vicx

I know this answer from the forums not from personal experience. In all threads it is stated you must use MAX and the DCS tools from inside MAX. There is no other way and there are no plans for other ways. Solution: For now use the mortar model and re-texture. I still think using the MLRS as a base is the weak point though. The launch velocity of one of these Qassam is going to be slow and the trajectory should be low. The MLRS is high velocity and very high. They do not really share similar qualities. A TOW missile without a wire is a closer in quality to what you need in almost every respect. Low velocity, low accuracy and destructive capability quite limited. You would just have to disable the self-destruct that happens to TOWS when they pass beyond their range limit. This might make them pass beyond their range limits and fall in an arc. A quick skim of DCS World\Config\Weapons\missiles_data.lua provides a good candidate list. The TOWS have a low mach speed. Normally they detonate after Life_Time expires but if you make that much longer who knows what will happen.

I was watching this thread to see what sort of stuff you were interested in doing. I am interested in adding interfaces and cockpits to existing vehicles, probably SAMs and/or command vehicles (just to learn how). Now for some reason I thought a Qassam was modified SCUD but it's just a ghetto redneck WW1 rocket. I actually think using the MLRS as a base is VERY generous but at least there may be a way to dumb it down. "DCS World/Scripts/Database/scripts/sensors.lua" Add or modify a new entry. For testing I'd steal the 2nd gen tanks entry. -- tanks 2-nd generation, Leo1, M60, (useless things anyway) WSN_6 = {} WSN_6.deviation_error_azimuth = 0.0007 WSN_6.deviation_error_elevation = 0.0007 WSN_6.deviation_error_speed_sensor = 0.12 WSN_6.deviation_error_stability = 0.001 WSN_6.deviation_error_distance = 0.023 A ghetto rocket is going to have much larger errors in all those values. So edit and test and edit and test. In your Qassam entry GT.WS[ws].LN[1].sensor = {}; set_recursive_metatable(GT.WS[ws].LN[1].sensor, GT_t.WSN_t[0]); Change to GT.WS[ws].LN[1].sensor = {}; set_recursive_metatable(GT.WS[ws].LN[1].sensor, GT_t.WSN_t[6]); I have wanted to play with these values but it would be a distraction for me. Share what you learn :)

What viewport do you want the sight to be in? --- Anyway I'm trying to get the kneepad working in CA. Having trouble even getting keycommands for the kneepad to appear in the Ground Unit settings.

<200kph is normally what it takes to notch SAM. Helicopters do it easily. In the game.

I understand why ED choose the map areas that they do. It is hard to do cities properly so they are best avoided. Better to recreate perfectly a desert combat than to have cities that look more like ghost towns because of the impossibility of modelling them at even lowest fidelity. Similar is the number of simultaneous flyables. It will be hard to increase the number and achieve significant scale so focus on detail. So think like they do of conflicts and incidents that happen in remote areas away from towns and cities and are smaller in size but still high in drama. To satisfy your desire for scale perhaps a controlled scenario could work. The map could be specialised to be low detail but VAST is size. You trade one thing for another. What would be the scenario for a special map having only airfields and low resolution terrain (no roads or towns or anything else and only a dozen remote areas of interest) but VAST in size. I can think of one idea. Cold War era high altitude incursions by U2 or other reconn aircraft over the border of the soviet union. The USSR mission is to intercept with air defense radar, scramble Mig-31 or launch SAM missiles. The US must get photos of Russian Nuke Silos. Small missions in scope but large in drama and on a large canvas. And they actually happened - it is based on history. I like the historical. Would like a map for the Suez Crisis. Jets, SAMs, tanks ... the whole works. Would like a highly detailed but small Falkland Islands map. Jets attacking ships and trying to knock out the EWRs on both sides.

Yep I like to do this too. I make sure F-15 has no missiles. :smilewink: But seriously I think loadout management for all vehicles and planes is great idea. I like your solution.

Yeah I was able to read the latest PDF documentation using Google Translate. It was readable but the code blocks got messed up so I had to have the Russian PDF alongside and synced to the page I was at. A start to translation would be wiki-fying the translation ad original code blocks together on a Hoggit Wiki page. I might try and do start this later today. I'll join up if I have to. --- I've made a start on transcription but it's very verbose. I feel like chopping it down in parts as an act of kindness for readers but I'll put it up verbatim initially.

Well that's more peaceful than a standard loadout I suppose.

I think there are no aircraft that have UN livery. It is only for peacemaker vehicles. Aircraft have no peacemaking role.

