Bahger

Looks great. I am eager to give it a go, thanks for the hard work that must have been involved.

Thanks, guys, I appreciate it. If you can PM me your email addresses, that night be the best way to coordinate. Also, I suggest we use SimHQ's TeamSpeak server for comms; might that work for you?

Thanks, Adi. Otherwise, not a single taker, either here or on SimHQ. It's almost enough to put a fellow off mission design.

Thanks, Boss. BTW, check your PMs, I sent you one a couple of days ago.

Does anyone have one they can recommend? Just for realism's sake, thanks, gents.

Thanks, Derelor. I am very happy you like it. Pls comment/rate it on the download page if you feel inclined.

I'm looking for three sim pilots who might want to test my new mission, "Patrol by Force", in advanced Beta form. I think it's my best mission yet and it has all the usual bells and whistles, including detailed briefing, custom mission steerpoints and extensive voice comms. It is also fairly challenging. Players will need to be confident with: - Cold start in 10 min or less - JTAC - In-flight target coordinate input from FAC into CDU - Maverick deployment - GBU deployment (LGB and WKMD, or one or the other) The mission works well. A full-on airborne insertion of British special forces by Chinook with Apache escorts functions beautifully after many, many hours of fiddling in the ME. Tactically, it is by far the most compelling .miz I've attempted. I need to test play-balance, as it has got to the point where, after extensive testing, I can win it every time in SP but need to know if intermediate-to-advanced players find it either too easy or too hard in MP. I'm in the US Pacific Time Zone. I can be available weekends/weekdays after 10:00pm or on weekday mornings. I'm hoping there will be interest, possibly from some of the Holllopoint, etc., pilots. Briefing here. Thanks!

Name: "Broken Wing" Author: Bahger Mission type: MP+SP Controllable: A-10C/FC3 F-15C Quick Summary: - CAS against stationary and moving threats - A-10C DEAD against mobile SA-9 launch vehicles - 2-ship F-15C CAP - Extensive custom voice comms for enhanced tactical SA - Custom Mission Steerpoints for enhanced tactical SA Link for SP Link for MP Discussion thread here. Comments/recommendations/star ratings in DCS download page much appreciated.

I understand, JMBT1963, and I certainly appreciate the correction re. your time spent here. I don't want a flame war either. I don't even care about this individual or his crassly-named mission pack. The only reason I'm bothering to post is that, occasionally, one feels compelled to defend communal standards that have been violated for no good purpose. Not only did he title this thread "WANKERCRAFT" but he shouted it in all-caps and still refuses to acknowledge why others might be annoyed by the very existence of the thing, staring at them whenever they go into an otherwise well-mannered forum. It's like having a new neighbor who gets annoyed when you object to his dog defecating on your lawn. I'm a parent and a grown up and I resent being accosted by this type of vulgar immaturity in a place where, thankfully, it has never belonged.

Another 11-post "veteran" dispensing wisdom. Let me put it this way: It's the equivalent of someone being invited to a house whose occupants he doesn't know very well. He runs into their living room carrying something in a box. "LOOK!", he says, "I MADE SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY GOOD! I WANT YOU TO SEE IT! IT'S CALLED WANKER!!" Everybody in the room just looks at the guy, astonished by his crassness. "Don't you think you should change the name?", one of them asks, ""Because most of us find it to be in questionable taste and you won't find words like that being thrown around in here." "WHAT DO YOU MEAN??" yells the guy with the box, "I THINK IT'S FUNNY! IT'S NAMED AFTER SOMETHING ELSE CALLED WANKER AND THAT'S FUNNY TOO! IF YOU DON'T FIND IT FUNNY, YOU ARE IMMATURE AND PROBABLY A RELIGIOUS PERSON! IF YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE THING IN THE BOX, THEN JUST LEAVE YOUR HOUSE! I'LL HANG AROUND FOR A WHILE THOUGH, SEE WHAT'S ON TV." JMBT 1963, you are missing the point. The point is this: most communities have certain standards of expression and conduct that do not have to be aggressively policed; the community polices itself, that is the mark of a mature community. Look at these boards, at all the forums and posts, everywhere; you will not see any crass behavior or vulgar language because that is the standard which this community appears to have adopted by consensus. In my ten years here, I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times that mods have had to intervene because the discourse in forum threads has become vulgar, abusive, or crass. It doesn't matter how offended you think we should be -- or not -- by the OP's choice of name for his mission pack. What matters is that most of us who have been here a while would rather he not lower the standards that have existed here for many years by naming a mission pack WANKERCRAFT, because it is crass, unnecessary and tone-deaf.

