Bahger

Fair enough. Just bear in mind that for many people, full immersion involves a fully-integrated battlefield, theater and (less important, IMO) campaign. However, the lack of one is not Belsimtek's fault and I am sure that ED is working hard on EDGE in order to address this issue. So...apologies if I sounded either demanding or peevish, as that was not my intention. It's just that, after spending literally hundreds of hours building very detailed missions for A-10C over about four years now, and having flown the sim all through LO, FC and BS I can no longer squeeze any more inspiration out of this theater; it is too familiar and too strategically distant from the real-life conflicts in which the platforms for which I build scenarios have been deployed in the last twenty years. I will probably buy the Sabre anyway...probably.

I very much doubt that the F-86 is a "turd" (interesting image though it evokes), in fact I bet it's great. To call my reservations about the lack of an accompanying AO "soul destroying", however, is pure hyperbole and completely misrepresents my intent in starting this thread. The map in which the new Sabre will fly is not within the control of the devs responsible for building the aircraft, therefore it would be idiotic to criticise them on this basis.

That's an interesting point. I agree. I imagine that it must be very difficult, expensive and time-consuming to produce hundreds of square miles of accurate, fully-rendered terrain in 3D so I am not taking that for granted. However, it is a pity that, in the time since ED first produced its Russia/Georgia theater, the A-10 has been deployed extensively in combat in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, the Hog will probably be out of service by the time we ever get the chance to fly the finest simulation of the aircraft ever to be made available to the public in any recreation of those theaters. I'll be up for building "historical" A-10 missions in these environments if I am still at it in twenty years, if someone comes up with the maps by then. I agree. And if you had made your argument politely and without massive patronisation, I would have conceded the point there and then. I am not attacking or criticising either ED/DCS or its superb third-party developers. These products are a godsend to those of us who value uncompromising fidelity in all aspects of combat flight simulation. However, the tremendous efforts they have made in the last few years to broaden the range and appeal of their product and integrate high-quality input from trusted sources is hampered by one thing only, which is the rapidly widening gulf between recent, real-life deployment and use in combat of the aircraft they simulate and the available AO in DCS. Sooner or later, the viability and relevance of this superb family of sims will need to be updated with maps that reflect a very active era in the use of air power in regional wars around the world. I hope it will be sooner, but the extraordinary delay of Nevada does not fill me with confidence.

Fair enough, tomcatter, thank you and Javelina and others for responding to my point of view politely. As I sit here and think about what a pleasure it would be to fly a well-simulated F-86, I feel my resolve not to buy it weakening, even though, as a maker of detailed, authentic missions, the lack of a historically suitable theater is a huge disincentive. Flying the Sabre in the existing theater becomes abstract and lacking in context, which is a shame. I appreciate your point Sith, but nevertheless I think you understand the argument I am making, which is that, ideally, the ability to recreate real-life scenarios that replicate this aircraft's moment in combat would be very desirable to many of us. You make fun of simulating F-86 ops in Nevada, yet I am very aware of the extensive tactical/combat exercises conducted at Nellis for the F-86, both air-to-air and air-to-ground, often involving aggressor squadrons, and those could easily be recreated by by, and for, consumers who look for authentic rather than theoretical training or combat scenarios in high-fidelity flight sims. As for a Russian theater, it's easier to envisage early Cold War fighter operations involving a platform with as short a range as the Sabre's over western Russia and the German border, rather than deep into Georgia, so the point you make is very debatable even if the sarcasm indicates that you believe you are stating the obvious.

It's astonishing that some if you have chosen to respond to my moderately expressed and perfectly valid point of view with such pompous vitriol. And to accuse me of 'slating' the product is both inaccurate and a little infantile as I am doing no such thing. It has been ten, possibly even fifteen, years since ED has produced a new theater and it is not unreasonable to ask for one. Responding to my argument with such inappropriate, nerdy hostility is most unflattering to those of you who could not resist the urge to do so. NeilWillis, the length and tone of your responses here will prompt many reasonable people to question the state of your mental health, quite seriously. At the very least, you need to get some fresh air.

