rassy7

This is great. Need more of this. I assume you're posted in the Squadron Directory in the Multiplayer forum already? How much fun would it be to run a Red vs Blue, king of the hill, or attack/defend scenario with two CA teams with air support working against each other? Even if it was only around 10v10 or so, that would be fun. And I'll check out the Navalops group.

Actually, you know what would maybe move the needle a little is some form of organized CA unit like all the squadrons the pilots have. Call it whatever, design all the stuff, start a website, design some co-op missions and invite various air units to provide cover and air support. I bet that would get some traction. If there isn't one already, someone should start one. Someone who actually knows about those tactics and strategies.

Absolutely! I hope that's at least on their radar, because it's kind of unacceptable. Has anyone mentioned any progress on that or is it likely just a lost cause?

Ya, I would be Ok with this. I have few issues with the current F-15. I'm looking forward to the F-15E, but the C model has been fun for a long time and I think FC3 level vehicles modules would be great. There is a whole world of DCS I think has been underutilized—ground ops.s It's actually possible to play an all-RTS-style mission. I've gone at the AI with a ground war, just moving unit around as a tactical cmdr and that was fun, hopping into a vehicle every now and then, I think a community that cares about operating on the ground and some mission-building centered around ground ops with air support would add to both the pilots and ground crews. I sure hope they make some attempt to spice that up a little. I think we're so very close right now and just maybe one more inch could really bring about some new ideas and missions. We'll see I guess.

Those are most of my favorites. Looks like the times are an issue though. I work through the day during the mission times. Don't know how I missed this. Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks

Is there any kind of consolidated list of available air groups, squadrons etc. to try out for or join or fly with? I've only come across a few in signatures and I'd like to review them in bulk to try and find one that is a good fit for me. Basically, I get buried in mission design. That's where I have a lot of fun, but it's extremely time-consuming and I'm finding unless I have a reason to jump into a jet, I struggle to actually fly. I've been in DCS for a few years now and I'm proficient in most of the modules I own, especially the A-10C, Huey, P-51, Sabre, AV-8B and as much as is possible with rapidly-evolving Hornet. I have all the maps and a pretty quick machine. I just want a group to fly with that has a schedule with regular mission times around which I can plan that will give me reason to log flight hours and stay current instead of spending them all in Notepad++ or the mission editor. Advice? Thanks

Ya, that's sort of my question. I mean there is always the hope that enough people would buy CA and modules to create an full grown-war option, but I think the real thrill would be to bring some of my favorite experiences from Arma to DCS. There's just nothing like operating on the ground, advancing on a field or forest, know intelligent humans are moving around in there, strategizing and waiting for me, while hearing the roar of jets and buzz of helos above, making passes and communicating with the ground troops to organize on a target that can think and react and adjust to air threats. To some degree, actually, it's already possible. I guess what I'm really asking is, how can ED create a more competitive ground environment that people want to flock to in order to create some of this dynamic, air/ground warfare? High-quality, interactive modules seems to excite people and pull them in and people tend to play with the modules they spend a lot of money on. Could be some cool SEAL ops with the new water setup as well. Pilotable RHIBs and SCUBA divers, landing crafts with unloadable, human-drivable vehicles. In Arma, sim lovers wish the flying was more realistic. In DCS, some people, like me, with the ground war was more detailed. I think whoever figures this out first is going to open some eyes.

I love CA and think it's an absolutely incredible addition to the game. I think ED pitches DCS as an avsim/air combat sim and that's appropriate, but what would happen if ED or third parties started working out a CA module, like, for instance, an Abrams, or a Sherman or a Tiger or even something that isn't a tank, like any kind of artillery? We could see real, expanded ground warfare play. I know it's been touched on several times, briefly, but what about even the most bare bones FPS soldier, something like a mobile video game quality to start? Just some way to play as a solder vs other soldiers within a city. That would open a whole new door to this game and unlock the real power of these awesome new, highly-detailed maps, which I think are a shame only to view from the air. Thoughts?

LoL :thumbup:

This is just one example of many. Moose, in particular, but MIST as well, both suffer from inconsistencies that cause confusion. Some are the result of grammar and language issues. Others are instances of declaring in one place the way to do something is X and declaring it's Y in another example and Z in a third. To compound the issues, a lot of the documentation is simply missing explanations and examples and most of these are at the end of links from other places, ultimately leading people to dead ends. Finally, as versions evolved and new methods appear, outdated information is not always updated and it creates some very tough-to-navigate and time-intensive troubleshooting scenarios. I also understand some people here don't fully grasp English, a comparatively difficult second language to learn. Punctuation can help. A quick comm scrub for grammar would go a long way as these frameworks and expansions are documented. I can slap in code without commas, but I may not experience the results I expect. As an aside, I have never randomly died in real life, but have more times than I can count in video games. Server disconnects are one simple example. It's a plausible interpretation. Don't need to drag this out here, but it's a valid note and some greater attention to detail in these ares would make solid frameworks and a lot of hard work much more usable to a wider community of people with differing backgrounds and varying proficiency levels.

