Mirknir

Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate it :thumbup:

Yea I added some anti troll SAMS and the performance took a bit of a hit. I am currently investigating to find more ways to optimize the whole shebang. That's why the updates stopped a bit lately. Trying to find a way the exact performance murderer is not easy and trying to fix it without emptying the map is even harder. My most promising solution if you are interested: Sleeping Defenses Stay tuned :thumbup:

It's a good question and you never know until you test it. Even if Skynet is 15k lines of code, only 1k is actually the interface to/from DCS. This Skynet-DCS interface doesn't use anything fancier than what SLMOD and Mist are using. Actually, Mist goes even deeper in some features. I am expecting some surprises to deal with and some work-around to do but I feel like Skynet won't be completely broken :thumbup: Or if it is, a lot of major scripts will be too :P

I make it my duty to check up close all them helicopters and especially hueys. Since Air America, you never know if they aren't CIA agent smuggling opium and heroin to finance their sinister plans! I am onto you buddy!

Server updated to DCS version 1.5.3.53279 :pilotfly:

The only good way to compare helicopter is how much time does it take Rambo to kill it with a bow

Ok after seeing this documentary, I think the warning is a bit too much. I think I underestimated the power of destruction of helicopters. Hueys also come with AB and lasers? [ame] [/ame]

Flying the L39ZA is cheating, it's too stable at low speed :lol: I had trouble maintaining a proper chase position behind you with my fully loaded su27 :smilewink:

I've started an altitude awareness campaign for helicopters in conflict zone. If, with my su27, I can do a supersonic flyby between the ground and the helicopter, it means the pilot is not flying low enough :thumbup: I hope I've awaken some pilots with this or make beers spilled!

Well, I've seen some helicopters casually flying high in the CZ and eat an AIM120 in the face without the warning being triggered so the sense of security it gives can be misleading ;) You always think you are safe until a F15 sees you, launches 8 amraams on you and immediately RTB while the missiles casually track your happy-to-be-alive smile. The manual request for smoke is 3km range and your helicopter will do an auto request at 80% of this. I may increase the base range as I've noticed it can be too small. I wanted to add flare in the whole process but I am still thinking about how to do it properly. Also, I can't control the duration of smoke, it's 300sec, it's DCS controlled. I am currently working to bring some of the rescue system features to the delivery system to harmonize both systems.

I want more points of interest to be in the beacon system so you will be able to guide using radio. Waypoints are a nightmare to add to the 300 playable aircrafts I have in the mission. Plus, it's a very open map so it's difficult to know where to put them. I would like to be able to push waypoints to the player planes using Skynet. Like you can request intel report on an objective, you could say 'setup a waypoint there' too. Not sure if it's possible tho with all the different planes ; never investigated. I'll add it to the list. What DustOff just described was a CAS started by a scared UH1 pilot assaulted by a mean convoy :) But yea, again, I prefer not to add more AIs for performance reason. However, I could make some existing enemy convoy being more of a threat for friendly assets. I would also need to add notification about events that require player involvement OR ELSE :) I ll think about that. :thumbup:

Nice, I like to hear about these epic war stories :) Did you finally experience the infamous warning? Was it more of a thrill like tracers popping near you or did you feel like it was helping too much?

So far, I've tried to spice up the Conflict Zone by trying to get more players into it and I think it worked to a certain extend. As usual, adding more AI is always a problem for performance and I think the mission is already on the heavy side. Also mission-design wise, I like to have the player is the center of the mission so adding random AIs may not be the best solution. I still want the player to be able to roam the conflict zone without having to dodge X number of convoys in addition to Y number of installation, especially since AI have perfect awareness and they will not not detect you. So far, the mission have 2 red convoys for blue to kill and 1 blue for red to kill and only 1 of the red convoys is activated at once. Then you have delivery-player-triggered convoys: 1 for blue, 1 for red (red also have a ka50 flight that can be triggered). These convoys go to reinforce the Khashuri defenses but I could actually change their route so they wander deeper in the conflict zone. Mission design wise, it would be better as this extra threat would actually be created by player action. And then, there is also the problem of finding convoy routes :) If I don't want convoys to interfere too much with other convoys or objectives or to troll an helicopter landing zone, routes can be tricky to find. I will keep your suggestion in mind and see how I can incorporate these ideas in the fragile balance of the map :thumbup: I may start with the delivery trigger convoys.

Yea I put some carriers back, blue side, around Kobuleti Shores. Red side doesn't have seas so no carriers for them!

