vicx

Playing with creating ghosts to show the Tor getting target LOCK on an Su-25 and then losing LOCK. Lock seems to be dependant on the OPTICAL sensor. The optical sensor range is much smaller than the missile engagement range which is odd. This is probably just a simplification to stop the AI wasting missiles but from sim perspective I wonder if the TV Optical sight on the Tor should be able to track targets beyond the missile engagement range. The top picture is a merge that shows what happens during playback. The unit to unit indicator from goes from blue to red to indicate (search radar detection in blue) and target tracking (optic detection in red). The first su25 ghost is dropped when polling the Tor indicates that the Su25 has gone from an unidentified contact to an identified target. The Tor fires shortly after this. The second su25 ghost is dropped when polling the Tor indicates that the su25 is no longer visible in the Optic sight.

Correct me if I am wrong. We have a a flat earth model now in DCS? Is this changing in DCS 2.0?

Some ideas for the next version of Tacview. Focused on how labels are shown. My own comment: The Mi-24 helos are actually a lot further away than it looks in the picture. I think slightly scaling the labels for the helos smaller in a ratio to match the distance from the camera would prevent the illusion of them appearing closer than they really are. The labels for the ground units are sized 10px and airborne are 12px - should probably scale and fade labels based on distance from cam to give better visual cues. Also I probably should have enabled the height vector.

This is a use case for being able to log objects purely for visualization. This is a recording of SEAD attack on mobile SAM units. The Su25T launches an anti-radar missile, the SAM units detect the launch or predict the attack and turn off their radars. Guidance in the missile maintains course with last known location. --- This is something that people may want to visualise - why did my anti-radar missile miss the target. This last known location is "kind of" available in the mission scripting environment. Below is debug text exported to dcs.log with comments in italics. Sensor RWR: Su-25T detects Osa true Visible: false (OSA radar was turned off) Distance: true (still have range information for original target position) Identified: false (this is not true for Su-25T - probably true in aircraft with modern RWR) Last seen: 290.16 Time now: 303.301 Last Pos: {["y"] = 310.72463989258,["x"] = -48381.29296875,["z"] = 713613.6875,} With this information I could provide a visualisation of the anti-radar missile and it's path to what it THINKS is the target location. I simply have to log this target location as a GHOST vehicle unit at Last Pos. Being able to control visual properties of units/objects from the log would make it possible to create unique visualisations by writing custom exporters for Tacview and experimenting with the output. The utility of a GHOST unit in the Tacview client I see an interesting possibility to show FOG of WAR- who can see who and where units were last seen. This is not a feature request, to my thinking it raises too many UI issues but I do like the idea.

Vyrt. I used the term "trusted script" a bit lazily. I was just making a point that in DCS to get some cool things to happen sometimes you have to lower the protection. In C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Scripts\MissionScripting.lua there is following code. --Initialization script for the Mission lua Environment (SSE) dofile('Scripts/ScriptingSystem.lua') --Sanitize Mission Scripting environment --This makes unavailable some unsecure functions. --Mission downloaded from server to client may contain potentialy harmful lua code that may use these functions. --You can remove the code below and make availble these functions at your own risk. do sanitizeModule('os') --sanitizeModule('io') --sanitizeModule('lfs') require = nil loadlib = nil end I say these things generally. If you enable scripts to write to filesystem then you must trust missions (mission_from_forum.MIZ) you download from internet because they could have in them malicious code that can now access the file system. I do not know LUA well and I am not a coder (only I play) and I know less security but someone who knows these things better might have the technique to make exports from the mission scripting environment work without completely enabling lfs,io module for ALL missions. This would be an improvement.

Some ideas for line indicators. It is possible to export data on targets and sensors from the "mission scripting" environment (with trusted scripts). This means you could show "who can see who" and use different colors, dots/dashes, glows and transparencies to indicate what sensor is being used. IRST, Radar, Optical, Passives (RWR, IR, Laser), Eyeballs etc etc. On the subject of scaling. I had to carefully frame this shot so the models weren't comically large. Even with a best case these models are too large. I'd like to see these models half this size.

