Bahger

Thank you, Quirkitized. As always, my logic was flawed. I just don't have a programmer's brain.

Thank you so much for the useful example .miz files. I have gigured out the "Remove radio item" logic, but am having the most insanely difficult time with the following, associated problem: I can't get my group "Blue Assault helos" to launch on a radio item command. I have used "late activation" and set the activation trigger as an action for radio item #3 (which also generates Flag 3) but the helos show up at the very beginning of the mission and, after starting up, they take off. I want this group to wait on the ground, or not to spawn in, until that player-activated trigger is fired. I'd settle for a long hover with Flag 3 as the stop command, but I have not been able to get that to work either, maybe because helos don't "hold" like aircraft and vehicles. The weird thing is that I've delayed activation to mission time +7 minutes on the AI Hogs and that works perfectly every time: they do not show up on the map until the condition for their activation is met. However, this logic will not work on the helo group. I can finagle the mission so that the helos will only launch when the ingressing A-10shave reached a certain zone on their ingress, but ideally I want the player to make the call to launch the assault helo group. I'm at my wits' end and would be very grateful for any advice. File attached. Patrol by Force 07.miz

Thanks, gents. The thing that's still eluding me is how to trigger the removal of the radio item, i.e. ideally it should be triggered to the player's action when he activates the menu item, i.e. there's a sequence in which he hits F10, then F1 for the item, then after the menu disappears, only the unused radio items in the F10 sub-menu are still there. I'm not sure how to use flags -- which I assume I need to do -- to accomplish this.

I've made two F10 radio commands and associated flags plus "Group resume" so that a unit which is holding will start on its route again on the player's command. However, I cannot remember the little bit of logic involved with getting these items off the F10 radio menu once they've been used. I thought "Radio Item Remove" would do the trick but it asks for text in a data entry field; I dio not know how it can therefore reference the radio command I want to remove. I vaguely remember that using a series of "Increase flag" actions followed by trigger conditions "Flag more than" was the way to delete radio menu items once they've been used by the player but I've fiddled with various combinations to no avail. Can anyone advise? Thanks, as always.

The stop condition may have been part of the problem. Sometimes with the ME, one needs to settle for what works vs what should, but doesn't always! Might still play with this if a timed landing does not meet the needs of the .miz.

Many thanks, guys, this info is very helpful to me as it will be to others. I should have recognised that the Chinook's alarming attempts to go vertical and then split-S are signs of AI threat-evasion maneuvers that are completely incongruous in this airframe. There will always be threats in a behind enemy lines SpecOps insertion, so knowing how to program one successfully in the ME is very useful. Yes, fewer waypoints are usually good in this sim, but as you can see, I was trying to get the Chinook to fly NOE along a riverbed. One must settle for tradeoffs or compromises. Does the "On land" option followed by a D/H/M:Sec data entry field imply that the time entered in a checked field here will be the time that the helo will remain on the ground before taking off for its next WP? Again, thanks for the great help, I appreciate it.

Is this new command, under advanced waypoints, a WIP? My attempts to use it cause a Chinook to roll over in mid-air and lawndart into the ground in a fiery ball, please see attached track. All I'm trying to do is to get the Chinook to land somewhere in the vicinity of this bridge. I've experimented with different LZs, with placement of the "Land" triangle, with speeds, altitudes and distance of the waypoint at which I assign the "Land" command. No luck at all, crazy AI behavior ensues. I can cheat this by placing an LZ, which enables the Chinook to land properly (albeit with a lot of circling.) However, I'd rather not do it that way, partly because the LZ does not turn blue (friendly) if there are hostiles in the area, and unless it's blue, the helo RTBs. Hmmm... Big Helo Landing Fail.trk

You are right, but my best efforts to get this command to work result in a spectacular fail. Please see track in separate thread.

Well, re. helo landing, this is as good a place as any to comment: - It seems that the problem with not making a LZ (FARP) for the helicopter to land on, is that the only way to determine without one if a he site is acceptable is by a lot of trial and error. Might still do it, though. - Yes, the Chinook does a lot of messing about before it lands. NOT SpecOps procedure at all. - One the chopper lands, you can't get it to take off again. Really! Any flightplan waypoint after the "Land" waypoint invalidates that "Land" waypoint, so if I want my Chinook to take off again after landing for the infil, then land somewhere safe and return for the exfil, I'm pretty sure I'll have to deactivate/reactivate the Chinook every time! Odd, no, or am I missing something?

If it's one of mine, I'll do it for you.

That's just how I have it, and it looks great. I'm going to do the dimount from a hover, though; nice as it is to have the Chinook land, the ownership and placement rules for LZs are too limiting ATM.

Thanks for the help guys. Thanks for the encouragement, Ripcord. I have high hopes for this .miz. Proof-of-concept tests for the Chinook airborbne assault with AH-64D escorts have gone well; it's a lot easier to work with helos in the ME than it used to be. No luck with the "Follow" command, though, so for the time being I'm separating the transport and the assaults into independent groups with non-interlocking orders. I've managed to achieve good NOE flying for the ingress and the AI assault routines for the Apaches are impressive. FWIW, the placement of helipads, while useful because it means that helos can land in combat zones, is often eccentric. The player does not have precise control of placement and these LZs often end up under low power cables or amongst trees and buildings. There is also some interesting ownership logic that applies to these helipads; a helo insertion requiring a Chinook to land behind enemy lines can be tricky because any enemy forces in relatively close proximity, even individual infantry units, cause the helipad to turn red -- literally -- and the helo won't land. Does anyone know if a helicopter can be made to hover? This might just be a less cumbersome way to stage an infantry dismount.

