mattag08

So glad DCS finally implemented this. It's unfortunate that it took this long to provide such a basic MP feature. Hopefully this has improved some of the MP servers.

Disregard, I figured it out. Here's the code if anyone wants to do something similar: local blue_pos = mist.getLeadPos('wolf1') local blue_pos_north = mist.projectPoint(blue_pos, 6000, mist.utils.toRadian(360)) local teleport_north = {} teleport_north.point = blue_pos_north teleport_north.gpName = 'north_mig23' teleport_north.action = 'respawn' mist.teleportToPoint(teleport_north)

Is there an "easy" way in MIST/MOOSE or the base editor to set up an F10 spawn relative to a player unit/group? I'm currently trying to puzzle out a way to create a BFM/ACM trainer mission. The goal would be to allow the player to select from options in the F10 radio menu such as "forward quarter", "beam quarter", "rear quarter", or "random" and have an enemy aircraft spawn in that area. I would need to be able to define a distance, range, altitude, speed, heading, etc. for the unit spawned and make all of those parameters relative to the unit (or preferably the centroid of the group) requesting the spawn. I'm sure this is possible with enough code, but I frankly don't have the time to write the entire thing from scratch. Are there any functions in MIST/MOOSE/etc that provide a functionality like this or has anyone been able to produce something similar? UPDATE: I've sorta got the logic of what I want to do down, but my LUA skills or MIST understanding are clearly lacking. Here's what I came up with, but can't get to run: blue_pos = mist.getLeadPos("Wolf 1") blue_pos_north = mist.projectPoint(blue_pos, 6000, mist.utils.toRadian(360)) teleport_north = { point = blue_pos_north, gpName = "north_mig23", action = respawn } mist.teleportToPoint(teleport_north) The goal of the code here is to get the position of Wolf 1, adjust that point 6,000 meters north, then create a table for MIST to use to spawn a Mig-23 group there. If anyone could help with what syntax or other error I'm making that would be super.

You need to rebind the command after restarting your sim. When you change values in the input files DCS reads that as a "new key" and all binds associated with it are lost. I just tried to edit the defaults.lua file and it works exactly as 450Devil described.

I have this same issue except all of the LODs are missing except the closest one. Did you ever find a solution?

Weird maybe I have them turned off.

Am I the only one that doesn't see a signature?

I wouldn't worry about it. Based on replies, he has no concept of modern BFM and the E-M diagram or else he would actually understand the relevance. Best to ignore and move on to more productive things.

Not to mention the flight models of most REDFOR aircraft stray quite far from reality in many regimes. Use DCS E-M diagrams, not real world ones. You must implement tactics that work in DCS because players do not need to worry about things such as G and physical exertion. Many maneuvers used in DCS would sling your head into the canopy and cause a concussion. On the other hand, you have people saying never go pure vertical, but that is exactly how Randy Cunningham defeated Col. Tomb in his Mig-17F. There's no absolute 100% winning strategy and you must adapt to your opponent, energy states, etc.

I was being facetious, but if you want to be serious all of the features you mentioned took ED approximately 10-15 years to implement, so expecting anything near term with them is a fools errand. Not to mention ED has a history of two steps forward, one step back when adding features to the game.

Absolutely nothing. There is no money in it for them if they update those AI. I mean there is in the sense that DCS would be a better sim, but they don't view things that way. They only care about short term cash infusions from new modules.

This issue is still open on the Leatherneck bug tracker...

Sorry, but you can't bully me by using terms you learned in middle school science class. Unlike yourself, I know better than to give ED even a single ounce of credit. I've been a paying customer of theirs for over 20 years and I've observed the glacial pace of development first hand playing each new iteration of this simulator since LOMAC. If they wanted us to have a DC, we'd already have it.

Whelp, it's been 13 YEARS since I posted in this thread: Interesting how we have made zero progress in that time. Someone could've programmed 2-3 full new flight simulators in that period. Will Nick and co. ever see the value in a Dynamic Campaign and invest the resources or will they just limp along and pump out half-baked modules to stay afloat? It would be fascinating to hear from someone at Eagle Dynamics why dozens or even hundreds of professional developers could not achieve what a single Microprose intern could over 26 years ago.

"Foe" responses don't really happen anymore from what I understand. That's only possible if one side has cracked the other side's transponder/DL tech and has developed systems for that. Almost all IFF is friend or nothing. The real reason for VID is because you don't know if "nothing" is a passenger airliner or an enemy bomber barring some other form of ELINT or SIGINT (or NCTR). In my previous group we started to place 1 or 2 civilian or neutral faction aircraft near or in the AO so that you couldn't know if a negative return was enemy or not. Sometimes I'd even make the neutral faction aircraft actually hostiles that would attack the players. That meant you couldn't trust the IFF to be 100% accurate and had to actually make decisions based on all available information. It took a few missions before people learned what that meant (2 or 3 airliners definitely went down in the Mediterranean ).

