Strekaya

I would like to extend my congratulations for the developers for presenting a simulation of the likes I thought I would never see again. Being a 'sim head' since 1987, I had feared that the 'halcyon days' of study simulations were all but extinct for my preferred genre. Still past, but not entirely gone. Also, the release of a simulation which 'left the gate' as bug-free as this one is truly remarkable. Having beared witness to Falcon 4, the premature release of every product Bohemia Interactive (Operation Flashpoint, ArmA, and now ArmA 2) has ever made, and frankly every PC game being funded by a publisher and is pushed out the door early, it was worth the wait to see a polished product. After playing this wonderful simulation for a few months, here are my hopefully modest proposals for the sake of mission scripting and perhaps a wishlist item or two for 'ambiance'. It is a privilege as well to have the ability to voice such desires with the ability for the developers to see such requests. - In mission scripting, the ability to set flags via the communications menu, perhaps a special section otherwise hidden if unused, reserved for a scripted command, such as to 'begin an attack' for example. - A means via the communication menu to allow wingmen to engage targets without using guided missiles, or for the same reasoning, at least a means for wingmen to solely engage high threat targets, such as tanks or anything which shoots back. The AI will seem to prioritize AAA/SAM threats at range among targets it sees in it's AI targeting radius, but will often engage 'low' priority targets such as trucks or targets which do not necessitate the use of guided missiles. On their depletion, the wingmen tend to engage 'close in' with guns and rockets, at risk of tanks or IFVs which can then shoot back. I realize it can potentially be a complex situation to manage, but my hope is to have an additional command which fills the gap between attacking air defense units and ground units in general where guided missiles are not wasted by wingmen on non-threatening targets. - The ability for ground units to enter a mode of self defense, such as smoke cartridges or extending out of it's formation or otherwise taking an evasive action to break up a formation. It is a hope, which perhaps is already in consideration, to create a more 'organic' means of ground units to attempt to defend themselves. - The ability to export flags at the end of a mission or encapsulate them within a campaign as some sort of array so that they can be used in subsequent missions. I think it would be excellent to establish a means of persistence between missions as well as potentially creating a greater variety of scripting in individual missions in addition to mere randomization. It would also be nice to be able to set flags by a 'fraction' of a group which is destroyed and be able to convey that 'forward' via a flag. That way, conditions can be set to create a pseudo-dynamic 'bridge' between missions where units can be available or unavailable based on flags established from previous ones. - The ability to 'attach' artillery targets to moving groups, or even the impact point of a player or AI's illumination rockets, illumination bombs, or other light source event (which look to be implemented in the upcoming patch) within the artillery's targetting radius as a 'fire here' trigger. As a byproduct of it, an additional means to 'correct fire', either by scripted attachment to a friendly unit's ability to see the target (and thus simulating corrective fire) or some form of scalar which allows a function of increased precision over time to 'walk it in' to the objective. This can be scripted or simulated as it already is via groups moving into trigger zones, but allowing for it based on the approach as in Lock On with the additional computation of appropiate compensation for 'leading the objective' - An expansion of the scripted failures menu to allow gradual failures in the hydraulics systems as is often seen in missions versus an a total one, as well as less often seen partial failures such as high/low oil pressure, transmission or engine degradation, or computer systems. - The completion of the INU correction systems or inaccuracy over time necessitating their utilization. I have read this is not a high priority to fully implement, which is understandable. As an aesthetic, a feature missed from another simulation (Apache/Havoc and Comanche/Hokum) is the canopy raindrops and weather sounds in the cockpit. I can't attest to how complex this would be to implement, though I have read it is achieved through an animated texture. With the modeling of windshield wipers for the viewscreen and the Shkval, it is a sorely missed extra. In the same vein, it would be most appreciated to revise the 'spotlight' effect, especially at long ranges. It is perhaps a layover of the graphics engine from Lock On that illumination bombs rendered on to the terrain suffer bizarre artifacts at range regardless of anisotropy versus altitude. Also, the ability to increase the illumination of such 'spotlights' especially for one's own helicopter, which seems rather 'anemic' as has been discussed by others. Perhaps least important among my aesthetic desires is the ability to script sound events solely on the VHF-1 R-828 system. It is perhaps superficial given most missions 'simulate' the functioning of a FAC or ground forces communications via scripting triggers throughout a mission. But, like the raindrops as an additional 'ambiance', it would be nice to utilize a system akin to the 'radio stations' on the VHF-2 rotary to either selectively allow or disallow their listening on the whims of a mission designer. It is understandably superfluous, but perhaps simply to allow the use of a underutilized function of the simulation. After five months, that's all I could think of and all I could want. It's another testament to the consideration the developers have provided to this simulation and the community, and I thank you for your time.

