vicx

How old is this thread?

If this is part of your secret plan to get someone working on a Mig-25 I hope it works.

I was curious. You could play with declare_missile() in missiles_table.lua. It does something.

Do you choose an aircraft that was never really tested in combat but is still a very interesting aircraft or do you choose a workhorse that flew thousands of missions over decades of service. There are good reasons for both and good candidates to choose from.

I got a feeling that Reaper mod requires an A10-C install. If not then I would like to know how that was done.

That was a good question. It was Vec2 but not well formed Vec2. It gave me a result and that's what threw me. I would have rather had a error msg. Thanks for the reply. It helped.

I am not able to work out what is not working with a FireAtPoint. I am targeting an APC with a mortar group. What values do I need to use for _point. I have tried LO, LL and MGRS and nothing works properly. FireAtPoint = { id = 'FireAtPoint', params = { point = _point, radius = 10 } } I can set the task perfectly but the targeting is WAY off. Unit.getbyName('mortar_group'):getController():setTask(FireAtPoint)

OK what is this activations and de-activations? I enable and disable modules in DCS. Is this activations? Or is activations done on the website. Just checking on this because I enable and disable modules a LOT.

Thanks Kaktus29 for posting this I noticed that the guidance laser only turned on for course corrections. On the first launch which was more centered with the aircraft axis it only came on for two short intervals.

Confirmed Mig-29 is a beautiful looking aircraft.

That's a very OLD system. I'd be surprised if it could hit anything modern.

CA isn't really core to ED flight sim focus so I don't mind having to script stuff for CA. I just want an API that let's me make improvements where I can.

Shagrat, many of these things are approachable problems. There is a solution to the man month problem. Let the devs work on architecture and core experience and let modders get cracking on broadening gameplay and pleasing people on the edges of the sim experience. Start supporting scripting threads and mod threads by people who are: Reporting and trying to get bugs fixed. Highlighting API problems and limitations in the Scripting Env. Trying to get information on how systems work Right now I am looking into how sensors, emissions, detection, targeting, and damage are exposed in the Scripting Env for ALL units NOT just player units. I want to start making posts shortly about this but I expect that some people will see it as a waste of time and will actually post in my thread - this is waste of time. I will ignore those people because tt doesn't have to be a waste of time at all. Thats my 2c. Mr_Burns, CA has a lot of potential. Modders and scripters can do a lot if the LUA API is deepened and made consistant. I have some thought on this and I'm hoping people who can't write code can at least support efforts by people who DO want to write code. I think we might need a scripting mafia. Scripters and mod makers can't and won't give you everything you want but maybe they can fill some gaps for the next four years until DCS 3.0

And then there are the models from Beczel which felll out of some portal from a future version of DCS. Just my opinion.

"The Mission editor" you have my attention "... will it be simplified ..." :shocking: "but this will not be happening. The editor will remain as powerful complex and deep as it is now." :prop: But seriously ED what we want is MORE powerful, MORE complex and MORE deep. In DCS, MORE is always the answer.

MiK684, for what units are you trying to visualize Radar locks? ATM DCS recordings for Tacview only show target locks for the aircraft you are flying. Pictures that I have posted to this thread that show unit to unit radar detection and other sensor activity were accomplished by writing a custom exporter. It is for now a hack and needs much more work.

I don 't think you should argue with a gran daddy. Those old guys know stuff.

Who cares about Eagles. This is a SKY - muthalovin - RAIDER. A10-C of it's day but more versatile. Korea is damn right. This is the next piece required after the F-86 and Mig-15. Some would argue it should have come first. Imagine if it came with a carrier.

