Northstar98
-
Posts
8212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
21
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Northstar98
-
-
29 minutes ago, Beirut said:
Then delete them. Problem solved.
Wrong.
Problem not solved:
On 5/25/2024 at 1:27 PM, Northstar98 said:[..] it is something I have to do each and every time an update/repair is run and it's time that adds up. I'd definitely appreciate having a livery manager so that I only need to make edits once.
-
2
-
-
8 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:
The inner workings and nitty gritty performance details of individual weapon's systems, for which secrecy could come into play would only be needed for simulatng them from an operator's point of view - i.e. player control. For an AI controlled unit(including aircraft) you only need general information about sensors/systems/compatible armament and the basic performance stats published for them.
To really hammer this home - it should be noted that regardless of which variant is chones, or if it's some combination merged into one vessel, this exact problem would apply just the same and there's no way around it, apart from choosing not to implement ships where data isn't available.
To an extent, certain things can (and will need to be) abstracted (especially as these are AI units we're talking about). We don't know for instance what the rate-of-fire of the Mk 41 is when firing SAMs, how many the Aegis system (and its various mods) can support in their mid-course phase or when exactly command + inertial guidance switches over to SARH, a guess (which for the first one, has already happened) would be far better than the current behaviour (which treats SM-2s like SM-1s - i.e. SARH, illuminating at launch, not flying optimised trajectories like the 5V55R and being PN from launch).
We do know that the SM-2s these ships have available are inertial w/ a command uplink in the midcourse phase and then switches over to SARH in the terminal phase (and we do know how many targets can have CWI directed at them at any one time, as this is determined by how many AN/SPG-62s a ship has) and that the M-5 also has a secondary IRH mode. A guess of say, 6-12 seconds before impact, switch over to SARH. That would be far better already than the current system.
-
27 minutes ago, Beirut said:
You can manage whether or not 3rd party skins are installed.
???
-
2 hours ago, Beirut said:
Liveries only represent a small amount of install size of storage space.
There are some modules that only represent a small amount of install size/storage space (some are even smaller than liveries), yet there's a manager for those.
Same for the campaigns, they're also small, representing a tiny fraction of the install size, yet there's a manager for those as well.
2 hours ago, Beirut said:That fact is completely relevant.
No it isn't, because as established, this exists for modules and campaigns. Some of the former are even smaller than liveries and the latter is also only a small amount of space too. Clearly how large the files are has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a manager should exist for them. Rendering this fact completely irrelevant.
It also isn't relevant, because even if I have storage space (and I do), why should I store files I don't need, want or use? That can be deleted without consequence?
Storage space also isn't the only possible reason either - like I said, I make fixes to the description.luas for liveries. So it's doubly irrelevant.
The fact that someone like me, who has lots of storage space is advocating for a manager, should tell you just how irrelevant the storage space argument is. It's puzzling how you don't see that.
2 hours ago, Beirut said:Probably because the developers see this as a non-issue unworthy of their time. And as you still have over 400GB free on a 1TB drive that's solely dedicated to DCS World, this would appear to be a non-issue for you as well.
I take it you didn't read the part where I said that this isn't solely about storage space? I take it it's not the only thing you didn't read.
And true to form, completely failing to answer why I should store files I don't want to store, don't need to store, don't use and won't face any consequences if they're removed.
So I'll ask again, why should I store files I don't want, need or use, that can be deleted with no consequence to myself?
-
3
-
-
1 minute ago, samba_liten said:
Apart from the 24th missile regiment those should all be marked on the map in the mission file. I haven't listed them here.
Ah! My apologies. Should probably have checked that first.
-
1
-
-
I would definitely appreciate a livery manager to manage all of the liveries. It would be, in principle, identical to the module manager.
The repair and update utilities are already able to scan for and exclusively download those that are either absent or modified, so the underlying functionality is already present. I'm already able to delete liveries without issue, so that's not a problem - really it's more about being able to blacklist certain liveries from being redownloaded (hell, I'd be happy if it was a blacklist in a configuration file).
And no, before anybody chimes in about how liveries only represent a small amount of install size of storage space, that's completely irrelevant. Firstly, nobody can add $2 or whatever's worth of storage space, they can only free up space by deleting unwanted, unneeded and/or unused files. Secondly, why should users store files that they potentially don't use, don't need and don't want, even if they have lots of storage space (I still have over 400 GBs on a 1 TB drive that's solely dedicated to DCS World). Thirdly, how come we can manage whether or not 3rd party campaigns are installed, which also only represents a small amount of storage space and the total install size?