It is. Should have thought of that myself. Thanks, Grimes.

I'm creating an aerial assault of British infantry via Chinook, so I can drop in a couple of Humvees. However, this force will need some AT capacity to be anything but cannon-fodder and I'm not aware of any infantry in the sim with AT weapons, nor AT weapons mounted on HMMWVs. Can anyone suggest a solution? If the only choice is to use American kit, I'll just have to.

Thanks, Druid. I don't see "Escort" as being available to either helo group but "Follow" is. I'm going to experiment with that.

In other words: - What troop transport helo would be used? I'm assuming the UH-1H for a small-scale, infantry-only SpecOps insertion, the CH-47D (Chinook) for a larger-scale op with vehicles? - How many troop dismounts would be involved in either of the above scenarios? Could the CH-47D carry light vehicles too? if so, I'm not sure which, as, apart from the Challenger MBT, the only British vehicle represented in the sim is an IFV that is probably not deployable from a Chinook. Should I give the Brits HMMWVs? - Would the troop transport helos be escorted by assault helos, and if so, which variant, AH-64 A or D? - Finally, if I have assault helos escorting the troop transports, is this a good opportunity to use the new "Escort" command? I would otherwise make all helos be part of the same group but it would be much more elegant to give each group iuts own orders, especially if they could be effectively tethered by "Escort". As always, thanks!

Thanks, Bonsai, I feel like a real novice now. But I've learned, and I'm sure I'll figure out the zone-change input field in the CDU after I've played with it for a while.

Perfect. I should have remembered that Stuka had done this. Much updated, too. Thanks!

I'm looking for good, authentic infantry and armor/vehicle templates for both NATO and OPFOR. I did a search at DCS under both "Mods" and "Utilities" but came up empty. Guidance much appreciated.

What a fantastic looking mission, Joy, possibly the most accomplished I've ever seen. Makes me sad that I'm not flying with you guys any more to experience it, as it is definitely a squadron-level .miz. Also, I'm about five teeth-grinding hours away from being able to tank. I downloaded your mission just to be able to learn from it in the ME.

How do you change the grid?

So if I'm on a border between, say LN and KN, then, if I'm given coords that start with LN, I input those and they are in the middle of nowhere, I should try KN followed by the same 6 numbers? Sorry about the dopey question but what I know I know and what I don't...I don't.

Download link here. What do you think Vyrtuoz means by this: "It is fully compatible with DCS World 1.2.3. Before installing and using it, please remove any script you may have installed manually to avoid a mess!" I'm not aware of any script I may have installed manually, I think I simply did a vanilla install of Tacview via the install exe. Do you think we need to uninstall the previous version, or will the new one install/update over it? Many thanks.

OK, so, with thanks for your help so far, and apologies for the somewhat basic question, what significance do these two zones have in terms of how I enter given UTM coordinates into the CDU?

I've played this sim since early Beta and I love it but I've steered clear of the campaign (i) because I wanted to learn the a/c as thoroughly as possible first and (ii) because, in my experience, SP campaigns for otherwise great flight sims are often the weakest aspect of the experience. I have to say, the A-10 campaign (the recent, CA-integrated version) appears to confirm the latter point. The first sortie, the familiarisation flight, puts the player directly in the envelope of a hostile, unbriefed AD missile threat at the north-easternmost waypoint, making missile evasion a sudden necessity when a launch occurs (even when the player is flying almost NOE.) This is silly and unrealistic but, okay, I thought, maybe it's a deliberate "baptism of fire". However, it appears that when you miss a waypoint trigger while avoiding the missile and RTB, the mission success trigger does not fire so the whole dopey thing needs to be replayed. My other issue is this: In what realistic scenario would an A-10 pilot, a humble Lt., have command of all other air assets such as SEAD, CAP and other CAS missions? I'm not really complaining, as this sim has so much to offer, including a very powerful Mission editor, so a hinky campaign matters little. However, as an experienced mission designer myself, I wonder about this. The above three issues (unbriefed threats, an inappropriate command structure and faulty completion triggers) are entry-level no-nos for mission designers, in my opinion. It seems to me that the campaign is not "hand-built" but generated by a combination of automatic processes and some human input. This is a pity. Briefings should be better and more detailed and friendly battlefield assets should be organised in such a way as to avoid putting the A-10C pilot into the middle of a SAM maelstrom that he would never face in real life with all the technology and planning assets available in modern NATO warfighting. And the two-minute ingress from Batumi to the IP is ludicrous. I'm just wondering; why can't the level of mission design in the campaign be more ambitious, more tactical, more realistic and less shooter-like? Does it really have to appear as though it's built for ADD flight simmers? Does anyone know of a good, "hand-made" campaign for the Hog that I can attempt instead of the official one?