Captain Orso
-
Posts
3243 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Captain Orso
-
-
Support of the mini stick of the warthog is completely bugged out on the harrier. This is the case still the beginning. Never got fixed.
Does not look like Razbam cares about this.
No, it's only f*cked up when slewing the TPOD targeting point.
It works perfectly when slewing a waypoint.
-
When you say GUI, I'm guessing you mean scripting created through the ME, correct? So the ME as a tool allows you to create and manipulate the group, but in the end, it actually just generates scripting which the DCS Engine reads and executes.
Okay, I understand that for whatever technical reasons DCS doesn't recognize a group "respawned" through MIST scripting, but MIST plays well in the other direction I'm guessing, so that TRIGGERED ACTIONS I've added to the "original" group through the ME are still accessible to MIST, even if the group is respawned, correct?
Can I the do AI-Push-Task through MUST? Also if the "original" group is still alive?
This would allow me to use MIST to monitor the group (DCS gives the respawned group a cold shoulder) and DCS to manage radio items, show messages, and play sounds, or can I do those directly in MIST too? (maybe I can do everything in MIST?)
-
Thanks for the answer FFF.
MIST can set flags too though, I've seen, or are those MIST(flags) and not really DCS flags?
-
Not entirely true. Have a look here: AIR RAID AND KAMAZ FIRE, but don't be dismayed by the title. The download contains the fire truck, which you can forget, and a watch tower.
The watch tower is actually a vehicle which has been retextured to look like a watch tower which can be triggered to play a siren sound for as long as units (enemy - hint, hint ) are within a trigger zone.
The tower can be attacked like any any other vehicle and is susceptible to destruction.
-
:wallbash: Why?! why why why? :disgust:
Management Summary:
DCS thinks the group re-spawned through MIST is still dead.
TRIGGERS
TYPE: 2 REPETITIVE ACTION
NAME: Mig 51 Rebirth
EVENT: NO EVENT
CONDITIONS
TYPE: GROUP DEAD
GROUP: 51 The Mig
ACTIONS
ACTION: DO SCRIPT
TEXT: if not Group.getByName('51 The Mig') then
mist.respawnGroup('51 The Mig', true)
end
ACTION: SET FLAG VALUE
FLAG: 131
VALUE: 0
ACTION: SET FLAG VALUE
FLAG: 132
VALUE: 1
ACTION: SOUND TO ALL
FILE: 1:OGG
START DELAY: 0
The MIST script works in as far as that it recognizes when '51 The Mig' is alive, whether initially, or through the script respawning it. However the ME CONDITIONS: TYPE: GROUP DEAD, GROUP: 51 The Mig doesn't recognize the respawned group as being alive and the condition evaluates as 'true' every time.
The only thing I can think of that might work, would be to remove the GROUP DEAD condition and add the setting of a flag to 'true' or '1' inside the MIST script, so that I can trigger the other things that need to be done when the group is respawned.
How can I do this?
-
8<
Do we really need another jack of all trades aircraft to come into an already crowded type of
module field?
8<
I think this is a big misunderstanding, and maybe ED's fault. Let me explain.
The idea that you might go to a catalog of every piece of equipment the US, or any nation for that matter, puts into the field, to plan a mission is absurd, but the standard in DCS. It does not take into account in any way the cost of any piece of equipment or that each side must work with a budget.
So every mission has an $8 bil. super-carrier and a slew of F/A-18C's instead of a $200 mil. LHA with Harriers and helos. Why? Because why not; it's only imaginary money.
Oh, and put the super-carrier in visible range of the coast so that it's constantly in danger of attack by small craft.
If equipment got used the way it is in the real world, then "another jack of all trades" would actually be another special Lego brick for building the building you want. It depends on what you want.
-
Its not hard to interpret, it only leaves room for playing tricks with words.
8<
That seems to be a massive issue with you viper; you think RAZBAM is trying to trick everyone (and apparently you in specific), and that if you can just force them to admit it, that they MUST absolutely must do what you want.
I've been working for a manufacturer for over 25 years. I've seen some unbelievable interactions between company and customer. I can assure you, EVEN IF Zeus were to say that everything RB has said about their plans was completely a lie, purposely spread to fool their customers, 5 minutes later and RAZBAM will still do what they find to be in their own best interest, which is exactly what every company in the world does. smh
-
LOL I don't expect ED to even announce that they are starting any work on an Apache for at least 5 years; there are so many things already on the plate.