I too think that line of sight plays a role in how and where the AI engages targets. I suppose any AI has the tendency to be 'regimented' into attack or defense procedures, where it could well walk itself right into a AAA battery during a stand-off attack or when dodging incoming missiles. I seem to spend an inordinate amount of time making 'sandbox' situations in games (ArmA in particular) where I create situations and see how the AI responds. It inevitably leads to some degree of micromanagement or babysitting, but certainly is useful to plot appropriately during mission design to get them to do what you want. As an aside, I'm reminded of a sim in the mid-90s from Simis/Kuju called Team Alligator (which involved Ka-52s no less) which had a more RPG-like approach to wingman, as they were 'personalities' prone to fatigue, morale, and had 'specialties'. I remember after missions you could 'boost' the morale by giving out leave and chocolate bars. The publisher, if I recall, had a role in 'neutering' the game for a broader audience, and the RPG elements didn't really show through in the AI, leading into excessive micromanagement simply to save the wingmen from themselves. I can't remember the AI command hierarchy, but it was far simpler (or maybe just simplistic) and required far more intervention. In Black Shark, AI pilots aren't carried over from mission to mission with their tiers of expertise (novice, good, et.al.) unless the mission designer considers it through the campaign. In any quasi-RPG squadron management simulation like Team Alligator, Team Apache (it's predecessor) or ArmA: Queens Gambit (or even Falcon 3 or 4) I'd usually have a "ship of fools / car of idiots" (to quote a Far Side cartoon) by the end of the campaign. All in all, I think the AI in Black Shark is alright, save for some odd times where helicopters would enter an odd low-speed missile defense mode where they actually bounced off the ground while popping flares.

I may not be understanding it completely, but on my Saitek X45 the first hat switch defaults to the view keys. One key (the red 'fire' button) triggers the HMS. I find the movement speed depends partly on the current zoom level of the view. I still find this a bit coarse and cumbersome, so I use the 'pinky' joystick button as a 'shift' and have added the 'normal keyboard speed' and 'slow keyboard speed' to the same joystick hat's left and right to 'slow it down'. On the X45 (and I suspect the X52) the thumb 'mouse' can be set up as a mouse 'emulator', but suffice it to say it's far less precise than using the mouse. There are options to set joystick axes to view in the config, but they are 'absolute', so if the joystick snaps to center, so does the view. In other words, it's not 'slewable'. Anyhow, I'm not sure if anything I said was helpful, just bouncing ideas off my head. I've certainly spent no small amount of time shoehorning as much as I can into my HOTAS combo, certainly viewing modes among them.

Without being able to reference the training videos where I am, you may be referring to LWin + NumPad2, which is a snap view which shows the SHKVAL and the ABRIS. The other keys on the numeric keypad are other 'snap views' on the keyboard. I vaguely remember the option to 'save' views listed in the key commands, though I'm not sure how that works.

Thank you kindly, Frederf, worked like a charm! I did the same thing, tying all the major navigation mode buttons (minus the INU reference), mode selector and digit buttons to the numeric keypad. (In my case I use the right arrow key as a toggle so I don't lose the Numpad view keys I instinctively keep using.) As long as I don't look at the keypad in the sim (which has the 123 and 789 groups inverted), I can type coordinates from the ABRIS fairly quickly. Anyhow, many thanks!

Do you happen to know the particular LUA file that can change it to default to DD'MM.MM? While unlikely for me to happen during a mission, I have practiced to manually add target/ingress points to the PVI, but I have to change the units on the ABRIS first every time. It's not a huge hassle, but it would be nice not to have to change that every time I intend to input new target points manually.

I got a chance to try it and it works! Many thanks Crunch, it's nice to be able to finally resolve that problem for the better part of two months. I learned a bit about other things along the way, but my only regret was not asking sooner, assuming the problem was something localized to my computer only.

I may need your assistance in finding that mod. I looked in both the DCS and LOMAC sections on lomacfiles.com and found many cloud mods, but none whose description saying it also removed the shadows. It's good to know that there's a definitive cause. I guess I never added two and two together when I was going nuts with the visual settings trying to pin it down. (Alas, many wasted hours trying everything under the sun to figure out what caused that.) I did try a night mission with no clouds and still got those odd artifacts from illumination flares, but I can happily live with that as long as I can get rid of those distortions during the day.

I've had this problem as well on two computers, one with an ATI card (mine) and the other an Nvidia card. I've tried 'sampling' ATI drivers from 7.11 to 9.3, changed every setting (AF, AA, Catalyst AI) and reinstalled to no avail. On my other computer (my brother's), it does the same thing, except it's an Nvidia card which is fairly new. As it's my brother's computer, I can't go to town with testing drivers and such, though I can certainly say that his BS install is truly a fresh install. It is hard to explain, except to say it's an 'accordion' like distortion which varies based on turning away from a level horizon, and as such everything looks fine in the exterior views as they are all flat to the horizon. I've had this problem in Lock On as well, though in some ways it seemed less severe, or flat-out apparent. Also, it is a factor of distance, as it effects terrain at a certain distance out. It's most obvious in cases of when planes drop night illumination flares (or rather, the effect of the circle of light on the terrain). At first I assumed it was an issue of textures and anisotropy at distance, but that didn't change anything. I then messed with the settings in the graphics.cfg regarding light clipping and landscape 'far' clipping, but that didn't change it either. The only 'solution', which really isn't, is to go into options.lua and switch haze to 0 ('basic'). It removes the problem, since it removes all the shaders and lighting involved. I suspect they removed the 'basic/advanced' setting back from LOMAC because the fog looks absolutely horrid, like an nearly opaque 'blanket' of 'table fog' even at the lowest fog setting. Also, the night lighting effect from illumination flares is simply gone, leaving only the light cast onto the objects themselves rather than the landscape. Unfortunately, I over-compressed the screenshot which had an example of the night lighting, but the effect is similar. It is a factor of distance, as once I get close enough, the 'shimmering accordion' effect disappears. I haven't posted images on a bulletin board system before, so hopefully these will go through. They have compression artifacts, but the point is hopefully seen.