coolts

I installed TacView. That is a seriously cool utility for a gods eye view. Enemy panes spew far more chaff then me. I am conditioned to flying A-10 with only small countermeasure stores. In the F-15 I have loads, so, now I throw it like confetti at a wedding when notching. It also seems like my notching wasnt at 90 degrees half of the time therefore less than effective. Also, as Ven & others have suggested, using missiles tactically to keep an enemy defensive even with low pK seems to help. Flying 1v2 & 1v2 with good success rates. Fulcrums can defeat half of my missiles though fired at long or medium range. Dont want to let them get any closer! Learning.....

Wow. Never seen this before as I am a relative newcomer. This is an incredibly useful tool in the whole, "where the hell did that come from" debate. This game just gets better and better with all these cool mods and tools!

Heh. I can see where I am going wrong. Its the radar fiddling. Trying to bug a target partially overlapping another target, (which already has a missile heading towards it), sitting ontop of a ECM beam.....which always takes the lock..... Downloading Tacview. should be a laugh, ("look ma, thats where i started playing the keyboard with my feet"). Seriously though. I am way too crap to go online yet. Once i have nailed the campaign......

The radar fiddles are my current main failing as thats what is taking the time when I should be maintaining my SA. In the mean time, I have taken the temporary step of enabling labels in order to match up what my radar is telling me vs. whats actually out there. Ah well, maybe a 27" monitor would help ;)

Having temporarily given up on the FC2.0 F-15 campaign at about stage four because of repeated, annoying deaths, I have been, (on good advice), setting up 1v1, 2v1 & 3v1 engagements in the mission editor to hone my tactics. Finding a whole lot of fun setting up my own missions, I have been happily creating more and more complex setups, and have eventually succeeded in defeating myself just as the ED campaign did! Once I analysed a few .trk files I have come to a few conclusions about the cause of my repeated angry parachute rides; 1. I have a tendency to charge in without proper support 2. I spend too much time fannying around with my radar cursors 3. Their missiles get me! The first is basic impatience. If I can take off in full afterburner, perform an Immelman turn, gain height and be on track for the bad guys, why are my wingmen all bumbling around 12 miles behind me? This leaves me as TARGET #1 by a mile once the shooting starts. I will now wait for the old ladies to finish their tea and knitting and catch me up before engaging. That takes care of number 1. Having tried VENS’ tactics, (http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=52688&highlight=aar), many times, (once at ECM burn through, assign each bogey to your wingmen, draw a few missiles, launch a few, then run for the hills spewing CM’s and hope that your decoy has bought your wingmen enough of an advantage), I simply cannot assign bogeys fast enough in TWS / STT. At 30nm or so, bogey flights are tightly packed and appear almost as one blip. I have the Microstick on my Cougar set to move the radar cursor and it’s pretty good, but just not precise enough. “Use the mouse”, some will say. That is much more precise, but hardly realistic. I can’t imagine real F-15 pilots calling out; “Olympus, Enfield 11 – Mission abort, mouse mat fallen between my knees, over” There is a ”lock nearest”, or “lock next” command somewhere I recall, but always thought that was for “game mode”, and it’s not on the FC2.0 key docs anyway. Are we supposes to be hunkered down, shuffling a tiny cursor about trying to bug a target, only to keep hitting the wrong one. The one you have already launched and assigned a wingman to attack. The one that’s just launched at you. AAAAAAAAAAAAAA BOOM. I am intrigued by =RvE=Yoda’s ERI radar MOD, but don’t think that will help here. There should be a “bug first priority threat, bug first 2 threats, bug first 3……” etc., etc. At least to my mind. Am i doing it wrong guys? As for the third failing, well, having practiced notching, beaming, etc, I now treat my CM’s less like Faberge eggs and spew them all over the place. I spew flares just in case of an IR missile. I try to fly “heads out” of the cockpit and less “fangs out” as much as possible and paying attention to my TEWS, am more aware of when an ARH or SARH has lost/found me. Overall, I feel that if I can be a little more patient / tactical and figure out a better radar procedure, I may be hitting the silk less, as in the BVR world,( like the wild west ), the quick draw has a distinct advantage. Any and all advice welcomed! Cheers Coolts Ps. <VEN> Any chance of you posting a .trk of your FC2.0 F-15 campaign AAR’s? (Specifically 3 & 4). Sometimes watching someone do It properly, (i.e. Without getting shot down), makes more sense than reading it. Pps. Just seen a post by A.S. with a dogfight .trk (“F-15 Tango”), which I will watch later. Looks like its generating some F-15 radar procedural debate. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=54122

A unified software package bridging the HOG HOTAS & the MFD Cougar could be a very powerful tool what with DCS: A-10 in the pipeline. nuttys comment, (quoted by ligntning); "But now there's a need for something that can program a multitude of TM controllers such as the Warthog, Cougar and MFDs together, and furthermore, vastly increase the programming capability beyond what you've experienced to date." Sounds promising. Lets hope it was a statement of progress rather than one of intent only. 300 euros, (£250 -ish hopefully), for HOG Cougar & £60 for MFD Cougar? Who needs a new kitchen /car /bathroom /girlfriend?

