SDsc0rch

yes - i am going to resurrect this thread i have had a DAWG of a time trying to figure this out - and yes, i have seen the half dozen or so threads that dealt with this topic, but none of them *clearly* set out the instructions on what to do so, for the sake of posterity, let me lay it out... first, to have an aircraft APPEAR in the mission, but delay starting until a set amount of time passes (see grimes comments above for implications of UNCONTROLLED vs LATE ACTIVATION, resources etc - that's part of the reason i chose to append this post to this thread, out of the several threads that dealt with this issue), you need first set the aircraft on the airport, and then select "takeoff from ramp" note -- set the TIME to whatever mission start time is, this is NOT where you enter the "delay" also, notice the PRK field? you can select where the a/c is spotted (or... "PARKED" ----- cool feature, thx DCS ---- btw, if anybody has these mapped out for all the airfields, i would be much obliged..) at this point, also click UNCONTROLLED --- that means the aircraft will be *empty* at mission start (ie: no pilots) now, select that third tab over (next to the waypoint tab in the lower-half of the page) --- this is going to contain the start action - the actual TRIGGER is something else and we'll cover that in a minute click ADD, then in the window that pops out, type = PERFORM COMMAND, and action = START next, we'll cover the trigger.. first box: NEW, ONCE, NO EVENT second box: select TIME MORE and down below enter a time in seconds - THAT IS HOW LONG THE AIRCRAFT WILL SIT INACTIVE moving to the third box, this is where you tie this trigger to the action of starting this delayed start unit -- under ACTION, select AI TASK PUSH, and below that in AI ACTION, every unit that has an action is listed - that's where you'll see the GROUP name and actions you've made available to it i hope this clears things up for future mission editors and i also hope its not confusing since i have two F-15Es in the mission and you see info on both of them in here - but maybe that helps too ----- the reason its like that is i was trying every *freaking* combination of commands and it wasn't working - so i gave up on the first and created a whole second one, thinking maybe i had corrupted the first one and needed to start over fresh maybe (please?!?) ED can make this process easier in the GUI, rather than have to create an action under a tab, then build a trigger that references that action......... gawd! how freaking insane!! oh well, all in a days work (don't laugh - THIS is what i did today - er, yesterday.. its after midnight now)lol

mounted mine to the obutto fits perfectly if you're curious, PM me to find out what i did (too long for a post here)

seems to me like people are picking what would be the "one" good aircraft to "match" some other aircraft that's "poor dad" thinking c'mon - think big! i hope they build'em ALL!

they want to raise the bar that they set with the -21 that f-14 is gonna be....... awesome

grats whaddya mean only running 1080? with that system?? 8)

how are you going to mount your JS? and what length do you think you'll need?

pilots wear helmets because they HAVE to - notice airline pilots and GA pilots don't wear helmets they simultaneously provide protection against trauma but also are a mounting point for the oxygen supply, the radio headsets and sometimes optics (am i missing anything?) a mock-up cockpit is "nice" i guess, in that it could be quite functional (buttons/switches/displays in the ergonomically "correct" positions) - but i would find an instrument panel at chest level would interfere with my view of the screen (the part that accommodates the game instrument panel - sorta self-defeating imo) ---- but, for me, the mock cockpit is 1) costs too much, 2) is physically too large, 3) takes a LOT of effort, and probably most importantly, 4) bumps far too solidly into the "kook factor" for me, i have an obutto cockpit frame - it holds my JS, Th and pedals in just the right ergonomic position -- and i have a headset with the T-IR mounted to it all of this is set in front of a 58-in TV/display at some point, when we get a DCS:F-15C i'll want to setup a touch-screen like what can be done via helios for the A-10C - so as to have access to all the cockpit buttons and switches that i would have in a fully functional cockpit ---- so, software replacing hardware essentially perfect - for me (i think)

uh yeahhhh "no" just.. "no"

yeah.. maybe it would be a good idea to add a track i know the M61 cannon actually has a certain amount of "spread" designed into it - not sure if this is actually modeled in the game though is that what you're talking about? you say the rounds go "left and right" of the target...