ESAc_matador, I haven't done this but it seems like it will work in principle. You might be able to approximate ECM by making your units randomly invisible using the technique you mention. By adjusting the duty cycle on the growler protection script you can reset the acquisition cycle of of a SAM. If you make the cycle very small then no SAMs will have the time to search for and detect aircraft in the growler zone that have gone from invisible and then to acquire a lock and launch on them. If you make the cycle medium length then you will enable IR launchers and some of the faster engaging radar SAM units able to lock and engage. The longer you keep the period between randomizing the visibility of aircraft in the growler zone the more likely a SAM will get a lock and get a missile to the target.

I have looked into this and it is pretty awesome. The whole framework is awesome. If you wanna cherry pick, the voice stuff is nice, BUT the whole framework exists to do awesome things. After you see how BAntDit :sorcerer: did the voice stuff was done you will want to use the other MSF features. The MSF speech stuff hacks around limitations in the DCS engine. It queues messages and avoids errors. To do this it needs you to provide an init file that assembles a table of all the voice files with paths and duration of each audio file. In his MSF demo BAntDit :sorcerer: provides an init file with a small subset of Russian speech to use with his mission. I wanted English so I wrote a python script to scrape the speech directories (Wingman, Player, AWACS, JTAC etc) to create the speech init scripts required. Here is a sample of my init file. mission.model:addSound('12oclock','Speech\Sound\ENG\Common\Wingman\1\12oclock.wav',0.58); mission.model:addSound('1oclock','Speech\Sound\ENG\Common\Wingman\1\1oclock.wav',0.55); ... mission.model:addSound('bombs away','Speech\Sound\ENG\Common\Wingman\1\Messages\bombs away.wav',0.72); mission.model:addSound('check six','Speech\Sound\ENG\Common\Wingman\1\Messages\check six.wav',0.72); mission.model:addSound('contact bearing','Speech\Sound\ENG\Common\Wingman\1\Messages\contact bearing.wav',0.84); mission.model:addSound('contact','Speech\Sound\ENG\Common\Wingman\1\Messages\contact.wav',0.41); ETC ETC ETC ...lots of entries. If you want English and/or NATO radio procedures you will have to edit BAntDit's event handlers. And this is what is taking me a long time to do. :music_whistling: The Russian speech packs have different words and forms of instruction, so it is not just a case of renaming files. This will be the most time consuming part of setting dynamic radio messages. This block comes from an event handler: onEngageCommandEventHandler(sender, eventArgs) Units with this EH send text and voice messages to their group when engaging enemy unit. function onEngageCommandEventHandler(sender, eventArgs) if msfAirDefenceUnitRole.USER_CONTROLLED_UNIT == eventArgs.airDefenceUnit:getRole() then local _msf_unit = eventArgs.airDefenceUnit:getUnit(); local _dcsw_unit = _msf_unit:getDCSWorldUnit(); table.insert(_radio_message, 'delimeter_2'); table.insert(_radio_message, 'radar_on'); -- radar_on table.insert(_radio_message, 'target_in_front'); -- heading local _distance, _heading = mission.utils.getGuidanceAt(_dcsw_unit, eventArgs.target); local _target_point, _valocity = eventArgs.target:getPoint(), eventArgs.target:getVelocity(); local _altitude, _speed = _target_point.y, math.sqrt(_valocity.x^2 + _valocity.y^2 + _valocity.z^2); _distance, _speed = _distance / 1000, _speed * 3.6; _text_message = _text_message .. string.format("%d", _heading) .. ', удаление: ' .. string.format("%.1f", _distance) .. ' км., скорость: ' .. string.format("%.2f", _speed) .. ' км/ч, высота: ' .. string.format("%d", _altitude) .. ' м.'; for _, _voice_part in ipairs(_heading_voice) do table.insert(_radio_message, _voice_part); end -- range table.insert(_radio_message, 'range'); local _distance_voice = _text_to_voice.numberToSoundList(_distance); for _, _voice_part in ipairs(_distance_voice) do table.insert(_radio_message, _voice_part); end -- speed table.insert(_radio_message, 'speed'); local _speed_voice = _text_to_voice.numberToSoundList(_speed); for _, _voice_part in ipairs(_speed_voice) do table.insert(_radio_message, _voice_part); end -- alt table.insert(_radio_message, 'altitude'); local _altitude_voice = _text_to_voice.numberToSoundList(_altitude); for _, _voice_part in ipairs(_altitude_voice) do table.insert(_radio_message, _voice_part); end -- engage table.insert(_radio_message, 'engage'); table.insert(_radio_message, 'delimeter_2'); ... if mission.model.groups[_dcsw_group_name] and not mission.model.groups[_dcsw_group_name]:isAudioReciverLocked() then mission.controller.outSoundForGroup(_dcsw_group_name, unpack(_radio_message)); mission.controller.sendMessageToGroup(_dcsw_group_name, _text_message); end Nice :sorcerer: BAntDit is using MSF to let players organise units into more powerful groups and attach event handlers to individual units and/or nested groups. Units can report threats, do sitreps and notify on actions using text and speech and also take commands via radio menus. Last month he released a mission that uses MSF to create an air defense network, made up of networks of groups and units, where each network, group and unit has event handlers that define how it fulfills it's role inside the network. It kicks much ass. The air defense stuff seems to work with ANY group ANY unit, ANY slot. All the radar units, SAMs, AA, Armour, Fortifications, Air units, Ships etc ... can be made to do their part. I knew you could do this stuff with LUA but it takes a hard head to bash out something that works like this. You SHOULD check out MSF, you do not need to read Russian because the code is in English and the function names are pretty self explanatory.

