twistking

Fair enough. I forgot to mention that i look at it only from a SP/Coop perspective only as i have no interest in public PvP. I think your argument is more valid for those massive, public PvP scenarios, right? That said, the dynamic campaign - if it ever marterializes - will maybe give more merit to those otherwise more "mundane" transport related sorties even in Sp/Coop.

Those vintage super rugged transports are the only "heavies" i'd be somewhat interested in. I think there are a few other iconic aircraft that are similar... C-119 for example... Beautiful, interesting aircraft... and probably a joy to fly. The obvious issue is gameplay... not sure how much DCS can offer for those aircraft, that the civil flight sims can't...

maybe i missunderstood what you are doing, but if you want a task that allows for the JTAC to target different group, why not just use the normal "FAC" task? the difference between this and "FAC Assign Group" is precisely that the latter has the option to restrict to a certain group only. In any case, you only need one item. Athorwise both would be active and JTAC would target everyone in sight, making the "Assign group" irrelevant. If you want the JTAC to target some groups, but not other groups, the correct procedure is - i believe - to have multiple FAC Assign Group tasks, each with one group selected. Those task will "stack", so they will basically run at the same time, with the first in the list having highest priority.

... and remember that all aircraft of the flight need to catch up to lead, before the AI begins to climb properly. it's good practice to have a first waypoint at very moderate airspeed to allow flight members to catch up... on 4-ships flights you could even consider having a short orbit task at a first waypoint for the same reason...

Thanks for the answer. Will have a lok at it. I fear this will be a bit too complicated for me to pull off (not really good with lua, so i'm still using the ME script "blocks" exclusively), but maybe i will give it a try anyway!

oh... i somehow didn't realize you were doing a WWII mission, even though you clearly stated it. i think my post is still valid, however i want to add, that i also found the warbirds more finicky. i don't have a rule of thumb for warbirds unfortunately... the good news is, that it will work eventually, if you figure out the correct speed. maybe try with one or two intermediate waypoints and i would try with lower airspeed. 250 seems rather high. make one flight with 200 and another - just for science - with 150, run the mission and check AI behaviour, as well as power setting (in f2 view status bar for the unit you have RPM or some other metric for power output). I use this a lot to make sure AI is not struggling: you want it high, but also not stuck at 99 or 100%... in your case, i'd guess that airspeed is a bit too high, BUT AI can struggle in the same way, if airspeed is set too low. check AoA or RPM to see what might be the issue. good luck!

you have to set an appropriate airspeed. also the aircraft must be capable to actually reach 30k in it's set configuration. the editor prevents you to set super unrealistic values for altitude and airspeed, but you will still be able to set combination that the given aircraft struggles to match. setting the speed too low can be as problematic as setting it too high. also set enough distance for the climb and be aware that a flight of multiple aircraft wll only begin climbing when all aircraft are in formation, so you have to account for that...

tested some more without "at start" checkmark. still does not work reliably. really frustrating...

anyone?

Personally i also don't care for those UI sounds, because i'm not into highly curated or highly scripted scenarios, BUT i'm perpexled that those don't exist yet: Things like this seem very important for tutorials, where you want to guide players very tightly... could also be useful for more "gamey" scenarios or modular training scenarios that allow "meta" input to shape the scenario. Nothing that i do a lot, but nevertheless a good suggestion. Atmospheric "world" sounds and ways to place them in teh world as per OP's suggestion would also be a great addition. Especially different alarms, as mentioned already. Other sounds should be systemically driven though. It seems tedious to rig a scene with different sounds and set up triggers to fire them manually. Soundscape should react to what's happening dynamically. Only "standout" sounds should be rigged manually by the mission editor. Somehow related i would also like to see improvments in how the mission editor handles custom sounds, for example to delete unused sounds from the mission file in editor to prevent bloat: Last time i used custom sounds, the only way to delete them, was to rip apart the miz file manually.

I've made a wishlist entry. If you do care about DCS night ops, please visit the linked thread and give it 5 stars ("rate this topic" at the top right) to improve the chances of it getting the attention it deserves.

Is this about adding it as an AI only aircraft, or as a flyable module? Or maybe as Ai aircraft with the option of players operating the boom?

thanks for the reply. that's really sad. i think i will try once more without the "at start" checkmark. if this still gives random errors, i will just not use embarkment until it will be fixed eventually...

thanks for all the replies. i think my main problem was that i thought having the green lights was enough. i was still wobbling (within the margin) though. yesterday i managed to minimize the wobble, was patient enough for the boom to finally connect and got several thousands pounds of gas before disconnecting. disconnect was accidental still, but i think i'm slowly getting there nevertheless.

Hello, i have trouble getting infantry out of a ground transport. Sometimes no unit will disembark, someone only 1 single unit will disembark; only once did i manage to get the whole group disembarked. Every time i followed the same steps, so i don't know if my procedure is wrong, or if this is still super buggy. My process: Place infantry group and another group with only a truck. Give infantry group embark order and give a second waypoint where they should go after disembarkemt. Give truck an order for embarkment, make checkpoint "at start" (so that group will start already embarked), select infantry group from the list and "add" them to cargo. Notice that cargo now has "6/30" to verify that all infantry are accounted for. Give truck a move waypoint and a disembark order. On disembark select infantry group and verify that cargo now shows "0/30" within the disembar screen. In mission verify that infantry group is not visible on the map to verify they must be "embarked". Watch mission play out and notice that in most cases noone or only one of six infantry will disembark the truck. Did i do something wrong?

