Mirknir

Can you remind me why? You may have already explained but I don't remember the reason.

Hello guys, I've indeed noted the overwhelming presence of fighters on the server lately and especially FC3 fighters. FC3 Fighters have always been a problem for the design as they start fast, are a big threat for other people and sometimes attracts "air quakers" like you said. Don't get me wrong ; I don't mind FC3 fighter pilots and I am actually one. But yea, usually, "air quakers" will care about getting kills over anything else including staying alive, conserving fuel or ammo, making sure the target is an enemy, coming back to base... And sadly, FC3 fighters are the best tool for these purposes. I don't mind this playstyle ; it can be fun but I don't want this on my server as it removes too much gameplay from other people. So far, I've put all fighters on the furthest bases from the Conflict Zones and the other planes on the closest. Some non FC3 fighters also have HOT slots to compensate. But still fighters are the fastest planes and can eat the distance difference pretty fast especially when you don't care about fuel. I've also added the concept of "captured pilot" and "died while engaged" concept to encourage people to stay alive but it has its limits especially if the number one priority is having kills. All these features seemed to work so far or at least, make 'air quakers' go to other servers better for this playstyle. But something has changed and I don't know what. I was already considering reducing the FC3 fighter slots on both side to avoid having teams too unbalanced in term of fighters ; this could also help this new problem. Also, I always thought DCS needed a death penalty because IRL, people are actually trying to stay alive. Having to restart your aircraft is a penalty but not for everyone. I think spawning the FC3 fighters with limited fuel will give a noticeable death penalty and maybe cripple a bit the "air quaker" playstyles.

A su27 full of vodka is always heavier.

Strange, noy suppoaed to be erratic except if engaged. I'll check see if something has changed in the last DCS or OC update. :thumbup:

Hot Fixes In Masterscript: Skynet v3.5.1 Add Ural-4320 APA-5D in the database Dedicated slots should go back to being dedicated Fix an log error spam "Wrecks have NO RUNTIME OBJECT" Fix aircraft carriers not being monitored and spamming log error In Map: Open Conflict Tuapse - v3.3.2 ALG Fix blue P51 ALG1 that spawns with broken flap on right wing Move red ALG down south where it's flatter All Bf109 slots @ALG should now HOT spawn because there is not ground crew available there All Fw190 slots @ALG should now come with Werfer-Granate 21 rockets Fleets Fix Anapa and Gudauta fleets having initial speed but no waypoints

Sadly, the ALG feature is outside of what DCS usually allows. I had to modify my DCS to be able to do that. DCS only supports "On Ground" helicopters (and not that well anyways) When I checked, the planes could not connect to ground power or rearm even if I added nearby trucks. Adding planes on FARP could be done but would just be messy as the FARP hill will destroy your wheels. The red ALG placement can be moved to a more flat zone, no problemo. :thumbup: I may be able to add HOT planes if, to start, they require more that the ALG can provide.:dunno: I can't add refueling afaik. :mad: I know it's limited but it shouldn't actually exist :)

-tr give you an overview of what objectives are in the delivery/transport system -tr <objectiveCode> will give you detailed information on what the objective needs / has. Example: blue side, typing "-tr CAR" will give you detailed information on the Forward Carrier It also works for every commands like -aa CAP1 ; -ag TUR ; -re SMO ....

