JonathanRL

Bump. With the inclusion of the invisible FARP I feel that just allowing Aircraft to spawn there would solve the problem nicely. Perfect for Harriers and Viggens!

If you want a preview of the stand-alone sequel, this is for you:

If you want a preview of the stand-alone sequel, this is for you:

Rather than wait for Heatblur to just add the "place on ground" for the AJS 37 Viggen, I have a few suggestions on how to implement roadbases. 1: The first one is a roadcoloured tile that essentially works as a FARP. One of these can spawn one aircraft as well as reload / refuel it it as specified as you do with any other airfield. You can also alter the colour of this tile so it blends into the ground. Essentially just a one-airplane farp that is places exactly above the existing terrain. 2: Mark road as airstrip. This will "upgrade" the road by essentially making the ground airfield grade and removing all the light poles.

+1 Desired this just the other day.

You can see me flying it here: I would give you the advise to not be too hasty. You have a long way to fly and there is a lot of friendlies to help you - the friendlies will engage a lot of the enemy aircraft. The MIG 31s and SU 27s are powerful air-to-air assets so make sure they go in first. Give ample space; about two-three minutes or more until you run in after them. Finding the Mainstay in the mess is tricky so if it appears on your RWR, it is always better to follow the radar signals rather than any actual contacts. Once in range, order your flight to engage. And mind your fuel. It is a fuel intense mission.

I will probably never make a commercial one; the entry ticket for DCS is high enough as it is. If Deka Ironworks wants to include it in the module however, all they have to do is drop me a message. I'll check Mission 6 later today. Most likely one of my altered mission victory triggers acting up.

Neither. It must have been a frustrating chase for the other pilot. He did fly well, better then I did imho. I wasted a lot of fuel thinking he was still behind me due to poor SA when he had broken off a lot earlier. Simply sharing a fun encounter.

Poor MiG, that has to be some serious frustration. Was a fun flight however. Will be more ahead.

I agree with this. A limit like 2 hours flight time should be sufficient to get a grasp if the module is for you. I can however sympathize with ED because it may have the opposite effect as well. During the free month, I flew a lot of WW2 Birds and realized it was not for me. Same with the C-101 - this after pining for both that one and the Spitfire. That said, considering that the free trial periods increased ED Sales by four times, I would guess we will see more of them.

The issues with the 24J is because ED changed the AIM-9P without informing Heatblur. As the 24J is designated as a different weapon, it remained unchanged. Heatblur is now aware of it and has once again made the 24J to be a duplicate of the AIM-9P. The changes should be included in the next patch. EDIT: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4448276&postcount=2

I am secretly very happy that I do not have to download 1gb of other peoples anime skins.

Starting a Squadron is easy. Just get together a couple of people, decide on a theme or a plane, have a place to hang out and maybe a name and then just start flying together. It does not need schedules or training at the start. Just some people who enjoy the flying.

Currently, there is precious few anti aircraft guns and no anti-aircraft artillery in the base game of DCS World. It would be lovely if more could be added, esp as flak was still a pretty commonplace thing in the 50s and 60s with other kinds of anti-aircraft guns such as the Bofors I want to have a varied threat environment in my campaigns and I can't expect people to own the WW2 Pack just to fly a campaign that does not take place in the time period. Stuff like the KS 19, KS 30, M1 120mm, Bofors guns are needed, preferably alongside modern anti-aircraft vehicles from different countries.

I bought both. I am okey if ED includes them in the base software without giving me a refund. If I had to pick, all the AA Units of the WW2 Asset Pack should be included because the game seriously need more anti-air artillery for variety.

In your post, the important information seems to be missing. What do you think they are doing right? Details help when offering feedback.

I wish the Developers would be more pro-active in including campaigns and talk to the campaign makers. RAZBAAM is on the right track, getting Baltic Dragon on their payroll but others should not hesitate to just ask if they can include a well done campaign into their module. Also, more F-5E Campaigns is good. I have one in the works but it stalled out due to lack of inspiration.

Above all else, I would love if the new Callsigns were not US Centric but instead were more adaptable. The SF2 list would be a good start but as a Campaign maker who loves to make shit up, just having generic callsigns that does not scream "United States" would be awesome.

I have heard of it but never encountered it myself. It is intended for the pilot to look at the fuel gage, at all the fights around them and try to keep their focus. So yes, this is by design :) Kuban Security will most likely be the framwork for all my JF-17 Campaigns. I have already outlined the next one. You can read all about it here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDvsfmYHtoUnGXxGp2VWZSC62YRD8W1Zg46xaWl5ovg/edit

Just a teaser about what is coming next: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDvsfmYHtoUnGXxGp2VWZSC62YRD8W1Zg46xaWl5ovg/edit?usp=sharing

It is still a unnecessarily complicated system for such a task. Keep it for those who want it but a simple "Yes you won" or "No you lost" is frankly essential at this point. Example of bugs that has appeared: * Once in a blue moon, the system will apply more points for something the player did, resetting the counter to 0. Its the Gandhi bug all over again. * Depending on the players computer, the basic score trigger can sometimes fail if the player is doing a lot at the same time. * Certain actions seem to fail to trigger the score. The very same action can trigger "mission complete" dialogue but apparently not give the score for it. Binding score to flags is the safest workaround but it took me a few false starts to get this and much could been avoided had I not needed to bother with it.

I know the score system allows for multiple outcomes and I think that is the reason it exists tbh. But it is still overly complicated and prone to failure. At this point, it is part of the reasons why I have to sit and bugtest old campaigns rather than work on a new one. So if the system can be simpler, it is preferred. The reason for the addendum was to keep such a functionality without necessarily having to use the score system.

I have tried the fix for Mission 3 two times now and had a friend test it once. It should be hammered out now. If it keeps bothering, I will add a skip mission button. Something I really ought to have done either way I suppose. New package updated with fixes for mission 1, 3 and 10.

Huh. That's what I get for looking at the big bugs. Either way, fixed. New version uploaded with minor fixes for mission 1, 3 and 10. Re-downloading and replacing the .miz files only to save progression are highly recommended :)

Check the file I posted above and see if that helps the problem. My guess is not that the "basic" score disappears but that the second part is never applied. In general, mission objectives bound to flag triggers are far superior to any triggers bound to anything else so I changed it around a bit. Otherwise I will dig into it this weekend. Wierd thing is, the previous solution worked for me. I had the same bug, fixed it and could proceed the campaign normally since I played every mission to make sure progression worked as it should. Things like this is btw why I just asked ED to give us a better Mission Win option: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4431840#post4431840