Jump to content

FubarBundy

Members
  • Posts

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by FubarBundy

  1. I used to think that but then I noticed how big my neighbour's tree is when the tree surgeon visited.. it seems about right to me now.
  2. Thanks Big Newy... I seem to have fixed it by jumping to a different quick start misson. If any further problems I will do as above Btw, is it possible to look into why FARPS do not recognise when helicopters have taken off? We had this problem some time ago but it was fixed eventually... I've noticed it has been back for a while now.
  3. Hi , Todays patch undid my previous axis mappings but new mappings don't seem to be recognised in the helicopter. They are recognised in the GUI but not the cockpit.
  4. I've been looking for this too... no joy so far
  5. Try opening the mission in the mission editor and checking the radio box for the player flights. Save the mission and fly.... should be fixed.
  6. wait a few weeks and get an RTX 3070?
  7. No problems m8. Its one of those things that gets easier the more you do it... I still make all kinds of silly mistakes but always learn from them! ( Not sure if you know how to iterate through tables in LUA yet but I found that this was the key to being able to do all kinds of randomised stuff ).
  8. Hmm.. difficult to diagnose because as far as I can tell, it should spawn. As a test, you could try and spawn from a single group rather than a randomised array... something like.. RED_CAP_1 = SPAWN?:New("RED CAP AJS37") :InitLimit( 10, 10 ) :InitRandomizeZones( REDCAPSpawnZones ) RED_CAP_1_SPAWN = RED_CAP_1:Spawn() -- actually spawns the group If this works then the problem is somewhere in the syntax of the "RedCAPGroups" table and ":InitRandomizeTemplate( REDCAPGroups )" Actually, looking at it, ":InitRandomizeTemplate( REDCAPGroups )" needs changing to ":InitRandomizeTemplate( RedCAPGroups )"... the declared table is written differently to the table to be spawned from but should be the same. Don't forget that the controllable for RED_CAP_1 then becomes RED_CAP_1_SPAWN meaning that AICapZone:SetControllable( CapPlane ) won't work and should be changed to AICapZone:SetControllable( RED_CAP_1_SPAWN ).
  9. Could be wrong as having my first coffee of the day but you may need to add something along the lines of... RED_CAP_1_Spawn = RED_CAP_1:Spawn() The controllable then becomes "RED_CAP_1_Spawn". so "AICapZone:SetControllable( CapPlane )" would become "AICapZone:SetControllable( RED_CAP_1_Spawn )"
  10. Now that we have the Syria map and after learning about the recent conflicts there, it would be great to have some sort of ability to create multiple factions and be able to choose which factions they are allied to or fighting against. the 2 factions we have now are nowhere near enough to replicate the craziness of the Syrian civil war.
  11. How on earth can anybody make a realistic online mission for that??... the amount of factions would cause the mission editor to explode!
  12. Just went for a spin over Aleppo in a Huey... really smooth in VR for me. Actually seems smother than the other maps but could be some sort of placebo effect. The map itself is really, really good btw! (Similar spec's to you).
  13. Problem is way older than the thread and goes all the way back to the beginning. ED have been talking about revamping the AI recently and I really hope there is some substance to this. I'm really looking forward to the dynamic campaign engine but with the AI in its current state, I can only see it falling flat on its face.
  14. Thanks for that Tippis ... I'll take a look at the default tasks. (The tasks given are by a combination of MOOSE and my own crappy code btw. ) I think my point is that all of this should really be unnecessary but hopefully it will be fixed in time. edit: That seems to have worked really well so far, (needs a little more testing)... thanks Tippis! edit: Turns out to be a slight improvement but AI still make a bee-line for the client even when priority is bombers and there are other far more obvious targets available.
  15. I think its well know to ED as has been an issue even going back to the Flanker series. They are working on AI presently so it's just a matter of waiting a bit longer hopefully.
  16. No attack player order, (my own mission)... just CAP in Zone order given. I think maybe its probably less noticeable in BVR but in a dogfight its very noticable.
  17. Unable to give you that definition as right now, it would consist of only very bad words! :) (by the way... I think I could easily end up in that situation as a client!)
  18. yes.. I am thinking in terms of temporary "cheats" for AI too. It's good to know work goes on to create more substantial fixes but I'm presently feeling quite impatient as the AI has been so poor for so long and makes things that should be simple so difficult.
  19. I may be misunderstanding you Flappy but I'm not sure it is.... the AI will sometimes make its way through a big juicy bomber formation and its escort just to get at the nearest client.
  20. I'm so frustrate with DCS AI right now! Totally fell in love with the P47 so I've spent hours attempting to build a dynamic WW2 based mission based around dynamically generated bomber escort missions. I have the basic mission structure complete and for the most part, it works really well... BUT, as always with these things, the one single aspect of DCS which totally ruins everything is the terrible, terrible AI! The two main AI related problems I'm soooo fed up of atm are 1) AI wingmen that are unable to keep up and maintain formation despite the client being at such low speed rpm etc... that the aircraft is right on the edge of stability whilst climbing. This means that it becomes impossible to keep up with the bomber formation unless they are set to travel at a snails pace... and this, in turn, means that the bombers fly like crap and ram into each other for inability to hold their own large formation... something they do fine as long as they have enough speed. (interestingly it doesn't seem to be speed that dictates this... to me it seems more related to engine output QED?) 2) The tendency of the entire Luftwaffe, (in this case), to latch onto the nearest Allied client and pursue him relentlessly and without mercy.... despite there being an abundance of big juicy B17's or A20's and 2 other escort wings. Finally, there is always the issues of some aircraft behaving like they have anti-gravity generators on-board but, in all honesty, I haven't had a major problem with this and WW2 aircraft. Surely the AI is an absolute core part of any combat simulation... so, basically, does anybody know the status of any upcoming fixes to these problems?
  21. Not entirely sure that is the case because excessive fuel consumption would cause the same problem even if the BINGO call was correct. (the amount of fuel which should be enough to make it home isn't because it is being burned too quickly) I'm not even sure I'm making sense here tbh
  22. No its not just you... The AI does tend to swamp the player / client. Its quite tedious tbh.
  23. That's why i agree. Just pointing out that its a bit weird though as air combat is inherently violent and gory so any line we draw can only be arbitrary. :dunno:
  24. I think I agree but also can't help thinking that it is a bit of an arbitrary line given that we can drop cluster bombs on cities :music_whistling:
  25. 1) Working, sensible AI that does what its told, can maintain a formation and doesn't defy the laws of physics in a dog fight. Lack of this really messes up the immersion and can make mission building really frustrating. Interestingly, I've noticed, for example, that Mig 15 AI, although UFO like in combat, can hold formation perfectly whereas F-86 AI are less UFO like but can't hold formation unless the client / player stays really slow. (I personally think this should be a top priority because the AI we have atm can be a real game breaker but understand people may disagree) 2) More variety in infantry units / deck crew.. load outs, different countries, colours, boys and girls etc... Maybe even some civilians would be good for mission designers now that we have the option to add neutrals to the mission. 3) Some covering objects for said infantry to hide behind, eg, rubble, sandbags, vehicle wreckage etc.. (the "trunks long" objects in mission editor "cargos" do a pretty good job here but would be nice to have other forms of cover too). It would also be nice to have infantry disperse to cover automatically when attacked but I can see how that would be difficult to achieve. 4) A wider range of fortifications to accompany "armed house" etc.. I'm thinking of such things as other types of armed houses and housing complexes, slit trenches, machine gun emplacements and such like. I would like for any building on the map to be capable of behaving like "armed house" but , again, can see how that would be difficult to accomplish.
×
×
  • Create New...