I try to view it from different perspectives, bc I cannot know what ED is thinking, but I can try to see what their perspective might be:
- On the one hand, the Apache could be a gold mine. Any time delaying getting it out to the public is time someone else has my money in their pocket :)
- On the other hand, to really make the Apache a flagship of the company, a lot of things have to fall into place first:
-- VR has to be better and less of a resource-blackhole
-- Apaches fly low, so the game engine has to allow for a map with far more detail, especially in the inevitable comparison with Microsoft Flight Doohickey
-- Apaches fight vehicles, so the user's experience will only be as good as the vehicle environment he's fighting in
-- Multi-player aircraft are a must; it's got to be near perfect first
-- Not everyone wants the MP experience, so AI gunner and pilot and the ability to cleanly swap between them has to work nearly perfectly
Probably their actually reasoning is completely different :D
There is one hell of a lot of things than can be greatly improved, which will integrally influence the player's experience. Besides, ED has plans. Module development takes years, so ED plans years in advance. How willing ED is to throw plans out the window for whims, even good whims, remains to be seen.
-
One thing is sure, the Apache without co-hosting the board-gunner would not be worth its salt. Already Gunship 2000 years and years and years ago had that possibility, way back before DLS or even ISDN.
Imagine a troop of 4 Apache, each with pilot and gunner, marauding across the map :D
-
If an aircraft is in service no where does it say you cant simulate it.
Sorry if I gave the impression that I meant that, bc it was not my intention.
For the most part what matters is how much non classified information is available to a accurately simulate the aircrafts functionality, without resorting to too much guestimation. And also to an extent if a private company will grant you a liscense ( or if your willing to pay for it) to use thier intellectual property.1. From my understanding, ED always gets the owner of intellectual property to sign off on ED simulating it, in as far as that is possible, and often they are given privilege to information to which they might otherwise never have access, even if they cannot publish it (put it into the game), they still gain insights to make systems work with the same intention as in the real-world, even when not identical. ED doesn't guestimate, but they do simulate concepts, sometimes without simulating the actual technology 100%, at least that's what I've read.
That's why for example most first person shooters use fake names and make some design changes in 3d model for a gun as opposed to having an exact replica of it. They just dont want to give$$$$ to ( insert famous name brand arms co). Similar story for when developing aircraft. Depending on companies IP is, even non simulator aviation games need to give a company $$$ for liscense to not get sued.In any case That's probably why we don,t have modules of f35,s or f22,s for eg, at best only dated versions of gen 4 fighters. ( remember despite feeling modern due to being 21st century representations ed are nontheless simulating gen 4 aircraft based on capabilties from over a decade ago. ( virtually all aircraft are pre 2010) So said documentation are older publications and or revisions, relative to what's in circulation now.
Ed has said as much that they only rely on documentation that is legally and possible to publically access ( non classified material) . And that is almost certainly the case for anything that isnt,t a govt contract but purely for commercial gains.
Even for actuall govt contracts i highly doubt that they would being supplied classified information, as that would require a govt issued security clearance and I'm not seeing that happening with a private company located in Russia, and risk having such information intercepted or seized by foreign intelligence services.
The conjecture (based on the evidence on hand way-back-when), was
- ED was working toward producing an AH-64 module,
- They were in contact with Boing,
- BMS announced some kind of official connection (press release was seen on the BMS hope page) (IIRC it actually said something about the Apache) to do some kind of work for Boing and/or the military, exactly at the same time ED dropped talking about the Apache. This is the behavior of someone gagged by an NDA (no talking about the in subject in and way, shape, or form, not to confirm nor deny any connection), basically AH-64 was suddenly a taboo subject, not to be mentioned by ED or affiliates.
- The suddenly Wags throws in totally nonchalantly in a YT interview that ED is thinking about the Apache again.
Man, that's some sick-love devotion right there :D
I think with all the experience ED is gaining with the F/A-18, F-16, and everything Belsimtech has done, will put them in the position to not only create a heli-sim line none before, but also an online multi-player environment like never before. CA just need some TLC and then the games may begin :pilotfly: :D
- ED was working toward producing an AH-64 module,
-
Found another error; page 274
- 6. should says, ".. press the Sensor Select Switch ..", but should refer to the Sensor Control Switch.
- The illustration in the lower left-hand corner should have [6a] in the upper label, and the illustration in the upper center of the B-Scope radar screen should be labeled [6b].
-
Hi Chuck,
I think I found a typo in the lates F/A-18C Guide.
On page 131, LTWS section, last sentence I believe should read, "Note that weapons cannot, however, be launched and guided from LTWS" and not ".. launched and guided from RWS".
-
The Apache was already on their list a long time ago. Then they took it off saying, they wouldn't comment on the decision nor allow any discussion on it. Then Mat dropped his statement that it was again on the table. I won't speculate any more than this, that ED's behaviour was consistent with having signed a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
Since then ED has introduced the F-16, F/A-18, and the AV-8B, all aircraft which are not currently in use by the US the ED version. Maybe ED has found a way around some of the legal obstacles of producing such modules.
