Cheetah7798

Absolute legend. I don't know why it never occurred to me that it was returning the kind of table used in coalition.addGroup() and stored in the mission file. I guess it made more intuitive sense to me to return a handle to the group as opposed to the group's creation details. Also, the idea of complex, object-like data being stored in tables and not classes is a very foreign concept for someone coming from a 3rd gen background (C++, Java). Since DCS has a 'Group' class, but also a group data table that contains many of the same traits is still something I've got to get used to. Any way, thanks bunches.

Just quickly, I'm relatively new to Lua and scripting for DCS, and even more so to Mist. Long story short, here's the line I'm working with: varX = mist.cloneGroup("rusInfGrp1") Relatively straight forward. Basically the first command I pulled out of the Mist hat to get a feel for the library. All I want is a reference to the newly cloned group in the variable 'varX'. Now, according to the PDF that comes with the download, this should return a table that is "a mission editor formatted table of the group". However, according to the online resources, it returns the string name of the group: Yet, after messing around in the editor, I'm not entirely sure either of those are true. It's definitely not a string. Also, attempting to print the value with the 'tostring()' function will print something like "Table: 00000FA283", but attempting to run any of the Group class member functions ends with an error. for instance, if I were to write: trigger.action.outTextForCoalition(1, varX:getName(), 10) will throw an error. Also, printing the count of varX prints the value '0'. Basically, what am I doing wrong? How can I get a handle for the group object that this function returns. PS: I tried other Mist functions with similar return values and the behaviour was all the same. EDIT: It's worth mentioning that the cloned group does actually get created. The Mist functions do work, but their return value doesn't appear to be what is advertised.

Thanks for the response. Interesting stuff, though it begs the question of why a system designed to provide accuracy for lofted shots at longer distances, where the target may not be visible, is the default targeting solution, and not some alternate method. But running with the idea of a typical CCIP reticle being inaccurate. If the pitch axis is already handled by the pylon articulation (within reason), the pilot need only worry about the aircraft's yaw. At least in my mind, a single yaw deviation caret that was more sensitive than the 1-to-1 rotational movement of the helicopter would achieve that same result in a much more intuitive manner. But fair enough. It's good to know their motivations behind the design.

So, instead of the usual 'how' questions related to rockets in the Apache, I'm more interested in the 'why'. In the admittedly limited thinking I've contributed to the subject, I'm curious why rocket employment requires aligning not only the helicopter with the target, but also the pilots head with the target, as opposed to just having a reticle that was ground-stabilised like the target marker you're actually shooting at. It just doesn't make sense. I understand that the rocket pods pivot vertically, but it feels like there are far more intuitive ways to represent that then what was actually decided on. For example, a CCIP pipper that auto-slews in the Y-axis (as the pods articulate), but is locked in the X-axis. This is pretty much identical to how the Vikhr's reticle is represented in the Ka-50, and is a lot more intuitive. Not to mention has the added benefit of showing the pilot if the articulating mechanisms in the pylons are properly aligned. But the part that really throws me off is that the rocket reticle is locked to the IHADSS despite the target and the rocket pods themselves having nothing to do with the pilot's head position. So, just one question. Why?

Pretty much in the title. One of the questions that often enters my mind is how effective chaff is in real life. In DCS, its exclusive use is as a last ditch effort to break a lock specifically in or around the notch. IRL, it would appear to be much more versatile and longer lasting. I'd also like to pin a question to this request. It seems to me like chaff would work really well if dropped while fully defensive (flying away from the bandit) and losing altitude. Not only does the missile (or its host) have to contend with a look down scenario, but also a receding target with a trail of noisy microwave reflections. Is this the case, or is chaff still more effective in the notch?

Nothing I can't hold my breath for, but it irks me ever so slightly that every single unit on the DCS F10 map view has its proper designation... except SAM sites. Every single Soviet/Russian SAM has its respective NATO designation. I think it would make sense to toggle between NATO and proper designations depending on whether the Editor Icon Style setting is set to "NATO" or "Russia". Being more familiar with names like '9K330 Tor' or '2K22 Tunguska' or 'S-300' means it requires an extra mental step to translate what I'm seeing on the Map. Not that it would take particularly long to memorise, but it's just preference.

I of course understand the motivation for most nations to replace their smaller caliber machine guns with 20mm (or larger) cannons. That's not really what I'm getting at here. I know the event log doesn't really show it, but there practically wasn't a square centimeter of space I hadn't put a bullet into in the case of the P-51. At 05:01:30 of that particular engagement, 489 more or less consecutive hits were recorded, many of them in the canopy and engine area. Yes, 7.62mm were considered inadequate, but they were not completely useless. https://gyazo.com/8f834dc4d98f455195f372d89c18d77b

It's been a short while since I've flown the I-16 against other WW2 aircraft, and after flying it the other day I've noticed that the effectiveness of its 7.62 machine guns has substantially degraded. Now this may be more of a DCS issue than a module issue, but I was curious if others have noticed this. For example, in one instance, I managed to hit a P-51 more than 500 times, and it was still flying. There's a similar story involving the BF 109, where after hitting it over 100 times, I eventually had to physically assault his aircraft with my own to finish the job. TacView screenshots below: ---- For comparison, here's the results for an aircraft that isn't part of the WW2 group:

I will add that I've done my own testing on this topic, both with the 2A42 of the Ka-50 and the Gsh-30-2 of the Mi-24P. Both struggle to penetrate targets which, to my understanding, shouldn't stop much more than small arms fire. For the results see the forum post link below: My main concern is with vehicles like the Stryker, which, to quote Wikipedia: "...is constructed from high-hardness steel which offers a basic level of protection against 14.5 mm rounds on the frontal arc, and all-around protection against 7.62 mm ball ammunition." Yet, at 500m, with a cannon that fires rounds at greater velocity than the 2A42 of the Ka-50, took over 30 rounds of ammunition to destroy. Also keep in mind that the Stryker is less protected in the frontal arc compared to the BMP-2, yet on average survived 50% more shots. Also, while not reflected in the tests at 500m, I have noticed that hitting M113s at between 1.5 and 2km with the cannon often leaves them undamaged.

This may seem quite pedantic in the overall scheme of things, and it is, but something I've always wanted is a more realistic sonic boom effect for the S-8 rockets passing by. There were a few videos I'd seen a couple years back of Mi-24s and Mi-28s in Syria, performing rocket strafes over-top someone who was filming them, and the cracking sound that came off those things was straight up terrifying; Kinda like the effect you get from those all too well-known A-10 strafe videos, but a lot more potent, and at a lower pitch frequency. Unfortunately, despite my best efforts, I cannot for the life of me find any of those clips, so this post is also a bit of a callout to anyone who has a video link of any S-8 strafes where the camera is somewhere between the helicopter and its target. All that said, the new sounds we've got for the actual launch of rockets, as well as their impact are night and day compared to what they were. Really enjoying the Mi-24.

Decided to do some tests today and set up the hind at a fixed range (500m) from various vehicles, counting how many AP rounds it took to destroy the vehicles (front aspect). Those tested (and their average hits to destroy) were: AAV (31 rounds) Stryker (33 rounds) M2A2 (Undamaged after ~230 rounds) M113 (2 rounds) BMP-2 (24 rounds) Attached are the first track files (and their respective Tacviews, to avoid inconsistencies in the replays) of each vehicle, to get an idea of how the test was set up. Now, I can't really speak with any authority on the matter, but the numbers of all but the M113 seem unreasonably high, considering the AAV and Stryker were mainly geared against rounds up to 14.7mm, The BMP-2 up to 23mm, and the M2A2 between 14.7 and 30mm depending on the variant. I'll probably do some more tests at longer ranges, but I can only imagine the results will get worse. GSH-30-2 Tests - 500m.zip

When I first bought the I-16, I didn't know what to expect. Now, in hindsight, I can say with confidence that nothing can express the appreciation I have for the I-16 and you, the Devs. Without a doubt, one of the more beautiful modules in DCS, exhibiting a feeling of care and dedication throughout. Thank you, Merry Christmas, and all the best on your new endeavours. I look forward to seeing what's to come.

I've done some mission editing here and there, but am by no means an expert. Not even in the same ballpark. All the same, I'll try to help out. You're getting into manual manipulation of AI behaviour, and that has always been a handful at the best of times. By default, air groups have an advanced action assigned to them that is related to their task (as selected in the drop down box above the aircraft type). This advanced action should be deleted if you want to stand any hope of controlling their behaviour. For your particular issues, it seems your problems can all be addressed by the AI task tab, and the "set AI task" trigger action. 1. Get AI to notch: Your best bet, without getting into scripting (Which I've only just started to get into myself), would be to set an AI task (one of the tabs near where the armaments tab is; Looks a bit like a clover-leaf highway intersection) to 'set waypoint' to a waypoint that is very far away, and approximately 90 degrees from their initial leg (assuming the route leg never changes). Then use a trigger to 'set AI task' which will cause them to fly to the new waypoint when they reach a certain place, or at a certain time, etc... Yea, it's not pretty, but it may work. 2. Commit on condition: Not sure exactly what you're getting at here, but Assuming you want the AI to do something after notching (switching waypoints as per above), then push another AI task after a set amount of time ("time since flag" condition, for instance, which you could tie to pushing the first task). 3. Resume CAP: Set the CAP enroute task, and push it when a trigger that you define trips; Similar to above. In general, DCS AI tend to do what they want at the end of the day. After executing a CAP task and eliminating any competition, they usually RTB without anything you can do. At least with my limited experience, there is no way to deal with this.

Still missing the point. The cannon, irrespective of its history, or its employment protocol, will penetrate a certain amount of material. Simple as that. Modern Bradleys use a 25mm M242. By all accounts a very capable cannon with impressive statistics. The frontal armour of the BMP-2 was only rated for 23mm protection beyond 500m. so the Bradley would probably be able to penetrate even the frontal armour out to about 1-1.5km. For what it's worth, I think the Bradley's armour in game is properly borked at the moment. It seems to have uncanny protection from any angle. A 30mm shell is nothing to laugh at, either. Sure, it's conceivable that it has 30mm protection in the frontal arc beyond a certain distance, or even the sides; but the rear, or the turret. Unlikely. --- Using the Hind a lot over the last month, I've realised that penetration of M113s and Strykers with the cannon seems to be oddly inconsistent. I've had runs where I've been within 1km, and an M113 takes numerous 30mm rounds with no effect. Others were it cuts through them like butter.