When I saw the title of the post, in obnoxious caps, no less, I shuddered at the crassness of it. Then on further investigation, it turns out that the perpetrator sees absolutely nothing questionable about his poor taste, refuses to admit that he may have misjudged the tone of this community (having been a member of it for five minutes)...and he expresses himself in writing like a ten year-old. Amazing, these things always go hand-in-hand in Internet gaming communities but we should be grateful to have been free of it around here for most of the time. Present instance excepted, of course.

You are just digging an even deeper hole for yourself. Your bad grammar and immature, petulant way of expressing yourself, combined with your thickheaded refusal to understand why people might find the title of your mission tasteless and foolish, conspire to make you look like an idiot and you seem determined to reinforce this perception. Eighteen posts here, and you are telling people in this forum how they are supposed to feel about your vulgarity rather than admit to making a childish error of taste and re-naming your mission. This is a mature community. Most of us are sophisticated simulation enthusiasts and there is a high standard of literacy, education and mature discourse here. People tend to think before they blow off steam and are considerate of each other's sensitivities, especially when, like you, they are new to a community that many of us have belonged to since DCS was founded. This is not a twitch gaming forum or a bunch of raging teenagers. Most people here are mature, articulate and fairly highly educated. Stop raging, consider this a momentary lapse of good taste on your part, apologise for it, and rename your mission. You'll get more downloads that way. I come here to get a break from children, which is why I would never download a mission with a title like yours. I can play Call of Duty if I want that kind of idiocy. Now, consider your behavior before someone gets irritated enough with your foolishness to report you.

It's a wonderful little free image manipulation program that's been around forever. Use Image/Resize then simply choose pixels as your unit of measurement under "Set new size" and make sure you keep the original aspect ratio. Let me know if you have any problems.

It worked, I'm pretty sure of that. In fact I think it worked in the Beta! I don't find it confusing, as the responses are pretty immediate contextual replies to specific player or AI actions but it's very goofy and I can only assume that it's high on the fix list for the next update...

So it is broken. How long has it been broken? Do you think the devs know?

I would post this in the bug forum but it's such a doozy that I can only assume it to be mission designer error. I have four flights in a mission, two called Springfield and two called Enfield, with one from each being a client flight and the other being an AI flight that will launch with the same tasking if the player does not select it. In flying both roles, not once in all the mission testing that I've done have I heard either an AI pilot from Springfield or Enfield ever refer to his own flight correctly. Same goes for AI controllers and JTAC. They call Springfield Hawg and Enfield Boar. What can be happening here? I can supply a track or a .miz file if desired. Does the AI malfunction in this way when two separate entities (AI and client) have the same callsigns? If so, I wonder what the workaround might be?

Thanks, TC. The WP I have after the IP is to get the two flights to anchor either side of the AO after they have finished their enroute tasking. I'm wondering whether it's better to delete this WP to make the JTAC AI work properly or whether to ignore it... EDIT: Before I make the change and eliminate the orbit WP after the IP, can anyone tell me what the AI A-10s will do after they have finished attacking targets if they have no WP after the IP? I do not want them to RTB. Should I make an orbit command at the IP as #3 in priority to the other two prior orders?

You'll have to change the name before I consider downloading the file. If "that's not what this thread's topic is about", then don't give it, or your mission, an ugly, stupid title.

I knew that once, Viper, I should have remembered, many thanks.