Yes, I think if the AH-64 made it into ED's stable, its sales will skyrocket to unknown heights. Looking for a replacement for Jane's Longbow is how I landed in DCS World in the first place, and I've only ever heard enthusiastic voices talk about a possible DCS Apache. It would be a veritable pot of gold for ED -- ARE YOU LISTENING ED?! OODLES AND OODLES OF MONEY!! Before you google it, oodle = a-shit-load :smilewink:
-
And the whole time I was thinking, until the search radar is on, I haven't got a worry :doh:
-
One problem with creating a configuration with Modifier-(modifiers) is that you must hold the (modifier) while pressing the other switch or button. So, for example, if you use the DMS thumb-switch as a (modifier), you can easily (modify) switches and buttons on the throttle, but not anything you operate on the stick, because your thumb is already holding the DMS switch.
However, if you use the DMS switch as a Modifier-(switch), you can tip it in one direction to activate that switch-direction and then use other configured switches or hats on the stick as well as the throttle.
Surprisingly enough, I use this the most in the P-51D and the Spitfire, because I can then use the CMS switch (up, down, left, right, and press) to emulate various multi-directional switches or even multi-setting knobs.
-
Why those sneaky bastards. The probably use the radar only when I was at range and then tracked visually and when I came back all casually, because no radar from close and I couldn't localize anything but burning wrecks, they fired and guided a missile optically.
-
I was on Hoggit's Georgia At War server yesterday and got smacked by an SA-19 without any warning. RWR was picking up lots of other things like Mig-29's and Mig-31's and I did see S6 on the EW page, but no tone, so although it was inside the serious threat ring I ignored it, but it's not what got me anyway.
There should have been 2x TOR's, 1x Tunguska, and 2x Strella's in the area, but when I approached at 16k it was crickets. Because I had a DECM instead of a TPOD I couldn't find a single target, although I did see some burning wrecks. Were these my targets, or corpses from some earlier battle?
I also had 2x IRMV loaded so I made a big circle over the sea while cooling my IR-sensors. Then I locked onto the waypoint for the Tunguska. After not being able to pick it up on the DMT and even less so onthe IRMV's IR sensors, I switched to guns and went in to a closer look.
I flew straight over the Tunguska site at 100 feet waiting for a bleep or a bloop, but not even a peep. After flying through the whole town, I started to turn around and climb; still silence, and right after overflying the Tunguska again *BANG* fuel regulator out, and a heavy pull to the right while turning upside down. I almost get the ship upright gaing, but couldn't pull the nose up, so I punched out, upside down about 1000 feet AGL *whew* close.
Since there were only 6 minutes before mission end I dived off the server and rang up the mission on TACVIEW. Yup, right after turning back in and starting to overfly the town again, the Tunguska spits out an SA-19 while I'm flying right at it at 4000 AGL, and not a peep from RWR.
Anyone else ever have this happen?
-
I do not own an X56, but with all the buttons on them, why do you guys have to write line in Notepad++? Wouldn't the modifiers be a lot easier?
I use a Thrustmaster T-flight stick X and I hardly use the keyboard for any aircraft. I turn buttons 5 to 10 as modifiers, with that and the hat switch alone I have 72 different commands.
For example on the A-10C ( another aircraft that allows partial speed brake) button 6 ( a modifier) and button 4 to open the speed brakes and button 6 and 3 to close them. I do the same for the F-16.
On the MIG-21, I do not even use the keyboard.
Just for example, modifiers can be any button that does not have anything else assign to them
There are actually 2 types of modifiers -- modifiers and switches. Yes, that was not mis-typed. It's just ED's =(&/)(%/ inability to use humanly understandable and consistent terminology :mad:
Explanation: behind the [Modifier] button you can set (Modifiers) and (Switches).- (Modifiers) are controller buttons or switches you configure. Once configured as a (modifier) it will work the same as a meta-keys on your keyboard (Alt, Ctrl, Shift, etc.); As long as it is asserted it changes the meaning of any other button or switch asserted at the same time. In DCS you have to bind these (modified)-buttons combinations an in-cockpit switch or some action.The drawback of (modifiers) is if you configure a permanent switch as a modifier, every other button or switch press, unless it has a specific (modifier)-button binding configured, will simply be masked as the (modifier) changes the meaning of every button or switch in combination with the (modifier).
- (Switches) work like (modifiers) except they are sticky -- kind of like shift-lock -- pressed the first time and they are "On"; pressed a second time and they are "Off". Aslo, they don't mask all there switches and buttons. This allows you to setup modes for selected switches and buttons on your HOTAS. You could have a couple of 4-way thumb hats be used for navigation operations in one mode and weapons operations in another mode.The drawback of (switches) is ED's lack of thought and support on implementing them. There is no indicator telling you if a (switch) is active or not, and there is no reset to default possibility. If you have lost track of how a (switch) is set, you have to figure out how to discover its setting so that you can set it to where you want it. This might be easy and as safe as trying a button and seeing if it changes your radio channel, or as dangerous as it jettisoning your bombs -- it's very dependant on your personal configuration and situation.