I dunno. I think the whole idea of "modern EW" inside DCS is just a dream for now. You can have it but it won't actually be anything other than moving from a binary approach to rock, paper and scissors and then made to look more than it is. This might change in the future BUT not the near future. For older EW technologies of WW2 up to the late 50's you probably can start to approximate and model the most common systems in a fashion that is dynamic enough to be worthwhile. After this period the techniques become way more complex so that writing the code and environment (from scratch) is too much to take on. This is my pragmatic position on EW modelling. Start with something simpler that can be done to a worthwhile level where solving the modeling and simulation complexity will provide experience and frameworks that are a base for modelling more modern systems. I think very early Cold War era would make a good lab. The dawn of radar and jamming in WW2 would also be a ideal place to start. Do you need an example? Lets say that someone put in a lot of effort to write an ALQ-135 model. That model would be pointless without an adversary. To make this model worthwhile you have to spend just as much time on adversary EW suites for ground, air and sea to make the model part of a full dynamic system. Coding and simulating a SET of highly complex EW suites is a much more difficult proposal than coding and simulating a SET of far simpler EW suites from an earlier era. And without system dynamics you don't have much. Just my opinion.

Yo NS. I started dabbling in August with a fairly limited coding background and it has been interesting enough to distract me from flying. Just want to add my comment to Chroms. As great as MIST is; (and it is great) you should probably start with documentation on the scripting environment first and then look at the MIST library after that. The Hoggit Wiki is still the place to go. DCS Mission Scripting Environment Part 1 DCS Mission Scripting Environment Part 2 Once you have this stuff clear then reading through the MIST library is pretty instructive. Now do you want a live LUA console with access to the mission environment? Absolutely. So you will want DCS Witchcraft ^ DCS WC thread should be STICKIED. If you are mission building and scripting WHY would you not want a live console? Cmon MODS. Sticky that one.

I am surprised that a F-18 Super Hornet is being made. My advice for people making wishes is to ask the gods for exactly what you want and let the gods sort out the details.

I would poll all friendly units and get their detected targets and then apply some filters depending on how rigorous I wanted to be. for _,_group in pairs(coalition.getGroups(coalition.side.BLUE,nil)) do for _,_unit in pairs(_group:getUnits()) do _controller = _unit:getController() _detectedTargets = _controller:getDetectedTargets() for _,_target in pairs(_detectedTargets) do _target = _target.object _detected, _visible, _distance, _type, _time, _last_position, _last_velocity = _controller:isTargetDetected(_target,nil) if _visible then AddVisible(_target, _target:getGroup(), _target:getPosition(), _timer.getTime(), ) end if _last_position then AddGhost(_target, _target:getGroup(), _last_position, _time, ) end end end end Yes you should replace coalition.getGroups(coalition.side.BLUE,nil) with a MIST DB. Right now I am actually testing what the ghost unit icon in the F10 view actually means. It is either that the unit type is unknown OR that the unit cannot be ranged. I doubt it has anything to do with unit visibility because the ghost moves instead of staying in last known position. I think we could actually improve on the F10 map and make a better FOG of WAR mode. Share what you find Chomium.

Sam Sim is cool because they stick to modelling systems which are older. This is a smart way to approach the subject. It allows them to get the information and do a decent job of modelling and please many people with an interest in this area. Demonstrating the secret of success, be realistic with the goals. I do not think there will be realistic modelling of EW capabilities for the aircraft listed in the title of this thread. The systems are complex to model in isolation but it could be done with 'access' to the right information BUT then to model their dynamics in an EW environment that is where the complexity becomes impossible. You would have to revert to assumptions and shortcuts which would undo the effort of modelling in the first place. I think the dawn of the technology is the logical place to start modelling EW. Electronic Warfare Equipment of World War II. The technology is not as complex to model "in operation" and much of the detail for many of the systems is well known. So I think you have the wrong aircraft in the title. You should choose some aircraft where it is actually possible to succeed and model EW systems. Start at the beginning. Just my opinion.

F4

eric963, there is a known issue (known to some people) that some of the search radars are not able to be turned ON once they are turned OFF. For some radars it probably matches a real world limitation but for other radars it is perhaps a bug. I was made aware of this while reading the source for an air defence system written by Bantdit from the Rusian forums. He has in his system specific code to disable turning off these radars.