Mirknir

Back from Trip Yo guys, So like I said in a previous post, I was gone for a work trip last week but be reassured, I am now back :lol: During this week, I also took a small break from the forum and took some time to reflect and think about the server's future. Thanks for the head's up. I will see what I can do but a specific request for an aircraft I don't own and thus a feature I can't test is never ideal for me. I should ask again for free development keys to ED so I can dev and test my server on all aircrafts but I am pretty sure the answer will not change :music_whistling: From all the feedback and suggestions, I got that waypoints are important for a lot of people. I want to add some for players but because the mission has an open world feeling, it's not easy to add them in the mission editor as you can choose to go to any objectives. I can still add some to major objectives but it won't be pretty. I am looking at how to add waypoint dynamically depending on the objective you choose to attack. It will be also be better as I want to move Skynet to a more dynamic system. I can only choose a language for the AWACS and the language determines the unit system. I choose English because it's the most common language even if I think the imperial system belongs to medieval times where people believed in magic and dragons. Once Skynet takes over the AWACS system, the reporting will be in the unit you chose using "-opt unit" but it's not going to be soon :cry:

I wanted to thank people for their suggestion ; keep them coming :thumbup: That's actually a very good point and something I never really tried to design. My approach on Open Conflict was to provide objectives and let the players do their missions because it's usually how I like to play games. However, having mission generated like "SEAD this objective" "Bring capture infantry to this objective" could bring a nice context for the player. A mission with proper waypoints that you can complete and that would output a message. I will see how I can integrate with the open world aspect that I want to keep. I guess the first step would be to see if I can, in runtime, generate and inject proper waypoints in a live aircraft. :thumbup: I've been trying to do a mini front line on Tuapse to see the problems it could bring and yea, like you guessed, AI fights have a tendency to be resolved very fast. Creating a active front line with combat and stalemate is very hard and in Tuapse, the AI are actually firing randomly in a zone so from afar, you see fights but they are not really trying to kill each others :) So I have been thinking of injecting different orders when a player is nearby, supporting them or having just dropped them. This is part of the things I wanna experiment on with the new system and that would bring more important to the player presence. Love you propositions and it's going in the direction I was thinking of going. I can't really spawn a FARP as it's a huge ass installation in DCS but I want to try making a FARP change side meaning unlocking associated playable slots of the owner side and spawning the needed installation like fuel, ammo, control center in the right color. Airports might be easier to change color as they don't need external object to function. That's a good point and I am surprised it's the first time ever it's been brought up on the forum. Open Conflict started as just a map and third party scripts like SLMOD and MIST, then I started to add my own masterscript Skynet. As I was adding more features in Skynet, I wanted them to be integrated in all systems and ended up changing third party script or having my script do part of the same job as other scripts. A good example was the explosive / rescue features. Once I added them, I wanted the combat log and stats to take these into consideration but the script in charge of this aspect of the server (SLMOD) didn't know what an explosive pack or a rescue was. So at some point, I decided that Skynet needed to take care of this aspect of the game too. Even if I do a lot of joke about that, I've chosen the name Skynet for the very reason that I knew it would have to take over every aspects of Open Conflict to make a consistent, non fractured experience. The more recent aspect of the game that I wish I had control on and that will surely ended up being done in Skynet is the AWACS. Even if I want to protect some aircrafts like pure transport, medic or WWII planes, the AWACS doesn't know what a protected aircraft is and will still declare them as targets and dispatch F15 to them. Same if I want aircrafts in the protected zone to be invisible to the enemy AWACS to not dispatch players in enemy protected zone to their death... DCS AWACS just doesn't know Skynet Protected Zone concept. The fact is that the more advanced and integrated features I want to do, the more systems on the server I need to control and take care of. Also, I am now moving away from lua to get more performance and productivity. Let's keep the ideas flowing :thumbup:

Dynamic Campaign Hello Guys Here is a little update on the work I am doing for the next Skynet (I still need a codename for this project if you want to propose one :)). For those who didnt see my last update, I am in the process of migrating Skynet from a Lua Masterscript to a C++ MasterDLL that will allow me to do more advanced features in less time. The migration is doing well and the new Skynet already have access to the radio menu, chat, world events and mission environment. However, migrating the code is, of course, useless without considering using this new power to do some major changes to Open Conflict gameplay and game design. Something usually brought out to me in posts or PM is doing more of a living map and/or more of a dynamic campaign. I have my own ideas of what could be a more dynamic and involving mission/map but I would like to hear from you while I am still redesigning the mission and map. Dynamic campaign can be kind of a buzz word so here are my high level questions to you: What is for you a dynamic campaign in Open Conflict? What kind of core features would define such a dynamic campaign? How would you factor a (sadly needed) reset every X hours? I will be out of town next week so I will leave my programmer hat on my desk and put my designer hat for the trip to do more game design.