So (modifiers) and (switches) in certain situations could be very useful. To make them more useful in all cases, shout a bit into this thread Mode Selection Switch Configuration, and maybe the ED-gods will hear us. I doubt it, but it doesn't cost much to post "yeah, what he said, +1".
-
Just recently had a huge long discussion about doing exactly this, just with a different 3-way switch. There is a two part solution which only work well hand-in-hand.
Technical Solution
Just add this coding to '..\DCS World{ Openbeta}\Mods\DCS FA-18C Mods\DCS FA-18C Cockpit Controls - HOTAS\Mods\aircraft\FA-18C\Input\FA-18C\joystick\default.lua' hopefully with the Game Mode Enabler of your choice (I recommend OvGME):
{ down = SMS_commands.AA_MasterModeSw, up = SMS_commands.AA_MasterModeSw, cockpit_device_id = devices.SMS, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0.0, name = _('Master Mode Button - A/A On else Off'), category = {_('Instrument Panel'), _('Master Arm Panel')}}, { down = SMS_commands.AG_MasterModeSw, up = SMS_commands.AG_MasterModeSw, cockpit_device_id = devices.SMS, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0.0, name = _('Master Mode Button - A/G On else Off'), category = {_('Instrument Panel'), _('Master Arm Panel')}},Logical Solution
Do the above, but when you switch to A/A or A/G imediateyl return the 3-way switch to the center OFF position. Why?, because leaving the switch at one of the On states 1. does nothing for your, and 2. can easily become incorrect if you activate a different mode through weapon selection.
So, if you use it correctly, it works perfectly well.
-
Add this to '..\DCS World{ Openbeta}\Mods\DCS FA-18C Mods\DCS FA-18C Cockpit Controls - HOTAS\Mods\aircraft\FA-18C\Input\FA-18C\joystick\default.lua' hopefully with the Game Mode Enabler of your choice (I recommend OvGME):
{ down = SMS_commands.MasterArmSw, up = SMS_commands.MasterArmSw, cockpit_device_id = devices.SMS, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 0.0, name = _('Master Arm Switch - ARM else SAFE'), category = {_('Instrument Panel'), _('Master Arm Panel')}},Works perfectly with an On/Off switch with the On state being SAFE. If you want the Off state to be SAFE, switch the 'value_down' and 'value_up' parameters and rebind.
-
Yes, DCS has some really sick default settings for known controllers. Go to the options -> F/A18C Controls Sim -> Axis, and clear out all the rudder pedal setting for things like yaw, etc; just leave the settings for the rudder and brakes. Sometimes it doesn't make any difference, but apparently sometimes it does.
Once you've got those erroneous binds cleaned up, you'll be good to go :thumbup:
-
8<
when I go to flick the battery switch nothing happens
8<
So the switch doesn't flip?
If it does flip:
When you flip the switch the DC Voltmeter doesn't move and shows 0?
When you flip the switch and you turn the EDP (Engine Display Panel) brightness control knob, the EDP doesn't light up?
-
Right, I can go to the F10 map. So why do I need to edit them? Seems pretty edge case.
Because some mission creators may only give you coordinates for targets and some not even that.
Hoggit doesn't have any red units on the strategic map at all, not even if they are directly next to blue units, so you cannot use the strategic map to mark targets.
You can go in to free-cam (from strategic map LCtrl-F11) navigate to directly on top of a target, and record the exact coordinates on the location bar, and then create a waypoint for each one, but being able to put them on the CAS page will be much more flexible and useful.
-
You could add the runway, but it would have to have sloped sides as well, and if you put it at any kind of incline, if not running along the same elevation, you would have a runway built out from an hillside and looking very awkward.
So yes, I'm sure it would be easy to implement, but mission creators would have to be fairly judicial to put it in a reasonable location, but I'm also sure they could be found.
Master Arm to use Flares?
in DCS: F/A-18C
Posted
Is it really a WIP work around of some sort that you have to assert the Master Arm switch to access the dispensables programming page and that they actually function?
--
The Hornet is the second modern fighter that I'm learning, the Harrier being the first. I watching a video a DCS regular produced of an actual -former- Marine Harrier pilot flying the DCS Harrier. When he made a bombing run, directly after releasing one or two bombs that he switched Master Arm to off and commented specifically with something like, "we don't want to accidentally bomb anyone". So, this was his trained procedure and the way the aircraft functions -- you most certainly can deploy chaff and flares without the Master Arm switch asserted.
Stepping into the F/A-18 cockpit and not being able to program the expendables dispensers without asserting the Master Arm switch suddenly feels extremely clucky and wrong.
Does anyone know if this is how it works in Real-Life™?