The description above that code is unclear. It needs a comma at least. "The following code will respawn a group if it has died randomly within a zone." could either mean the code with respawn a group if that group happened to be in a zone and randomly died or it could mean it will respawn a group randomly within a zone if that group has died (implication is anywhere). Should read something like, "If a group has died, the following code will respawn it at a random location within a zone." Hate to be a stickler, but this is the kind of lack of clarity that causes a lot of confusion down the road. I've run into these weird issues a number of times. This seemed like as good a place to bring it up as any.

I'm not very good with Mist, but here's what Moose has for zone tests and polygon zones.

I, too, had been stumped by arguments and like you, Habu, I had just been basically ignoring them. This is helpful That said, I'm still wondering if anyone can help me with ^^^ this request. I can add group objects to a table with :OnSpawnGroup, but when I need to reference those objects again by name, I'm not sure how to do it. Referencing the table index isn't working. See the code/mission files in post #6. Trying to iterate through the table and change invisibility status for groups that meet an if statement. Thanks!

Delta, thanks for this tip. I was able to capture the groups and do what I ultimately hoped to do, add them to a table over which I could later iterate with a loop. It works for most things, but I can't seem to make setting a command work. I can't just use the table index and I'm not sure how to get the group name from whatever I added to the table. Here's a simple test example of what I'm trying to do. Am I close? Can this work? ZoneA = ZONE:New("Zone A") -- Debug enemyGroup_1 = GROUP:FindByName("enemyGroup1") enemyGroup_2 = GROUP:FindByName("enemyGroup2") enemyGroup_3 = GROUP:FindByName("enemyGroup3") testDriversTable = {} test_Car_1_Spawn = SPAWN:New("Driver 1") :InitLimit(1, 0) :OnSpawnGroup( function(SpawnGroup) testDriversTable[1] = SpawnGroup end ) :SpawnScheduled(1,0) test_Car_2_Spawn = SPAWN:New("Driver 2") :InitLimit(1, 0) :OnSpawnGroup( function(SpawnGroup) testDriversTable[2] = SpawnGroup end ) :SpawnScheduled(1,0) test_Car_3_Spawn = SPAWN:New("Driver 3") :InitLimit(1, 0) :OnSpawnGroup( function(SpawnGroup) testDriversTable[3] = SpawnGroup end ) :SpawnScheduled(1,0) SCHEDULER:New(nil, function() for i = 1, #testDriversTable do if testDriversTable[i]:IsCompletelyInZone(ZoneA) then enemyGroup_1:OptionROEWeaponFree() enemyGroup_2:OptionROEWeaponFree() enemyGroup_3:OptionROEWeaponFree() -- TROUBLE SPOT -- Not sure how to get correct group in loop local con = [color="Red"]Group.getByName("whatever")[/color]:getController() con:setCommand({id = 'SetInvisible', params = {value = true}}) -- This doesn't work [color="red"] testDriversTable[i][/color]:getController():setCommand({id = 'SetInvisible', params = {value = false}}) -- This doesn't work either [color="red"]testDriversTable[i][/color]:GetName():getController():setCommand({id = 'SetInvisible', params = {value = false}}) end end end, {}, 0, 5) Thank you! TEST.miz TEST.lua

^^^ Certainly the best way, but it might be kind of possible depending on the scope of your ask. If you're wanting the exact same group to essentially respawn, then yes, you need a script. However, if you're just wanting the same type group to activate from the same, original location only one or a few times, you can set this up with multiple, late activated groups in the mission editor and just use the built-in triggers to activate the next group when the group ahead of it dies.

I don't think there is an easy way to create a full, pretty briefing, but I believe it's possible to script some kind of statistics window between the mission end conditions and the actual end of the mission. I'm definitely not the person to write that, but I bet there's something out there that could come close to what you're after. As far as goals failed/succeeded, MOOSE tasking already has some of this built in and it's pretty intuitive. There is a pretty developed scoring system too. See if that sounds like a start. Just a thought.

