Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kyridious

  1. Hi JLX,


    thanks for the answer.


    I was aware of that, but I wanted to have a destroyed bridge, well actually two destroyed bridges possibly, and not missing bridges :cry:


    I've never created a mission that I might post for others to use, and I kind of want it to be really nice and not klunky. So many things just don't work realistically, or like I'd want them to work, beyond not being able to destroy a bridge (BTW at an explosion volume of 2000 I got one of the two bridges to collapse, but not the other, maybe bc the collapsed bridge is longer and has a center section, which is easier to destroy, while the other doesn't).


    I guess I'll have to try to use a larger explosion volume, and warn the player that if he flies over the bridge too close while hitting it with HVAR's, that he'll be blown up :(


    Any idea how to get a group of trucks etc. in convoy to disperse per trigger, and not just when they are attacked?




    My suggestion is to use multiple explosion commands with smaller radii. I do this all the time for large ships that I want to destroy with an SC500 or slavo of HVARs.

  2. Does anyone know whether it's possible to influence in a somewhat predictable manner the movement of a ground vehicle or infantry by the presence of the player aircraft.


    For example, a truck may be on a road and I fly my helicopter towards it. It then attempts to drive away from the location of my helicopter, regardless of which direction I fly from. (Think a sheepdog and sheep).




    This is indeed possible but requires scripting. The default behavior for AI vehicles under threat is to disperse. You need to disable this dispersion (option in the ME) and manually set a new waypoint.

  3. Usually you need a critical mass of pilots before the more realistic type of combat is viable.


    Exactly. Would it make sense to try and coordinate a weekly public pickup game? If I knew other pilots are likely to join at a certain hour, I'm more likely to stick around waiting for critical mass. Particularly if it opens up more interesting / immersive mission designs.


    Its also easier to explain to the wife "All these pilots from around the world are going to be flying TOGETHER and its going to be great and... can you watch the kids?"

  4. There seems to be a lot of hit and miss when trying to get the B17 to do much of anything. I finally just gave up on any kind of bombing missions due to the inconsistencies in the plane's behavior. The whole assets pack is pretty much a non starter for me at this point. I went back to using modern stuff on my WWII battlefields because the asset pack vehicles, planes, and weapons aren't much help when making missions. What little it has to offer doesn't seem to do much.

    Maybe they've fixed some of the stuff or added to it. I haven't bothered with it in months. Sad really..........



    For me, the most reliable way to use B17s is to limit each group to a single unit with its own route & tasking. Manually build the formation either in the ME or using LUA. It can be time consuming, but I've gotten fairly deterministic behavior this way. For testing, time acceleration is your friend =)


    Presently, it only takes a tiny burst of MG to kill a B17. My current project is to make the B17s more durable by counting hits and triggering a death sequence above a threshold. Lame? Yes. But its better than what we've got. I've implemented this for other unit types so I don't see why it wouldn't work here.


    But I agree with your point, the WWII assets require a lot of creativity =)

  5. Even if it were relevant, there are no 1940s transport or even medium range bomber planes... and no-one online is even flying accross the 90km English channel at the moment, let alone 5,000km to Georgia in their P51.


    For me, the benefit would not be the increased geographic area for point to point flights, but rather the geographic diversity of a world map. I'd continue to build missions (multiplayer) with similar geometries to what we've got. I just want some more hills / mountains / islands with unique airstrips.

  6. Thanks Grimes, but no luck =/


    The dcs.log updated at run time is in the default Saved Games\DCS\Logs\ path. Scripts are located at Saved Games\DCS\Scripts\Hooks\*.lua. Can't find a dcs_variants.txt on the system.


    I may just reinstall... perhaps something went haywire during the 2.5 update?

  7. Good Morning,


    I can't get DCS to find & load custom server scripts anymore. Pre 2.5, we'd put these files in the Saved Games\DCS\Scripts\ path with a name like *gameGUI.lua. According to the recent ED documentation, that changed several months ago:


    DCS Simulation Control User Scripts


    The behaviour of the DCS can be altered using the Lua scripts. You define the hooks to the DCS events, and then do what you want using the provided API.


    When loading, DCS searches for Saved Games\DCS\Scripts\Hooks\*.lua files, sorts them by name and then loads into the GUI Lua-state. Each user script is loaded into an isolated environment, so the only thing they share is the state of the simulator.


