SeaQuark

Source on the bis being too late for combat? Because a quick glance online says that the Mig-15bis was introduced early 1950 and saw a a large amount of combat in Korea. According to the source below the model the Chinese received was the bis model, and it even saw action at the tail end of the Chinese Civil War, pre-dating outbreak of the Korean conflict. http://www.skytamer.com/MiG-15bis.html I have also heard frequently from other DCS folk that the bis is in fact a historically correct model, it's our particular Sabre that's too late for Korea (as is made obvious by the presence of GAR-8 missiles).

I've ended up using Radio Transmissions quite a lot, instead of SOUND TO GROUP-- very useful, immersive, and a great way to motivate the player to operate their in-cockpit radio realistically. One problem: there doesn't seem to be any good way to add "subtitles" for an audio Radio Transmission. The MESSAGE TO GROUP triggers will obviously trigger regardless of what frequency the player is tuned to, which defeats the purpose of transmitting audio via a Radio Transmission. Is there any way to make text messages appear for the player only when tuned to a certain frequency? Side-note: this is for multiplayer missions, if that's a relevant factor.

Interesting. My conviction that the MiG could strongly outclimb the Sabre must've come from a mix of earlier historical anecdotes + fighting the the over-simplified AI model. It's too bad we don't have the option to swap out our Sabre with earlier variants, as I would be very interested in simulating the early days of the Korean conflict.

It's back up. Thanks for the heads up. If you ever want to get in touch with me more quickly about the server, give me a shout on the Discord.

I was always under the impression that the MiG could reliably outclimb the Sabre, that that was one of its key advantages. Flying in multiplayer recently, that hasn't seemed to be the case. MiG pilots mentioned the MiG was feeling "sluggish." So we did a quick test, me in the F-86, Werewolf in the MiG-15: Started at even altitude, matched speed at ~.7 mach, then full throttle and aggressive climb. To my surprise, there seemed to be essentially no difference-- the planes stayed at about even distance the whole time, all the way to and through the stall. We tried again, starting from about ~.5 mach, then full throttle + aggressive climb: [skip to 04:10 in video] same deal. Maybe the Sabre stalled out a tad quicker on that one, but there really seemed to be no major difference in climb rate. Certainly not enough to make any difference in a dogfight. Meanwhile, the Sabre could still reliably out-dive the MiG. What's going on here? Am I crazy for thinking the MiG was supposed to outclimb the Sabre? Or is there a bug in the flight model?

The mouse is definitely "good enough," but outside of this one knob, I have succeeded in binding every F-86 control either to my HOTAS or other physical switches. At the moment the only time I need to pick up my mouse in-game is for the Radio Compass. Just a shame to get 99% of the way there when it could be 100.

The radio compass tuning handle requires very fine adjustments; it would be perfect to map to a spare axis, but it doesn't seem to be available in the Axis controls. Is there any way around this, perhaps by editing .lua?

Thanks for the feedback Medic! I get what you're saying. I'm going to try for the best of both worlds-- I am adding a 2nd wave of bombers, which will basically make the mission longer, and then will roll back the time so the first wave is more during daylight. But the mission will still end in darkness when you RTB. Be sure to use your NDB for navigation, turn on instrument lighting, and remember, you can use the radio menu ("Other" F10) to request a signal flare / airfield illumination on the way back. As long as you are focusing on the bombers as per mission briefing, spotting enemy fighters shouldn't be too tough for either Red or Blue-- those contrails stick out pretty easily.

That was a bug, now fixed, all missions have only your own A/C visible. Personally I would even prefer no A/C visible, but this is a concession for "play-ability" (for now). There definitely will be F-51s. Designing missions around combined F-51 and F-86 operations is a little tough, I just need to work on it more. As far as I'm concerned the Hueys in right now are a placeholder until

Roger, thanks for the heads up. Fixing channels now. The missions have gone through a lot of iterations, sometimes I make a fix to the Briefing images and forget to update it on the sidebar. Will look into possibilities re: Korean War era GCI.

Thanks to all those who hopped on this afternoon. I did have to take the server down briefly to fix a bug (problem with Sabre default views) but it's fixed and the server is back up.

Negative, except for AI bombers to escort / intercept. Most missions will have ground targets or other stuff to do if few players are online, but the focus of the server is PvP.

SERVER HAS BEEN RE-OPENED. SEE NEW SERVER THREAD: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194192 DCS’ only 24/7 Korean War multiplayer server is now online! That’s right, it’s all shiny 1950s action, all the time. Flights available for: F-86 -- MiG-15 -- Huey -- P-51 -- Fw190 Server Name = ---- SQP: KOREA! ---- Simpleradio = 24.90.76.154 Discord = https://discord.gg/KqpQSSC

I don't suppose there's any way, perhaps through scripting, to change the color of certain words in the "mission messages"? I'm writing a mission that involves keeping score of Red / Blue team accomplishments-- would make the messages much more easily readable "at a glance" if I could color-code RED TEAM: 17 POINTS, BLUE TEAM: 25 POINTS ETC. I searched the forum here, but nothing turned up. EDIT: this is for multiplayer, so a JSGME type mod wouldn't be applicable.