Heh. To be honest, mine was a bit of an "in an ideal world" scenario as I have yet to find an editor which gives everything. This would be impossible without setting yourself up with MS Visual Studio and creating your own! :smilewink: As a scripter / sometime programmer, I am used to making shortcuts / macros / powershell cmdlts, etc. to take care of repetetive admin tasks, hence my frustration at the "start again from scratch" nature of the current iteration of the FC2.0 ME. I realise that dev work will take time, and think about it like this. At ED the mission designers will have our entire wish list and then some! And they have the added advantage of being in rubber band / paper ball range of the programmers! "I want to be able to name my flags!" --> TWANG! "Why is there no undo button" -->FWAT!

daft question, but have you set their tasking to "ground attack" in the dropdown?

Well said Mr Grimes! As a newbie to the editor I am simultaneously gripped with possibilities and hamstrung by application deficiencies. Your point below… “Being able to connect multiple missions in what is alive and whats dead would be useful in singleplayer. Its usage online however could create unique situations to Lockon multiplayer. The concept of" Air quake" could be replaced by an actual evolving battlefield. We might still play like its airquake, but hey the front lines shift every day, that would have to count for something” …sums up to me where ED should be thinking of going with this. Surely the fact that their development roadmap is largely driven my military sales, (and the military doesn’t require feature A or B), should be an impetus to their sales guys to be saying, “Would you find this feature useful? Then prodding the programmers for these features to drive further sales). Feature wish list (draft); Persistent Variables, (user defined at that), to be called throughout campaign from any mission step. If for example, (keeping within the linear .miz progression), a summary of altered variables could be called at the beginning of the next phase, then the designer could work around that. This could mitigate the potential issue where, say, a SAM site destroyed in mission 1 was then removed from mission 2 before it started, but broke the code as there were triggers build round the assumption that the SAM site was still there. This is, I guess one of the reasons why ED hasn’t done this. Macros, and eventually, object oriented scripting. Once created, the slog of having to re-create everything from scratch for the next mission can only be mitigated by having a huge “template” mission and disabling what you need then wrangling the rest into shape. This could be vastly reduced if we were able to create our own functions from code snippets then call them from a master / header file and pass variable to and from them. Code import Along with the above, this would progress the development process massively as we could share objects / functions, etc. The Dev community would explode! Editable Priority based AI behaviours One of my biggest bugbears. Getting unit / group A to do something based on what their orders / role are and what their current situation is. If we could assign weighting to variables controlling behaviours then we could create much more dynamic behaviour. Extendable / moddable mission designer. IF ED doesn’t have the manpower to upgrade the mission designer, then make it open source and allow the community to add to it in the same way they create missions & videos, etc. Imagine editor modules with GUI / scripts / templates geared towards SEAD, etc. That would be amazing! 3D world viewer So we can really get a grip on how our virtual battlefields will play out and tighten up unit placements, etc. There are workarounds to this as Panzertard has demo-ed, but along with the “replace and with or” workaround you demo-ed, they should be built-in. Create element àflightàpackage templates There are rudimentary steps toward this functionality in the editor as far as land units go but nothing for aircraft. In a flight simulator! (This is potentially because AI inconsistencies on the ground at 2 miles per hour are going to be magnified massively at Mach 2!) This would be a massive bonus. Proper escort tasking, (click escort element, chose “escort” tasking dropdown, then chose package element to be assigned escorts from subsequent list). Mission editor tutorials I have found a wealth of tutorials covering every aspect of this fantastic SIM from F-15 radar modes to Su-25 unguided bombing. There is almost nothing in the way of ME tutorials however. Like most people I have started picking apart ED’s missions as a guideline. This is fine for those of us with a Sherlock Holmes complex but would hinder those who don’t have the time / inclination / stubbornness to persevere, which is a shame. (The GUI manual has some really good reference but it’s not comprehensive enough and its examples could be beefed up considerably). High hopes I am hoping for a considerably upgraded ME with DCS: A-10 along with documentation / comprehensive help files. The interface is clean and generally helpful and a massive improvement over LOMAC, but the ME needs to be upgraded alongside the development of DCS and follow in its evolutionary wake! The machine is the star, yes, but it’s what you can do with it that maintains your interest. After all, you can’t polish a virtual F-15.:D Cheers Coolts (who really should be working) **EDIT** and an undo button!

so their tasking should be "easily decoyed Alzheimer’s escort" then? ;)

Thats assuming they include / upgrade Foxy. After seeing the software that comes with the MFD Cougar, I'm not so sure. Heres's hoping that TM dont leave out their "ace in the hole". The fact that they have been so secretive during development (for obvious reasone) means that this is ALL conjecture. Even MI5 / CIA would have left a laptop on a bus or something by now..:book:

Really? So, if for instance I set up an escort group with an identical flightplan to a group of,say, transports, then setting "escort" as their task would mean that I wouldnt have to bother with adding targeting areas for the escorts? If I then approached the transports, the escorts would break off and engage me, returning to their flightplan if I no longer was deemed a threat, (left area, etc)? I will try this tonight.