In Masterscript: Skynet v2.4.7 Added: Option System Players can now have options to personalize their experience Option system is accessible by chat command '-opt' Option system is also accessible in Radio menu -> F10 -> F5 Options are saved for each player on the server Added: Unit System Option First option is to personalize the unit system used to display dist and alt information This will make the objective popups clearer Option values are Metric or Imperial '-opt unit' to toggle the value (or Radio menu -> F10 -> F5)

Yea I am trying new things like evading 2 friendly fired R77 on my 6 while trying to engage 2 F15s on my 12 :thumbup: This server is full of surprises lol Spoiler Alert: I ended with a pitbull AIM120 in my face

The AI naming system is opened to suggestion. I am trying to have name as diverse / crazy / ridiculous as some players so that players but it's not easy. So far, I have (vodka was involved in the finding of thesenames): They try to be cute and innocent but silently they plot for server domination :helpsmilie:

I've been wanting to do an option system in Open Conflict for so long because of this. A lot of personal preference, starting with the unit system. The first option I wanted to do for a long time is the unit system you want for your objective information popup instead of displaying both system. I might do the system and this one option first and then build on this. I still encourage everyone to test the feature and see how it goes. It's not that crazy of an advantage, don't forget it's a 25km detection range while a lot of fighter missile have an operational range more than three time that.

The area you are talking about is the protected/training zone so it has 2 main ground objective + 1 bridge objective which is already not bad. And because I am limited in the number of objectives I can do for performance reasons and because I want people to leave the comfort of the training zones, I chose to develop the conflict zone over the protected zones. Try to venture there, take a Gazelle @ Zestafoni forward FARP and taste the excitement of danger! I've seen gazelle attacking convoys, infantry objective, supply base... even the most difficult objectives. The gazelle can also do transport/rescue missions. On another note, I am also considering moving the forward FARP if I find a good spot to put it.

I never hate, I try to understand and then communicate better :) That's why I prefer a wall of text because now, I can address your concern because a lot of thought went into this feature to make it a balance tool. First, worst case scenario, I can always make it an option to turn on. Now that's out of the way, I tried to design the warning with these constraints in mind. Maybe I should have posted these before to ease minds :) If it was not bugged and spammy, the AWACS would have the same information and could issue the same warning If you don't fly covertly, you are screwed, with or without the warning. (The range should be small enough versus killing range of fighters) If the fighter detects you from afar and he is not a noob, the warning will not make a difference, you will die before even hearing it. (The range is too small) If an unsuspecting enemy fighter happens to be nearby or fight nearby and you are close to ground, the warning will you a bit more time to land/fly to shelter RWR was my example. It can save your life but if you have no awareness of where you are going or where you can escape, you will still die. Plus, when it triggers, it increases your adrenaline :) Another example I checked was the tracers, seeing them is a warning someone is shooting at you but it's often too late Also, every feature might be tweaked along the way, here is some of my test server and live server observation results: On live servers, most of the helicopters that got the warning still got shot I've played with this warning on my su27 tonight and it never triggered Meaning, in all my A2A fights, I always got the kill from further away than the warning range and I am not really a BVR kind of guys Meaning the killing range of a fighter is greater than the warning distance Try it out!! To sum-up, not being detected should still be the best defense to survive, with or without the warning :thumbup: And I am just talking about enemy fighters here, so many threats can be avoided by staying low.

Thanks ;) The masterscript Skynet is starting to be big! 15k lines of code and growing hehe One of the many reasons I reset the mission is to respawn content or else the map will go dry fast. I can have some object statuses saved from one reset to another but I am yet to find a cool application to this in the context of my current mission. Looking at the Straits of Hormuz map, I had ideas around being able to capture the island airports and the capture status will remain from one reset to another. So many ideas :lol:

No strain, the performance profiles are unchanged. I don't post all optimization in release notes but I have actually worked on some optimization for the features that takes the most time. It's pretty geeky so I usually don't post about it. The warning system actually works on a emitter/receiver principle so since not all the players emits the 'enemy fighter signal' and not all players receives it, it's not as costly as a all players versus all players situation.

Yea infiltrations are a more search than destroy mission. You have to find hidden targets and sometimes, recon units are popinp flare on them to help you. It's been designed for helis to fly around a city but I've seen some attackers also complete these objectives.

Each side have a undefended and a lightly defended objective in their protected zone to practice one, for blue it's Kobuleti and Lanchutti. Then, you can go in the conflict zone and attack the infantries or supply base objectives. A lot of aircrafts do without more protection than a L39 have. You can also go bombs bridges, in or outside the protected zone. Or attack convoy (I managed to do them with just rockets/dumb bombs) Or go kill the enemy bombers/recons... All trainers are also part of the rescue/transport system so you can go deliver some stuff or rescue some pilots provided you choose objectives near a road (there are some) Then, of course, you can also ask for CAS or CAP for more complex objectives, a lot of A10c or su25t will be delighted to kill some defenses for you and join your flight. DCS net code sadly doesn't allow me to add as many objectives I would like but I think there are still a lot to do, even for a L39. I hope this will give you some ideas of stuff to do :)

I don't worry :) Hosting a server for so many different kind of aircrafts, kind of players and play styles is a challenge I like. Thing is, 99% of the time, I pilot su27 and try to kill F15c. That's why I listen a lot to feedback, suggestions and different opinions that I then weight against common sense, fun and my design philosophies. Since I developed and released Skynet 2.0, I am pretty quick to add or tweak features so that's a plus for flexibility.