vicx

Ian you might find some serialization code and techniques in the Ros.org (Robot Operating System) project. Robots need timely data (more and more of it) and they need to speak to micros. I have played around with ROS modules a little bit. ROS modules seem like a natural fit for extending Simulation interfaces. You could implement the publish/subscribe model if you want to control how much data DCS is pushing out (if you worry it will saturate a serial link). ROS client for LUA? Google says Yes. I have also used a simple serialization format called Bencode. I was using an arduino and I wanted to send and receive small amounts of structured data but at the lowest latency - it worked well. I probably went with Bencode because I read about it on Jeelabs.

This is an interesting exercise in making the SAM units smarter. I have enjoyed looking at the IADS scripts and learning a bit about MIST and the DCS Lua interface. The docs for MIST and IADS are great :thumbup: I started playing CA a few weeks ago in ground command. I added a heavier air threat to a single player mission to see how the AI SAM would do and they flunked. When I went looking for mods I was quite pleased to find IADS more or less completed. My own idea for making level 5 AI logic SAM units is fairly simple. allow a commander to make strategic decisions regarding dynamic air defense (without requiring micro-management of units) give the commander ways to prevent the AI SAM units from making basic tactical blunders (without requiring micro-management) IADS actually does a great job of preventing basic AI tactical blunders and it does a decent job of messing with air threats. I was having problems with child attacks but that is probably due to a configuration on my part - sam zones not overlapping enough or something like that. Being able to visualize the engagement rules would help a lot. I really appreciate the effort you have put into MIST and IADS. I will probably be back to ask about radio messages and how to mod the UI elements so I can get some of my ideas working.

Not at all silly or useless. Some of those casings could end up in someones intake. Knowing ED it might even be modeled. Make it an option to have it on or off, on the server. Personally I think removing detail from a sim is a retrograde step. Just make it optional.

I have FC3 and If I won it would be a gift for my brother. I enter this in the humour section. Yes ... it does look like I made it down in one piece. This big piece sitting here amongst the other pieces. I love the damage model in the Su-25.

What a piece of junk!

Well what plane do you need in the Straits of Hormuz?

Avio, I think this is a good idea. Each of the airports has a definition for a camera in a lua file. I wonder if you could place an invisible bomb object that would act as a camera. Or maybe you can embed camera definition into missions. Try bringing this question up in the mission scripting area.

I played CA last night, three hours in game and one hour watching Tacview. I took a mission I had already completed (without air support) and went game-master and tried playing it from the Opfor perspective - with the benefit of an all seeing eye. I knew the A-10s would be trouble so I changed the weather to be 100% cloud cover at an average of 700m AGL. However the cloud cover didn't stop the the A-10s attacking my units at all (they cheat!) but the clouds did make my IR SAMs and anything relying on optical targeting completely blind against air threats. The deck was obviously stacked and I was being destroyed by mavericks. So I ended the mission and decided to place some Radar SAMs. This is the first time I've had a look at the radar SAM units in CA. I didn't know much about the units so I chose a mixture without really knowing how it would turn out. I got a single Tunguska, two groups of a KUB systems with three launchers, and a BUK system with three launchers. I started the mission and 45 seconds later my two KUB Groups (EAST and WEST) launched six SAMs at one aircraft. OK what is happening. I am the Commander and I can't get any of the officers on the radio. (Luckily I was able to watch what happened in Tacview a few hours later and this is why the officers widows will be having the cost of the missiles deducted from their pensions). As it turns out my KUB radar could see the Blufor airfield which should have been quite handy. There were two A-10s already flying and the KUB groups had launched a missile from each launcher at one A-10 and it's chaff. The saddest part was that none of the KUB missiles made it to anywhere near their target. They had engaged aircraft well outside their range. The A-10 was easily inside the range of the radar but not not really close to engagement range for the missiles. Also the KUB missile is not that great compared to the the BUK. The one upside to the premature launch was that the A-10 was so spooked by being targeted by 6 SAMs that it had dropped it's ordinance and started farting chaff. None of the missiles had made to within 4km of their target. Then KUB Group-East (for no good reason) launches 2 more missiles that will do nada. BUK group sees the complete ineptitude of the KUB groups. They were watching the whole time smoking cigarettes and only now decide to take action. In an amazing demonstration of self-control they launch ONLY four 9M38M1 SAMS at a single poor A-10C (CAS 11). I can say now that the 9M38M1 is a great bang-for-BUK solution :smilewink: The first 9M38M1 hits A-10C (CAS 11). The other three 9M38M1 flame out with no target. Two minutes have passed and one A-10 is destroyed (pilot ejects) but 13 SAMS have been fired which is a third of all available missiles. Of course I don't include the Tunguska which I hold in reserve for the SEAD counter that I know will come. As commander I am glad that it has obeyed instructions and holds fire. BUK Group still have an A-10C and two F-16s on the radar (Do they call me on the radio to let me know. Of course not, I'm only the commander.) Without authorization they launch 6 SAMs at the remaining A-10C who sees them coming and hits the deck. In the mean time the second KUB Group also without authorization launch 4 SAMs. There are 10 SAMS in the air. SAMs targeted at the A-10C lose lock but re-lock onto an F-16 flying above, which breaks formation and ditches it's ordinance. The F-16 is flying high and is beyond their range. 10 SAMs wasted. What are my men doing. What happens next is either a fluke or my units did something right. The A-10C climbs out of the weeds (if he thinks my men will wait for a better shot, he is wrong). KUB Group-West launch two SAMs that have no chance of a hit, but thankfully ten seconds later BUK group launches a SAM that has a good chance. The A-10C takes evasive against the 3M9M but misses the 9M38M1 which is the real threat and it slams into him. Much better. Still this is concerning. BUK Group has no more missiles and KUB Groups have only 12 missiles left between them. We can hear the props from two or more unmanned drones above the clouds. Our radars cannot detect them (they cheat!) or maybe they are stealth. We really would love to shoot them down. KUB Group-East fires two more silly shots at an F-16. We can not afford to waste missiles but fortunately the inexperienced F-16 pilot has seen too many SAMS today and he ditches his ordinance. It is a relief, the only aircraft in the sky at the moment are unarmed. Perhaps I can turn my attention to the ground attack. But no. Two A-10C have just launched from the blue airfield. We have no BUK missiles left, and only 6 dud missles in the KUB groups. This is something I need to take care of myself. Take me to the Tunguska ...

