the F-15C with the AFM... Nevermind the arguments about the various AAMs- strip the missiles and go to guns and we're still encountering an offset. With that said- I'd take someone who was good in the F-15C against someone who struggled in the SU27... but put an expert in the SU27 who knows how to use the aircraft's benefits against the F-15Cs weaknesses- and an expert F-15C pilot who knows how to squeeze every last bit of performance out of his AFM... Tell you what- that would be fun to watch but I'm not sure whose going to be hitting the silk. Though I put A-10A slots in my missions (since the mission itself doesn't DEPEND on particular abilities of the C), they're seldom occupied. I do get a good split on the KA-50 and the UH-1 but the MI8 hasn't really caught on. When they can haul sling loads that may change... though even my Huey's can't carry sling loads right now since the choppers fall apart in the MP environment. Like crew- I don't see a lot of participation on the 29s... I started putting up 27s in preparation of the AFM but I'm hesitant to pit them against the F-15s. When they're actually in the mission I do see some butts in the seats. Also like crew mentioned (yes, we're actually different people)- You can help balance out your forces using SAMs or other assets that can be turned on or off. For example I have a mission that does have red fighters to CAP against ground attack aircraft. Predictably, I've also got blue fighters to defend... But what if someone shows up for the seal hunt on red and we don't have anyone occupying the fighter slots on blue? If there are aircraft in the area, and blue fighters aren't present then I activate a SAM system to at least give the grounders a chance to beat cheeks for cover in their own airspace... If they want to continue to push with the treat of fighter opposition- then they can arrange that meeting but that's out of our hands. Good luck!

In the logs folder where you're getting this... is there no crash log and crash dump file?

Eh guys- Still working on this landing issue... I've been over the script and I can't see where it is that it says that the fighter aircraft groups will be spawned in with a wingman. Anything in there jump out that could be modified so that it's single aircraft only? That will help with the landing issue. Whoops- okay... well I looked again with a different head on and found that 2602-2619 is the script for the wingie for the fighters. I've deleted that and they fly solo now... no wingie and therefore no landing problems!

Ho hum... just another day at the office in DCS World. What's on the docket? Well first we're going to train on our cold start routine... Then once we wrap that up we'll probably train a bit more on the AWESOME 476th training range... And then go rescue a train full of hostages. Wait... What? So wait a sec- you mean to tell me that a bunch of Hogs, Hueys and Humvees, with nothing but bullets and training munitions are going to be expected to not only take down this armed force, but also rescue hostages AND prevent the train from blowing up? Ooooh- now I get it. The train is going to blow up no matter what. We just have to make sure the hostages are off first. Sounds impossible- what's not to like? NO FAIR! If they get missiles, WE want missiles! Alright... now we're talking. Okay... so when do we get this party started? Soon. (Thanks to the 476 for their awesome training range mod)

00050.567 ERROR DCS: Invalid mission format ! 00050.567 ALERT DCS: Unhandled exception: Invalid mission format ! Anyone else? Sometimes a restart helps but resave (under different name) doesn't. Edit: Had about a half dozen of these lately... what gives I wonder? dcs.zip

Corrected ^ Your whole "MOAR POINTS" theme is getting so tired... Good grief man- get over it.

:doh: All valid questions, but pretty sure we're not going to be answering any of those in this thread- in the A-10C sub-forum. (Cough) Maybe someone should move this over to the mission builders forum.

What angle is there to discuss exactly? The mission builder made it that way for a reason. If you don't like it- go into the mission editor and change it. "I don't like all the text- it kills my suspension of disbelief while I'm communicating with AI. " Discuss. Uh... wut? :pilotfly:

It's a good question- since a motherboard with SLI / Crossfire capability is a start- but putting that pairing together in a poorly ventilated case can definitely lead to some issues with the cards of today. I'd recommend an "enthusiast" level case that takes these types of setups into account and provides ventilation from the front, sides, top and rear- generally (and I've seen pages and pages of debate on it but let's stick to the question) these will intake on the front and side while exhausting to the top and rear. ensuring a steady supply of cool air coming in and warm air being exhausted. Newer cards have some pretty elaborate heat sinks and exhausts of their own- but longevity can be found in keeping components cool. Good case ventilation is a crucial factor not only for your GPU(s) but also your CPU(s), RAM and mobo.

It's going to have the same effect as if you run your server with the renderer on or off...

For some it's too much information... for others too little. Briefing's too long... or not enough info. Exterior views aren't realistic... others like eye candy. American KA50s? ...but I want to fly the KA50. Same aircraft on both sides? ...unfair advantages of AFM over SFM (or vice versa). Can't please everyone and BOY do they ever have a habit of making it known. So now that you're harvesting this feedback to see if others like it or not- what exactly are you going to do about it? Are you going to go build missions with the EXACT formula that is going to help lead to a solution of this issue? Or is it just going to be one more drum to bang on that mission designers are ruining your "suspension of disbelief."

Do you have the crash logs?

