vicx

Then build a map where it's appropriate to have a US Carrier placed? That's funny because I had the opposite reaction. Hell yeah - build a science fiction game where I can fight aliens from my carrier group!

You won't find any ED devs here to argue with but I think I know the company line by now. If you are being hit by a Tunguska at 4,5km AGL then you are adoing something wrong. I think I got the tone right. Why not post a Tacview of the engagement so that we can see exactly what is happening. If the missile is hitting you carrying crazy energy you might be right? Post a Tacview -- it will make your point a lot better than words.

Tacview does not support that type of functionality. I think we can agree that it would be good if it could do this and many other things.

Bucic. I need pictures of the Russian smart grads and designators. From what I heard the specops designate the enemy armour and the hail follows the laser. There are also supposedly a thermobaric bore launched round which can also be guided by laser SPOT.

Ian, I am not a web developer ... BUT if you are going to keep doing browser based stuff ... I might need to have a look at javascript. About the map. The first thing I wondered when you mentioned using real-world terrain data was if the terrain matches up to DCS map. I noticed recently during some testing with Tacview that the map data for the DCS Georgian map does not match up to real-world SRTM data. Features are off by about 100-200m. Vyrt from Tacview says it is a DCS issue and I have not done any testing to prove or disprove this. If it is a DCS issue maybe the original map data for Georgia came coming a Russian source with a slightly different standard and ED themselves did not do the conversion properly when they added lat lon reference points to their own map. It could mean that if we use real world maps and other real world kml references they won't actually line up with in game features. It won't matter for some usage but for other uses it will matter. What Vyrt has done in Tacview is to use the DCS map to generate a custom DEM model only for DCS recordings. Tacview actually uses real world SRTM and OTOPO sources for Falcon BMS and GPS playbacks. It actually would be interesting to know what the original data source was for the Georgian map. With the right transform we might be able to take real terrain data and conform it to DCS topology. That would be a solid solution. I hope that NTTR and the Hormuz map won't have this issue. === On the topic of what you have done, it's really great for a raster solution.I feel that vectors are better for many reasons and it makes me wonder if they would really be that hard to generate? Vectors for buildings - possible. Vectors for powerlines - possible. Vectors for roads, railway lines and rivers - is much harder. Hack the rn3 files? or do some fancy processing on sampled data? Well out of the these visual elements - powerlines would be the easiest to use as a test case for vector output. Export the positions of the poles from DCS using LUA, connect them up pole-cord-pole-cord and terminate them at transformer blocks. BUT issue number one will still be unsolved. Real-world terrain data still won't match up with DCS terrain. Flyboys probably won't care but ... I'm focusing on CA and on the ground 100m-200m is too much error to have.

Which units exactly?

Been reading a bit about the Tu-22 Blinder. They can drop these bombs called the FAB-9000. It's a dumb bomb but it's a big dumb bomb.

How are the depth charges launched? do they just roll off or do they get tossed?

I am cleaning up a function I was playing with to export scenery objects and statics for viewing in Tacview and now I am getting better results. Of course it is cool to see buildings in mission playbacks so you can see attacks on map objects BUT you can also use Tacview as a tool for mission building and for modding the Georgia map. If you want to mod objects in the Georgia map you can use a Tacview export of the region of interest to work what the different buildings are called. If you are building missions then you could use a Tacview export to get information on building types and how much health they have. All 3d objects have a life value but I tweaked this export to only show objects with more than 300 hitpoints. *Interestiing note* wharfs and some other objects have zero hitpoints. Maybe they can't be destroyed no matter how much you bomb them. *Interestiing note2* We hope ED has a 3D editor in DCS 2.0 but as you see here there may be other ways to get there. Here are the shots. In the Game In the F10 MAP And in the mission editor Strange that the Civil boats are missing in the mission editor. Maybe I broke this bit in my DCS. I would like to share the code at some point but at the moment it isn't plug and play and there are two lil bugs still to be fixed. However while I work on that if anyone wants some exports done of regions of the map they are interested in ASK IN THIS THREAD and I might be able to export a small region. I'm not exporting every scenery object in the whole map yet. There is a smart way to do it and I haven't looked at it yet.