It's not even solely about storage space either - I've made fixes to some aircraft such that their liveries are sorted by country (an easy example is the MiG-21bis - I don't see why when I select USSR, the first livery that shows up is for Afghanistan and why I should have to scroll through a list that's nearly 10 times longer than it needs to be, just to find the half dozen or-so liveries that are actually appropriate for the USSR). While definitely less of an issue, I'm also not a fan of inconsistency, so I make my own edits to the names and orders as I see fit.
While it would be better if liveries were sorted as standard, I'm okay with making the edits myself. The problem is that they'll all be undone when an update or repair is done (so what I've done is copied them over to my user area, so I can just drag and drop them back in and delete the duplicates - though the updater/repair will also create a backup folder which contain any modified files/folders), while that doesn't take much time to do, it is something I have to do each and every time an update/repair is run and it's time that adds up. I'd definitely appreciate having a livery manager so that I only need to make edits once.
Personally though, should a livery manager be implemented (or livery managing functionality to the module manager be added), its default behaviour should be to do what happens now - i.e. all official liveries are downloaded and installed, such that only those wanting to change which liveries are installed need touch anything.
If this is going to be problematic in multiplayer, then official liveries could be something the integrity checker checks for, at the discretion of mission editors.
As MAXsenna alluded to, there was a larger thread on the topic, which can be found here, feel free to chime in there (though I assume this will get merged there).
-
6
-
-
Just now, Blaze1 said:
I don't recall the PWII having the characteristic of rolling in-flight so I'll need to check on that.
I might be misremembering, I have seen drop footage which appears to show the weapon making a roll but they're quite brief, which makes it difficult to determine. The Paveway III definitely does as per that video.
The Paveway II is also supposed to use bang-bang guidance, I know it once did in DCS, but that seems to have changed and it now appears to use proportional control.
-
What about the relevant Soviet forces circa 1988 that are actually stationed in the region?
- VMF (Navy):
- V-PVO (Air Defence Forces):
- VVS:
-
SV (Ground Forces):
- 6th Combined Arms Army, which also includes the 6th Missile Brigade and the 271st Guards Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade (there's also the 7th Anti-Aircaft Missile Brigade, but not circa 1988)
- RVSN (Strategic Rocket Forces):
*This is subordinated to the Army
1 hour ago, killjoy73au said:Shame we only have like two of these ships in DCS. This is some COMANO level ORBAT
We only have the Kirov (but this is the TARKR Pr. 1142.2 Pyotr Velikey), we're missing the Pr. 1142 Kirov (i.e. the original) which has a significantly different air defence systems (SA-N-4 instead of SA-N-9, AK-630 instead of CADS-N-1).
Otherwise we don't have any of them (the only ones that are close are the Krivak II and Grisha V).
-
1
-
On 5/23/2024 at 7:42 PM, IronMike said:
Thank you for your suggestions and feedback! We will look into it. The ground cart however will remain as is, as it appearing with external power on and off (should one re-request is less immersion breaking.)
With the start cart, would it be possible to add this as a static object? I'm obviously not expecting functionality, but it would be nice in order to populate airfields, particularly with AI Phantoms.
-
1
-
-
On 5/24/2024 at 1:17 PM, HB_Painter said:
Hey thanks for the report! We will take a look at this together with ED
Just for reference, on lines 445 and 625 of CoreMods\aircraft\F-4E\Entry\F-4E.lua, if "GBU-24" is replaced with "34759BBC-AF1E-4AEE-A581-498FF7A6EBCE", the GBU-24B/B gets replaced with the GBU-24A/B as is correct for our F-4E.
I'm not sure if that remains so when dropped (while I own the Phantom module, I can't test it) if anyone wants to test it, I've attached a corrected F-4E.lua. Back up the one you have first though, before replacing it with this one (all I've done is changed the 2 CLSID entries as above and added a comment to identify them as being for the GBU-24).
As above, the relevant path is [your main DCS World installation, usually inside Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World] then CoreMods\aircraft\F-4E\Entry
-
On 5/25/2024 at 12:51 AM, Tank50us said:
Case in point, if you want to know what kinds of systems a Fletcher-class destroyer had
And we know what kind of systems the Arleigh Burke has, especially those relevant to DCS. We don't know all the relevant capabilities, but DCS is too simplistic for them to be relevant.
There's certainly nothing classified about the fact that from DDG 84 onwards, they only have the rear Phalanx at most (though some started out with none), RIM-162A ESSM has been in full operational capability since 2004, the RIM-174A ERAM achieved IOC in 2013 and went into full-rate production in 2015 and the RGM-109E TACTOM Block IV was introduced in 2006. Meanwhile, the absolute earliest the earliest Arleigh Burke livery in DCS is from 2007 and the earliest the latest Arleigh Burke livery we have is from 2018.