You are right. I have dissected some FC2.0 campaign missions and thats the way ED do it. The Task dropdown just seems to act as a filter on what planes you get to chose, not what they will actually do. On a side note, as a former programmer, its frustrating that you cant name your variables / triggers. Just getting an arbitary number makes keeping track of them all difficult.

I think you are right. I have been dissecting the FC2.0 F-15 campaign missions as they have a few instances of MIGs escorting bombers, etc. They are set up as separate flights with close / matching flightpaths. They then have enlarged targetting zones setup alongside their flightpaths where they will break off and engage if you get close. Its not an elegant solution but it works. Hopefully in future iterations of the ME we will be able to define proper element/flight/package groupings with combined tasking.

I have a theory. Something "Brit_Radar_Dude" said in one of his posts. Will get back in a mo. Nope. I tried having different types of planes with differernt tasking in the same flight. Didnt work. trying triggers now...

hmmmm. This is also my problem. There is an 'escort' role in 'tasks', but i dont think it does anything. form the manual... "Escort. This task is allocated to fighters and attack helicopters and involves escorting allied aircraft (transport aircraft, bombers, or attack aircraft) and defending them along the route from possible attacks of enemy aircraft and air defense systems. In doing so, the escorts should not engage in fights with the enemy if they do not pose a threat or are significantly off the course line " But how??

Having become bogged down in my F-15 campaign, I have begun experimenting with the mission editor to get back into the fast jet mindset. Starting with 1v1, then 1v2 and onto 1v3 (about my limit ATM), I have started to add things like AWACS and triggers to the missions. Honestly, once you get going its really addictive and a great feeling to fly your own mission. Anyways, I came up with a fun concept. A midnight scramble from your airbase, instruction messages as you taxi, real last minute stuff. “Bandits escorting heavy transports northwards @30k, 10 miles off the coast. Intercept!” Really simple stuff. I set up the environment, my two ship flight and the enemy transports. After this turkey shoot I added a flight of MIGS to the mix as an escort to the transport package. Now my question is; Can I have the MIGS act as proper escorts or do I have to simulate this by duplicating the transports flight plan, (for the MIGS to follow), and adding a trigger zone attached to the transport flight? (This would trigger them to engage once my flight approached). I noticed that there is an “escort” role in the “tasks “dropdown. Am I missing something obvious?

SU-25T has these modelled. The frogfoot is the only plane with this advanced flight modelling. Wait for DCS: A-10 for all this in the Hog, (he says hopefully) Crunch - theres no instruments way. Once selected just declare 'inbound' and your pilot calls out the right airport name. (must have a hidden kneeboard!)

The Manuals are about 90% identical. If you have the LOMAC manual as you say, then read that. Honestly, dont wait for the FC2.0 one, as apart from colour and some nice additions, (yes, I will be buying the printed one as well when / if it comes out), the content is the same. The smaller GUI manual on the other hand is new and mirrors the DCS one as FC now has the DCS-like front end. A weeks good reading in the Flight manual there, so get stuck in!

That one had me for a while, but its as Wags said, wind and rudder. The HUD projection also takes into account the parallax effect. With TrackIR, if you move your head laterally left, the HUD projection shifts right. Centering the HUD with rudder is, in effect, cancelling out drift caused by wind, as you have discovered. BTW Thats not right, (apologies if you have already sussed this). I always add wind to my missions and its a rollercoaster all the way! Wind is modelled at 3 altitude levels in FC2.0,"sea level", 2000m & 8000m

HOJ shots at about 30-40 should get you a few more minutes to think, (low kill probability but will force enemy to defend, giving you time for a second proper salvo and to organise your wingmen. Put your wingmen in the fight to draw some fire from you). I am stuck on this mission as well but have tried a few different things. My biggest failing is charging in "top gun" style. Following advice i now routinely view the .trk files and i can see where i went wrong. I am slowly building up my "moves" that way. WE WILL WIN!!!! :thumbup: ps. I created my own 1v1 then 1v2 and now i can mostly handle 1v3 (sometimes) to get the hang of tactics

Heh, its not exactly clear in the manual. A proper "airport / approach procedure" would be good. I've picked this stuff up from the forums to be honest. That and pressing all the buttons to see whsat happens!:joystick:

To be honest, even FSX is pretty lame at airfield operations. Falcon 4.0 had better ATC IMO. In FSX you have to buy loads of addons to beef it up. There is a lot of scope for modders in FC2.0 there I think, but its hard. Immersion isn't easy. Much easier to do a skin or .cgf tweak.

You can cycle in US planes, but the only way to determine which one you have cycled to is to contact the tower. In Russian planes the airfileds are numbered IIRC.

Oneway You cycle through ILS / airfields with the same key as you use for waypoints, (`) on my keyboard, after selecting ILS mode with ‘1’. The ILS cycles and you have to declare ‘inbound’ or whatever to determine which airfield’s ILS you are now tracking. Use the map view to help with names and orientation. As for autopilot systems, the SU-25T has the most advanced AP in-game with wings levellers, trim neutraliser, (or the tabbed equivalent), pitch hold, etc. For all these needs, fly the SU-25T.