Endy

You willingly drop some stuff that's in the game for scenario's sake and make it a better experience for those involved. If you want to play bash the AI with every gadget you can think of go play some singleplayer or coop scenario, but if you want to play a COMPETITIVE scenario with people then you have to think about several more things as well. I still don't see what's so ****ing hard to understand here...It looks to me like you have NO experience in large multiplayer events and no idea how they should work, like Battle for Sinai or Red Flag for BMS. Great examples how you can balance both sides and keep it REAL. Go read some. Play some. Maybe some of your ignorance will go away and you will stop derping and posting bullshit because right now I can see you simply have no idea what you're talking about. But no, you can't seem to understand even basic stuff that's been written over and over again, you feel a freaking need to say "Herp Derp, oh yeah yes let's fly WW1 planes haha!"

Another one...Why the hell do you feel the need to exagerrate? What the hell is so hard to understand people prefer semi active missiles and unguided bombs because then it's both REALISTIC for CERTAIN SCENARIOS and MORE BALANCED and MORE FUN for BOTH sides of the conflict. Late 80s, early 90s scenarios are the best for that and grant you BOTH realism and balance in a DCS multiplayer game. Both sides have similar weapons, there are no active missiles, no guided bombs, everything else is in there. I'll repeat for the weaker thinkers here, you DO NOT forget realism, you trim the forces WITHIN REASONABLE LIMITS (no WWII crap you mention, no guns only crap, no switching off your monitor ffs) to make it more balanced and keep both realism and fun factor.

So either get into your head that some people actually prefer to play such scenarios because older technology actually takes more skill and is more fun to play with for them or just **** off but stop pretending you can't ****ing understand what is being said here. The fact you only like modern scenarios is your own thing and you can play whatever you like just don't pretend a moron that doesn't understand some people like play it differently.

Sorry, didn't want to get into that argument AGAIN but you really piss me off. You completely ignore whatever is told you and twist this stuff to make up your own stories. The fact you couldn't use these mavericks and cluster bombs to good effect was totally your fault. I've seen the ACMI's and it was not the opposing pilots. If you have a ****ing problem shooting 6 mavs at a ****ing tank column one by one in fast succession is your own inability to fly the plane properly not me proven wrong. And don't try to be smart about Gulf war scenarios because I said that's what was used then. For multiple reasons: due technology back then, A10A, lack of pods, lack of ****ing guided bombs on these planes etc. and then proceeded to say that some people prefer vintage technology and scenarios in their missions so don't play smarty pants now. Any sane person would understand that. Yeah, very smart solution mister "A10A from FC3" with simplified flight and weapon models.

I don't know where you got the ranges from but they're surely not what they are in game. R27ER in DCS is roughly an equivalent to Aim7, both having a range slightly below 50km with both ships going head on at around 0,9mach, with Aim7 having a slightly better range and better tracking. Edit: Correction, Level head-on flight AI can shoot ER at 48km and Aim7 at 46km, both missing of course as it's maximum range IF the target doesn't change course etc. For some reason if a human plays against AI shoots Aim7 at 48 as well, and the human isn't even in range then, as to why you gotta ask ED. Anyway, ER is the equivalent not the R with laughable tracking.

The problem is if you screw the balance in an MP game it will quickly become not fun for the side which is repeatedly bashed over the head and that side would simply stop playing. I think you mistake two things. You can have it balanced and pretty realistic still. Limiting active missiles is such a thing because that's how it was in the first Gulf war. F15 carried Aim7 and Aim9 missiles. So it's a realistic scenario. Same as limiting CBUs and guided weapons. If you check the first Gulf war scenarios, A10s carried only unguided bombs, 2 mavericks and NO TGP. Here, realistic again, but not everyone will like it. Some people like to have all the modern gstuff and some prefer more vintage setups as they simply find them more involving and more fun to play with in the game. A matter of preference.

That's not accurate. R77 is an active missile. So only R73 and R27ER for the russian side, Aim7 and Aim9M for blue. (R27ER not R) Sure, it's a bit about balance. Because otherwise it's simply not that fun for the pilots. And no, having semi actives on one side and actives on the other is not realistic because modern russian planes (new SU versions) can carry R77 but that is not modelled in the game due to lack of proper data on russian planes. Not to mention BVR combat with active missiles would only be fun if we could coordinate more (datalinks etc) which again is not modelled in the game and also had more pilots to employ tactics other than shoot and run. We had fun engagements so far exactly because of the fact that we only used semi active missiles and had to work for the kills. So yeah, limit them like always. I won't even get into the other discussion on CBU's etc as everyone seems to have his own idea about what is fun.

Ah, forgot to mention, if you need help testing I can help same as usual.

Greg, no pressure :) People are willing to wait for a quality mission and understand you've been busy :) So take your time guys and maybe we can do something on Wednesday, or we could play the mission mwd2 suggested.

The thing is it's not in the editor, but in game screenshot. I don't know how they manage to make a plane icon look like that in the game... As for the mission, Greg said there will be 2 shorter ones due to lack of time for preparation so I don't know if there's gonna be a big briefing like before.