    I moved my work into the "Hooks" path but I still don't see any indication that they are being parsed in the dcs.log.


    Any ideas?

  8. I voted yes, because sometimes (not all the time!) I'd like a map that was:

    - Optimized for performance

    - Offered improved visibility / ground contrast in VR

    - Provide different topographies for the WWII units (its somewhat challenging to design concise WWII MP missions in the hills/mountainous region of Caucaus due to airfield placement).



    This, of course, assumes that the creation of a fictional map would be significantly less work than realistic counterparts.

  9. I'm going to necro my own thread, because we now have the B-17, although not complete in any sense of the word, we might soon have a new DM, and I see no viable way to put the B-17s to use in their historical role as a high altitude bomber, with current ME resources, nor P-51s in their role as escorts, without creating restrictively long missions for open-play servers.


    Why do I think it cannot be reasonably done? There are basically two ways to do this.


    1. Start a mission with everybody on the ground, everybody has to start-up, climb to mission altitude and fly to the mission area. This means much of the mission time is spent just climbing and flying, and I've already heard many complaints about missions where you start far from the active area of the map, that the player is forced to fly for 5-10 minutes just to get into the action. With such a bombing mission, the advance flight time will be even greater(!!). Interceptors will be in much the same situation, only they would be over the designated bombing mission target well in advance of the bombers, or more likely, they would sortie out to intercept the bombers long before they have come close to their targets. After all, if it's a known mission, the intercepting side will inevitably know where the bombers are coming from, and will be able to intercept them far in advance, which is certainly not realistic, nor does it lend itself to a good mission IMHO.


    Such a mission would be a one time shot, as far as the bombing/escort mission itself goes, and it would last for well over an hour, which means, anybody joining the server after mission start would miss out on the meat of the mission. Maybe they might catch up with the bombers on their way back, but only maybe. More likely players would simply say, forget it, bc they don't want to wait however long for the mission to restart before they could actually take part in the action.


    So to enjoy the mission challenges you would have to be there right when the mission starts, and most of the time in the mission would be just flying to and from the bomber's target.


    I don't think that makes for a good mission for pick-up players on an open server.


    2. You could air-start everybody at the same time with the bombers already at altitude not too far from their target, and with escorts already in position, as well as interceptors. This could be done now with current ME resources, but it would still have two issues IMHO.


    A. There would be no kind of balance, because AFAIK there is no system for doing this in DCS. If 5 players join as interceptors and only one as escort, too bad for the escort.


    B. We would still have the unlimited-lives-syndrome situation. IE if you fly recklessly and get shoot down, it doesn't matter much, because you can simply respawn back in 10 seconds later.


    This type of mission would have the advantage of being fairly accessible to pick-up players, but I think it could be done better with the right ME resources.




    So what resources would we need?


    1. Empty slots should be filled by AI at mission start. Then regardless of how many players joined each side, even if none joined one side, the mission would still have a viable balance, and be challenging for all the players; ofc this is considering the new DM and the AI working more realistically, both of which are on their way, or being worked on right now.


    2. A pre-mission staging--kind of a lobby, where players could chat, decide which slots they wish to fly, and generally get ready for an air-start.


    3. One mission, one life.




    My thoughts are that with these resources a mission could be created which only represented a short period of time before the bombers reached their target until they had left the area, so maybe something like starting 10-20 miles away form the bombing target, and ending when the last bomber left the area, or an arbitrary time limit after the last bomber was shoot down.


    The mission would only last around 10-15 minutes, being the real meat of a bombing mission, getting over target with interceptors trying to down as many bombers as possible before the bombers dropped their loads, and pushing their attacks to take down as many bombers afterwards, while the escorts would ofc try to prevent this. So, a mission very much like the situation over Europe during the bombing campaign, but limited to just the part where the real action was.


    If the ME allowed it, it could be created so that once the mission started, no players could join the mission. Ofc they could join the server as observers until the mission restarted, but if the mission were created well, that shouldn't be very long. Every player would have 1 life and would be forced to act like it or wait for the mission to restart. Since the missions would not last very long, late-comers and lost pilots would never have to wait very long for the next mission to start.


    We would finally have escorts and interceptors flying their actual roles. Interceptors would have to decide whether to concentrate on attacking the bombers or taking out the escorts, and escorts would have to decide whether to stay and guard the bombers or chase down the interceptors. The situation would be far different than what we have now at any rate.