Awesome! Love the effects on the picture. Yea I may increase the "team killing an AI" penalty score and auto kick this kind of behavior sooner. However, the tankers are respawning after something like 5 min I think. Once again :), I only use official skins and don't want people to download additional package to have the intended Open Conflict experience. However, it's very easy for you to install your favorite skin over an official one used in Open Conflict. Then, you just have to join the server and and chose the slot with the skin you overwrote. :thumbup:

Yea it was more for NASA post but thanks for the clarification. I think the F5 is one of these module that I don't own and thus I can't see all the skins ; I ll re-check :thumbup:

I don't want for people to have to download and install something to have the full Open Conflict experience. Also, DCS already comes with a lot of cool skins ; I can just get rid of the bad ones especially now that the skin is visible in the mission editor (which was not the case when the mission was created) And I don't feel like it would be a good use of my Open Conflict dev time to create a skin package and keep it updated with everyone's personal requests while there are so much actual cool features to add :thumbup:

Open Conflict is indeed hosted on a home but still dedicated PC. It's not a dedicated server as DCS doesn't have this concept yet ; it's just a DCS client that runs without 3D render like every other servers. The biggest and most expensive blocker is the internet upload bandwidth that I've already upgraded last month and that also comes with a monthly bill :music_whistling: Don't forget that the server is free but opened to donation if you want to contribute to its growth. On another side, DCS is also using a lot of bandwidth and I would dare to say more that it should for so little content in the map. I am also working on migrating Skynet to a new language that, in addition to a lot of features, would allow me more control on the Skynet-feature-related bandwidth needs and maybe more flexibility to host on third party computers.

As usual for skin request, bug report or feature request, I need details. Historical skins doesn't mean anything to me :) Can you be more precise and give me the actual official skins with names? :thumbup: Also, I sometines dont have access to all skins as i dont own all the modules and I am only using official skins that comes with DCS, no add-on skins.

But that's just it, if the airquaking is too great, there is not enough space for other people to have the freedom to try to do something else. When you constantly have 25 fighters in the air, quickly and ever respawning, armed with 6 to 12 very dangerous missiles, with enough fuel to just AB thru the map, with minimum consideration for their life and shooting everything that moves, you got to ask yourself: what if I want to do an helicopter run? What If I want to do an A-10C ground attack? Where is the space for F5 pilots? Yea it's a computer game but it's an online one so you or at least I need to consider other people interests and create gameplay and spaces for them to play. It would be the same if I added a great number of long range SAMS all over the map, creating a huge gameplay space for SEAD and almost none for Air to Air. It's all a question of balance. I am also trying to find better solutions to avoid having to do the fuel trick and suggestions are welcomed especially since the map and skynet will be redone soon. I have some good ideas but none that I can implement quickly. As for the Mirage2000, like I already said, it's not near the destruction power and flying range as the F15/Su27-33 so it doesn't compare in term of airquaking potential. But at the end of the day, what's great about DCS is that you have different server with different philosophy and gameplays. I will never be sad to see a aerobatic passionate go on an aerobatic server, an airquaker enthusiast go to a airquaker server or a WWII pilot going on a WII server. It's what make DCS community diverse and interesting ; I am aiming for a diverse server with a lot of various opportunities and gameplay. I also like to explain why I do things because usually, some people, bothered or not by a change, will consider the reason behind the changes and help me find a better solution :thumbup: I am still trying to find other solutions to the problem ; it may requires a different kind of map to better spread the threats.

I designed the server so that every information you need is on the server when you play ; in the mission briefing or in Skynet chat / radio commands / text popups. I change and experiment often with a a lot of things so I prefer to spend my time and focus my effort in having the information in-game instead of on an outside media like a website that would be bound to not be up-to-date. The in-game briefing has overview (text and picture) information about the rules, the weather, the mission and the access to Skynet radio and menu commands (type -help in chat) I would agree that DCS put, in the briefing, a lot of clutter information that none cares about (like the available slots) and that sometimes prevent people from seeing the important information I put in. However, with a little patience, you should get the information you need ingame. :thumbup:

Open Conflict 2017 - Open Conflict - Skynet ReGenisis - Hello guys, First off, happy new year and I wish you all another year of happy flying:pilotfly: I am back from vacation and I think it's time to do a "small" post about the status of the server and where I would like to go next. Now, about the server First off, for new people here, lemme tell you a bit about that Open Conflict. It is a free server I develop on my free time and host for everyone to enjoy. I have a job and a life so my free time on OC is limited and not everything can be delivered as fast as I would like :) I also have limited funds ; that why the server is opened to donation. Even with limited means and time, I love to host the server for many reasons but at the center of all of them are you guys, the players and the stories. Now, about this thread. I've created this thread to communicate with OC players but also for them to communicate with me. DCS has grown so much and my fly-time being limited, I appreciate all your constructive feedback and suggestion and some of the best ideas in Open Conflict originated from here. I also try to keep this thread positive and respectful to encourage the conversation. Pure whine is of course not welcomed and rarely listened to as it doesn't really provide information or make the server progress. I like and will continue experimenting with all sort of stuff and a proper conversation can be so much more enriching for me as I don't fly everything and make content that I can complete. Example: "I had trouble flying my <aircraft> name when starting at <airport name>" is already so much more information than "This crap weather is getting old". :) Now about Skynet and the map First off, the experimentation I've been doing on the next version of Skynet have been successful and I can now talk about it a bit more. This past year, I've been struggling to improve Skynet to the level I want it to be for one main reason: the lua scripting language. LUA is a nice scripting language but it also has a lot of disadvantages that make it really counter productive and error prone with a project of Skynet size (around 20k lines of code). Adding feature to Skynet has become very time consuming in dev and test and it's not working well with my new schedule. Using a framework developed by Vyrtuoz for Tacview and DArt for LotAtc, I can now migrate Skynet to the more powerful programming language C++. Without going to deep in boring details, C++ is just a better tools as it's a proper and powerful programming language and it's the one I use daily at my job. Long story long, migrating Skynet to C++ will take me some time but in the process, it will give Skynet more power to do more advanced features and give me a more powerful and fast tool to debug and test. With this new power, I want to add more meaning to the map with base capture, more dynamic objectives, more group missions and more strategy for players. I have a lot of ideas on how to go toward this direction, some proposed by you guys, like: Better communication channels depending on your aircrafts role Base capture Supporting assault infantry Player calling for help Objective under attack calling for help Objective SAMS reporting enemy detected aircrafts Skynet own AWACS or EWR system that will report to everyone the same and ignore some weaker or protected aircrafts Fog of War on detailed information, recons .... I know, it's a lot but I don't think impossible. Anyways, it's still a long way to release but as I was saying earlier in 'about the thread', don't hesitate to post your ideas like some people already did even if they seems crazy cause even if they are, they can spark more. It can be stuff you would like to do, something you would like Skynet to do, something to fix a problem... Let's say FC3 aircrafts are a bother for you ; try to think about a change in context that would make them less a bother to you ; maybe a more dangerous SAM filled conflict zone ; maybe an AWACS mode that better report thread coming on you, maybe a feature to better call for support and guide help to you.... Thanks for reading this wall of text :thumbup: And yea, the wind will calm down in next map version

I am currently away from home in vacation. Will be back this weekend :thumbup:

Yea I've -ninja- updated the time of day for the mirage bug and the weather to be less extreme and cold but still with some good wind :thumbup: Changing weather and time of day is part of OC with some more or less extreme and I try to keep the more extreme patterns the shorter time. This is something I wanna keep because I think it brings variety and a nice training I am trying to stay within some limits to avoid grounding some aircrafts. For example, I won't put my mach-1-wind weather pattern even if it was a blast to fly in. I am also experimenting with dynamic weather so don't hesitate to try both red and blue weather cause it might change and don't trust THAT MUCH the weather info DCS put in the briefing as it might whange from one airport to another :)

Ok then I am not sure what happened ; maybe some radio command got lost by DCS. I know they did some changes recently in this system. This particular session, Skynet received many RESCUE_PICKUP_PILOT commands but none from you so you wouldn't get a response. Next time you have this problem, can you default to the direct chat commands and see if it's working better: Pick-up downed pilot(s) to your aircraft: -re load -re load <pilotCount> Thanks!

Thanks for the report, it helps me investigate so much more quickly! In this instance, I checked and my logs seem to indicate you didn't click the pickup command but did a drop off. Here is the log: For information, all radio commands are redirected to chat commands on the server so you will only see chat command execution. @Mt3603.93◆Rt3665.00: UpdateUnitData: Doodenkoff - STOP being airborne @Mt3655.58◆Rt3716.64: ExecuteChatCommand: Doodenkoff - Command RESCUE_DEFAULT with 1 extra args - Arg#1 -> pickup -> Display all pickup site @Mt3703.87◆Rt3764.94: ExecuteChatCommand: Doodenkoff - Command RESCUE_DROPOFF_PILOT with 0 extra args -> Drop Off Command @Mt3703.87◆Rt3764.94: Text/Sound to Player: Doodenkoff@ID19: Rescue System | Drop-Off You are not too far from Forward Operating Base drop-off zone!- OC_Popup_Error.ogg @Mt3785.45◆Rt3846.52: ExecuteChatCommand: Doodenkoff - Command MYSELF with 0 extra args @Mt3827.56◆Rt3888.64: 3827.557 #REPORT By Doodenkoff: report cannot pick up downed pilots @Mt3827.56◆Rt3888.64: Doodenkoff Data: Objective Status Closest FARP/Carrier : [FOB] Forward Operating Base Closest Rescue Drop-Off : [FOB] Forward Operating Base Closest Delivery Drop-off : [sMO] Smolonskaya Safe House Closest Objective to Destroy : [LIS] Listening Post Closest Transport Pick-Up : [FOB] Forward Operating Base Closest Rescue Pick-Up : [sMO] Smolonskaya Safe House @Mt3827.56◆Rt3888.64: ChatLine to Player: Doodenkoff@ID19: -> Report Complete