I want my AI wingman to hit an armor group but he calls out two groups and there seems no way to tell him to hit one target and not the other. More often than not he'll go for the wrong group because it's closer. The solution might be an "attack target at my SPI" order but that command appears not to exist. Maybe the best I can do is to have him "Fly to my SPI" and see if he calls out the right armor group as he approaches it. Thoughts?

I have two flights ingressing via fairly close, parallel routes. Each gets its target from a separate JTAC. I have placed separate IP nodes at each flight's IP. I've noticed that the JTAC does not reference the right IP and nor does he give the right distance, during the nine-line brief. I wonder, should I use just one IP for both flights (and deconflict those flights by altitude)? Is there a rule of thumb regarding the distance from IP to target, or initial check-in point with the JTAC and the IP, to assure that the system works properly and the right IP and distance is referenced? Also, nobody has responded to my question about the "marked by willie pete", shortly followed by "no mark" sequence of responses by the JTAC. I don't know what I'm doing wrong either in the ME or in flying the JTAC approach to make this happen, but if I can't get it to work, I'll have to eliminate the WP mark option in the ME, as it's not mission-critical. I sort of suspect that mark works better the further away you make the first call and the greater the spacing is between that call, the IP and the target.

Thanks for your response, gents. Grimes, you are right, rather than mess with a TOT feature that does not really work, using hack time makes sense, as does having the client flight orbit at the WP so that the AI can catch up. There's a some time-pressure on the player in this mission so, on balance, staggering the flights and having them arrive at their IPs about three minutes apart is better than delaying one flight so that the other can catch up. I never orchestrate mission events in reaction to the client flights arriving in the AO, it's a "cheat", so in my missions, the player has to be punctual! By far the best solution tio this would be an AI time hack feature in the ME. It would be great to have both a human and an AI flight start the hack and input it into the CDU when short of the runway threshold and on the runway ready to roll. TC, what you say makes a lot of sense. I'd be happy to battle with the complexities of the CDU but not with a sim TOT feature that is not really functional and requires enormous jury-rigging. My climbout profile is always the same, 182kts to 2000ft, flaps up, then lower the nose for a 200kt climb at full power. It's an efficient profile but I cannot expect the AI to fly it. Impossible to get accurate TOT airspeed data without inputting a climb profile, I'd think, especially over a relatively short distance. I'm proud to say that after a lot of work, I've disciplined the AI flights in my mission to go after the right targets 90% of the time. I had to play with all sorts of combinations of enroute commands, primary target designations, target prioritization and search in zone orders. I've got them reined in enough now that, if you choose either flight as client, you'll feel that you are working with the AI flight rather than around it. In this respect, it's my most ambitious mission. I have high hopes for it and am just happy that the TOT issue would have been icing on the cake and not the cake itself.

My old squadron-mate Stuka's templates are superb, but they are based on Cold War-era Russian orders of battle and are intended for scenarios involving squadron/battalion-level warfighting, usually in MP. If you are in the process of learning how to deploy local AD for a scenario such as an airport assault, I suggest not using a battalion- or company-level OOB from a template but place a few mobile AAA units and a couple of batteries of SA-9s on an airfield and test that. Then as I say work up to SA-19s and, if you are building missions with a larger commmand scale, tackle the radar-guided systems with integrated command and control systems then. Again, do not throw A-10s against these systems without SEAD if realism is what you're after.

Be careful not to go overboard. The IADS (Integrated Air Defence Systems) represented in the sim are designed to protect very large areas against the broadest range of air threats in an all-out war. It's very easy not to scale ADs properly in missions, resulting in ridiculous -- and unrealistic -- scenarios in which A-10s go up against long-range radar-guided missile systems. The Hog doesn't carry anti-radiation missiles so any realistic mission with radar-guided ADs should be also feature F-16 or Tornado SEAD flights. For missions with a more local scale, start with MANPADs, SA-9 Strelas and build up to the SA-19 Tunguska, a nasty, but relatively short-range, piece of work. Anything more powerful than that belongs on a much bigger battlefield than an airport strike.

I've read that you can get helos to hover by settinng "orbit" at very low speeds but I haven't yet seen it work. And it would look dopey if the helicopted went round and round very slowly.