Pikey

Just in case anyone arrives at this post asking the same thing - no you cannot edit the moment to moment AI decision making specifying the com-plex parts of viosual detection, the movement of the plane outside of general waypoints, the manner of the movement outside of general tactics set as Task "options". These things are held in DCS programme files that are not editable, in encoded C language. Things you can edit - Tasks, as per design, either by the Mission Editor or scripting, to issue moment to moment tasking options or generalised behaviour. Example - tell a plane to land. It conducts its own routine, the closest you can do is tell it when and where, the rest is not editable. Sensors, weapons, unit core behaviour by type in the editable lua files AI is naturally cognizant of the player and other AI and the amount of ways it interacts when it detects and detection itself has been tweaked over the recent years, most notably in the WW2 units, with new routines that tell AI to try to escape sometimes or make it not aware of rear blind approaches. The progress on this is slow. It's well understood it is very important. The next generation of BFM routines and code is coming at some point according to ED official news.

Wow thanks so much, truly excellent additions to DCS! Thank you for your gift!

Asking again

No tracks, no sources, no defects.

Wow thanks so much, I thought I was going mad, I spent ages since it used to be in the profile but now, I am happy to irradiate my eyes less again!!

Thought i'd share a demo of what we can do with moving battle lines.

I don't think its that, I think it's that older flight models have more inertia and quirks and feel more alive and thus immersive. I am not aware of any quantative data set that you can draw this conclusion from. Was there a poll I missed? We are entitled to opinions but shoudln't offer them as fact.

Here's the airfields listed from the official announcement without the 'and more' stretch goal airports that might be added Excellent pick for a map imo. Low population density and two seasons make sense for double High on scenery and elevation appearance Can be reused for most time periods and active in WW2 Nice straight forward East-West geography with clear borders and uncomplicated land mass for ground unit travel Great Norweigan coastline for funflights The area has a very dense serving of DCS modules that would be at home Looking forward to it.

Good job! Not sure who the localiser is for Russian language on the ED team but I hope this can get passed on to get it in the sim faster!

I have no idea about the export environment, I only tinker with the mission environment.

You called me narrow minded because i dont like what you like. That wasnt an opinion on a dcs module. You should be be accurate. The topic explains the virtues of the simpler designs where it comes to multiplayer. I believe many pick the newest modules in a bubble because they dont play online or try other aspects of the game. The danger of players picking the avionics rich aircraft is they miss how to see the broader picture and they spend all their time learning and not playing. Once you pick a Hornet or F16 you have artificially limited yourself to the best capability in a bubble and can see no reason to look further. Thus my advisory... challenge yourself with a different mindset else dcs multiplayer dies when the teen series runs out. Narrow minded.. pff.

Ah boo Not sure I can think of a way to make this more appealing to ED. My only thought is a mod that would take some of the properties of saclos launchers. Even then, pretty doubtful.

Hi @cfrag I could have explained this better but let me try again There's no implications, I am explicit and whilst I could use smaller words, I did try two different ways to say the same thing twice each, even to the point of quoting myself, now, for the third time. But I've apologised for not being clear. And I hope at least you can find it clear. I never attacked anyone else's play. I said that I find modern standoff boring and gave many reasons why. If something is boring, its always subjective, things cannot by definition be objectively boring! Because I have an opinion on the matter I was attacked and called narrow minded and then more, personally. And that was via "reading between the lines". This is an important advisory - to be open minded about all things. I qualified it by providing the advantages that older short ranged weapons provide in gameplay and I listed them out in great depth, specifically multiplayer, but there's an offline element too. I qualified it by saying that I have found people that don't engage in gameplay elements have shorter interests in the sim as they miss out on so many gameplay elements. I will not abandon a decade of multiplayer, running squadrons, taking part in events and these forums and investing heavily in the success of this software, quietly. It is the success and uptake of the multiplayer scene and diversifying on module purchases that are critical to initial purchases of players getting over the hump of 'study sim slump', anmd taking up a hobby for more years, as I have witnessed. Of course, everyone is welcome to take the advice they prefer, although; “Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself.” Comes to mind. However, if someone is providing their experience, shooting them down for having one, is at best ludicrous and at worst you might call them "narrow minded"

The way I'd see these things coming is if a thrid party committed to doing something with IADS like was metnioned as then it would get commercial support and we might see more features to SAMs. I'd also like to see a "SAM Simulator" in DCS. I don't think these would garner much interest from a wider audience and there are other issues, but its still a good wishlist item.