Starting with CA probably wasn't the easiest way to start learning cockpit mods. The cockpit configurations operate a little differently to the way they do in the aircraft modules and the way paths work and the way cockpits are initialized is different. Still testing stuff.

It's your job to shoot stingers? I'm sure ED will take some advice on improving realism in the sim if you can give them guidance on missile guidance and counters to counter-measures. There will be pilots who don't want stingers to be more nasty but if you know the subject matter well, just be ready to play the realism card.

Yeah I have just watched a few SB Pro videos on youtube and the graphical quality is a lot higher than the video posted in this thread. In these other videos the systems level detail is also a LOT more evident. Maybe the people in the videos weren't driving realistic scenarios but it gave me a good look at all the stations. The stations have realistic operation. In one video a tank got hit by a TOW and although it was a shame for the crew, I was satisfied that the turret blew off. You can hear also the sounds of firing and impacts that are unique to the munitions used. Some tanks are taking small arms fire and it sounds as you would expect. And I got more of a look at the tactical map which is just a great looking map. It is also evident that the infantry simulation is really not that good but still a thousand times better than DCS. It is best to be honest about these things. So each game/sim specialist remains untouchable in their area of specialty. I think the federated server approach is only half a solution and not completely satisfactory, but it should be pursued or encouraged as a matter of course (no deals or enticements should be necessary). It makes sense for industry leaders to do this.

Wow that looks more primitive than I was expecting, kinda like a mod for Operation Flashpoint. The terrain and the enemy infantry ... :shocking: The other things I drew from watching Most of the action happens in the scope, targeting and map views. The 3D cockpit is cool, and popping in and out of the hatch is a nice effect, but it doesn't strike me as the most important element in what makes SB work. The map view and of course the radio stand out as being well done and quite significant factors in realism. Watching this makes me realise that BI should really have SB players on-board. Everything I saw in this video is in A3(via mods) and is done better or can be modded to be better. I feel confident about that especially after checking on some of the MANW competition entries. The only thing missing from A3 (and it could be a deal breaker) is that armour penetration and damage modelling is an on-going project. Material penetration is in the game and you can lose sensors and drive components and hurt individual tank crew members BUT high-fidelity modelling of armour penetration resistance to munitions is not in the game AND high-fidelity modelling of damage to individual components is also not in the game. Anyway I'm not sure that DCS is in an equal position to Arma in terms of being able to satisfy tank simmers. What are the things that have to be done right? Is it armour penetration and damage modelling? That isn't in DCS either and it might remain out of reach. You could get the most wonderful 3D cockpit. That is a DCS speciality and falls within capabilties. The radios could be exceptionally modelled. A DCS speciality. The scopes, map and targeting might be able to done right now. Focusing on "operationally" significant screens and views. You will get an A2 level of terrain fidelity in Nevada. There are no trees (so that avoids a DCS AI problem). The AI of ground units. Lets not talk about that. It is a DCS weakpoint. If you want the excitement of being a moving target you will have that. I'd be curious to see a ranking of elements important to a potential DCS tank simmer.

I checked out SAM sim. The SAM sim forums are great, lots of info. They love SAM for sure. I downloaded but I have not played the Sim yet because on all the screenshots there are funny letters everywhere. I installed Devrim mods the first day I played DCS because I am not hardcore enough to read Russian. If only Devrim culd do an English SAM pit for the OSA. Anyway air defense does not just have to be missles. There are WW2 options too or the Flak Panzer with missiles - Tunguska. === Back to DCS:Tank. I understand the desire for a DCS level ground unit and clearly in this thread looks like the M1A1 is quite popular. I would most certainly support ANY DCS ground unit without hesitation because I know that a DCS level ground unit would contribute improvements back to CA. No doubts, it has happened with DCS modules and FC. Can someone post the best Steelbeasts video they have seen. I would like to see the best Steelbeast features from a DCS fan perspective.