Yes, i totally agree. There still could be some smouldering fire or smoke on equipment that has neither fuel nor weapons on it, but no secondary explosions.

External aircraft lighting is still terrible. On all aircraft except Hornet ext lights are not visible after only a few hundred (!!!) feet, while Hornet's lights - while having better visibility distance - don't look realistic (but rather... ugly... depending on the distance). In fair weather lights should be visible for at least 25 miles. Strobes should be seen way further even. Also Nav lights should be somewhat distinguishable (red/green) at "reasonable" distances. If you use the search function, there are a ton of similar requests going back to the beginning of time and light itself. Please ED, finally tackle this longstanding shortcoming. It's not rocket science! Ps: Please also add AI option for ext. light usage in ME! Thanks, you are great!

I think what you describe is an alignment issue. If you do a normal alignment and forget to confirm the positional data on the DED, you can get that. Please quickly describe how you do your alignment, as normal alignment has changed a bit and that might not yet been reflected in the manual. Or try again with a stored heading alignment, as this is more straight forward (and faster).

I thought that at this point it was "common knowledge" that trees in caucassus are too big. Even if you'd argue that it was theoretically possible for trees of the given kind to grow this tall, you are talking extremes and not common sizes. Also the actual tree models do actually represent smaller specimen, that are just scaled up: The proportions are that of small or medium trees, not those of 200 year old giants. A simple way to spot it, is to place a tank besides one of those road-side trees and have a look with F7. It's very obviously wrong. You don't need to be an arborist to spot it. I think from high up it looks good enough though. It's probably done for performance. It's still a reasonable wish for ED to take another look at it and maybe tune it a little to make it a bit less obvious. I could also imagine that it would help a bit with sense of speed, even though the lack of finer ground detail in caucassus map is probably the bigger culprit here.

Mhm... i politely disagree: BORE mode already allows you to target with HUD and refine on the Mav seeker feed. VIS mode for JDAM and DTOS for other bombs definitely have TGP for refinement in mind. The F-16's quirky "feature" to not allow multiple sensor points only makes sense, if you have modes that let you point the TGP via HMCS. In the end it boils down to this: How do you point the TGP via HCMS? -> You select the appropriate weapon mode that lets you do this: DTOS or VIS. Maverick and TGP are highly integrated, i cannot believe that the Mav implementation would not allow "HMCS to TGP to Mav" flow...

i'd assume that the logic should be, as it was some time ago, where MAV would slave to TGP - if TGP was slewed after initial TD box designation via HUD/HCMS. I assume this, firstly because this would have greater utility without any disadvantage i can think off and secondly because DTOS for Bombs works in the same way: Initially designate with HUD, optionally finetune with TGP...

@NineLine@BIGNEWY The three likes on my post, make me think that i've found another bug. Can you move this to the bug section and ideally report it. I know: No track provided, but the behaviour should be immediately obvious to everyone. The only open question is, if this is intended behaviour, whcih i highly doubt.

I don't know if this a bug or intended behaviour. If it's a bug, hopefully a mod can just move this post to the corresponding forum. When using HARMs in Pos mode, the TGP and FCR are both free to slew around and the HUD will have the SPI box and steering line move with the FCR/TGP slewing around. The HARM will however always target the active steerpoint, not the "SPI"... or not what the HUD makes to look like the SPI. I'd guess the HARM always targeting Steerpoint is the correct behaviour. I just have doubts that TGP/FCR behaviour and HUD symbology is correct, because it absolutely makes it seem as if the HARM would target the TGP/FCR designation, which it does not.

I remember that it used to be possible to designate with HUD or HMCS, then use the TGP to finetune with the Mavs slaving to the TGP. Now, when in VIS mode, Maverick will only slave to the HUD, HMCS designation while TGP can look around freely without affecting the MAVs. Is this a bug or has anything changed? How can i finetune the MAV designation with the TGP? If i would want to quickfire the Mavs from a dirty HUD designation i could use Bore mode. VIS with TGP was very effective and i'd assume that it was also realistic. Help!

I agree. I see my suggestion as more of an interim solution, because it is easier to implement than a complete rewrite and it would leave some of the difficult tweaking to the mission creator. A completely rewritten AAA logic would be even better than my suggestion... I had in mind that IRL gun crews might get rough vectors of aircraft via radio and then saturate a part of the sky in that general direction. It would still be a big area. Think about the current, manual barrage implementation with the difference that those areas are not preset by the mission creator, but would dynamically shift to roughly cover areas of expected aircraft. I think it could be done that the AI would get the vector by "cheating" (without actual detection), but then the fire solution would be created with intentional error to simulate the guestimate nature of the solution. Also positions would only update every 30sec or so and it would still saturate an area, not a single point. I wanted to come up with a simple idea that could be easily bolted on the current "lackluster" AI routines without needing a rewrite, so i looked at the "painful indeed" current barrage function and thought: How could one make that better without starting from scratch?! On paper the current barrage function is great, but it's only real usable for cinematics as it is now...