I think the idea of this would be good, perhaps the damage modelling can be the answer.

no the SSE doesnt enable us to have LOAL, the reaction time is set by the skill level and thats our lot. RWR's are way too accurate and sensitive for them to miss anything and when I tried to shut off a sam after launch it refused for the duration of flight. You can get very good results with the SAM waiting until the target is well passed the NEZ, that's somewhat frightening. If you want blind panic just fly low in a Tunguskas engagement zone.

Just to be clear whilst we are going down the JDAM example, people are still entitled to find these fun. Now, I don't get it, because there is an art in putting the "thing on the thing" that is engaging and visual. I'd challenge anyone to level drop your Mk82's from medium altitude level release - so that's not going to be a boring mission with a Mk82. Performing a perfect heart split attack with a friend and high fiving on the crossover before the rejoin is really cool fun! https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3989643/pop-up-pattern what we don't have is a reasonably immersive reason to do this in the kind of conflicts you generally see which are with total air superiority, no air defenses above manpad engagement (if at all) and versus some tinpot dictatorship or 3rd world. Getting a bombing run close to target is a stick and rudder challenge and its fun (well it is when you don't have FBW or need a rudder). Level JDAM release at medium/high altitude is not an interesting challenge after you learned how to do it once. The JDAM is a just a metaphor. I want people to get online, play together, have fun, chuck bombs, blow stuff up and see the guy that shot them back. I want them to appreciate that you can enjoy the stick and rudder aspect, not that it's just a study sim where you learn the fascinating processes of modern warfare. I see that a lot of folks take the sim as a study sim, bury themselves in academic study offline and just say they don't have time to really get into it and we lose them whilst they really only had the AI and its shortfalls to measure their skills against. I don't think the modern planes are the vehicle that transitions people to fun - I don't know for sure, but i suspect it, because I have seen so many people get worn out of the modern jets and the months latest video on X system. Then having that system change later and have to go relearn it. I think the Hornet and A-10C offline players are the huge massive mountain of people to be tapped into that need to find their fun online or with stick and rudder play at least to fill out the servers and get sticky customers. The post isn't about me talking about what i want at heart, its talking about the difference between the way people percieve the sim and the game.

I think it's a different reason. I think if you linger around a few years, maybe more, you start to look for different things. The entry point would be A-10C, more recently Hornet, maybe F-16. The actual stats on who plays online was revealed fairly recently to be a very high proportion of players. These are the first findings and there is a sharp drop off on module uptake after those big ones. The sticky customers are trying different things, trying different servers, having done what these modules offer, but in a minority and yes perhaps vocal. I don't think its any more complex than that. Of course once new customers grow bored of the avionics videos every month, they leave the forums and whoever is left is hanging around looking for somehting new/different. The customers looking for the popular modern mods don't feel the need to look. But it doesn't matter what makes people tick, the idea of something new, is not a new idea.

I hope you find peace in your life and wish you cheer and happiness and whatever it is that you need to fix the pain with which you are in.

The scripting engine does not directly control the model in DCS. The level is much higher. Task oriented. The routines are closed in C derived language as this is a commercial simulation. The plugin environment is open to create a realtime movment - this is exactly what a module is, a plane you can control. But the input requires control via a directx input not a script, you cannot create some interface to steer your plane via Python natively. But you can try with a module and input, but I dont think that is what you want. At least from my understanding.

Exactly. The assets in the sim are old versions in the most part, no modern air defences, there is so much out of place but depending on context. With the incoming F1, A6, A7, Mig-23, F-5/Mig21 repolish, F-4 Phantom, possibly Mirage 3 from RB, Kfir and so on, the assets lend themselves to Cold War periods and at least people playing these will be able to recreate more of a correctly "assetted" ecosystem, whereas the modern jets are kindda standing out on their own being stuck as study sims for the offline crowd with no natural adversaries. We even suffer from this in WW2 with the 1942 Allied and 1945 Axis birds and a map that neither of them used, its crazy. Instead what we do have seems overlooked in favour of new shiny things for the younger crowd who want to fight in a bubble. Use what we have or hopes and prayers for what we don't, I'd rather play is some kind of cold war era against similar combatants than the desert meme in uncontested air space, others may vary of course and they do.