Weapons Mode - AI driver, human gunner Sometimes it would be useful to be able to have the AI drive and you just operate the turrets. Well this is already in the engine. When you engage Group Control Mode the vehicle navigates waypoints automatically. This is cool. I like it and that's why I want the same thing but swapped around. Drive Mode - human driver, AI gunner I just want to drive the vehicle and have the AI operate the weapons. I only want my inputs to control the throttle controller and the wheel controller - and maybe give the AI some executive commands. Let the AI do the shooting. If the AI needs me to stop for a firing solution - he can ask - like a wingman. Get Some Mode - Human #1 driver, Human #2 gunner Well this is inevitable. :) but I'm not asking for this today.

Rewriting a rendering engine, a small team. Tweaking models, textures and shaders could be done by a crowd, but that crowd would need to have the engine.

I wonder if neck mods causes problems in Occulus Rift mode. Could it cause judder?

Maybe he is Iraqi and wants to shoot down Iranian F-14 with a Mig-21 or some Frenchy Jet. He wants a big challenge. The Iran Iraq war is a good conflict to model. So many different types of hardware and we will have the Hormuz map for the right location.

DCS is perhaps not ready for tanks due to the terrain fidelity required to make it play well. I think that air defense units would make a more natural expansion. I wouldn't mind an FC3 type expansion for some of the SAM units in the game. Give them cockpits or helios type interfaces and work on the avionics and sensors, so the player can use utilise them directly. I think a Tor unit would be good. Can search, lock, shoot on the run and can intercept aircraft and missiles. Would defend strategic target and convoy from aircraft and missile attack. I have no idea if these cockpits are of Tor or OSA. OSA is an older design combination of radar and optic guided. Needs a pit with a Shkval type TV sensor to lock and track targets like in this video. BTW I do not think Greeks humliated Turkish AF just the uploader of video gave it that title. That pilot would have no tone ... but he is locked up. Maybe on launch he would get tone depending on missile guidance selected by operator. With radar for missile to lead target, without radar for lag target (Best guess)

How DCS presents air defense has been my fun study subject for the last two weeks. :smartass: I'm a student of the sandbox (not a serious pilot) so its interesting to read comments from pilots commenting about the threat represented by SAMs as depicted in the sim. I did some reading on the Tor and it is an impressive system, BUT it is only a point defense unit, and it's capabilities are focused on that. IRL Tors would be foolish to reveal their positions trying to defend air space, or engage targets of opportunity because they are there only stop particular things getting blown up. That said when it is in a battery and networked with other radars and man portable IR launchers it would be defending that POINT, very strongly indeed. Probably more aggressively than modeled in the sim. IF you have problems with it being able to shoot down AGMs you are going to be unhappy if it ever shows it's full capabilities in DCS as just one part of an air defense network. === Interested to read your comments on IADS Tharos. I've been looking into IADS scripts in DCS and so far, I have found BAntDit's work on IADS in MSF to be by far the most advanced. Still his work operates within the limitations that DCS places on ground units. If ground units become first class objects then perhaps scripts could take greater advantage of the individually modeled sensors and systems. Here is one small example: Search radars can only be turned on and off via a ROE switch but using that switch stows the radar on mobile units instead of just spinning them cold. This can cause a 10-20 second delay switching between cold and hot. *--- The delay can be a lot longer than this. *--- That and the fact that each time a unit goes hot or cold it re-orients the turret inline with its chassis means that DCs pilots get very very generous grace periods before being ambushed. Ideally a ground unit would have some systems available to scripts, BUT would SAMS become too evil?

It turns out there are ways to dynamically disappear a unit off the map using LUA while the unit remains visible in the sim. I read about it in the RUS forums. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96572 This guy BAntDit has written a neat framework called MSF that takes a fairly opinionated approach to extending CA. I mostly agree with his opinions so I really like it. If you can read LUA then it is fairly self-explanatory. The code is english. It might be possible to fix these little issues with "opinionated" LUA.

I'm looking into modifying the Combined Arms cockpits. DCS World\Mods\tech\CombinedArms\Cockpit DCS World\Mods\tech\CombinedArms\Cockpit\Scripts Are they able to be significantly modified. Would it be possible to create a toy proof of concept 3D pit for a SAM unit. Can I add devices? Can I add controls? Has anyone got a kneeboard working in a ground unit? I guess I want to know if its possible before I go and bang my head against a brick wall.

Story should be titled: "Persian Cats; How Iranian air crews used the Aim-54 against an inferior missile, with very predictable results".