I don't know about an actual camera, but as a workaround, if you have Combined Arms, you can place an unarmed Humvee near where you'd like the camera to be and RAlt +J into it or regardless, you can use the F7 camera. That's what I've been doing for a quick view. Remember to add a slot for it as well, ex: tactical commander, game master etc. This view will always be from the ground though and it's really hard to look up, but if placed on a mountain, it's really, pretty effective. As for placing a camera at an airport, as far as I know, they all have them. Cycle through the F12 views. Should probably outline the purpose of the camera as well.

If it helps others who stumble upon this thread, here's some supporting information I found: Catch the Group Spawn Event in a callback function! When using the SPAWN.SpawnScheduleds are created following the spawn time interval parameters. When a new Group is spawned, you maybe want to execute actions with that group spawned at the spawn event. The SPAWN class supports this functionality through the method SPAWN.OnSpawnGroup( *function( SpawnedGroup ) end * ), which takes a function as a parameter that you can define locally. Whenever a new Group is spawned, the given function is called, and the Group that was just spawned, is given as a parameter. As a result, your spawn event handling function requires one parameter to be declared, which will contain the spawned Group object. A coding example is provided at the description of the SPAWN.OnSpawnGroup( *function( SpawnedGroup ) end * ) method. From the spawn class page This thread also shows some beneficial examples. Couple examples in FC's code here too.

You'd have to set up speed-greater-than and in-zone triggers. I'm not sure it's possible in the mission editor, if that's what you're using, but I know it's possible to do with code. I can' look it up right now, but that's where I'd start. Edit: Had a second and found a couple code snippets. I only know Moose (somewhat), but maybe try using these? Unit Group Positionable Zones POSITIONABLE:GetVelocityMPS() and UNIT:IsInZone(Zone)

I asked this in another thread, but received no reply. Is it possible yet to go from good weather to bad? Last I checked, our only options was to start with bad weather and watch it improve.

Ok, thank you Delta. This is helpful and will fix my issue. I just wish it was weaved in more closely with the spawning documentation so I could have discovered it the easy way. Thanks again.

Spent all night coming to the conclusion that Moose's SpawnScheduled() does not return an object and furthermore, it's not possible to find a group object spawned that way. At least that's what the mission and code are telling me. All I wanted to do was spawn come vehicles in a way that would keep them spawning after they're destroyed and trigger some actions when they enter a zone. Can't believe I'm actually creating a new thread around this, but damn, it doesn't work. Simple as that. Here is my A/B test mission. Test Driver 2 smokes red and that is it. Not going to work for me. Can't even find the group after it's spawned. ZoneA = ZONE:New("Zone A") Driver_1_Spawn = SPAWN:New("Test Driver 1"):InitLimit(1, 0) Driver_1 = Driver_1_Spawn:SpawnScheduled(1,0) Driver_2_Spawn = SPAWN:New("Test Driver 2"):InitLimit(1, 0) Driver_2 = Driver_2_Spawn:Spawn() -- Test Driver 1 SCHEDULER:New(nil, function() if Driver_1:IsCompletelyInZone(ZoneA) then Driver_1:SmokeRed() end end, {}, 0, 2) SCHEDULER:New(nil, function() if GROUP:FindByName("Test Driver 1"):IsCompletelyInZone(ZoneA) then GROUP:FindByName("Test Driver 1"):SmokeBlue() end end, {}, 1, 2) SCHEDULER:New(nil, function() if Group.getByName("Test Driver 1"):IsCompletelyInZone(ZoneA) then Group.getByName("Test Driver 1"):SmokeGreen() end end, {}, 1, 2) -- Test Driver 2 SCHEDULER:New(nil, function() if Driver_2:IsCompletelyInZone(ZoneA) then Driver_2:SmokeRed() end end, {}, 0, 2) SCHEDULER:New(nil, function() if GROUP:FindByName("Test Driver 2"):IsCompletelyInZone(ZoneA) then GROUP:FindByName("Test Driver 2"):SmokeBlue() end end, {}, 1, 2) Can someone please look at this code or the attached test mission and explain this to me? I'm done fighting it. Thanks TEST.lua TEST.miz

Thank you Grimes. I started to realize that after I asked, but this is helpful. I don't think I've ever written anything for DCS without framework before.

With Moose? Is there a way to implement this with MOOSE?

I could be wrong, but I know the invisible tag makes units invisible to other units. I'm not sure if it has that same effect with the F10 map. Regardless, you'd have to make sure the F10 map had the correct settings too. I'm also interested in a MOOSE script that turns invisibility on/off for units, but for a different reason.