The simulator guy from Lockeed said what we already know. Simulators have to model new threat environments so aircraft can be designed to combat those threats. This is why this thread is the most important thread of all.

I just picked up Mi-8 and Sabre because they were on sale. I'm a casual flyer. I treat DCS like a sandbox sim and the maximum length of a session of play might be three hours max in most cases. I already had FC3, BS2 and CA. FC3 and CA have turned out to be my favorites because they offer fantastic sandbox value. In the Mi-8, I will autostart the engines and I'll learn just enough about the nav system to navigate over some hostile armour in a CA mission. I like the opportunity to put myself in the perspective of the mission actors. Then I'll see if I can land a wounded bird. In the F-86 I'll just spawn flying and swoop around which makes it a complete impulse purchase. I can't justify the retail price when I'm only exploring a small subset of the modules but I do like to try out a module and support expansions of DCS WORLD. This is why sales are great.

Maybe I'm a wargamer at heart because I find myself playing a lot of CA despite it's many wrinkles. This is why I am most hoping that the new maps can benefit the CA experience. Right now the navigation of ground units fails mostly in areas where terrain is not modeled with enough fidelity to handle abrupt changes in elevation or where roads are floating due to lack of precision or where the seams of bridges do not align with roads or where ground units drive into creeks and drown. AI thought it was OK to cross that river but apparently it was not. Other obvious disappointments in CA I do not mention because in many ways it is impressive what was achieved with CA on the current terrain. The terrain was not ready for a ground war and I admire the effort that went into CA despite this. Right now CA is the silliest module but still it has enough charm to make me hope that it will have a version 2.0 that is improved because of new map technology.

OK Pikey. That means an FA-18 is what will arrive soon. Will it it be single seat or two-seat version?

Wow. Nice video Republicano. Mind was blown 3 times during that clip but the double backflip was the most surprising because it was unexpected. Air dominance be damned; don't you want to just fly that plane in that configuration. This video justifies why I like the Mig-29 so much. Straight away I was looking for a video that shows the difference between Mig and SU. Sorry if this video is a repost, but it shows size difference very well. Russian Knights & Strizhi 5 x SU-27 & 4 x MIG-29 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MioBTGaV7Yw

On the Spruance Vid - CIWS is at 10m12s. CIWS does a little shimmy at the end of its burst. What is that? Tracking pieces of target? or its own shells.

Graphic posted by mwd2 says Sochy but all other spelling is of Sochi. Why the difference?

FC3 the gift that keeps on giving.

I know this isn't the thread but just a note. It is understood that you can't do DCS level simulation of modern aircraft due to the SECRETS. That doesn't mean we can't have 6DOF FC3 F-35 and MIG-35 with fully dynamic flight models and approximated and simplified other systems. It is OK for me to want this. I'll take a Raptor and a Falcon pls.

Now you are thinking with portals. well you should be thinking with portals. Good-bye

A mass flight of drones launching cruise missiles from heaven will beat everything. But who wants to play that as a game.

OK it wasn't an underground depo or factory. My bad.

I found the location of the underground depot but I only dropped bombs I could attach to an Su-25. I think I might need an A-10 (with some kind of bunker buster) to do the job but I don't wanna learn the A-10 and configure all the keys right now. Do I have any other options?

It is an interesting thought exercise. Imagine Lockheed was a private company in a completely deregulated global economy and anyone who had the money could buy an F-35 without any restrictions. Who would buy them? Well obviously most people who need an F-35 type thing would buy at least one :)

Revan, it's a cool scene but I think this could be done a lot better in DCS. The Migs getting head-on kills with cannons was a bit unrealistic and the F-15 pilots seemed a bit casual about navigation and fuel. You can imagine how much better it would be for it to be done in DCS.

Hope this is still being worked on for EDGE.

One day I hope we can all have our very own F-35. Like a jetpack but better.