Part of me wants new aircraft for era combat like Vietnam BUT then part of me just wants a rare bird that I love the look of. I realise that they don't really have a place in era combat but I love the look of the dedicated cold war interceptors - the Su-15 is just something I would love to look at in DCS.

Flag, I dunno. I understand the desire to want everything built-in but I don't think there would be as much unanimity (everyone thinking the same) on what the default behaviors should be as you might think. People will have different ideas on what the AI should do. This is for everyone in the thread - I really think scripting is the way to go for AI development. You would be surprised what is possible with scripts. If you want better AI, support scripters who are writing good scripts and boost their threads when they ask ED for scripting hooks. That's one thing. The other thing is to keep harrassing ED to release a Dedicated Server. These two things are connected because scripts use processor and slow your frames BUT if the scripts is running on the server then you get the AI for free. So yeah support scripters and demand a dedicated server

Slick. Started with the LN crew interview and now I'm downloading more. :thumbup:

All images are straight out of Tacview 1.3. Just sharing some images of tests I am doing exporting data from the 'mission scripting' interface of DCS instead of the 'export' interface. Here I am using the unit to unit line indicator to show radar detection (NOT LOCKS) of a SU-25T and a SEAD missile by a SAM network. This is Mbot's demo mission for his IADS script. This is test scene for a long-term project I am working on to enable a CA player to take control of a small air defense group as a 'krai colonel'. The idea is to have individual units reporting contacts to the player and for the player to give real time tactical instructions for the air defense engagement. The aim is to make the action more dynamic than just driving the F10 map. In this picture the blue unit to unit indicators are showing RWR detections. You can see that the blue aircraft have the DOG EAR radar on their RWR but the Dog Ear has not detected them. Also there is a DOG EAR rendered in black on the coastline. I exported that to the 'Dead' coalition to indicate it is a dead unit. Also I just noticed the BTR-80 has visual contact on the F-16. This is a test with RWR indication disabled. I only included this picture so I can make some comments on the auto-scaling. Sometimes it looks good for air units but most of the time I think the mesh is too large and for ground units it just makes a mess. Auto-scaling also seems to scale background objects more than it should which throws perspective out in a lot views. I will post images with mocks that show scaling I find preferable in the next post. --- Just to sum up. Tacview rocks, especially the latest version which adds up to ten "unit to unit" indicators per unit. Earlier in this thread Vyrt invited suggestions and screens for ideas and suggestions we might have for future versions of Tacview. I'm probably going to add more pictures and comments in the next couple of days and weeks to help shape the next version. We can do it in this thread or spin another one up. Feel free to mark up and repost any of the images I post if you feel creative.

I dunno the pictures from a SNIPER pod look pretty good and that is old technology.

Yeah attention MODS ... it really is time to make Ian's Witchcraft STICKIED.

Chromium I was tweaking the F10 map about a month ago. You can do a lot with C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Bazar\Map\classifier.cfg but it is not as intuitive as it seems. So much trial and error involved to get desired result. The scale setting is still a mystery to me I just used big numbers to make things appear earlier than they should. I'm not sure which data mods the ME editor and which data mods F10 AWACS view in C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\MissionEditor\data\NewMap\classifier.lua but I was able to change the appearance of some elements (lines,icons,shapes) and remove others. HINT: translate any russian comments using google translate to get a basic category for the element. (road, railway, highway, forest, iso, power, river, building, village, names ... etc) In the end I also had to temporarily delete some files to remove some elements because I think they are just hard-coded. I think the F10 map view is probably hacks built on hacks. What I wanted to do was to make a ROAD focused map setting that showed most roads and most towns as soon as possible in the zoom view. I also decided to remove all other distracting elements. I got part of the way there it but I wasn't completely satisfied.

--> 6m51s <--

I remember when stealth was a movie plot, so to know the future you have to think like a movie. It's going to be hackers, drones and lasers.

I read something the other day about the A-10 vs the F-35. The point raised in the article is that because the A-10 uses pods it can always carry the latest sensors but aircraft with more integrated avionics and sensors are harder to upgrade so they can actually lag in capability. So the F-35 is like an iMac Air that you can't really upgrade without sending it back to the factory while the A-10 is like a Big ugly PC where you can kinda upgrade the parts as you go BUT it will never be as integrated as an iMac Air.