There's certainly nothing classified about how the Oliver Hazard Perry needs the STIR if it's to have Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS and there's plenty of photos showing that if one's gone, the other is gone.
There's also nothing classified about the fact that the SM-2MR isn't SARH, illuminating at launch - that's how SM-1MRs behave and that it's instead inertially guided with a command uplink (at least with Aegis) with SARH guidance only occuring in the terminal stage. While we don't know the exact rate-of-fire or how many missiles Aegis supports in the mid-course phase or when the changeover point from mid-course to terminal illumination is, that applies to the ships as they already are, regardless of whether they're a mashup of different variants or not. It would apply regardless of what variant(s) they choose, as it's an integral part of that class of ship that cannot be worked around short of choosing a different class altogether. Even taking a best-guess would be more more realistic than what we have now (it would certainly be higher fidelity at the very least).
On 5/25/2024 at 12:51 AM, Tank50us said:And with the weapons capability, it's typically something that's advertised by the Navy, but the exact number of weapons, and amount of ammo for them is going to be both kept close to the chest, or will vary depending on mission requirements.
It does vary with mission requirements, but this knowledge isn't required for DCS as the Mk 41 VLS is modular and should allow players to configure them as required. And being able to set what the load should be is the whole point of this thread.
On 5/25/2024 at 12:51 AM, Tank50us said:Now, is there enough information to make the ship, and give it some capability in DCS? Oh yeah. But to get the ship to be properly simulated, the more modern ships just won't have enough information for that, thus, the best option for ED and other Devs is just to go with the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than try to model each one out.
Even if I accept it to be true, the conclusion would be "don't do such modern vessels" rather than "do modern vessels but make them a hybrid" - all those Arleigh Burke variants that our one is a mashup of still have similar combat systems and similar radars. The problem is equally true for the hybrid, making a hybrid does exactly nothing to rectify or workaround this issue. All you've done is just make it even less coherent than it could've been.
As for things like DDG 51 Flight III, DDG 1000 and interior layouts, neither is really all that relevant for DCS. We don't have a Flight III, we're supposed to have a Flight IIA and we don't have a DDG 1000. Interior layouts you can make a case for with the damage model, but the damage model right now is so beyond simplified that even a purely generic and abstracted internal layout would be an improvement by orders of magnitude (and really, that's all that's really necessary).
On 5/25/2024 at 2:25 AM, Grimes said:I'd just want it so I can remove anti-ship missiles from ships because the ROE settings are inadequate and AI will waste the things.
Definitely agree there, though I'd say this is the wrong way to go about solving this probably specifically (we really need the release quantity settings to work properly and a way of configuring what weapons and how many they should use against what targets, when firing at targets of opportunity and in self-defence (the WRA settings in C:MO is essentially a perfect example of how to go about this).
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Tank50us said:
Yeah I think in this sense the devs were trying to go for the 'flavor' of the ship, rather than the an accurate representation of them
Maybe, but personally it's probably a lack of research - we have ships with the wrong guns, ships that fire the wrong missiles, ships that have the wrong radars and even a vessel that has the wrong name.
3 hours ago, Tank50us said:which for modern ships is hard to do because they're classified
Not at all, nothing about this is classified in the slightest. You just have to do the research (and there's plenty enough online for it).
For example on the OHP: https://www.navysite.de/ffg/ffg7class.htm or paying a visit to seaforces.org and looking at the photos and the dates.
For another example, let's take a look at the Arleigh Burke: it has the 2 CIWS from the first 4 Flight IIAs with the 5"/62 Mk 45 Mod 4 (DDGs 81-84), yet it has the funnel design from DDG 89 onwards, liveries comprising the last 12 Flight IIAs, all 3 restarts and the first technology insertion but has the missile availability from 1990s - early 2000s Flight Is and IIs, which don't have hangars and have Harpoon.
-
3 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:
- Mk13 w/40 munitions, 36 SM1MR Blk VI (reach 40) , 4 Harpoon IB (Max). SAMs and SSM will type change by the years...
- Missing torpedo launchers (Mk32 324mm TT w/3 Mk46 Mod 5) and changed type by the years.
Well, when you consider that ED's OHP is a hybrid of an early and mid 2000s version (Mk 15 Phalanx Block 1B, Mk 234 Nulka, Mk 13 Mod 4 GMLS but no STIR (which, for the latter 2, the absence/presence of one should entail the absence/presence of the other as the STIR is what provides illumination for the SM-1MR).