Reminder that the sentiment of my post was not about exclusivity, just where the benefits lie, especially in multiplayer adversarial gaming with a flight simulator. < This was the first line, but you missed it, presumably because you were trying to read between it and the next one for something that wasnt there. What that means for the people that took it absolutley the wrong way, is that there are advantages to this other era. Of course, people have to take it that someone of a different opinion has to be attacked. Bless you people. And your JDAMs. I did enjoy the defence of the JDAM. I don't agree that the JDAM is exciting or interesting and it was many years ago the excitement of being in a secure airspace, with no air defences at 25,000ft pressing one button and then going home, got boring for me. I guess you are somewhere back there, marvelling at the compexity of entering a coordinate. You misunderstand (many times in a short period of time). I'm not representing the communitys opinions, you and I are part of it. I am saying people of this community need to accept more variations instead of having "all planes in one mission to satisfy everyone". However, then you say I am narrow minded for wanting something we don't have much of. Then you attack something you don't know about my gift of my time to Eagle Dynamics. OK. I guess it must be a language thing. Please try to be nicer and a better human. Also don't try to read between my lines, you need to actually read my lines because there is nothing in between them, I am a very basic kind of person. Back on topic though, its good to see there is a firm interest with the cold war still, whether its specifically for 'multiplayer adversarial', or offline 'player versus environment'. And for those that like JDAMs, please, it's OK, no one will steal them. Speak to you next year and see how you feel then, ok?

People are starting to cotton on to this idea and its developed a stronger online movement since the original posting, with some really good servers. Reminder that the sentiment of my post was not about exclusivity, just where the benefits lie, especially in multiplayer adversarial gaming with a flight simulator. The same goes for the WW2 arena, except the jet era allows 'more and faster'. There's a lot to be said for "games and contests" where you see your opponent and dance with him a bit. Fox3 and lots of avionics have their place, I've enjoyed them, but it didnt sustain me, there is no way, most of the time, to know if your missile hit which is not satisfying. Imagine taking a football penalty and just as the ball is kicked you switch off the camera... Dogfights in the modern post 00's are also fun, but HOBS kindda ruins the point so they are restricted to 'contests'. If you have to restrict the weapon, other restrictions apply that are less understandable, like guns vs guns. It's in a bubble and unnatural. Fly By Wire in a computer simulation is like an spiritual opposite, they aren't immersing flight models, the Hornet is like driving a mouse across your screen. Flying the big F-14 and landing that, well the flying is fun because its quite tricky. Controlling your plane could be more challenging. Suppression of Air Defence only exists via scripting and I've persoinally taken that as far as it can go before a human is involved, its completely artificial. Destruction of air defence is another version of BVR combat. FIre, RTB, maybe not even any BDA. If the script is a radar shutdown, you will likely miss and repeat. Jdams are so boring people wrote songs about that. Bomb fuse delay is coming (imminently according to ED video)... lower, more dangerous and ridiculous feats with dumb bombs = more fun, more visceral, more talent, more fireballs, more giggles. One of the issues that prevent more widescale adoption of the older planes, in my opinion, is the multiplayer premise that anything other than the percieved 'best' is not worth playing. This comes from when people look at every module and pick in a bubble, it actually makes sense to be fair to them. First module? Pick a Hornet. Second module... erm, so you are telling me I have to pick something that can't do anything that this module can do? I get it. But no one seems to understand each module doesn't live in a world where all of them exist at one time and this is because many multiplayer servers are terrified of removing the modern airframes because they lose traffic. Suddenly your F-5 is looking hot versus the C101 when you realise you are the faster and safer one... We (the entire community) need to be comfortable with server restrictions We already had Fox2 nights for many years, a simple restriction we played for a long time, but we are artificially creating that and not limiting the airframes on servers to make it feel right. What we need are servers that exclude the popular modern modules to allow Cold War to really come alive with people using a thematic world that makes sense. Everything has it's place, modern, has it's place, WW2, has its place, but lets embrace servers who make authentic restrictions by supporting them.

Its not going to happen, it only could if the mods reached an acceptable current level and the person could give up their ip and prove its origin and ed wanted it. Modders dont want that hassle and ed dont want liability. There is huge cost in updating assets every time the tech changes. Just ask modders why they cant be bothered to update their older models. I have a ships showcase video....half of those dont work. Why? Eds fault? No. The sim moves forward. Modders come and go. Very few have what is needed.

Amazing project. World class.