Case

From our experience in the 51st the quickest way to regain visuals and return to combat formations is for one or both of the pilots to briefly mark (get into contrails). Typically both aircraft would already be on the same heading, so once visuals are regained the lead of the flight can then decide how to return both aircraft back into combat formation. In the 51st we typically use this tactic when extending from the fight on a pre-arranged extending heading. The two pilots can be either too close to each other, too far away from each other or one being ahead or behind the lead. To return back into spread to the attack heading the lead can ask the wingman to do a hook turn (180 degree turn) into or away from him to close or widen the spread, and/or he can do the hook himself earlier or later than the wingman to negate the wingman being ahead or behind.

Very nice RIPTIDE! Were you trying to freak out the Su-24MR crew or were they happy to get an escort?

Do a search on the forums before you make a thread. This issue has been discussed before.

The attendence was very good, and in general people seemed to like it and gave good comments.

Didn't get to read this topic until now, but I started thinking it would be interesting what other people think about this. I was proven wrong :D

Of this I am very aware! Is this post/thread is related to your recent flight on our server, where we had a mission with F-15C's/MiG-29G's on one side and Su-27's/Su-33's/MiG-29A's on the other?

Better yet, check this: http://www.51st.org/stats/misc.php?pid=10all I must warn everyone that tries to draw conclusions based on these diagrams, as mission design is biasing these numbers. For example, on the 51st server we have: F-15C's only on one side MiG-29S's not present in all missions Not all planes available in the same numbers Only had one 80's week so far etc...

So, what are you proposing?

Well, since the ACMI locking also works in FC2/BS it is trivial to set up a non-standard export.lua that will record locked ACMI's. The only issue then is that all clients should install non-standard files for integrity checking. During the 8 months that FC2 has been around so far we have seen these occasional threads where people question the integrity check, but none of them have convinced any server admins to run non-standard integrity checks. This is obviously due to the fact that it would hurt popularity. I recall that Yoda had some ideas how to integrate and automate the integrity check where it downloaded the server package before joining, but Yoda seems to have dissappeared from FC2/BS...

Hi Bill, The problem is not reviewing ACMI's after a mission, but reviewing ACMI's during a mission. The latest version of Tacview has the ability to read ACMI recordings when your computer crashed, which older versions of Tacview were not able to do. The side effect of this new version is that it will also allow you to view ACMI's while you are still in the game. Hence, people with second monitors can check who is where flying what in near real time. Yes there is. You can replay your track with Tacview enabled. Check this thread for how to replay tracks easily: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=53270 Also check this thread for two batch scripts that will allow you to quickly switch between a Tacview enabled and Tacview disabled configuration of export.lua: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=906191&postcount=27

For the 51st stats I am already doing this. Each month, each player as a limit of 200 units on each of the air-to-air weapons. The stats keep track of how many units of each weapon they have launched. Check here for example. If they pass this 200 unit limit, the pilot will not get any more points or kills awarded using these weapons. With this limit I have been able to convince some pilots to diversify their payloads, and stop loading 8xAIM-120C. :D

Thanks Miro!

I do it slightly differently. The mission file contains all waypoints, and for take off and landing waypoints it specifies the airbase. Based on the coalition of units to whom those waypoints belong, I can determine which airbase belongs to which coalition. There is indeed the problem with airbases switching coalition, but for these I have decided to keep them neutral and not award bonus points to pilots landing there.

To use one of Mustang's own: It was his birthday 4 days ago! :D

Glad I could help! Let me repeat a point I made earlier. Many of the pilots flying on our game server belong to squadrons who will likely use their own teamspeak server instead of the 51st. So even if you see people in the game server that are not on the 51st teamspeak server, they may very well be on some other teamspeak server. So whenever you see people flying, just ask if and where they are on teamspeak, and ask if you can join them there. S! Case

I'll try to be on our TS this evening. So if you have time we can try to sort this out and get you on the server.

Please also check the 51st PVO Regiment server: DCS/FC2 Server: 212.37.145.18:10308. The server is located in Denmark. TS3 Server: 51st.hopto.org:9987 Integrity Check Package: Identical to most main-stream servers (we were the first to set one up). Statistics: The Best FC2/DCS Stats Page For more information, check our website.

Still, server stats will show you that. Though our stats page is mostly aimed at ranking pilots in their air-to-air and air-to-ground skills, they will also show you how you progress as a pilot. For example, 159th_dOoOm flew on the 51st server tonight and in his Ka-50 he scored 24 air-to-ground kills, earning him 110 points.

Does it give any error? Like integrity check failed or such?

Just that our teamspeak server maybe empty does not mean people are not using comms. Our server is very popular with squadrons like SE and the 159th. Since squadrons typically run teamspeak servers themselves, you may have more luck joining the game server first and ask if and where people are on comms, so you can join them there.

Congratulations Chris! :holiday::drunk::cold::drink::beer::cheer3nc::yay::clap:

You are right. It is not possible to reactivate AI units, so the only way to do it is to make copies of them. What is it you are trying to do? If you want to prevent people from getting near enemy bases, you could place a zone over the base and if a client gets within it use the EXPLODE UNIT action to cripple his aircraft. That is something you can do and which will repeat. It needs a trigger per client aircraft.

I have to point out that this week serves as a test to see if this strategy of restricting payloads works. Without a non-standard integrety check on payloads I have to rely on the players to get the message and play be the rules. Given that this is the first time since FC2 that, to my knowledge, any server restricts payloads, it is not surprising that players will have to get used to this. So far only 14 pilots did not get the message and together launched 38 restricted weapons. All of them were automatically kicked from the server, but in 7 cases did the weapon actually hit a player. I am still working on the stats to remove the points awarded and taken for those kills.

51st PVO Regiment Server: Back to the 80's! This week (May 16th to 23rd), the 51st PVO Regiment Server will go back to the 80's! Our missions will be set during the 1980's, at a time when air-to-air fights were fought with medium ranged semi-active missiles such as the R-27R and the AIM-7. This week, you can test your skills against your opponents using R-27R's, R-27T's, R-73's, AIM-7's and AIM-9's. Players will not be allowed to use the E-versions (R-27ER, R-27ET, R-27EM), the R-77 or the AIM-120B or C. Our missions will run special versions where the default payloads are adapted to fit the weapon restrictions. Players that violate the weapon restrictions will be automatically kicked from the server, but will be allowed to rejoin. Note that our stats page will keep track of all offenders. Dedicated Server IP: 212.37.145.18 Teamspeak 3 Server IP: 51st.hopto.org:9987 Stats: http://www.51st.org/stats Website: http://www.51st.org Forums: http://www.51st.org/forum

So funny! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11723438 Chemtards would love this is people would actually recognize it as an airplane contrail, but no, let's assume the even more unlikely, a mystery missile launch!