In that case, the RIM-66E-6 SM-1MR Block VIB (which is from the mid 1990s), the RGM-84D Harpoon Block IC or RGM-84G Harpoon Block ID and the Mk 46 Mod 5A(SW) torpedo.
But even then, DCS doesn't have the fidelity or modelling for their to really be much of a difference between variants, especially when it comes to AI AShMs and ASW torpedoes are non-functional.
-
1 hour ago, Whiskey11 said:
There is already a working P-37 from the SAM Site Asset Pack, so no use duplicating that work.
As killjoy73au said, the overall idea is to have the P-37 and PRV-11 (but especially the -37) present as a core game unit, using the existing model (which, despite its age is fairly high-quality, though I'd probably get rid of the green mound it sits on).
It's also one of the radars the Shrike targets and I'm not sure if the mod has the bands set up.
-
3
-
-
Yep, definitely. Personally, I'm inclined to prioritise updating existing assets before adding completely new ones and the priority should probably be aircraft > weapons > ships (particularly because the lower quality ones are very low quality) > ground vehicles.
53 minutes ago, AKULA_OPTIMUS said:There´s some more, Su-30 is also a model from LOMAC times.
I wouldn't be surprised if some were even older than that, i.e. Flanker 2.5-era.
53 minutes ago, AKULA_OPTIMUS said:Looks like ED is preparing a new (paid) product with a lot of 3D improved models for land and air assests, will see if all those are included
Well, unfortunately we know very little about that one, there hasn't been any update on it in the 8 months or so since it was first announced. It was also supposed to go beyond being a simple asset pack - what the actually means we don't know (will we get proper buddy refuelling store functionality for the AI? Will the B-1B, B-52H and S-3B get all of their missing/incorrect weapons implemented/replaced?).
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Blaze1 said:
I can't comment about the Shrike rolling, however it did employ "bang bang" guidance which would cause it to slip sideways from left to right. Because the centre of lift was located at the missiles CoG, the missile had a tendency to slide sideways rather than change heading.
That probably explains the rolling to try and stabilise the missile in-flight. AFAIK the Paveway II is supposed to do exactly the same thing (but doesn't appear to do so in DCS). The Paveway III is also supposed to roll (though in this video, the rolling appears to briefly stop when the bomb is attempting to climb) but AFAIK that uses proportional/PID control as opposed to bang-bang, with proportional navigation (though again, it doesn't roll in DCS).
-
Yeah B/B is the Navy version, so only having the Navy coatings available for that makes sense.
The actual problem here is that the Phantom has the wrong version of GBU-24. It should have the A/B, but instead has the Navy B/B.
The A/B does already exist in DCS World and is available for RAZBAM's F-15E and the F-16CM, so hopefully this should be a fairly trivial fix.
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, D4n said:
Even when not equipping AI F-4E with ALE-40 dispenser, it still has flares and dumps them when getting into firing position. They cannot be removed.
This a general DCS AI problem - they're only set up for countermeasures that are carried internally (i.e. not something that's added in the loadout).
It's not just the F-4E, the AJS 37, the MiG-21bis and the Tornado (though with the AJS 37 and the Tornado it is possible to set the countermeasures to 0 to prevent the AI having countermeasures without the appropriate payload).
AI versions of the Mirage F1 that rely on Phimat for countermeasures don't have anything whatsoever - a consequence of DCS' AI not support countermeasure dispensers as pods.
Every aircraft that uses a pod or something you have to equip in the loadout in order to have countermeasures (such as the Phantom) is similarly affected, though with those you can set the numbers to 0 to prevent the AI from having countermeasures.
-
24 minutes ago, IronMike said:
Yes, that is correct.
Interesting, thank you!
-
1
-
-
Hi everyone,
Just posing a question (not sure if it's a bug or not, or whether it's real life behaviour) but is the AGM-45A Shrike supposed to roll the way it does in-game? Kinda like how I'd expect a Paveway I or II to behave.
I couldn't find anything about it online and the little snippits of test footage don't appear to show any kind of rolling motion - though there it could be that the footage is taken over such a short time interval that any kind of rolling motion would be difficult to determine, the resolution obviously isn't the best either.
-
2
-
-
Yep +1, would be very useful to simulate prior engagements and to disable specific weapons entirely.
-
2
-
-
Hi everyone,
For whatever reason, I cannot seem to get the AI F-4E-45-MC to use Paveway II and Paveway III series laser guided bombs against points on the ground. Upon reaching the waypoint with the bombing task, the aircraft simply turn around, follow the rest of their waypoints and land.