I think I already know the answer since the list is void of anything I'm wondering about... But is there any (plan to add) equivalent to the western training munitions?

I increased the skill to excellent and slowed the aircraft down slightly in the script used to generate random AI. Many of the aircraft, I was surprised to see, landed reasonably quickly after a couple tries. Some by role reversal (where the wingman landed first) and others just managed... But towards the end of the track for about the last half hour's worth or so an pair of F-15Es just go around and around... I've posted a log and a track... not sure it'll contribute anything- but here it is. Frustrating. This is an interesting point but I'm not sure we can set the speed at which the AI actually land. If I set the AI to head to the "landing point" at 280... doesn't it head there at 280 and then go through its landing routine at its own described speed and slow down to whatever it would be with whatever loadout? I would expect that speed would be automated. I suppose if the AI isn't slowing down to go through its routine, that would cause issues... landing.zip

I've run into some trouble with the landings- I'm pretty sure it's an issue that extends beyond the script- but in my hunt for solutions I went browsing for the landing speed of the aircraft and I think I found it in the spoiler. Just wondering if that speed actually affected the final approach? Is it in kph? Mph? kts? I'm going to start messing with it out of curiosity, but any insights on it would also be appreciated.

I just watched a couple of F5s for an hour (at multi speed) do approaches then cancel at the last minute when the wingman joined up... they'd break then by the time they got to about 30 seconds out the wingman would join up again and they'd break... over and over and over again. Unfortunately I'm used to it saving a track automatically since I only do MP unless testing missions (why doesn't it auto save single player tracks anyway?) Anyway- I'll run it again and post. The mission is using the SNAFU random air traffic script. I thought maybe it was something in there causing it until I saw this thread. A bunch of the aircraft have it happen but the longest seemed to be the F5.

Cough. My thoughts exactly.

I see what you're saying... I ran into this problem before but this time it seemed different. Yeah, that's my bad... I went back and re-read my posts / issues (again... I'd done it before but after the group issue we had before figured it had something to do with 128 and didn't read it closely enough). It got confused the same way this time as I had before back in March... thinking when he said "zone called 'AF1" I created a zone called AF1- thinking the name of the base was the identifier for the script to spawn at the right airbase. I totally just clicked in. SORRY GUYS!

Okay! Thanks Ajax... I can implement that fix tonight and post it provided SNAFU doesn't mind. (SNAFU just let me know either way. I've posted it but can very easily take it down.) (Anyone know how much rep needs to be spread? It keeps $#%#$^ telling me "must spread rep" but it never tells you how much you need to spread.) Edit: THANKS AJAX! Confirmed it works like a charm. MIST3_2_RandAirtraffic_r5a.lua

Long time no see Tyger... glad to see you're still lurking.

^ + 100000000000 Well said. That post needs to be stickied at the top of each sub-forum.

This.

Been a few months since anyone posted here- I've tried to get this working in 128 with MIST 3.4 and I'm wondering if anyone else has had success? I keep getting this error... 00051.412 INFO SCRIPTING: Mist version 3.4.23 loaded. 00063.489 INFO SCRIPTING: mist.scheduleFunction, error in scheduled function: [string "C:\Users\Eno\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS\/~mis00..."]:2370: attempt to index global '_spawnairplane' (a nil value) 00063.691 INFO SCRIPTING: mist.scheduleFunction, error in scheduled function: [string "C:\Users\Eno\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS\/~mis00..."]:2582: attempt to index global '_destination' (a nil value) 00078.951 INFO SCRIPTING: mist.scheduleFunction, error in scheduled function: [string "C:\Users\Eno\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS\/~mis00..."]:2358: attempt to index global '_spawnairplane' (a nil value) 00079.092 INFO SCRIPTING: mist.scheduleFunction, error in scheduled function: [string "C:\Users\Eno\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS\/~mis00..."]:2589: attempt to index global '_destination' (a nil value) 00090.562 INFO SCRIPTING: mist.scheduleFunction, error in scheduled function: [string "C:\Users\Eno\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS\/~mis00..."]:2358: attempt to index global '_spawnairplane' (a nil value) 00090.641 INFO SCRIPTING: mist.scheduleFunction, error in scheduled function: [string "C:\Users\Eno\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS\/~mis00..."]:2582: attempt to index global '_destination' (a nil value) 00098.802 INFO SCRIPTING: mist.scheduleFunction, error in scheduled function: [string "C:\Users\Eno\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS\/~mis00..."]:2370: attempt to index global '_spawnairplane' (a nil value) 00098.937 INFO SCRIPTING: mist.scheduleFunction, error in scheduled function: [string "C:\Users\Eno\AppData\Local\Temp\DCS\/~mis00..."]:2582: attempt to index global '_destination' (a nil value) Looks like each time it wants to spawn a plane... something is missing. Anyone able to put their finger on what needs to be adjusted (if anything?)

Great news!

I am happy to see that the vote is evenly divided... but I wouldn't waste 1 second of time in an F86 until there was a flyable, high fidelity MiG15. That would change everything in my world!