Speed

B882w2gC22s

Probably has to do with the AI search then engage task. Search then engage requires that the AI first detect the enemy before they engage them. If the AI don't detect the enemy, they won't do jack !@#$ in response to the triggered action. Engage Group is usually better because it forces the AI to detect the group, but it is not available in all AI mission types.

You don't have to take off, just use the ground round safe override switch. :thumbup: ... Is the runway set to neutral in these missions? That would explain why you both use the same airport.

Here ya go: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA431013 Key sentence: "The large number of AAA and man-portable SAMs dictated rules of engagement (ROE) that restricted operations at low altitude and forced A-10 FACs to develop tactics for medium-altitude visual reconnaissance."

I'm pretty sure this is refuted by the real-life example of the A-10s being restricted to above like 5000 or 6000 meters in Kosovo due to threats down low. Which basically made them near useless I would imagine, since they were A-10As. Depends on what your definition of a high threat environment is, of course. Edit: If you mean ONLY the "Cold War gone hot" scenario by a "high threat environment" where there would be long range SAMs and fighters... sure in that case, sure, medium and high altitude would be out of the picture. However, the A-10 almost certainly will never face such an environment. In realistic high threat environments, the USAF will suppress all the fighters and most/all of the long range SAMs, leaving AAA and IR SHORAD. If you want minimal losses, you'll end up restricting the A-10s to medium and high altitudes.

Hmm.. maybe I should release this debug version of ./Scripts/net/main.lua as a separate mod? You're not the first person who would have benefited from it. Since patch 1.2.0, you can't really make any complex modifications to ./Scripts/net scripts without something like it.

A few days back, the rover made it's first test drive on Mars: Everything is working fine on the rover, except that one of the two wind sensors the rover carries was damaged in landing, probably by the pebbles thrown up. Supposedly, the only negative effect will be slight ambiguity in wind direction :) Also, the high res landing video has now been released: REnJZoxCLIw In other space news, on Sept. 4, the Dawn spacecraft, currently in orbit around the asteroid Vesta, is scheduled to fire up its ion thrusters and leave Vesta, enroute for the largest object in the asteroid belt, the dwarf planet Ceres. Dawn is expected to arrive and enter orbit around Ceres in February, 2015 :) Oh, and this is how we fix problem on Russian-American-ESA-Canadian-Japanese space station!: QMMGiBffvII

It is more hazardous to launch an Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator (RTG) (such as what is powering Curosity, Cassini, and New Horizons) than it is to launch an actual nuclear reactor. Why? A nuclear reactor isn't dangerous until it begins to run. Plutonium, Uranium- even the fissile isotopes- they are not very dangerous. It's when the reactor starts running, and the short-half-life isotopes start building up- THAT is when a destruction of the reactor, and the dispersal of its contents, would be dangerous. When they launch a reactor into space (and they WERE launched into space by both sides during the Cold War), do you think they have already started the reactor when the rocket is on the launch pad? NO. It's not started until it's safely on its way, in space. Thus, using nuclear reactors would actually be an improvement over using RTGs- safer, and a whole lot more power. And actually, NASA has been, within the last decade, been doing research on space-based nuclear reactors. The Jupiter Icy Moons Oribiter (JIMO) was a proposed mission to study Europa's oceans that was considered just a few years ago. It would have orbited Europa, using a power radar powered by a nuclear reactor to peer through the surface ice to see the probable ocean below. It's quite likely that it, or a mission very similar, will indeed fly one day.

No Lua files are being loaded according to your dcs.log. dofile must be failing somehow. The most likely reason for dofile to load is that the mod is not installed correctly, but I suppose it could be failing for some other reason I can't think of. First, are you sure Slmod is installed correctly? server.lua in ./Scripts/net ? Slmodv6_1 FOLDER in ./Scripts/net ? A correct Slmodv6_1 (non-Servman) installation should look like: ./Scripts/MissionScripting.lua ./Scripts/net/server.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodConfig.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodMain.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodUtils.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodEvents.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodUnits.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodMenu.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodLibs.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodDebugger.lua ./Scripts/net/Slmodv6_1/SlmodTests.lua Because of a problem with error reporting, reporting is messed up dcs.log, so I can't see the problem exactly, other than the files are failing to load. This is non-Servman, right? I am attaching a "debug" version of ./Scripts/net/main.lua. If you replace the old ./Scripts/net/main.lua with this new file, then it should report to dcs.log what the problem is. Re-upload dcs.log after installing this file and starting multiplayer, and it SHOULD tell us exactly what is wrong. main.lua

It's possible there was a bad install, but: 1) Severs can disable these event reports. I usually do, they undermine the realism of DCS. Were you hosting when you saw no events, or were you on someone else's server? 2) Start multiplayer, host a server really fast, then upload dcs.log to the forums here. It's C:\Users\<Your User Account Name>\Saved Games\DCS\Logs\dcs.log. If there's a problem, dcs.log will show it.