hmmmm!

yeah - you realize, the F-14 actually deployed to and flew over vietnam

i would more than welcome a delta version i don't know why so many people are so down - almost to the point of protest - on the prospect of a good modern fighter if the devs have the documentation to do it, and they think they can.. more power to'em! but let THEM decide that - we end-users shouldn't proactively be indicating we want "less" of an end-product push the limits! exceed and excel!

yeah.. i'm curious too - how do you "estimate range" from the RWR ??

cannot answer your questions about whether HOJ mode missiles give a launch indication on the target's RWR equipment but i would like to add another point.. at some point the F-15 should get some form of data link, i would hope the DL symbology will overlay ownship radar symbology on the radar display - then you would be able to see a DL contact that is jamming by correlating combined symbology on your radar display similarly, if we can ever get a functional IFF system, you would then see IFF contacts (friendlies) appearing on the radar display - currently, friendly and hostile contacts that are jamming appear the same on the display, but with the addition of IFF hits on the scope, you would be able to see a friendly unit that is jamming (the DL certainly wouldn't hurt your SA either)

i approve 8)

you know.. this brings up a really good point! HOJ mode is supposed to permit you to fire on a jamming aircaft HOWEVER.. the missiles in game can't fly far enough to ever hit that guy since burn-through range is ~25nm see the problem here?? once they're inside burn-through range, we don't need HOJ mode anymore - you just lock him up like usual and fox (of course, you've got to get a LOT CLOSER than 20nm for your missile to hit, huh!) so.. someone remind me, what's the point of HOJ again?? (psst! FIX. THE. MISSILES! you think they're "right" ------- they. are. NOT. right!) ps.. to answer your question, you don't get a range to the bad guy you need to utilize AWACS to give you SA on his range

i know the 104 was also quite tricky to fly might be a case of "be careful what you wish for"

the things that need to be classified, are classified and they're not even talked about you have no idea about them there are systems that existed in WWII that still aren't discussed but there are things that ARE known, and we should be able to make a "best guess" about them ie.. missiles we have a "pretty good" idea and understanding about their operation and functioning - all i'm asking for is a "pretty good" representation of their real-world performance we do not have that with missiles at this point now, the *specifics* of the equipment, sure.. that needs to be under wraps and it is but i think ppl get wound around the axle too tight about a lot of things that are military - i think it enhances the "gee charlie whiz bang" factor - and the "ooh, i know this, so i'm important" factor but if there's decent open-source, publicly available information out there (and there is a lot - i keep getting more and more surprised the longer i'm part of this community)....... c'mon!

confirmed - CTRL-c CTRL-v works works great wow

lol let me translate this for everyone........ waaaaaah! i'm going to withhold my $50 until you fix this bug over here

i thought that was exactly what templates were for for ground units, you can build templates - doesn't work so well with air units for example (parenthetically, WHY should we have to build a template for a SAM system?? why can't a nominal SAM site have the search radar, tracking radar, and TELs included already in its own group ready to go ---- think of how many threads that would cut down on, ppl wouldn't have to come on here and ask why their sam system isn't working....)

well.. sometimes the a/c to be escorted CAN"T fly faster in that case, i would recommend flying a weaving or zig-zag pattern to keep your airspeed up while maintaining a slower total forward speed (ie.. WWII fighters escorting bombers at high alt) for AI aircraft.. well, they'll just have to deal with it : /

there are soooo many kickass jets out there.. question is, who will take the time to build them all?? just think.. if they can make it so 3rd party devs can just "plug and chug" values in to fields and out pops an EFM, that would be great (like what they do in "survey sims"/WarThunder) but i have a feeling that's "not the way this works - that's not how any of this works"

its an anti-war war flick (because war never solves anything... like slavery or nazism) but shows some "really cool gee charlie whiz bang" stuff (so y'all will go watch it too)

oh! i did not know that! (off to go try this...... you have NO IDEA how much time and how many mouse-clicks i've spent........ lol)