Release Notes for Next Version Hello guys, Finally a new update to Open Conflict! This update is a bit bigger that I would have liked but a lot of these features are some foundation work and not actual playable features. Vyrtuoz are I did some combined testing with this new OC version and the Tacview 1.6 alpha but there might/must still be some bugs. As usual, don't hesitate to report bugs on the forum ; the more sensitive feature will have a red reminder. I will monitor the server, logs and forums to address the new issues this update can bring. In Masterscript: Skynet v3.5 Terminator Program Each client now has a Skynet rank Skynet ranking is as follow: Puny Human Skynet Lieutenant - Admin 1 Skynet Captain - Admin 2 Skynet Overlord - Dev & Admin 3 [*]Each chat command now requires a minimum rank to be activated Puny Humans only have access to regular commands like before Skynet Lieutenants now have access to some admin commands Skynet Captains now have access to all admin commands Overlords have access to all commands, admin and dev [*]Skynet Agents... ...will get a notification in chat when they join the server ...will still be affected by Skynet automatic penalty system ... can only affect clients of lower ranks than them New Commands: The command to 'eject a player to spectator' is now finalized and set as an admin 1 command Added a 'Warn Player' admin 1 command that will display the warning in the player chat and text popup (if in an unit) Added a 'Force CAP Respawn' dev command to test some of the new CAP features New Stats: Added the number of time a player got kicked in the stats (not displayed in -stats command popup Support for Incursion changes Added manpads to database A ground objective with SAM (like an incursion with manpad) can now respawn Support for ALG (Advanced Launching Ground) Added the ALG concept in Skynet (a forward improvised mini airfield to launch planes) ALG are flagged as Homebase ALG are explosive pick-up points Plant Explosive Prevent the detonate command if you are too close from one of your device AI CAP Algorithm (Big changes / Don't hesitate to report bugs) AI CAP Respawn can now be suspended by some conditions For now, if the player count is too high Will add more conditions when the algorithm is released and proven to work The reason of the suspension can be seen in "-aa" command for both your and the enemy's CAP AI CAP Respawn can now be forced The force respawn will override respawn timer and respawn suspension The force respawn will happen when special events happen For now, the only special event is the dev request through the dev command Will add more events (like the bad kill concept we talked about) when the algorithm is released and proven to work CAP Respawns now output a objective notification to player You will get a message for your and the enemy's CAP respawn If forced, the message will display the event that lead to a force respawn for everyone to understand what's happening In Map: Open Conflict Tuapse - v3.3.1 Respawning Incursions Now have MANPADS so be careful The name of the incursions now reflects this addition FOB versus FARP Skynet is not using the FARP name anymore for objectives Renamed "Forward FARP" objectives to "Forward Operating Base" to match the aircraft named @FOB This will be less confusing ; FARP will just reference the DCS map object. The FOB has multiple FARPs. Advanced Launching Ground [ALG] Added a forward improvised mini airfield to launch planes to both side IRL, the L in ALG is supposed to be landing but I don't want to imply you can land and rearm in these places For now, only WWII planes can be launched from there "On Ground" planes are not officially supported by ED (only helicopters) so don't hesitate to report bugs I've only tested the P51 as it's the only WWII plane I own No rearm at ALG but planes come with a default light loadout (maximum rockets) Near a straight enough road (red side might be a bit trickier) Placed in the vicinity of FOBs but still separate Explosive pick-up point Red AWACS Red side hired a British crew for their awacs Red AWACS codename is now Solex Red AWACS is now speaking in english in imperial units Again, having a British A-50 is not officially in DCS so don't hesitate to report bugs

I think the replay will be paused/empty just for a bit until the moment in the replay where you stopped loading and/or joined your unit. You can see the status of the replay in the status bar in F10 or any external view like F2. Check your control and try to unpause the replay if it's actually paused or accelerate the recording until you spawn. However, in my experience, DCS replay feature will not work or work poorly with big missions like in Open Confclit or other servers. At some point, the replay will diverge from what actually happened. For capturing your stories on any server, it's better to use shadowplay, OBS or fraps and record as you play or at least, that's what I do.

Yep, you should be close enough from all the installations ; especially the M818 truck. Not sure what's happening ; are you sure you do the right startup procedure?

I am like John Snow when it comes to helicopters : I know nothing. I don't pilot them and don't know how to pilot them. I've created the delivery/rescue/explosive systems without being capable of doing or testing them :lol:

Ok thanks for the report. When you have a bug like this, a screenshot of the F10 map zoomed on the FOB can also be useful. It would allow me to see if the ground power is too far from your pad or has been accidentally destroyed during the session. Contrary to airports, FARP saldy needs static objects nearby to work (tent, fuel, ammo and power) Sometimes, a pad is too far from one of this object (for ground power, I think it's a truck) or one of this object has been destroyed somehow (I can't make them immortal) A screen will help me know which case are we talking about to properly fix it :thumbup: Thanks

Nope not yet. I am already working on a next version of the map and will see if I can add this to the release. I also always post updates and release note in this forum so dont hesitate to follow this thread. :thumbup:

The editor didn't lemme do it but I've hacked some stuff, move the UK country from blue to red coalition in my map, made the A-50 aircraft available for UK in DCS and so now... ... I can have a red UK A50 AWACS speaking English and using your obsolete-game-of-thrones imperial units :thumbup: So I guess that in the next version of the map, the Brexit will happen on Open Conflict too :megalol:

It's still more comfortable to hear and understand the AWACS calls especially when you are already stressing in your aircrafts :)

While I don't agree with what seems like an oversimplification of the issue, I agree that it could be a factor in choosing a faction for some people. However, the blue side has generally attracted more players ; in sessions with or without awacs. For me, it feels like it's a player fantasy thing ; like the cat and dog person test. I've played CAP on both side and really had different feelings ; more a hunter vide on red and more a protector one on blue. The aggressor fantasy, often attached, to red just doesn't agree with everyone. To come back to your point, I agree that having an awacs language option would be nice but it sadly not in my hands ; it's a task for ED. What could be in my hands is to make both awacs speak english because it's still more accessible for my players than russian. So far, even an E3 awacs on red side will speak russian but I will to dig deeper. I'll keep you posted :thumbup:

That's not totally true. Right now, the counter is only counting "modern" fighters outside duel slots meaning, in OC, up from mig21. The korean war / WWII planes are considered legacy and not counted. I am not sure if counting separately mig21 and F5 would be really that useful. A more proper way to give balance information would be to profile players using stats and have a veteran / junior pilot count but yea.... no :lol:

The player pop in each side is irrelevant ; it could be 20 blue Medics versus 7 red fighters. Try typing '-team' in chat and it will give you the number of fighters in each team. That's a bit more representative of the air superiority status even if it not perfect either as not every fighter aircrafts are equals and some players can be in a fighter and do A2G :) I will use this numbers in the AI CAPs respawn algorithm.

Map Symetry & Map Balance First, I want to clear a confusion that is often made on the map design. Even if I am aiming for a map relatively symmetric ; I am not aiming for a map perfectly balanced. Lemme explain a bit more the difference and the design intents. The map symmetry is here to give players a familiarity ; each side will have every playable crafts, a FOB, fleet, protected zone, same type of objectives.... The intent is to give player the same opportunities on each side and to encourage them to try each side and not be completely lost in the switch. While this symmetry also helps me maintain a certain balance, the intent is not to have a perfect balance like you would see in a MMO battleground. Then intent is to not have a big unbalance ; which is a bit different. Even if you are offered about the same opportunities on each side, the conditions are meant to be different to offer variety. Again, this can encourage players to switch side when they want a different context to the same task ; sometimes more difficulty. Blue Pop VS Red Pop I've noticed that a lot of people won't actually care about balance and will always choose red or blue. The game / map / society associates blue to good guys and red to bad guys and people will be sometimes just be drawn to one of this. A good example is MEDIC helicopters that are way more played blue side. I've seen pilots jumping into blue attackers or helis while they were no fighter on their side and many on the red sides. Of course, there will always be the players that want to be on the stronger side but usually, blue attracts more people and more diverse aircrafts. Air Superiority and AWACS Position The battle for air superiority is, of course, where the PVP is and where the fuzzy balance can be the more disturbing. Comparing to the previous map "Khashuri", the current one "Tuapse" has a terrain very different from one side to another. Blue assets and aircrafts are more exposed on a flatter terrain while red side offers more protection with more valley and mountains. The AWACS position and altitude are also a bit different for variety. In this map, the goal of the AWACS is to give a good defensive tool to protect your zone but a less unreliable tool for offense. That's why they are so far away from the CZ and that's also one of the reason why the red AWACS is a bit lower to compensate the defensive mountain cover. The AWACS is also very difficult to tweak as it's a black box for designers and for the script. Do I wish I had better control over AWACS cover by putting zone and shit? F. yea Do I wish I could make the AWACS not report helicopter? Maybe for a test ; definitely for MEDIC. But apart from that, I like the fact that both sides have advantages / disadvantage for each opportunities ; including air superiority. The only thing I can and will change "soon" is removing the AI CAP support for the "strongest" side. It's started working on it but as usual, the only ETA I can give you is "before the F18" You crazy texan! For me, in DCS at least, equality is imposible to acheive and would be in the way of variety and diversity of experience. :thumbup:

It will be "Soon" released by our level design team. However, our programming team needs to ship a new version of Skynet before. Skynet map validation is preventing LD's from putting respawning-SAM-defended ground objectives. Our QA team is hard at work right now monitoring the server on the new internet connection. 30 active players + Skynet = - 65% upload bandwidth taken - 10% CPU taken - 33% memory taken - average ping to outside (google/OpenDNS): 35ms The metrics are way better than 30 players on my previous connection but... ...waiting for player's feedbacks to see how it's reflecting on their performance playing on the server. All the good stuff :)

Server internet connection has been upgraded and player slot count has been increased. Let's see how it goes :)

Until I add manpads like you all wanted! :music_whistling: "Incursion really needed more manpads" PC-Gamer 2016 "More than your aircrafts, they now attack your FPS! Genius!" IGN 2016 "grumble grumble grumble F-18 grumble grumble can't wait grumble grumble DCS 2.5 grumble grumble" User Reviews Since 2002

Every donations count, even tiny ones :thumbup: I went to my ISP and told them that I am hosting a game server for chinese and russian hackers to chillax and without more bandwith, they might get restless and use their power for evil against my ISP. Then I got an upgrade :thumbup:

Maintenance Hello guys My internet connection will be upgraded Saturday "at some point when the guy show up". At this point, I will shut the server down and use the interruption to do some maintenance. If everything goes well, the number of slots should go back up progressively :thumbup:

For you, propellers fanatics :)