I'm not being intolerant here. I have bought many, many DCS products and have been deeply involved in A-10C from Beta, as both a user and mission designer. However, having owned DCS/ED products since Lock On, I have to ask: how long can they possibly expect us to put up with no new theaters? I am so tired of the ancient Russian/Georgian theater as used from Lock On onwards -- what's that, 12 years? -- and so baffled by the five-year delay in completing the Nevada map (originally offered as a free add-on for Beta purchasers of A-10C) that, in spite of my admiration for DCS's values and standards in high-fidelity simulation of combat aircraft, I have been on a long hiatus that is unlikely to end until they provide a new map. The F-86 fought in Korea, as you all know; it's just too much of an immersion-breaker for me to have to fly the sim over Russia. I would imagine that the third-party developers of the F-86 must be frustrated by this, too. A good simulation of that aircraft and the conditions in which it was deployed ought to include a new theater map. I find the press release a bit disingenuous, I'm afraid, because although it notes that the Sabre was famous for fighting over Korea, it fails to mention that no Korea map will be available. This leads me to assume that we will have to operate this aircraft over the same desperately tired and in this case inauthentic terrain. I am not trying to sound irritable here, as DCS and its partners are the best, possibly the only, makers of high-fidelity combat aircraft sims for the PC but much as I want to dive into the Sabre, it's a no-buy for me until I get at least an ETA for new, appropriate and fresh theaters.

The upcoming features that mean by far the most to me are the Hornet and new terrain. However, I suspect we'll need to be patient on both counts; Wags intimated that the F/A-18 is quite a long way off (i.e. no chance of getting it this year) and I'm getting a cautious vibe re. both Nevada and EDGE, too.

There's no doubt about it, updates can alter certain features which can then "break" your .miz: mine have been sabotaged by artillery that can fire on a point in one version of the sim then not in the next, helos that cannot hover, and recently, SA-19s that acquired Cold War-winning magic powers in the last patch and therefore had to be replaced by SAM units (SA-6) that behave like, well, SAM units. There is a tendency for every two steps forward made by updates to be accompanied by one step back, i.e. for every two things they fix, they manage to break another, but as long as it's not the other way around, progress gets made. I'm grateful for the diligence of the developers in their relentless quest to improve the product but it can create headaches for mission designers. I do not use much scripting -- I am a logic moron -- but I flex the muscles of the ME's trigger system pretty thoroughly. My best suggestion in dealing with scenarios broken by updates is to "document" your missions thoroughly in anticipation, i.e. put all the triggers in an order/grouping which makes sense and, above all, name the triggers in such a way that they describe exactly what their function is. Give your units names that can be alphabetized by the ME in the unit listings, same with trigger zones. This way, if you suspect that a feature amended in an update has thrown your mission out of kilter, it's easier to identify and locate the affected areas and fix them without feeling like you're finding your way out of a dense jungle at night without a flashlight.

Thanks, Cobra. No need to lay on effects, I'll just trim it to one and a half seconds in Audacity. The original .ogg is three and a half seconds in length, which will try peoples' patience...

OK, file updated with squelch sound effect (it's not all that great, anybody got a better one?) and (duh...) missing flight comms in briefing: Dodge: 255.00 UHF Ford: 251.00 UHF

'Tis done already. Thanks, Keats. I will test it once then swap the file out in my first post.

Thanks, Keats, I appreciate the support. I appealed for voices but got only one response and this monster of a mission requires at least four different American voices with about five messages each. The squelch sound effect is a great idea, though, I'm astonished it never occurred to me, especially as I actually have one. Thanks!