I've only played with LUA definitions for ground units and you can do a LOT with them. When testing this stuff I like to manually define an entry instead of relying on functions. I might add a manual definition later - TOO BUSY ATM. function GSh_23_2_tail_defense(tbl) tbl.barrel_circular_error = 0.007 tbl.aft_gun_mount = true tbl.azimuth_initial = 180 --tbl.muzzle_pos = tbl.muzzle_pos or {-18.5, 1.95, -0.055} tbl.muzzle_pos = {-30.0, 0.7, 0.0} --[[ tbl.effects = { fire_effect(350), smoke_effect(), { name = "TurretOrietation", azimuth_arg = 451, elevation_arg = 452, azimuth_k = 1/25, elevation_k = 1/17} } ]] return gun_mount("GSh_23_2", { count = 1200 },tbl) end You can try this. Replace that entry in "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Config\Weapons\aircraft_guns.lua" and see what happens for the Tu-95[/b] It seems to work. It looks like there is fallback code in the engine that kicks in if you comment out the effect arguments (bypassing references to missing turret orientation args)

I'd be intrigued by the possibility of using a desktop scanner to scan scale model parts to use as reference tools in your 3D modeller. It doesn't get you a DCS aircraft but it could be a nice way to build statics. *OK exactly what Skate said*

I tried so many things and then I stopped documenting what I was doing and tried everything. To remove terrain elevation isolines in the basic map view I had to delete an actual file. The result was better but only marginal for the extra work required.

Jerec for what plane do want to change? Each aircraft has it's own template file that you edit to change things. "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\Su-25T\Cockpit\Scripts\ARCADE\arcade_template_hud.lua" "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\F-86\Cockpit\Scripts\ARCADE\arcade_template_hud.lua" "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\Ka-50\Cockpit\Scripts\ARCADE\arcade_template_hud.lua" Inside the file is this bit. target_airborne = CreateElement "ceTexPoly" target_airborne.name = "target_airborne" target_airborne.vertices = {{-trg_size_x, -trg_size_y}, {-trg_size_x, trg_size_y}, { trg_size_x, trg_size_y}, { trg_size_x, -trg_size_y}} target_airborne.indices = default_box_indices target_airborne.material = _T_RED_ target_airborne.tex_params = {0.5, 365.5 / 512, tex_scale, tex_scale} target_airborne.controllers = {{"draw_target_hud"},{"draw_iff_color"},{"you_are_the_target_blinking"}} target_airborne.h_clip_relation = h_clip_relations.INCREASE_IF_LEVEL target_airborne.level = DEFAULT_LEVEL + 1 target_airborne.additive_alpha = true AddElement(target_airborne) In bold is what you change from _T_RED_ to _T_GREEN_. Edit the file with notepad++ and save to desktop. Copy from desktop back to original location. You will be asked by Windows Security to say Yes. Other colors are defined in "C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\*Some AIRCRAFT*\Cockpit\Scripts\ARCADE\arcade_usefull_definitions.lua" Yellow, pink, purple. etc are defined there. Have fun.

BM, As I read it months ago, G-Sync is designed to make LOW framerates look almost as good as high framerates. The whole point of G-sync is make the connection between monitor and videocard a lot more intelligent to create a smoother experience. In theory G-sync is the perfect monitor for flight sims where the framerate DOES fluctuate heavily. If games could be coded to deliver perfect and stable 120fps at low latency there would be no need for G-sync. We do not live in perfect world so G-sync solves a real problem. Of course we want your review to be sure.

Yeah there is Darkfire. I PM'd you.

Thanks for posting your findings on this. Always keen to have a look but never enough time.