2017 Happy new year guys! The last weather I used I know the weather is a bit extremely cold and windy but I think it's a nice changed and because it's so extreme, I won't let it last too long, don't worry. The Mirage 2000 January Bug The mission update currently running is set on February the 20th, in 2016 so you shouldn't have the bug except if it's a more general bug!? The Ground Power Bug I will add more ground power truck to blue FOB and see it helps :thumbup:

He he I am doing what I can with the stuff ED let me access :) I am working on something more powerful than my current Skynet though to get more more advanced feature in. But in the current Skynet, the incoming experiment, "the Dishonorable kills", should motivate big dangerous modern fighters to engage legacy planes and transport helicopters with guns instead of missile :music_whistling:

Server updated to last DCS version In Map: Open Conflict Tuapse - v3.3.8 Duel Slots Add Spitfire Duel Slots Move some duel slots to hangar/parking closer from the runway Fighter Slots Each modern fighter now have a maximum of 4 slots per coalition F15, Su27, Su33 and M2000C lost 1 slots per coalition Dishonorable Kills Add some data for this future feature New Weather Winter cold, windy

It's very hard to communicate this limit properly. Denying a slot marked Mirknir, Dev or Contested when I am going to do capture is understandable. Denying a slot marked nothing special is strange as the only proper message I can send to the player at this point is a chat message. But it can be done. My problem with this is that you can go in a fighter and do a2g or aerobatics and not contribute to your coalition cap efforts. I really would like to control the missile quantity per loadout ; I need to find a way :helpsmilie:

I haven't find a way to restrict missile quantity in a loadout :( The only way would be to spawn f15 with 2 aim120 and remove all 120 from bases :(

Yes there has been a lot of suggestion about weather and basically everyone wants a weather and it's opposite :lol: I am changing the weather when I push a map update to signal an update has been released. I am using a large variety of weather pattern and time of day but not full night because not every aircrafts have night vision and not full snow because its ruining people fps. The past updates, I had a tendency to favor crappy weather so this long nice weather is some kind of break.

Thanks for the feedback :thumbup: It's not an easy job to host a battlefield for everyone in every aircrafts of every era ; I understand why God invented time to not have every aircrafts flying in the same war :lol: I've done some dynamic objective in this version of Skynet (Open Conflict Masterscript) but yea, I would like to go further. I am currently investigating a new tech to migrate Skynet to and that should allow me to do more powerful stuff. I will post on this soon depending on the result of my investigation.

While I agree that it should be tweaked well and the air starts should spawn way further than regular slots, I don't agree with the "more organized" part. I've seen this argument in the thread that people air-quake because "this or this should be added" and I feel that's just wrong. Like they choose the F15/Su27 in all aircrafts available, they choose airquake playstyle in all stuff you can do in DCS / on server. It's by choice and not by lack of options. While I want to add more feature/incentive to play in group and stay alive, I am really not convinced it will help decrease the air quaker situation. I feel more and more that something more drastic should be done like removing some aircrafts or some missiles to remedy the situation :(

Yea the SAM sites are a bitch and they might increase in power at some power to offer better protection for people in their side on the conflict zone and more need for SEAD. I may mark the slot NO/LOW fuel to hint at the fact that something is different but I won't add a audio notification as it should still be a reflex to look at your instrument when you enter your aircrafts. I appreciate your contribution as a lot of affected people won't participate to the discussion. I can't say I am playing DCS like you do but I like to have different views. As for the flame war, it's a sensitive subject so I cant say it won't spark some stuff but, on my side, I like to have inputs and always try to answer with respect and explain the reasoning behind decisions.

You have to request refueling and then, when it's done, it says "Refueling complete". You can also see the fuel level rising on your fuel gauge. I am not sure what you mean by not knowing the refueling is happening. Also, check these other solutions I was considering implementing here and I think the IN AIR slots could bring the death cool down without the passivity. Let's put in that way: it's a good demo of the F15 technology. But yea, in term of piloting skills, awareness of your surrounding and not dying, it's not that great and I think that's why you will have different type of responses.