There's a very easy way to handle this, cobragva. The targets are indeed located at the named waypoints but the WPs are navigational and therefore at navigational height per the flightplan. To make them useful as target locators for your sensors, you need to do the following, on the ground or while fencing-in: In the TAD, zoom in using EXP2 mode and get the closest you can to the target waypoints. Put the TAD cursor on each WP and set a MARKPOINT using TMS/right/short. This will place a ground reference point in all your sensor systems; as you place markpoints, they are alphabetically named from A to Y. When you've placed your markpoints, on ingress switch from "FLTPLN" to "MARK" with the navigation rotary at the bottom of the right/middle panel. This mode will switch your nav references in the HUD, TAD etc. to the markpoints you've made, and they are all at ground level. I believe this is how it's done IRL. Certainly it's bad mission design to place navigational waypoints on the ground, as it will cause AI aircraft to fly NOE or lawn-dart into the ground at the waypoint and I don't want to create separate flightplans for AI flights vs client flights. I could have put this in the briefing; maybe I will. It's good to know about markpoints. You can also create them immediately below where you are and markpoint "Z" is automatically created at the location of your last target impact point. I'm sorry you found the mission frustrating for this reason but the solution is very simple and I hope this helps.

Hey guys. TC, yes I use holds with push commands to coordinate the SEAD element but the A-10s take off from the same airfield, in sequence, so having a computed TOT would enable me to automate a coordinated ingress to the nearest second. As it is, however, you have to analyse how the AI flies -- best climb speed vs best climb rate, etc -- and the inability to convert TAS to IAS in the ME doesn't help. As for precise scale, well, the Stryker teams are not structured like a conventional battalion but let's just say that the forces engaging here are much larger than a company but smaller than a division! I'd like to thank my old squadron mate Stuka for his superb force composition templates.

I thought I'd share this with you guys before releasing it via the usual channels. I set myself the task of creating a battalion-level battle, a set-piece assault with all the trimmings: 3 Stryker Brigade Combat Teams with SEAD (4x Tornado IDS), anti-artillery strikers (2x F-15E), high cover (2x F-15E) and CAS (4x A-10Cs, all playable) in in assault on two towns and an airfield defended by a Russian T-72 battalion, 2 6-gun Akatsia batteries, mech infantry and two 4-launcher SA-6 batteries with command radars. The mission features 85 triggers, 34 custom radio messages, 43 flags and 17 trigger zones. It has trigger-activated BLUFOR mortars, MOUT in two locations and a "one pass, haul ass" bombing run by F-15Es on the artillery batteries using 4 CBU-97s for each drop. It's basically done, but the following small issues remain: - The scoring is mathematical, based on the survival level of leading assault vehicles once the objectives have been taken. I've made this easy on myself by selecting 10 vehicle groups and deducting 10 points from a flag set at 100 every time one of these groups is attrited by more than 20%. Ideally, though, I'd like to monitor every one of the 58 assaulting vehicles (excluding the additional 30 or so statics/support units). However, in order to do this, for the victory conditions I'd need a round number for 75% and 60% of 58 and I assume I'd need to make a separate triggered flag for each of these units. This strikes me as impossible unless there is a scripting solution, which, if so, please explain it to me, as usual, as though you were addressing a 10 year-old. - Ideally, I'd like to program a TOT at the IP for both the A-10 flight selected by the player and the AI flight that spawns in as the other pair. However, I am totally convinced that computed TOTs do not work at all in this sim without a time hack feature that can start the clock on takeoff, thereby discounting variable start-up times. I could have staged a coordinated ingress like this using TOTs in "Tornado" 15 years ago but have not come across any sim since that has this function working properly. It's no big deal; absent time hack/TOT, the briefing includes a selected flight profile that can get the job done and deliver both flights to the IP on time, or at least close together within a window. Anyway, I'd appreciate your comments, on any of the above or on the .miz itself. I think it's my best yet, FWIW, and by far my most ambitious. I'm pleased with how it plays and with the scaling. I'm attaching the .miz and the briefing. Thanks in anticipation for all comments, suggestions and AARs. Open Ground Briefing.pdf Open_Ground_SP_Beta_03.miz

Including player/client flights? That's friggin' great, I've been hand-copying all flight plans when converting my missions from SP to MP. Can't believe I didn't know we could do this. Thanks!