It looks like IR or optical is going to become the new primary sensor. OR a big ear shaped sensor to listen for stuff. Or laser-scan the whole damn sky (which is active optical search I guess)

I'm interested in developing (over time) something like a mission "module". This would be a mission that has as a component a lot of customised 3D objects and interfaces. I see this as less technically and legally demanding than trying to make a DCS level aircraft. I also see a real need for this type of content in DCS.

Edison is complete overkill unless you want to do heavy math or heavy string operations or run a web server or some other process heavy task. For home cockpit you just need a device with robust I/O. Most Arduino are 16Mhz now and even if they were only 8Mhz you won't come anywhere near to saturating that in a cockpit unless your code is REALLY poor. An Arduino Mega (arduino with more pins and bit of extra memory) has been used as the basis for an autonomous UAV platform for years. The arduino can fly a plane AND do upstream and downstream telemetry ... I'm sure it can drive your instruments. If you go with the Intel you will run into problems you will have to solve yourself. If you go with a duino then you will have more people able to help you. If you want wireless - go with the Arduino Yun. It should cost $70 but the prices vary with demand and availability.

Or learn to speak Russian and make your case to the devs directly. --- Chrom is right though, IADS script by Grimes is pretty sweet. I also like the MSF framework which is maybe more advanced than IADS but harder to setup. No easy solutions but people do get stuff done in DCS.

Xeno426, when I read your first post I thought ... this method probably won't work. The problem with ROE on AA units (particularly standalone radar based launchers) is that ROE doesn't control whether a unit will fire or not. What it controls is whether a unit will track a target. ROE turns Target Tracking ON and OFF and this is stupid. Seriously ED - THIS IS STUPID! It means that when you give a command to FIRE the unit has to spend 15-30 seconds to find and track a new target. In 15-30 seconds a target can be gone. The FIRE command should actually be an order to FIRE at the CURRENTLY TRACKED TARGET ... but it isn't. Seriously ED - THIS IS STUPID! So yeah I have no idea why they did it like this but what it means is that you can't get your AA units to use more intelligent engagement UNLESS you use a very complex script. The scripting system I have used doesn't fix the brokenness of the ROE system but it does hack around it by using a search radar network and a cunning vectored timing system to turn on stand-alone launchers at the right time for an ambush shot within your engagement distance parameters. It still doesn't let you do what you want but at least you don't waste missiles shooting at fighters way outside realistic engagement. The dumb ROE for AA units isn't really a BUG but it is dumb.

OP asks for script to allow CA player to play JTAC for an AI flight. So I will answer this question. Short answer is YES this would be possible to script. Long answer is YES but the scripting to implement it in a generalized fashion is very involved. There are many dependencies. Just so that you have something to play with here is a link to an artillery script by Mbot that allows you to allocate units to be spotters for artillery. It is very cool. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=107609 You could turn Mbots script into a full CAS 9-Line version but you will need a bag of tricks. MIST framework exists to give scripters easy access to functions and DBs to get scripting fast and have access to powerful functions without having to write them yourself.MSF framework which I just found on the Russian forums exists to give access to an abstraction layer, classes and functions to make larger scripts more generalized. Best way to see each framework in use is to read scripts that use them inside. Also many smaller scripts are great independent solutions that have very cool ideas and code inside. It sounds like you will be scripting eventually. You ask the questions that scripters always ask. Is it is possible?

I think I would just like to fly aircraft that can pull off modern air maneuvers and I don't need all the modern avionics. So what are the first aircraft that would be considered to have modern flight dynamics? Super fast and super agile but perhaps not super smart. That would be my era.

There is a fog of war effect on a unit on the command map where it appears translucent. I am still very much interested in this property. I would love to be able to make units appear translucent on the map via script.

I'm just going to take there opportunity to request a getController():getOption(AI.Option.Air.id.ROE). I need this feature at the moment to record the status of ROE and ALARM_STATE for ground units. These are not static behaviors so for some purposes we do need to poll the status. Perhaps even raise an event.