Also, the DC in multiplayer allows for events like Battle for Sinai or Red Flag which are 24/7 dynamic campaigns which last around 20-26 days with both real pilots and AI flying on both sides of the conflict supporting the ground war effort. Personally I would love if DCS had such an option. Dynamic large scale conflicts with plenty of pilots online is my dream for DCS...

Ok, I tested "map only" settings again and it seems they fixed it. Aircraft see nothing and GC sees his own units and enemy units in detection range. So by all means we can use it. There are some minor quirks somethimes with refreshing but switching from map view to vehicle view sometimes helps. Nope, that's not it. You can see what I mean on this shot: https://www.dropbox.com/s/35pci8i85ksy281/Screen_121211_000536.jpg The aircraft are shown as rounded cones with A inside them. It's the first time i see it and it's only on that server. Normally aircraft look like aircraft shaped icons inside squares.

Ok, will try to get on the server to DL the mission and check :) Thanks for the heads up, the visibility thing would help a lot. Shapper, I think you mean that AWACS makes it possible to see ground units and how to disable it right? I was arguing more about A2A visibility. PS. I tested it and indeed, it seems like map view only works for pilots only and GC can see other units. But I don't know if it's not something that is not available outside the editor. Also, the unit icons look different that when I fire up the mission on my PC, for example aircraft on that server look like big A icons, not plane shaped at all, no idea why.

I'd be careful with triggers. The thing is, with this amount of players, the less complicated you make the mission in terms of scripts/triggers the better. SL mod can also cause trouble. We are already suffering badly from crashes, freezes and other stability issues. With the number of people we have attending each mission, which is around 20-25, the less complicated the mission is the better taking into account the current state of DCS multiplayer... Of course we can test it but the only real test is the mission itself, as stuff usually works fine when you test it alone or with a few people and turns into a nightmare with larger amount pilots online. PS. "The GC will still see his side vehicles, but the red pilots will not able to spote the ground units (as far as i know!)" That is correct, and might be an ok solution if ground commanders agree to never see the enemy on the map and to acting blindly. Other than that I don't mind.

Ok, to make things clear since there seems to be some confusion: 1. American AI AWACS answers to calls, gives you bearings etc. nothing out of the ordinary, 2. Russian Awacs also gives all fighters a data link and then they can see ALL friendly and hostile contacts on their MFD. This is a huge advantage in comparison to what the US awacs can do. And now map settings: 3. With map settings set to "map only" no player will see anything but the map itself. It's good because this way pilots can't cheat but at the same time it's bad because the GC can't see hostiles as well, even in detection range. 4. If you set "fog of war", GC will be able to see units in detection range but so will the pilots. I hope it's more clear now.

Besides, I'll give you an example why AWACS might be bad as well. In previous missions we had situations where some F15 were flying low, masking, so as to ambush the other side. If we saw them on the radar display (and we would with awacs active) this whole thing would lose it's meaning cause you would know all the time where the enemy is and if he's trying to ambush you from the side for example. This is especially true for russian aircraft who see anemy and friendly planes on the display. Blue side can only request vector etc but they don't have this enhanced situational awareness. So it depends what you want to get. With awacs it will be more head on, straight air superiority struggle but little suspense.

This is not because of awacs. I was talking about MWD's idea of acting as awacs by players. The mission you played just had the setting of "map only" or a similar one where you can't see enemy on F10 view. But that means the ground commander has the same restriction and can't see enemy units on the map, even these in the spotting range of his units. Hope that makes it clearer.

The problem is, with current F10 settings, either everyone can see evrything, i.e. pilots can see enemies, or nobody sees the enemies, even the ground commanders. The problem is you can't create different F10 settings for pilots (map only) and commanders (fog of war). And it makes our lives difficult in these scenarios...

I think with AWACS it might be a bit too easy as russian planes will see every plane that the AWACS sees on the display, all friendly and enemy contacts. So I think it might be too easy and removes the whole "looking for targets" gameplay.

I'd suggest you try flying online, perhaps with a group of friends or joining some squadron. There are usually people in different squadrons devoted to creating new missions for themselves and their squad mates. I understand you're mainly looking for offline experiences due to whatever reasons, but trust me, if you fly online with friends (even competent strangers) the experience is much stronger and, at least for me, better that anything you can get playing singleplayer. Especially that now DCS World and integration of all the modules gives you the possibility to have different aircraft playable in the same mission, ground attack planes, fast movers, choppers and even having ground commanders to control the troops adn/or act as JTAC's.

I'd love a night mission because it looks awesome but there would be a problem due to lack of nightvision in FC3 aircraft. On the other hand, flying half blind and only using the radar to spot targets might be interesting :)

Wednesday the 12th December. Greg said we're having a small break this week :)

Greg said there is a break until next Wednesday. That is, the next session will be on Wednesday the 12th of December.

Attention bump. Would it be possible for any tester to confirm if this issue has been noticed at all?

A tiny attention bump :)