You can "clone" a plane? How? Does this mean you can clone a route (flightplan) too?

Grimes' info is extremely helpful (as usual). I have a flight of F-15Es that I want to "pinch hit" for the A-10s (flown by a variable player/AI combo), i.e. thay assist with taking out several tank groups, but from higher altitude. I do not want the Mud Hens to roll in on the same target group at the same point in the mission every time. The second formulation above preserves the chance that they might not. It's one of many valuable examples of how some "randomness" can be threaded into a mission by means other then scripting.

What does the "Visible" qualifier mean? When it's unchecked, does it mean that the attacking units will look, but may not find, the target group and, by contrast, when it's checked does it make finding the target a certainty? How does this option affect AI performance in seeking and killing "enroute/search and destroy group targets? Thanks.

Good intel, Eddie. It's one thing to be able to knock down a cruise missile, altogether another to find, lock and kill multiple incoming ALARMs and Mavericks.

Interesting. Are you sure they can target these munitions with missiles, not radar-guided AAA? Well, I did have significant density of SA-19s (4 launchers in each battery, plus CP radar) but I did not expect two dedicated SEAD flights (4 GR4s/8 ALARMS) and one strike flight (2 F-15Es/8 Mavericks) to get maybe 2 hits out of 16 launches. If this is how the Tunguska -- or other systems -- are modelled in the sim, it makes SEAD/DEAD completely irrelevant and the only way to confront SAMs will be old-school carpet-bombing. This is the kind of brute force that usually spells both bad AI and bad tactics. As for "soft" modelling of SAMs in the sim, no modelling of AD could possibly be realistic without some kind of IADs capability, accompanied by launcher emission modelling. At present, I do not know whether networking SAM systems (i.e. using CPs/EWs) improves launcher accuracy or PK; I suspect the addition of these units in missions is essentially cosmetic. The real-life game of chicken between AD radars and incoming SEAD flights involves tactical control of emissions; this is not modelled in the sim either. I'm happy to be challenged by SAM systems but the above principles -- IADS networking and emissions AI -- need to be modelled.

In the sim, the SA-6 launcher has to be a$$ backwards for its missile launchers to be facing the right way. IRL, the launchers face front, as in this photograph. You might want to fix this. The push-me-pull-you SA-6 launcher in DCSW looks like a guy with his pants on backwards. It looks goofy even if the Osa's launch platform can rotate.

I can certainly confirm that the intercepts are missile vs. missile, and the accuracy is pure Star Wars; it intercepts 95% of incoming ALARMS and Mavericks since 1.2.4. There was none of this nonsense in 1.2.3. Thanks, Grimes, I might switch from the RAF to the Luftwaffe, regretfully. I'll probably retain the SA-6 Osa systems, as they do not do sci-fi missile to missile intercepts. However, the other problem is the ALARM's gross inaccuracy against the SA-6 launchers (80% misses). Hopefully the HARM will not behave this way. One small consolation: I can amuse myself by calling the new SEAD flight "Vild Veasels".

The SA-19 will now intercept 90% of all missiles shot at it, Mavs and ALARMs. No weapon system in the world performs this way. It's dopey. Couldn't they have tested it before releasing this update?

So one possibility is that they nerfed ARMs in order to make SEAD missions suppressive, as opposed to directly lethal (DEAD). However, this is tactically meaningless in the absence of properly simulated IADS that can select when to emit and when not. In its current state, my SEAD against two batteries of outdated kit is so ineffectual that if I did not have strikers in trail, I may as well not have bothered with SEAD at all. DCS should have got this right by now, no excuses. Systems like AD, SEAD and arty are way too crudely executed for a sim of this sophistication.