RE: 4.3.1.1 AGM-45 Shrike This entire section on the AGM-45 is very confusing owing to various bits of information being out of place or ambiguously worded. Having read the whole section, I believe I've puzzled out how the system works, but a complete rewrite where step-by-step instructions are given would be much more appropriate given the complexity of the system. For the WRCS\Pull-up section, The last sentence is out of order and thus confusing. It should be placed after sentence #1. Combining the changed sentence with a more instructional method I would rewrite/reformat the whole section as: "To perform an AGM-45 attack in WCRS mode: 1. Select WRCS mode to AGM-45 and press an arming station select button for a hardpoint carrying an AGM-45. 2. WSO should enter a target altitude into the computer control panel (if the target altitude is unknown, use a mean value for the current target area). If multiple missiles are to be launched, enter a release advance time setting. 3. Place the TGT/MSL Rej switch in DF REJ, unless <reason for selecting NORM?>. The ADI will provide steering guidance. The HSI and BDHI will indicate target range (INS navigation mode only). 4. When the aircraft orientation is correct (ADI needles centered) and the target is within range one of the indexer lights will illuminate based on the required release maneuver. At this time the pilot can press and hold the bomb release button to initiate the attack. The possible maneuvers are as follows: 4a. Level - Indicates a confirmation of impending launch. The level signal may immediately occur or only appear after a pull-up or dive maneuver obtains the necessary attitude for missile launch. 4b. Pull-up - Indicates the aircraft is at a range where a pull-up maneuver is required. Fly a pull-up maneuver until the level indexer light is illuminated, then maintain that pitch attitude for missile launch. 4c. Dive - Indicates the aircraft is very close to the target. Follow the dive command until the level indexer light is illuminated, then maintain that pitch attitude until missile launch. NOTE: When dive is indicated the situation and proximity to the SAM installation must be considered prior to attack commitment. An enemy SAM launched at close range will likely arrive before the missile can kill the emitter. 5. Recovery maneuver - After missile launch the missile guides using internal sensors without any input from the launch aircraft. The launch aircraft can maneuver freely to evade enemy attack or terrain as necessary." (Feel free to copy this word for word to whatever extent desired, I'm not looking to copywrite anything above.)

This still doesn't look fixed. Also, it would be nice if the second half of the sentence could be expanded upon. It is currently very oddly worded. Does it require the compass mode selector knob SYNC position to be used? Even a link to 2.10.1.3 of the document would help. (It's also missing a period at the end of the sentence.) Also the page break is in an odd spot. It does not seem that this sentence is directly related to the sentence above relating to the change in ADI source data when going from PRIM to STBY. I would move "When transitioning between STBY and PRIM, immediate attitude information may show unusual gyrations on the attitude director indicator due to initial erection" up to the previous paragraph where it makes more sense. If it is meant to be included with the statement about synchronization, then more detail is needed, because it there isn't enough information to understand how those two sentences are linked. If this works similar to the F-14, I would rephrase the last sentence as: "Rapid turns (above 15° per second) may temporarily disrupt accurate heading information, requiring the pilot to perform a manual synchronization of the ADI. Manual synchronization is performed by flying straight and level flight for approximately 20 seconds while holding the Compass Mode Selector Knob in the SYNC position (it is spring loaded to SLAVED). This information also feels a little out of place since it delves into systems and 2.1 seems to be more of an overview of the cockpit.

Something that is being missed here is ED's atmosphere model is completely broken. No one is posting the air pressure or temperature settings for their testings. That matters. And in DCS it *really* matters because the effect on density of temperature in particular is insane. Additionally, the air pressure calculations are so wrong as to be laughable. ED admitted this was done to compress the battlespace and force aircraft to be in closer proximity than they would in the real world. Even though they have walked back similar changes (notably missiles) they have not fixed the atmosphere. Firing missiles at 40,000' is akin to 60-70k' IRL. Firing missiles at sea level is like firing a missile through sludge. Temperature is even worse, with very cold temperatures causing conditions similar to flying through water and very hot temperatures making flight almost impossible. I honestly don't know what comparing a real life missile or real life testing is going to do for anyone when the atmosphere we fire our digital missiles through bears no resemblance to real life.

What exactly is your MP testing methodology? Most of the MP bugs that don't appear in SP don't manifest until there are 30+ clients. Also most seem multicrew related and need a human pilot and RIO to reproduce.

For squadrons that operate the same aircraft BuNos mission to mission, it would nice to have a way to make the difference fixed by livery or fixed in general so that a pilot getting in a certain jet would know what kind of items would be in the cockpit already. Would add some immersion too, IMO.

Yep, like I said it feels abnormal. Grumman was smarter than that when they built this bird.

I know how to do a weight and balance. I'm a professional aviator. We do not have the requisite information to do what you are talking about. Since HB continues to refuse to give us this info, an auto-calculated kneeboard is the next best hope. If you have the W&B data for these weapons and the aircraft simulated, I'd love to have that info.

Considering there are still concerns about what the real weight of the jet is, it would be great to have the ACTUAL simulated gross weight with the current loadout, drag index, and take off trim setting (pitch and roll) on the kneeboard since we don't have access to the proper documentation to calculate it ourselves.

Is there supposed to also be a pitch up with flap retraction? That's what I'm seeing in the sim at the moment.

Simply not correct. The most common trainer in the world, the 172 requires forward pressure to counteract flap deployment. I've flown at least a few more aircraft that have this behavior. The physics are not as simple as "it always does X". However, whatever flap deployment does, you expect flap retraction to do the opposite, which is my point. I believe the point where fuel flow is measured is ahead of/not connected to the A/B fuel lines, so it can't measure the A/B FF.