I will be making a mission where you fight aliens in Nevada. I will be making it as realistic as I possibly can. I am loving all the advice here in this thread.

There is certainly a case for this. You might be in the driver role, or in role of commander when in a tank. In which case aiming and firing decisions are sometimes separate.

There is certainly a case for this. You might be in the driver role, or in role of commander when in a tank. In which case aiming and firing decisions are sometimes separate. Is there a method to achieve this presently. No there is not.

ENO I gotta say that now is the perfect time to get back into mission building and scripting. A big thing for scripting happened during last year. Ian[FSF] released DCS Witchcraft which is a browser based LIVE LUA console. As far as I know ... WC is the first publicly available LIVE LUA console. Which I think is a big deal. WC also comes with a unit placement tool (which you should use) BUT don't get distracted because it is the LUA console which has the core functionality. I just see the unit/map tool is just a nice tech demo to show what is possible with a Live LUA interface and a lot more javascript and web programming experience than I have. Anyway WC is what encouraged me to dig into DCS scripting and it has proven to be an excellent tool. === See above ^^ with the LUA console it is now a lot easier to find bugs. I haven't dug into multiplayer scripting yet but WC could make a difference here too ... one day. Personally I have not bothered to do any multiplayer scripting because ... dedicated server? Soon I hope. I do not think there will be any problem bringing scripts up to date. See above ^^^ I can't say for sure but I'm going to say - nope! Now I have looked at a lot of the scripts and I think they show their age. We can probably be more ambitious with scripts going forward because we now have a "publicly" available tool which makes a certain amount LIVE debugging possible and dare I say it ... fun. My prediction is that someone (probably not me); is going to drop a really great framework on these forums that will blow some minds. I think it is time for something like that, Having a look at most scripts (too many to name) they seem highly specialized. They have great techniques in them but they aren't really frameworks that radically extend or workaround SSE and that can be easily extended themselves. MIST by Speed/Grimes/Others I regard as a library (not a diss) that has been instrumental in getting scripting in DCS to where it is right now. It probably can't take us to the next level because it is a somewhat essential library that has to remain backwards compatible. Those are the facts. MOOSE by Sven whch dropped recently is interesting but I have the impression that it has a narrow and specific use case. It will please the people who need it. Personally I found MSF by Bantd to be a pretty interesting framework because it focused on unit behaviors and that gave me some ideas. Now if DCSW 2.0 wasn't about to drop any day I might just consider extending MSF but I just have this feeling that something really new could be on the way. Maybe it is a hope that some of Bantd's ideas (he is active on the Russian forum) may make it into DCSW 2.0. ... You asked for conversation. Some of this stuff was on my mind as I sit here trying to make DCS do cool things.

I think that there needs to be a new type added to this table Object.Category = { UNIT, WEAPON, STATIC, SCENERY, BASE } Cargo is not really a STATIC. --- On the subject of other hard to handle objects; I am trying to access SPOT objects and objects that are used by service.FAC. Support from ED for scripted access to CARGO/TRANSPORT and SPOT/TARGETING objects is unlikely in the short term. The only solution as I see it, is to ignore the built-ins and create scripted alternatives. Thoughts?

Wasn't the F14 a Fleet Defender. It was for shooting down threats to the Fleet. This threats would be Migs? What I mean is that realistic would be for F14 main role to intercept standoff bombers with cruise missiles. True?

In Mission options choose a FOG of War setting. Get you GCI commander to join your team and after that he can use the ruler to get distance and heading and 'radio' using Teamspeak or some other voicechat if you aren't in the same room. If you really wanna get more elite have a look at Aries Radio for simulating a more realistic Radio functionality LotAtc for a cool GCI interface.

Мне нужна Таблица объектов. Типа пятно луча лазера и ИК-порт. Как получить массив?

Totally awesome. Silver Dragon, Do you have any information from ED if there will be support for torpedos and depth charges. I have been thinking of ways to fake submerged targets and depth charges using scripts BUT direct support would be better.