    I think this kind of mission would be a lot of fun to fly.








    Howdy, I created a sort of framework to enable this very type of mission. However, I felt it was too clunky for primetime and I've let it weather in the hanger. It uses a combination of slot blocking and server pausing to synchronize players into flights. Rounds are designed to last 10-20 minutes, all assets dynamically spawned so you don't replay the same geometry etc.



    In brief, it works like this:

    - Players join the server

    - The players select a slot representing a position in the formation

    - When the next round begins, the sim is paused and players are automatically moved from their FORMATION slot to the corresponding MISSION slot. While the game is still paused, pilots click "fly" to spawn into their mission aircraft. Note: The mission slot can be obfuscated to hide spawn locations.

    - After a short countdown, the mission is unpaused. All players are in formation and get mission details via radio messages.

    - No respawns, although crashed pilots can always fly around using "practice" slots.

    - At the end of a round, all players are kicked back to spectators and must re-select a FORMATION slot before the next round begins.



    It works! (not tested in 2.5) But frankly, the lack of players online have curbed my enthusiasm for polishing the product. I'd be happy to tackle it again if there is sufficient interest.





  10. Thanks Raven.



    I was able to make both our approaches work last night in a barebones mission with distant targets. More testing is required, but I suspect things begin to break down if the AC are spawned & tasked within detection distance of each other. Perhaps it has to do with threat level? (Not sure how AI interpret client threat level).



    Regardless, I'll update this thread as I learn more.




  11. Joining the club. Had been using TM Hotas Warthog since january 2017 without problems until now. Windows simply doesnt recognize throttle, it just flashes those 5 leds and its dead brick. Stick and everything else USB peripheral is working just fine, and i've tried different USB ports. Tried to reinstall drivers, software etc. and tried to reset throttle firmware doing that autopilot & L/G warning button press thing but nothing helps. Windows just doesnt recognize the throttle no matter what i do. Could it be possible that the wire is broken? If its broken, would it flash those 5 leds? For reasons i cannot try it with another computer now. Fortunately theres still warranty left and i have backup (Saitek x52) throttle.




    Sadly, I too have joined the club this week (after 3+ years of use). I went through the exact same troubleshooting procedure (on multiple pcs, win10 & win7) with identical results. NahkaSukka, are you running windows 10? I started having issues after installing the most recent win10 update (which included more system reboots than usual). I'm curious if there was something special about that update which interfered with USB power management.

  12. Does anyone have an example mission demonstrating how to task a spawned AC to attack another spawned AC? I thought I had this working a long time ago (1.5) but I have not been able to get it to work in 2.1 / Normandy.


    I've tried a bunch of variations along the lines of ...


    [font=Fixedsys]local sg1 = SPAWN:New( "FW190" ) 
    local sg2 = SPAWN:New( "P51D" ) 
    local g1  = sg1:SpawnFromVec3(Vec3)
    local g2  = sg2:SpwanFromVec3(Vec3)
    g1Name    = g1:GetName()
    g2Name    = g2:GetName()
    // Delay X seconds using a SCHEDULER to allow time for the 
    // sim to create controllers for the newly spawned groups, 
    // then task g1 to attack g2
    local g1     = GROUP:FindByName(g1Name)
    local g2     = GROUP:FindByName(g2Name)
    local myTask = g1:TaskAttackGroup(g2)

    The usual outcome is:

    1] Assets spawn normally

    2] Any default tasking for sg1 (as defined for the spawn group in the ME) is discarded / overwritten (indicating that _something_ is happening)

    3] g1 ignores attack group command




  13. Presently, we can adjust label format as a function of distance. I would like the ability to adjust label color as a function of distance.


    This would let us build the following label scheme (distances are approx).


    0<0.4km, No Labels

    0.4km<1km, Red Dot:Axis, Blue Dot:Allies

    1km<10km, Gray Dot:All AC


    This offers a more immersive balance, allowing VR users to ID friend/foe at more realistic ranges while retaining the ambiguous gray box labels at longer ranges.

  14. Just FYI, disabling tooltips is the the only thing that has worked for me. Doing this from the options menu works for single player. Multiplayer is a little different..


    From my experience, the only way to disable tooltips in multiplayer is for the server to run a mission that FORCES no tooltips on the client. Leaving the checkbox blank or not enforced is not adequate. I dont think many servers force no tooltips so we're probably out of luck until a patch.

  • Create New...