If you can convince them to come out of the tower, you can crush them with your aircraft. I sometimes fly with a guy who makes missions where there are infantry placed on the airbase, on the tarmacs, just off the taxiways, etc. I always run over them with my nose wheel, while giving the NWS a good few hard kicks left and right just to be sure. He started making triggers to have the Wilhelm scream go off every time one dies. It's great fun. One time though, he placed a land mine RIGHT beside one of the soldiers, so I have be careful :D

Yea, maybe you're right.

Is this an accurate assessment of Windows 8? This review makes it seem quite awful.

I know at least one thing that the F-35C will be able to do that the F/A-18E can never hope to match: cost 200+ million each! Joking aside, I don't know how you expect the F/A-18E to be able to ever be stealthy, supercruise, have the incredible sensors suite and sensors fusion of the F-35, etc :thumbup:

This is simply incorrect. AI is NEVER made deliberately dumb. The developers want the most realistic AI behavior as possible. This is a SIMULATOR. Better AI makes the game better, by the definition of the genre. Also, you're not correct about most FPS games. How many times have you heard some developer of some FPS game touting how smart their AI is, how their AI uses team tactics, utilizes cover, sets up ambushes, etc? I see FPS developers bragging about their AI all the time. Furthermore, it doesn't even match the facts of DCS. Plane AI is currently too dumb. IMO, ground AI is currently too GOOD (at least, in being able to spot and engage and react to targets instantly).

You have some interesting ideas. One thing that I think AI need to use more intelligently are some very simple survival tactics- standoff range and high altitude. AI tend to dump altitude too much sometimes, bringing them right into the heart of an enemy missile envelope. You can fix some of this bad behavior though, by setting them to "Evade fire". Additionally, besides remembering where threats are, they should "know" more about those threat's capabilities: for example, if they know the location of a 2S6 or SA-8, they should never allow themselves to get within like 7km of it. Additionally, they should be able to make intelligent guesses about what behaviors will get them killed (i.e., trying to gun a Tunguska) and be allowed to abort the mission if they can't engage some threat without getting themselves killed. I also view plane AI behavior as one of the big impediments to creating a dynamic campaign.

For the offically supported Lua environments: ./Scripts/net/readme.txt ./Config/Export/Export.lua For the not supported Lua environments: reverse engineer the game's Lua and serialize/print _G to a file.

Which wouldn't be the case if more missions/mods were designed for it :thumbup:

Well, if the server has Slmod, it will have the coordinate conversion utility. A Su-25T player can type in a MGRS or Lat/Lon coordinate, and the Slmod coordinate conversion utility will convert it into bearing and range from his aircraft. So in this way, the Su-25 player can utilize given target coordinates to find targets without having to use the F10 map; however, chat messages have to be used... but at least you can type a chat message while still seeing where you are going. Once he's in the neighborhood, if there are A-10s or Ka-50s around, they could mark targets with smoke.

Well, it's not what you requested, but you could "warn" ground units of trouble areas by marking them with smoke rockets and using the weapons_impacting_in_zones or weapons_impacting_in_moving_zones functions provided by Slmod. The server hosting the mission must have Slmod installed, however, and it will only work in multiplayer. If TGP aimpoint is not listed under the cockpit triggers guide, then maybe it's accessible with export.lua. I don't think it is, but MAYBE it is. But even if it is, that falls under the banner of "considerable Lua wizardry" that you want to avoid.

What mods do I need to make SH4 into a fun game then? Because, last I played, I could be surfaced, firing signal flares, and waving around a big sign saying "please shoot me", and STILL the Japanese destroyers would ignore me. I can't remember getting depth charged in SH4 a SINGLE time.

Fixed. Yea, based off of what I've heard, you couldn't PAY me to buy SH5. However, I still play SH3 with GWX- that is a great game. I got turned off of SH4 though. After the 3rd battleship I sunk IN THE SAME PATROL (including two Yamato class battleships), the game just got a little old and pointless. No point to playing. By contrast, in SH3, I've only sunk like a single battleship ever. A scarcity of targets makes each kill satisfying. An overabundance of targets, like in SH4, and it just ruins the whole game :no_sad:

Water ice crystals. H2O. Mars has lots of it. Lots of clouds on Earth are made of ice crystals too- cirrus clouds, for example. Mars has them too.

I think there is, but I haven't fully investigated it.

Mars supports lots of clouds. These are images of some clouds at night, taken by the Phoenix lander: More Martian clouds: F-n4f8IwBnM Later in that mission, it actually started snowing, but I guess it only snowed at night, so they didn't get any good images of it. They detected the snowfall with an on board LIDAR system.