I've tried numerous options on the weapon to use (AUTO just ends up using the internal cannon, I've also tried guided bombs, guided and bombs) to no avail, override AI attack avoidance decisions also doesn't appear to change the behaviour (and in any case, this mission is empty apart for the AI aircraft - there's no threats).
It also doesn't seem to matter if the task is set to CAS and whether or not you use the CAS, Attack Group/Unit or Search then Engage tasks, none seem to work.
The issue seems to be fairly exclusive to Heatblur's F-4E-45-MC (though the F-5E-3 also failed to drop the bombs, but then, there wasn't anything to provide designation). Attached is a track showing what happens with the GBU-12, the issue is also present on the GBU-10 and GBU-24B/B (the latter should actually be an A/B, but that's for HB to fix).
EDIT: The problem is also happening with a few other weapons as well, it seems mostly isolated to guided air-to-surface weapons, with exceptions (so far the AI is fairly reliable when engaging with the AGM-12).
- In AI_F-4E_AGM-65D_nofire.trk, you can see that the AI won't fire Mavericks at a tank platoon, the same is true for every other Maverick the F-4E-45-MC has available. It also happens regardless of what the Maverick is mounted on (be it the LAU-117, the LAU-117 on the special weapons adapter or the LAU-88).
- In AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_nofire.trk, you can see that the AI won't fire an AGM-45A at the SON-9 (the guidance section is set appropriately), I have got it to fire at the Big Bird and the P-19 however - it seems a bit inconsistent. I also can't get it to fire at the Fan Song or Low Blow. EDIT 2: The AI will only fire AGM-45A if the SEAD advanced waypoint task is active, it doesn't work if you only have an Attack Group/Unit or Search then Engage task set.
- The GBU-8 is as with the Paveway II and III described above, see F-4E_AI_GBU-8_nodrop.trk. Both Walleyes however are unaffected.
AI_F-4E_AGM-45A_nofire.trk AI_F-4E_AGM-65D_nofire.trk AI_F-4E_GBU-8_nodrop.trk
-
It should be possible to remove entries from the unit list, while keeping the relevant files in the background in order to not break missions using them - IIRC that applied to the USS Carl Vinson.
-
3
-
-
Hi everyone,
Very minor one (though one that should be trivial to fix) - the F-4E shouldn't have the GBU-24B/B Paveway III available and instead should have the GBU-24A/B. The former is a weapon that's only used by the US Navy, the latter is the appropriate air force version.
In game, there isn't any difference aside from the ablative grey textures on the B/B (IRL the B/B uses the BLU-109A/B as a warhead, which aside from the thermal protective coating, is filled with the more insensitive PBXN-109 as opposed to trinotal as in the BLU-109/B as used in the A/B).
The GBU-24A/B already exists in DCS and is available for the F-16CM Block 50.
-
2
-
The ability to pick and choose skins.
in DCS Core Wish List
Posted
I am fine with making edits and adjustments myself. It doesn't take much time to make them the once.
But, because there isn't a livery manager, any edits get overwritten, so they need to be done over and over again.
So the time adds up and adds up.
If there was a livery manager, not only could I choose what I install, but it would also mean that any fixes I decide to make only need to be made once.
I don't think I can make it any clearer than that.
Let's see if an analogy will help you out (probably not because you won't read it). Let's pretend for a minute that DCS, when an update or a repair is run, resets your controls and settings back to their defaults.
You probably don't have a problem with setting your controls up and setting your settings how you desire, but you probably would if DCS kept resetting them back to their defaults each time it was updated and repaired. This is, at a fundamental level, is no different whatsoever.
Imagine then that you ask for a way to make your changes to the controls and settings permanent and to not to be reset each time and I come along and tell you "If you have the time to post here, you have the time to adjust the files to your liking."
That's absolutely fine - you're perfectly entitled to not care about things that I do. I recognise that this issue is quite minor and niche in the grand scheme of things, but that isn't an argument against it's inclusion.
I definitely appreciate you not arguing against it though, for seemingly no reason whatsoever.
Well, I'm fine with default behaviour being as it is now - i.e. install everything. Then if users wish to opt out for whatever reason, they can do so.
Well, the only thing I'll say here is it should be up to the user what's more important to them. Being able to manage their liveries how they like or having greater immersion in campaigns/multiplayer etc.
It's fundamentally no different to people who run mods that fail the integrity checker - they need to decide what's more important to them - playing with mods, or playing on servers where the integrity checker is enabled.