Thanks for the suggestion, fee. I looked into this option, problem is-- if I disable the ground crew entirely, they won't be able to start up the plane! (F-86 requires ground power hook up). I completely agree with you, and I'm not overly concerned with people abusing the mission-- it's more to do with immersion, which I am doing my very best to maximize. Setting a flag for guns firing would be ideal, the more I think about it. My research shows me that during the Korean war, there were field-modified recon F-86s where the guns were left functional, but they removed the ammo because firing them disturbed the cameras and ruined the film. I even have a sound clip ready to go for this-- so if a player decided to load up ammo and take-off, he'd fly the mission, only to get yelled out at after landing for botching the pictures. i.e. I'm concerned less with people "playing by the rules," it's more about taking every opportunity I can to add realistic details. If it's impossible, so it goes. I will find a work-around.

Any number of ways, easiest would be to disable the slot and reactivate it so they have to start over. The whole premise of the mission is to emulate a field-modified recon F-86, where the ammunition was removed to make room for the cameras. So one player has to fly the unarmed recon craft, and other (armed) players have to cover him. If the player did load ammo into the craft, if I could get this to trigger a flag, it would work very well with the mission: it would just disable the victory condition. But it's conditional on getting this SLmod script to work, which I haven't been able to yet. EDIT: I missed the part of your post recommending MIST. I already have MIST loaded in my mission, but I couldn't find any examples of scripts that would detect somebody firing. Airstart would work, of course, but it's a very inelegant solution, and would interfere with the mission in other ways.

Boo. Alright, Plan B-- how about simply detecting when the player fires a weapon, and setting a flag? That way at least I can "punish" the player if they load ammo. Does the "units_firing" script in SLmod still work? I installed the 1.5-compatible SLmod and am trying to get this script to work, no success yet: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1523067&postcount=4 Or is this too old / broken? Is there a similar function in MIST I should be using?

You can get away with very low audio exporting quality, especially if you're simulating a radio effect-- 3 or 4 on the Audacity .ogg quality slider made the files nice and small, without excessive compression artifacts.

I'm building a multiplayer mission where I want a particular plane slot to have no gun ammunition loaded (this is for F-86s, incidentally). I can set the unit's ammunition to 0%, however the player is able to re-arm the craft at will. I have set the airfield warehouse equipment to 0 across the board, but no dice, it doesn't prevent the gun from being loaded. Is there anything I can do to limit gun ammo, or disable the rearming function of the ground crew?

When turning up the brightness of the instrument illumination, if you look over your left shoulder, there is a pipe behind the seat that suddenly starts glowing very brightly with reflected light. It's rather unnatural looking, as everything else in the cockpit is brightened only slightly by the instrument backlighting. Anybody else encountering this? Is this a graphic bug? Most noticeable during night time flying.

Right, the latter would be the ideal scenario. If a new player joins the server without the mod, the mission still functions for them and they can escort / intercept bombers along with everybody else. I know this is possible, I've used some mods in the past that replace existing units, and it didn't cause errors. Basically, when mods become mandatory instead of optional, it cuts down the potential player-base for a server; I was hoping to find a way to use immersion-enhancing mods without losing potential players. Alright, I didn't realize this. Somehow I was under the impression that it was an "orphaned mod." I will just C-130s for now in the mission.

Well, this is precisely my problem. In a private squad, it's fine to tell everybody "you have to download the mod." But in open multiplayer, realistically, a good number of people who join the server-- if not most-- will simply not download the mod before joining. As far as multiplayer is concerned, it would be far preferable to have a mod not as a standalone AI unit, but simply as a replacement "3D skin" for another unit. This way, those who installed the mod can enjoy it, and everybody who doesn't have the mod will still get an effective "placeholder." I have seen some previous mods do this, and it worked fine. Unfortunately I can't figure out how this was done. I can program C-130s or B-52s to behave like a group of B-29s just fine in the mission editor, and carry out the bombing through triggers if need be. If I can just mod them to *look* like B-29s, everybody can have their cake and eat it too.

I'm in the process of creating missions for a Korean War multiplayer online server. There is an old B-29 mod that would be perfect for this: http://virtualcockpits.web.fc2.com/mod/dcsw_b-29/dcsw_b-29.html However-- because this will be an open server, I want to include *optional* mods only. Is it possible to convert this mod so that an existing unit in game-- say, the B-52 or the C-130-- would be replaced by the B-29 in appearance only, and otherwise be unaffected? This way, clients who have the mod installed can still play the same mission with clients who don't have the mod. No "invisible plane" problem. At least in theory. But my attempts to do this so far have been unsuccessful. I have tried simply re-naming and replacing all the Texture and Shapes files to their matching B-52 counterparts, but no dice-- the mission loads, but trying to view the unit in question simply results in a black screen. Any thoughts on where I am going wrong? Is this even possible? I know very little about modding, all I have done before is mess with skins. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks for the info, David. I guess that's what I was afraid of, it only being a viable option for a relatively small number of players. If I'm going for this whole server thing, I want to try to set it up so large crowds will have a smooth experience. Not sure if this is just a question of upgrading internet service, or having to somehow acquire a totally separate internet connection.

I have recently become determined to start my own DCS server from home, with the goal of making it available 24/7. I'm willing to get a 2nd PC for this task, but before I do, I have a couple questions for those with experience in this: 1) Will my own internet speed be sufficient? I live in NYC, and my average speedtest results are around ~70Mbps download, and 5 or 6Mbps. 2) Would it be advisable to use my regular PC online while the server is running? Would players who happen to be on the server experience significant slow-downs if I, say, stream Youtube or Netflix? I wouldn't want my daily activities to be jeopardizing the server. That's basically it-- the FAQs posted here seem fairly straightforward. But if there's any other "gotchas" I should know about, I'm all ears.